SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2004 Anyone else longing for the good-old days when presidential elections had predetermined outcomes? 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 were all marked by strong mid-summer leads by the eventual winner (usually by 5 or more percent). What happened? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2004 Kerry may not be dead if he doesn't get Pennsylvania and Ohio... However, if he doesn't get Florida, it appears he's completely fucked. The way the numbers are breaking down right now, Kerry needs Florida in addition to all the electoral votes he has right now to get the 270 needed for a majority. That's assuming that Kerry doesn't lose Iowa or Wisconsin to Bush and that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Missouri break for Bush as they appear to be right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2004 No matter what, it appears that Florida will decide the election again, unless somehow Kerry gets both Ohio & Pennsylvania (Ohio seems unlikely at this point). Bush needs Florida regardless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2004 Look, I did FIND Gore's name on the lame butterfly ballot, but I had to look twice to make sure. It wasn't properly lined up. If the arrows were actually directly to the choice then it would be fine, but it was broken over two pages and the lines went in between names. It certainly created confusion. Point is this: a ballot should be as simple to read as a school test with clearly marked choices. On the latest poll there Kerry was behind by 3% in Ohio. I don't know if he'll win the state, but it's closer than last week. And I still don't buy the poll that has Bush ahead 1% in PA when there was another just days ago with Kerry ahead 3% (which mirrors the 2000 election results). As far as Iowa and Wisconsin go, the leads are tenuous for Kerry but since Gore won both and whatever support Nader had won't be as great this time, Kerry likely will take those. That's a key I think, Nader. In 2000 he was polling at 5% but took 2.7%. This time he's not as much of a factor and Kerry will benefit from it. Heh, it's funny...everyone on here insists OH and FL are the key states. I think that the keys are PA and NH. This might not mean anything but I averaged out the % on that website as it stands now. Bush had roughly 48%, Kerry 43%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 11, 2004 On the latest poll there Kerry was behind by 3% in Ohio. I don't know if he'll win the state, but it's closer than last week. And I still don't buy the poll that has Bush ahead 1% in PA when there was another just days ago with Kerry ahead 3% (which mirrors the 2000 election results). SUSA has Bush up by 3. Gallup has him up by 9 --- and lord knows Gallup has hardly given Bush generous numbers. Zogby has him up by 10. Strategic Vision has him up by 6. This is REAL bad for Kerry. Look, I did FIND Gore's name on the lame butterfly ballot, but I had to look twice to make sure. It wasn't properly lined up. If the arrows were actually directly to the choice then it would be fine, but it was broken over two pages and the lines went in between names. It certainly created confusion. Point is this: a ballot should be as simple to read as a school test with clearly marked choices. And it was. If somebody can't pull it off, they have no business, whatsoever, having a voice in gov't. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2004 What if they have bad eyesight? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 11, 2004 What if they have bad eyesight? They can ask for assistance on HOW to vote from officials at the polling location. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2004 Believe the PA polls -- it's pretty close here. The Pittsburgh/Philly union whores will go for Kerry and the rednecks in the "flyover" parts of the state will go for Bush. I'm in the union-whore part of the state and hope to soften the lead Kerry will get here, and as Election night goes on the results from the central part of the state will start giving Bush gains... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2004 Well, I'm cancelling out a Bush supporter in the flyover parts Bwahahhahahaahahahahahaahahahahaa.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2004 Kerry 273 Bush 233 Kerry has moved back into the lead in Pennsylvania albeit by less than the MoE so it doesn't mean a lot. The Survey USA poll gives Kerry 49% to Bush's 47%. Picking up Pennsylvania also gives him the 270 votes in the electoral college needed to win. The other significant poll is in Missouri, where Survey USA puts Bush ahead 48% to 46%. Thursday we had Bush up by 14% according to a Gallup poll. I didn't believe that then and I still don't. Gallup clearly messed up, like Time and Newsweek last week. Before believing a strange results, check the state graphs to see if it fits in. Barring major news, jumps of 10% in a week are just not going to happen in this race. Bush has maintained his huge leads in Indiana, Kansas, and Kentucky. Consequently, neither candidate will set foot in any of these states. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 SOURCE, bitch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Well, I'm cancelling out a Bush supporter in the flyover parts Bwahahhahahaahahahahahaahahahahaa.... Oh, but the rednecks will overrun you -- think of Night of the Living Dead and you're the black guy. It'll be the same with me, but when all the union whores go on their two-hour break, I'll be able to get away. And Jobber proved my point with... Kerry has moved back into the lead in Pennsylvania albeit by less than the MoE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jesse_ewiak 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 From the same poll. (PDF File) TODAY IT'S KERRY 49%, BUSH 47%. 5 WKS AGO, AFTER DNC, BEFORE SWIFT BOATS & RNC, KERRY LED BY 12, NOW 2. BUSH LEADS BY 4 IN MILITARY HH'S; KERRY LEADS BY 12 IN NON-MILITARY HH'S. BUSH UP IN WESTERN PA, NE PA & 'THE T'. KERRY ONLY UP IN SE PA, BUT BY 27 PTS." Phillie love its Democrat's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 SOURCE, bitch. It's in the first post of the friggin' thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 SOURCE, bitch. It's in the first post of the friggin' thread. Point, Jobber. And if he's talking about a 10 point boost, why does he so readily take the 10 point lead that Zogby recorded in NM after it was deadlocked? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 These dailies are bouncing around...Just a week ago bush had the 270. Replacing one poll with another and saying they're the same may not be the right judgement call Election's close, that's all I can say. Looking at their map though, I don't buy NM going D when just a week ago it was decently in the Bush states list. And thanks Tyler, but could you have found a nonpartisan site? If they didn't apply a weight, then they're idiots and I'll agree with ya. sjp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Also from the first post link: Florida Bush: 49% Kerry: 49% Nader: 1% (large, streaming string of profanity here) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Anyone else longing for the good-old days when presidential elections had predetermined outcomes? 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 were all marked by strong mid-summer leads by the eventual winner (usually by 5 or more percent). What happened? Don't forget 2000. Different style of predetermined, but still... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Anyone else longing for the good-old days when presidential elections had predetermined outcomes? 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 were all marked by strong mid-summer leads by the eventual winner (usually by 5 or more percent). What happened? Don't forget 2000. Different style of predetermined, but still... Oh give me a fucking break Cartman... If you actually would read about 2000, you'd KNOW the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries (separation of powers) as per the second article of the constitution which grants to the state's legislatures the power to run elections...That was the SC's concurring opinion in Gore vs. Bush. Regardless of the fact that 1) Gore requested undervotes when he really should have requested overvotes 2) Independent surveys done afterwards SHOW that any recount Gore would have requested more than likely would NOT have given Florida to Gore. 3) Every action down there was done in the bounds of legality as put in by the Florida Constitution and the US Consitution... Give me an ever-living break. If you really want to bring shit like this up again and again...talk about 1960 and Kennedy rigging TWO states and Nixon decided it was in the national interest to not protest (before Nixon was an asshole) Friggin Jesus Christ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheLastBoyscout Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Right now electoral-vote.com has Kerry up 273-233. PA and OH are back in Kerry's corner! Florida is in a dead heat! Bush carries Alaska! BUSH CARRIES ALASKA! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Right now electoral-vote.com has Kerry up 273-233. PA and OH are back in Kerry's corner! Florida is in a dead heat! Bush carries Alaska! BUSH CARRIES ALASKA! OH is back with Kerry? Sorry, but that sounds like total bullshit, especially since Gallup has Bush up by nine. SUSA has a somewhat anti-Republican bias in their sampling, it seems. