Gallup on CNN is spinning debate losses by GWB as being irrelavant

Frank Newport of Gallup Poll was just on CNN spinning how incumbant Presidents who loose debates go on to win or gain ground. All three examples he cited, 1960 1976 and 1984, were chosen to show how the Republican lost the debate but ended up gaining ground anyways.

They are trying to set up the public to root for Bush even though they anticipate him falling on his face again in tommorrow's final debate. Before the first debate they were setting up for Bush to win the day and essentially end Kerry's campaign.

I am starting to believe some of you guys here that CNN and Gallup are not as neutral as I would want to believe.

Actually, this election may most resemble 1980, when Reagan used the debates to pull ahead in a close race and win.

and NOT gaining ground since the first two debates.

If the debates were so irrelevant, then why is our fearless leader behind now when he supposedly had an "11 point lead"?

I'm a 46 year old mother of 4, live in small town hobunk nowhere. Not a left wing commie pinko type AT ALL. The television is a LIE BOX. Most of the print media has their heads up their ass as well. In an honest country, we'd have hauled Bush's ass out of there months ago. He moved troops and war money without Congressional approval. That, in and of itself, is impeachable. Any Democrat would have been burned at the stake for that. Hiding Medicare budget numbers? Intimidating directors of federal agencies into silence? Giving contracts to companies that have violated the law over and over again? Writing a law so Medicare CAN'T negotiate drug prices? Come on, if Clinton had done any one of these things, they'd be calling for his hide. We don't have a free press, we don't have a free country. We're being sold down the river.

So how do they explain him losing his once 12 point lead in their poll? If the debates are irrelevant?

Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media. Must believe the media.

....we would start hearing things like "He's dead in the water","its all over now","this points to a clear Bush victory".Christ I am so fucking sick of the media selling us the fucking guy no matter what and having the nerve to turn around and say that any news outlet that doesn't lick king George's privileged little ass on a constant basis is guilty of liberal media bias,I never want to hear that fucking term again!!

If he thinks that it realy doesn't matter. Then he won't have to worry about appologizing for his performance.

he's not very good on his feet

Their point was that the debates had no real effect on Polls taken. They even tried to point out how Ford grew steadily in the polls despite his catastrophic 2nd debate snafu. They even tried to defend Nixon on his debate performance against Kennedy stating how it had little effect on the election.

They are trying to prepare the nervous Republicans for yet another debate debacle by Bush.

I heard him in an interview and that was my immediate reaction. A-hole. Also, what is Gallup's party weighting in its recent polls? I can't find that info. anywhere.

Kennedy/Nixon race

One thing everyone can agree on is that this election and the last one were anything but "normal". The President's approval rating is about what percentage of the vote he will get.

Nixon was Eisenhower's VP, running against Kennedy. And the 1960 debate was the first in "modern" times, so it had no precedent. And one should also take into consideration the fact that the polls differed depending on whether the debate was seen on tv (Kennedy won) or listened to on radio (Nixon won).

Carter was running in 1976 against an unelected incumbent, Gerald Ford, who had been in office barely two years.

Of the three "examples" cited, only one actually fits the criteria.

Bad proof.

remember the spin after the first debate was the guy who won the first lost the second two in X number of elections. Well they have abandoned that rational. Of course the don't mention that Kerry annihilated a 8 point gap in one debate.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the press is working overtime to cash in on the Fox News Channel money machine.

I wonder how rich Walter Kronkite would have become if he had sold out? How much money could he have made by becoming a tool of the Republican Party and pushed a new book he wrote every other week on his news agencies website?

Yesterday's spoof on the news has become today's reality.

Take that!