News What is the difference between Kerry and Bush's campaign policy teams?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bounce
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on John Kerry's presidential campaign, highlighting his failure to gain a convention bounce in polls, which has reportedly frustrated him. Critics point out that despite having a large number of advisors and policy councils, Kerry lacks a clear platform or decisive direction, leading to perceptions of indecision and a lack of substance. In contrast, President Bush's campaign is described as more streamlined and effective, with fewer advisors but a clearer focus. Polling data is debated, with skepticism about its reliability and implications for both candidates. Some participants argue that Kerry's fluctuating poll numbers reflect a broader polarization among voters, while others suggest that his campaign needs a more defined message to resonate with the electorate. The discussion also touches on the concept of "anti-woofing," where predictions are downplayed to manage expectations. Overall, there is a sense of uncertainty about Kerry's ability to connect with voters and the effectiveness of his campaign strategy.
GENIERE
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found that poor Kerry got no convention bounce and he’s pissed ‘cause the fxcking balloons didn’t fall.

With the vast number of advisors and consultants all Kerry can manage is to “stand up for the people” whatever that means. No platform, no budget, no nothing!

The Washington Post reports... Kerry's presidential campaign policy advisors number in the thousands. The campaign has 37 domestic policy councils, 27 foreign policy groups and many others. A justice policy task force alone includes 195 members; Kerry counts more than 200 economists as advisers

Kerry obviously frets over the most simplistic matters, is driven by indecision, sees the world in a myopic blur, and would be most comfortable in his mothers lap. If elected we will have a billion dollar white house staff, a government immobilized by bureaucratic bilge, as bad and likely worse than the socialist, moribund governments of the EU.

The report continues; In contrast, President Bush’s campaign policy shop is a no-frills affair. Policy director Tim Adams directs about a dozen experts...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One poll says that, a MSNBC/Newsweek poll found that Kerry was now ahead 49/42. Goes to show that you can't trust polls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting how the Republicans were predicting a huge bounce for the Dems after the DNC and the Dems said they'd be happy with a 2% or 3% bounce. Hmm...
 
wasteofo2 said:
One poll says that, a MSNBC/Newsweek poll found that Kerry was now ahead 49/42. Goes to show that you can't trust polls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/

If you can't trust polls, how will Kerry make a decision? Bush acts, driving the poll numbers, for better or worse. As Russ Watters astutely pointed out "Kerry doesn't really flip-flop (imo) or have no opinions, he just plays all sides at the same time. By speaking against the war on terror spending bill (for example), then voting in favor of it, it can truly be said that he voted conservatively while thinking liberally." I'll add to that "or opines to reflect what ever the poll of the moment indicates."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GENIERE said:
If you can't trust polls, how will Kerry make a decision?
He could think for himself. You know, assess a situation, think about it for a while and determine what the best course to take would be.
 
Interesting how the Republicans were predicting a huge bounce for the Dems after the DNC and the Dems said they'd be happy with a 2% or 3% bounce. Hmm...

They call this "anti-woofing." Essentially, you downplay predictions in case things don't work out as expected, to avoid embarrassment. And if they work out better than expected, so much the better.
 
check said:
Interesting how the Republicans were predicting a huge bounce for the Dems after the DNC and the Dems said they'd be happy with a 2% or 3% bounce. Hmm...
I posted a thread on the subject, as a matter of fact. Are Dems concerned about the smallest "bounce" in history? I'm not saying they should be - it might be unsurprising considering how polarized the country already seems to be.
He could think for himself. You know, assess a situation, think about it for a while and determine what the best course to take would be.
Kerry doesn't seem to be going against the grain so far - I wouldn't bet on that either.
 
Voters are so locked in on their opinions or to put it another way the voters have for the most part decided who they are voting for so this trampoline has the bounce of an asphalt springboard.
 
The talking heads on Meet the Press were commenting that the post convention bounce takes about a week in most cases. It all depends on the timing. With current events and the weekend in play, the total bounce should be seen over the next few days. Some polls showed that jumps as high as 10% can be expected in various areas. For example, in the support for Kerry by women.
 
  • #10
I never seriously thought these guys [well, first Kerry and now both of them] had a chance until recently; like in the last couple of weeks. Now they are looking and acting like winners. I think Edwards brings the personality and energy to the campaign that was needed for the cameras. Unless something drastic happens it looks like Bush is going down.

On the McLaughlin Group, even Buchanan admitted that if the election were held today, Kerry would win.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Gallup's Revised Post-Convention Poll Numbers (Bush 51%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%)
http://www.gallup.com/election2004/numbers/heats/default.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Kerry needs to break out that "Secret Plan" he has. That’ll turn those numbers around.
 
