On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:38:17 -0400, NOYB wrote:


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

Well, I see even you think the race is getting closer. Your prediction is
down from a 5-7% landslide. ;-)

http://www.google.com/groups?q=lands...ink.net&rnum=2

Still, my guess is it's going to be considerable closer. Close enough
that we may not know the winner on Nov. 3.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:38:17 -0400, NOYB wrote:


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for
Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or
voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This
year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

Well, I see even you think the race is getting closer. Your prediction is
down from a 5-7% landslide. ;-)

LOL. Yup. If it's 4% or 7%, I guess I look like the dummy. But I can
always hold out hope that it's 5 or 6%...and then I can brag that I've been
right all along.





http://www.google.com/groups?q=lands...ink.net&rnum=2

Still, my guess is it's going to be considerable closer. Close enough
that we may not know the winner on Nov. 3.

Due to the provisional ballots, it doesn't have to be very close at all for
us to still not know the winner on Nov. 3rd. Somebody could win Ohio by
40,000 votes, and if there are 50,000 provisional ballots to be counted,
the provisional ballot lawsuits could keep the results in limbo for quite
awhile.

I think the provisional ballots are absurd...particularly if you request one
because you "forgot to register". If you have a current valid voter
registration card and a picture ID, and you show up at the correct polling
booth, there should be no need for a provisional ballot.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-ballots_x.htm

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:38:17 -0400, NOYB wrote:


In 1992, Clinton garnered only 43% of the vote. It's pathetic that a
President can be elected with such a low percentage of the population
supporting him. There was plenty of anti-Bush sentiment that year, but I
doubt many of the Perot supporters would have cast their votes for
Clinton
if Perot wasn't in the race. Most would have either stayed home, or
voted
for Bush as the lesser of two evils (at least in their minds). This
year,
there is no viable alternative to the incumbent...and Kerry hasn't done
anything to help his own chances. I still predict a Bush win by 4 to 6
percentage points.

Well, I see even you think the race is getting closer. Your prediction is
down from a 5-7% landslide. ;-)


Looks like Cheney is reading from my playbook:

" SOURCES: VP Cheney Predicts on NBCNEWS TODAY SHOW Monday: Election Results
Will 52% Bush, 47% Kerry... "