BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   Are polls taking a toll? (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/4513-re-polls-taking-toll.html)

NOYB May 12th 04 08:05 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.


Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor
Bush 46, Kerry 41, Nader 5, Not sure 7




Gary Warner May 12th 04 08:46 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 


All these polls have the two candidates very close so they
basically show it as a 50/50 race. Also, it's still very early
in the season when you consider that many of the
voters that are still open to changing their minds won't
even start paying attention until September. Plus many
events could swing things either way.

Here's another way (not very scientific and only looking
as popular vote and not the Electoral College votes) of
looking at the situation:

-- In the 2000 election the popular vote was very closely
split between Gore & Bush.

-- It seems to me that many people are much more energized
about getting Bush & Co out. So many more may well vote
to get him out.

-- Yes, Bush's staunch supporters will stay with him. But has
he really done anything that will get MORE of his people
energized or get MORE NEW people out to vote for
him??




thunder May 12th 04 09:13 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.


Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7


Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html


NOYB May 12th 04 09:39 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.


Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7


Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html




P.Fritz May 12th 04 09:45 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


Isn't his brother on the Dem's national Committee?



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.

Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7


Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html






NOYB May 12th 04 10:37 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


Isn't his brother on the Dem's national Committee?


Yes. Here's a bio on his brother:

James J. Zogby is founder and president of the Arab American Institute.
Since 1985, he has led AAI's efforts to secure Arab American political
empowerment.

He hosts "A Capital View," a weekly TV-call in program, broadcast by the
Arab Network of America and simulcast by the Middle East Broadcasting
Company, a London-based TV network..


Since 1992, Zogby has written "Washington Watch," a weekly column on U.S.
politics for the major newspapers of the Arab world.


A lecturer and scholar on Middle East issues, U.S.-Arab relations, and the
history of the Arab American community, Zogby frequently appears as a guest
on major network TV and radio programs.


Zogby has been active in U.S. politics for many years. In 1994, he was
appointed to the Democratic National Committee, and in September 1999, he
was named to its Executive Committee. In 1995, he was named co-convener of
the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee, a group of Democratic
Party leaers of European and Mediterrean descent.


1984, he was vice-chairman and deputy campaign manager for the Jesse Jackson
for President Campaign and introduced Jackson's name for nomination at the
1984 Democratic National Convention.


In 1988, as a member of the Democratic Party's National Platform Committee,
he led the first debate on Palestinian rights at the Democratic National
Convention in Atlanta.


The policy side of Zogby's work has been no less significant.


In 1986, he co-authored "The Politics of Exclusion," a study of
discrimination against Arab Americans in U.S. politics. The study formed the
basis for a decade-long effort to end such discrimination.


In 1991, Zogby authored a Middle East peace proposal, which was endorsed by
the foreign ministers of Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestine
Liberation Organization.


He also co-authored "Arab American Merchants and the Crisis of the Inner
City; Cleveland: A Case Study" (1995) and "The Department of Justice and the
Civil Rights of Arab Americans (1998), both of which were instrumental in
addressing and remedying critical civil rights concerns of Arab Americans.


In 1998, Zogby participated in the White House Conference on Hate Crimes. He
currently is a member of the advisory council of the National Center for
Hate Crime Prevention.


For the past two decades, Zogby has been involved in a range of Arab
American issues. He was a co-founder and chairman of the Palestine Human
Rights Campaign in the late 1970s. In 1980, he co-founded the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee and served as executive director until 1984.


In 1982, he co-founded Save Lebanon Inc, a humanitarian relief organization
that provides health care funds for victims of war in Lebanon.


Zogby is a board member of Middle East Watch, a human rights organization,
and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.


He received a doctorate in religion Temple University in 1975 and a bachelor
of arts from Le Moyne College. Le Moyne named him outstanding alumnus in
1997 and awarded him an honorary doctorate in 1997.


Zogby is married to Eileen Patricia McMahon and has five children.





Harry Krause May 13th 04 02:08 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Gary Warner wrote:
All these polls have the two candidates very close so they
basically show it as a 50/50 race. Also, it's still very early
in the season when you consider that many of the
voters that are still open to changing their minds won't
even start paying attention until September. Plus many
events could swing things either way.

Here's another way (not very scientific and only looking
as popular vote and not the Electoral College votes) of
looking at the situation:

-- In the 2000 election the popular vote was very closely
split between Gore & Bush.

-- It seems to me that many people are much more energized
about getting Bush & Co out. So many more may well vote
to get him out.

-- Yes, Bush's staunch supporters will stay with him. But has
he really done anything that will get MORE of his people
energized or get MORE NEW people out to vote for
him??




What's most interesting about these polls is that Bush, arguably a
popular if not accomplished POTUS, is doing so poorly compared to an
Eastern establishment pol who is cerebral and complex.