  • #13
Just fyi, the newsweek poll was not 2% it was rounded up from 1.56 % and they also conveniently changed the way that they had weighted their poll. so that it showed a bounce when in fact, with the weighting adjusted it would show that the statisticians drastically changed the July 29-30 polling sample weightings from those of the July 8/9 poll by lowering the percentage of the Independents by just over 10%, and increasing the percentage of Democrats by about the same amount. Now we're supposed to believe Newsweek when their sample changes so rapidly in only twenty days. If you use the poll sample weightings from the July 8/9 Newsweek poll to rework the poll data from the July 29/30 Newsweek poll to see how the poll results would differ you'd find that it results in a negative 2.26% "bounce" for Kerry instead of Newsweeks published 2% 'bounce' over Bush.
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking said:
On the McLaughlin Group, even Buchanan admitted that if the election were held today, Kerry would win.
Based on what? every time Kerry gets in the "public eye" his numbers start doing a nose dive. Are they planning to closet him and the mrs. for the duration of the season?
 
  • #15
Based on the polling numbers. Beyond that you would have to ask him.

You can be sure that if he could have reasonably avoided this admission he would have. Apparently it is not reasonable to interpret the information otherwise; not even for Buchanan and that's saying something!
 
Last edited:
  • #16
not reasonable unless you happen to be to the right of Pat Buchanan I guess.
 
  • #17
check said:
Interesting how the Republicans were predicting a huge bounce for the Dems after the DNC and the Dems said they'd be happy with a 2% or 3% bounce. Hmm...
The DNC Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, perdicted an 8 to 10 point favorable bounce.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
GENIERE said:
USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found that poor Kerry got no convention bounce and he’s pissed ‘cause the fxcking balloons didn’t fall.

With the vast number of advisors and consultants all Kerry can manage is to “stand up for the people” whatever that means. No platform, no budget, no nothing!

Have you ever been to his website?

The Washington Post reports... Kerry's presidential campaign policy advisors number in the thousands. The campaign has 37 domestic policy councils, 27 foreign policy groups and many others. A justice policy task force alone includes 195 members; Kerry counts more than 200 economists as advisers

And getting a lot of opinions is a bad thing?

Kerry obviously frets over the most simplistic matters, is driven by indecision, sees the world in a myopic blur, and would be most comfortable in his mothers lap.

The only one of these that you have presented even the slightest evidence for is the balloon thing, and it is hard to extrapolate from that to "frets over the most simplistic matters."
 
  • #19
much of the text I paste is directly from a Fact sheet given to us all by Ivan Seeking and is present in the form of George Bush talking about himself.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37249

If elected we will have a billion dollar white house

Id rather have a 1 billion dollar whitehouse than a 250 billion dollar mistake in Iraq or a 500 billion dollar economic downspin.

a government immobilized by bureaucratic bilge

Bush:
•I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"(only one letter away from BS).

If you can't trust polls, how will Kerry make a decision? Bush acts, driving the poll numbers, for better or worse.

Bush:
•I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

Lol, the most important time when Bush didnt listen to pollsters was when he attacked Iraq. The world did NOT support the invasion, and yes, he ignored them, and went along anyways.
 
  • #20
Actually Mattius, I think these quotes are more reflective of President Bush's thinking.

American and Israel share a special bond. Our relationship is unique among all nations. Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted.

I am in support of the NRA position on gun control.

I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

It takes a long time to turn a big country around. Just be of good cheer and keep working on it.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: No matter how sharp a grievance or how deep a hurt, there is no justification for killing innocents.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.

To realize the full possibilities of this economy, we must reach beyond our own borders, to shape the revolution that is tearing down barriers and building new networks among nations and individuals, and economies and cultures: globalization. It's the central reality of our time.

You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president.
 
  • #21
Althought I'm not sure how reliable the polling is, this site does show a bit of a bounce in the electoral college:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
 
  • #22
If it is based on a Zogby poll then it's probably accurate.
 
  • #23
It takes a long time to turn a big country around. Just be of good cheer and keep working on it.

Those that oppose our involvement in Iraq have already quit on this challenge.
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking said:
Based on the polling numbers. Beyond that you would have to ask him.

You can be sure that if he could have reasonably avoided this admission he would have. Apparently it is not reasonable to interpret the information otherwise; not even for Buchanan and that's saying something!
Based on which post DNC polling numbers?
I don't judge what is "apparently" or even un-apparently reasonable based on Pat Buchanan's say so, Lol.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top