T Nation

Take A Look At This!

Gallup did a recent poll (10-17) which asked voters about 1. Issues and 2. Characteristics.

When it came to issues it was very close between John Kerry and President Bush. However, when it came to “characteristics” Bush beat Kerry in every category but one.

Here are some:

Cares about the needs of people like you: Bush won by 1%

Has a clear plan for solving the country’s problems: Bush won 6%.

Is honest and trustworthy: Bush won 11%.

Shares your values: Bush won by 12%

Is more likely to keep his campaign promises: Bush won by 13%.

Is a strong and decisive leader: Bush won by 21%.

It is interesting to note that in every Presidential election since these types of questions have been asked, the person who won the overall “characteristics” poll was also the person who won the White House. Proving time and again that while issues are important, voters want a President that they can identify with.

Could be in a few days voters will change their collective minds and reverse themselves relative to who has the better characteristics to sit in the oval office. Somehow I doubt it.

Had to give this one a bump…

Zeb,

There seems to be a real disconnect between the polls taken on where the vote is and polls taken on character, personality, etc.

Most polls agree Kerry is smarter than Bush, but the rest is very telling - folks being polled just don’t have a very favorable opinion of who Kerry is.

Now, I don’t worship polls, but I do see something valuable - I really feel Democrats picked the wrong guy to run.

ZEB,

what was the single category that Kerry won? Just curious.

Makkun

[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB,

what was the single category that Kerry won? Just curious.

Makkun[/quote]

Makkun:

Dang…you had to ask that one didn’t you? Haha…Intelligence.

It just shows that advertising works.

Most Americans never even heard of John Kerry until a few months ago, let alone be able to judge his character based on anything except campaign commercials. The hundreds of millions of advertising dollars that Bush spent (the most money of any candidate in history) has paid for relentlessly negative advertising, because Bush doesn’t have a record of accomplishment to run on. Because Bush’s record sucks, he has to resort to attacking the challenger, rather than focusing on his own record.

I saw a poll that said that Americans can’t even identify which candidate stands for which issue… most people thought that Bush was for the Kyoto treaty, Bush wanted to join the International Court, Bush was for the ban on land mines, Bush was against deficit spending, Bush wanted to roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2 percent (!) and on and on (wrong on all counts).

It’s just marketing, and some of you guys have bought it hook line and sinker.

And then there’s the notion that Kerry is smarter than Bush.

The New York Times says different though. Read it here:

A few quotes from the article:

from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. “People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can’t understand,” Professor Gottfredson said.

Maybe Mr Kerry hasn’t forced his brain into silence via substance abuse?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe Mr Kerry hasn’t forced his brain into silence via substance abuse?[/quote]

vroom:

Do you have proof that President Bush abused drugs? If so please give it to us now. If not I think it would be fitting for you to apologize for the innuendo.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe Mr Kerry hasn’t forced his brain into silence via substance abuse?[/quote]

Unbelievable…Substance Abuse??? That’s a new one. I am sure we can all guarantee that Mr. Kerry never tried any substances during the glorious 60’s??? How relevant.

Yes I do Zeb, the self-proclaimed recovery from alcoholism would seem to indicate substance abuse, would you not agree?

I don’t have proof of additional substance abuse, but I think chronic alcohol abuse does enough irreverseable damage all on its own…

And yes, I am aware that Senator Kennedy has a drinking problem and that Bill Clinton got a blowjob. Any other diversions you’d care to try?

vroom:

Would you care to elaborate regarding how long President Bush was an alcoholic? Do you know how long you must abuse alcohol in order to actually incur brain damage?

Please respond vroom as I am interested to hear your “expert” opinion regarding your allegations that President has brain damage due to substance abuse.

By the way, thanks for reminding us that Ted Kennedy may very well be (?) and alcoholic. And that President Clinton was/is a philanderer of the highest order. However, neither is paramount to this particular discussion.

I?m hoping one of the regulars can (ok, I know they will) help me out.

I’m trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I’ll know how to vote come next Tuesday. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe??

Lemme see (and since someone has already opened the door with Clinton), have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good…
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad…

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good…
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad…

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good…
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad…

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good…
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad…

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good…
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad…

No mass graves found in Serbia - good…
No WMD found Iraq - bad…

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good…
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad…

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good…
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad…

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good…
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad…

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good…
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad…

Milosevic not yet convicted - good…
Saddam turned over for trial - bad…

Ahh, it’s so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the “Tax Freedom Day”. This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That’s the earliest it has been since 1991.

Its latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Also, both Bush and Kerry are fairly wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame!)

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

You’re right, Lumpy- it’s all about perceptions, like the line that libs fell for about Bush’s supposed IQ of 91.

And now they think that War Criminal (so he said) is smarter than Dubbya despite evidence of his lower score. But then again libs don’t believe in IQ
scores anyway, do they?

I guess that you have never heard of rational ignorance, the concept of not wasting one’s time learning about things not worth knowing. If the gambling odds are correct, then they are right not to know much about Kerry. And that’s a good thing for his campaign, for aside from the rabid sorts like you, the more people see of Lurch, the less they like him.

You also assume that the issues you list are positives.

