1. I haven't investigated the matter very seriously, but I find it hard to believe that any "likely voter" methodology that's being used by pollsters is going to accurately reflect the actual voting-propensity environment these days. I've gotten more voter registration door hangers in the last three weeks than I've gotten Chinese take-out menus--things are different.
2. I have high hopes for tonight's debate. I'm praying that both guys will have a little slack in their leashes and feel free to start some serious shit. But I'm wondering: If the networks messed around with the camera angles to make Bush seem as tall as Kerry, what exactly are they going to do to narrow the sexiness gap between Cheney and Edwards?
Check out Andrew Sullivan's remarks on the debate and the sexiness gap:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_03_dish_archive.html#109694909728674453
Posted by: DannyNoonan | October 05, 2004 at 01:30 PM
I'm guessing they will focus the camera on "that thing" On Edwards' lip whenever he speaks, but I don't know what good features Cheney has to focus on.
Posted by: stew | October 05, 2004 at 01:40 PM
I don't know about you, but that snarl of Cheney's really gets me going. Should make it easy on the networks; I can't imagine a shortage of THAT.
Posted by: Mandy | October 05, 2004 at 03:27 PM
I'm very sorry that some poor fools are wasting their time on voter registration drives in Texas. Not that it makes much more sense to vote anywhere else.
Posted by: Dylan | October 05, 2004 at 07:17 PM
I guess some people believe there's a "sexiness gap" between Cheney and Edwards, but the truth is, one's an old ass man, the other is a creepy mannequin (sort that one out for yourselves). I am desperately hoping that this mythical "average voter" (which is really a composite pollsters arrived at by polling the same 10 people over and over again) doesn't find either one of them sexy, because ew.
Posted by: IvyJean | October 06, 2004 at 09:11 AM