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheLastBoyscout Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Right now electoral-vote.com has Kerry up 273-233. PA and OH are back in Kerry's corner! Florida is in a dead heat! Bush carries Alaska! BUSH CARRIES ALASKA! OH is back with Kerry? Sorry, but that sounds like total bullshit, especially since Gallup has Bush up by nine. SUSA has a somewhat anti-Republican bias in their sampling, it seems. -=Mike That was a mistake actually. Bush still has a slight lead there. But... Bush still has Alaska. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 12, 2004 Right now electoral-vote.com has Kerry up 273-233. PA and OH are back in Kerry's corner! Florida is in a dead heat! Bush carries Alaska! BUSH CARRIES ALASKA! OH is back with Kerry? Sorry, but that sounds like total bullshit, especially since Gallup has Bush up by nine. SUSA has a somewhat anti-Republican bias in their sampling, it seems. -=Mike That was a mistake actually. Bush still has a slight lead there. But... Bush still has Alaska. Looking over SUSA's numbers in comparison to the other polls --- SUSA needs to fix up the problem with their sampling. They seem to oversample Democratic votes, based on their results. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2004 This just in... BUSH IS LEADING IN PA!!!! My source? Well, I polled three of my neighbors and two were voting for W. -- that's a 33 POINT LEAD!!!!!... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2004 Right now electoral-vote.com has Kerry up 273-233. PA and OH are back in Kerry's corner! Florida is in a dead heat! Bush carries Alaska! BUSH CARRIES ALASKA! OH is back with Kerry? Sorry, but that sounds like total bullshit, especially since Gallup has Bush up by nine. SUSA has a somewhat anti-Republican bias in their sampling, it seems. -=Mike That was a mistake actually. Bush still has a slight lead there. But... Bush still has Alaska. Looking over SUSA's numbers in comparison to the other polls --- SUSA needs to fix up the problem with their sampling. They seem to oversample Democratic votes, based on their results. -=Mike Please explain. Don't say "Well, if Kerry is up, they're oversampling Democrats!!!!" either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2004 And thanks Tyler, but could you have found a nonpartisan site? If they didn't apply a weight, then they're idiots and I'll agree with ya. Uh, what does it matter if it's a partisan site or not? Numbers aren't partisan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 13, 2004 Tyler, numbers can EASILY be extremely partisan. And explain what I mean? Simple. When one poll has numbers out of whack with EVERY other poll --- the problem, most likely, lies with their sample base. Polls have had a habit of oversampling Democrats (that is the case) --- but it's usually not all that big. In SUSA's case, it does seem noticeable. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2004 And thanks Tyler, but could you have found a nonpartisan site? If they didn't apply a weight, then they're idiots and I'll agree with ya. Uh, what does it matter if it's a partisan site or not? Numbers aren't partisan. Of course they are. It goes for both sides. People can't help but have a political bias, when conducting these polls. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2004 You DO realize that prior to the conventions, Ohio was a dead heat, right? How do you get off implying that it was an oversampled Democratic base that brought it back to the MoE? And Vern: I wasn't talking about a poll. I linked SJ to a site (partisan, yes, but it was irrelevant at that point) which debunked the faulty Newsweek "BUSH UP BY 12 POINTS!!!!" poll. It clearly showed the error in oversampling Republicans and not properly weighting the poll. It was simple mathematics; the partisan nature of the site matters like, not at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted September 13, 2004 You DO realize that prior to the conventions, Ohio was a dead heat, right? How do you get off implying that it was an oversampled Democratic base that brought it back to the MoE? And Vern: I wasn't talking about a poll. I linked SJ to a site (partisan, yes, but it was irrelevant at that point) which debunked the faulty Newsweek "BUSH UP BY 12 POINTS!!!!" poll. It clearly showed the error in oversampling Republicans and not properly weighting the poll. It was simple mathematics; the partisan nature of the site matters like, not at all. Kerry's numbers were in a steady decline heading into the RNC. That really isn't even a debatable point at this time. Quite frankly, them getting progressively lower is more likely than them getting considerably better. In fact, the state polls are out of whack to the internal numbers, as Kerry presently has a NEGATIVE approval rating (36% approve, 42% disapprove). And, yes, it turns out Newsweek and Time did oversample Republicans. Bush STILL has a 7 or so point lead regardless. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