How many Democratic Senators voted for confirmation of the Kyoto Treaty? What two rapidly developing nations with populations of over a billion each were left out of it? Where is the evidence of man-made warming? Did you know that they got the math wrong on their dramtic little graph, or that the computer models they use to scare folks with still don’t work right?

The International Court- try selling that steaming pile of shit to the Heartland. Your Johnny, who volunteered to serve Uncle Sam is accused of war crimes by some effete Belgians. War Criminal and his Dem buddies are going to hand him over- it’s in the treaty. Monsieur Frog is here to cuff him and take him away. Herr Kraut is here to make sure his French ally won’t try to surrender first.

Land mines- almost a lock that those who then use them will have more leverage and pay no cost in doing so. See Chemical and Biological Weapons- former Worker’s Paradise and Mid-East Thug libs want restored to power.

Wealthiest 2 percent- why not 3, or 5, or 8 or 15? It’s better to keep the swag in the hands of those who know what to do with it, as in create more wealth. They, not Clinton, grow the economy. They fund enough idiotic federal crap as it is.

Kerry is indeed a brilliant marketer himself. Peddling himself as a war hero and then having the premise undermined by his fellow veterans for a couple of million bucks. Can you train a monkey to act so freakin’ retarded? Dems would like to spend a lot of other people’s money trying no doubt.

Or marketing the idea that Bush in incompetent for not having troops guard explosives that weren’t there, since they were going to be used for a nuclear program that did not exist.

Or tough on terrorism- I’m sure he’ll put the Breck Girl on it. Mr. Experience is sure to give it the tender loving care that he caresses each and every one of his gorgeous strands of hair.

Maybe I should market the idea that if one wants to get rich and pay the same (low) tax rates as Kerry’s Meal Ticket (hoarding Republican money, by the way), one ought to cast a ballot for Dubbya.

Lumpy, I’m no Bushie. If you weren’t so cognitively challenged, you would know that from reading just a few of my posts.

Make sure you don’t miss the short bus.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe Mr Kerry hasn’t forced his brain into silence via substance abuse?[/quote]

Zeb, I’m pretty sure this comment was said tongue-in-cheek, but let’s just say that it was not.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Would you care to elaborate regarding how long President Bush was an alcoholic? Do you know how long you must abuse alcohol in order to actually incur brain damage?
[/quote]

I’m not exactly sure what I would call an expert on this subject, but I’ll give you a somewhat experienced take on it. I was an investigator in a case study of tumor metastases in conjunction with ethanol consumption, and hence, we also analyzed brain tissue to determine direct damage resulting from consumption. [By the way, if there are any neurotoxicologists out there, feel free to rebuke me.] The volume of exposure to alcohol required to cause “brain damage” is most dependent upon your definition of “brain damage.” If you are speaking of destruction of neural tissue, an arbitrarily small consumption of ethanol is all that is required. Unfortunately, neurons cannot replicate itself (at least without stem cells… some day…); however, it can form new synaptic junctions with pre-existing neural tissue. This is somewhat inhibitory on CNS firing mechanisms, and even more so with extended exposure. It has been demonstrated that exposure to ethanol, in alcoholic-esque fashion, can cause cognitive degeneration via neural degradation in the frontocerebellar system, the medullar arch (pons), and the thalamus (whoops… now we’re tweaking with hormones…) in as short of a duration as one year! (Sullivan et al.)

Does this mean that we are going to turn into bumbling vegetables after a college career of binge drinking? LIkely, no. However, neural activity can be permenantly altered from this, and there are plenty of studies to back it up. Cognition and reflexive acuity are usually the first things to take a hit from a life of alcoholism. The amount of time required for quantifiable, long-term damage is going to vary from person-to-person, dependent upon the prowess of microsomal oxidase systems within the body, but remember, a quantifiable amount of neural retardation has been demonstrated on those that abused for just one year. Let’s just suffice to say that I’m not going to be sowing any “wild oats” that don’t come out of a cylinder with a mennonite on the front of it.

This is probably a lot more than you cared for, and it is the king-god of all hijacks, but I thought I’d go ahead and play my card anyhow.

~Terumo

Terumo:

Well…thanks. I think that was very interesting. However, no one (not even you) can make a claim that President Bush has suffered brain damage from substance abuse.

The liberals bash the President so much that I thought I would call one of them on this latest outrageous claim.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Terumo:

Well…thanks. I think that was very interesting. However, no one (not even you) can make a claim that President Bush has suffered brain damage from substance abuse.
[/quote]

Of course–I’m am completely unqualified to make such a claim. But like I said previously, I thought vroom’s comment was tongue-in-cheek. I was just bored at the moment. You have no idea how strange your posts can actually get until you are sitting in front of an MRI server, watching a damn line for three hours.

*Note: For an example of this, simply check my last post under “Bush vs Kerry Vote Here.”

~Terumo

ZEB,

[quote]ZEB wrote:
makkun wrote:
ZEB,

what was the single category that Kerry won? Just curious.

Makkun

Makkun:

Dang…you had to ask that one didn’t you? Haha…Intelligence.[/quote]

Yes, that is funny indeed. :slight_smile:

Makkun