Harry Krause May 13th 04 02:10 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
NOYB wrote:

Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.

Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7


Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html




Sheesh. Zogby is an honest pollster, an interesting fellow, and
Republican-leaning. No one questions his integrity...no one except a
BushLemming like you.

Bert Robbins May 13th 04 02:36 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.

Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7

Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html




Sheesh. Zogby is an honest pollster, an interesting fellow, and
Republican-leaning. No one questions his integrity...no one except a
BushLemming like you.


Zogby has gone from the darling of the polling industry to being nothing
more than a Democratic schill. He used to be able to predict the numbers
but, his political bias towards the left has clouded his judgement in the
last six years.



Harry Krause May 13th 04 02:42 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


"thunder" wrote in message
.. .


On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:



Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.

Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7

Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html




Sheesh. Zogby is an honest pollster, an interesting fellow, and
Republican-leaning. No one questions his integrity...no one except a
BushLemming like you.



Zogby has gone from the darling of the polling industry to being nothing
more than a Democratic schill. He used to be able to predict the numbers
but, his political bias towards the left has clouded his judgement in the
last six years.



Oh, sure...Bert...right...as if you would have a clue.

Bert Robbins May 13th 04 02:48 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


"thunder" wrote in message
.. .


On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:



Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.

Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7

Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html




Sheesh. Zogby is an honest pollster, an interesting fellow, and
Republican-leaning. No one questions his integrity...no one except a
BushLemming like you.



Zogby has gone from the darling of the polling industry to being nothing
more than a Democratic schill. He used to be able to predict the numbers
but, his political bias towards the left has clouded his judgement in

the
last six years.



Oh, sure...Bert...right...as if you would have a clue.


I bought a clue last week and I still have it in my pocket.

Zogby was the undisputed pollmaster of the 90's, however, since the 2000
election Zogby hasn't been doing too well. Now I believe the best pollsters
are The Battleground group.




NOYB May 13th 04 02:51 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Zogby is an Arab-American. He may be a wee bit biased, no?


"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:05:42 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.

Perhaps not:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Bush 47, Kerry 45, Nader 5, None/No opinion 3

Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor Bush 46, Kerry 41,
Nader 5, Not sure 7

Perhaps:

http://www.zogby.com/news/051004.html




Sheesh. Zogby is an honest pollster, an interesting fellow, and
Republican-leaning. No one questions his integrity...no one except a
BushLemming like you.


I'm not questioning his polling methods nor the results. I'm questioning
his interpretation of the statistics. He seems to ignore the significance
of a key sentence in his blog:
"In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted
for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States
that he won four years ago."

10 points is less than 17, but it's still a huge number to overcome. If
Bush wins the same states as 2000, as Zogby's poll suggests, he wins the
election. In fact, changes in the distribution of electoral college votes
makes Bush the winner by an even larger margin than in 2000.



John Gaquin May 13th 04 04:47 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2gg05hF2edj5U1@uni-

.....Bush, arguably a
popular if not accomplished POTUS, is doing so poorly compared to an
Eastern establishment pol who is cerebral and complex.


But he's not doing poorly; why do you make such an obviously contrived
statement? Half the country (+/-) think W is doing the right things and
doing them reasonably well. My sense is that a substantial portion of
Kerry's support is there simply because he is *not* Bush. Back during the
primary season, Kerry surged during the last week of the Iowa campaign
because he was *not* Dean, who already had people feeling skittish. He
solidified his position through NH and later because he was *not* Clark, who
couldn't quite figure out big league politics, and because he was *not*
Edwards, who in my view couldn't get traction outside SC because his syrupy
smooth southern tongue reminded too many people (nervously) of the previous
eight years.

Bottom line is that Kerry has wound up where he is because he has shown
people who he isn't. But nobody really knows how much support there is
based on who he is. I personally think there are a lot of people who will
talk Kerry right through October, but go with W in the voting booth.



basskisser May 13th 04 12:07 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2gg05hF2edj5U1@uni-

.....Bush, arguably a
popular if not accomplished POTUS, is doing so poorly compared to an
Eastern establishment pol who is cerebral and complex.


But he's not doing poorly; why do you make such an obviously contrived
statement? Half the country (+/-) think W is doing the right things and
doing them reasonably well.


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.

My sense is that a substantial portion of
Kerry's support is there simply because he is *not* Bush.


Thankfully.

Back during the
primary season, Kerry surged during the last week of the Iowa campaign
because he was *not* Dean, who already had people feeling skittish. He
solidified his position through NH and later because he was *not* Clark, who
couldn't quite figure out big league politics, and because he was *not*
Edwards, who in my view couldn't get traction outside SC because his syrupy
smooth southern tongue reminded too many people (nervously) of the previous
eight years.

Bottom line is that Kerry has wound up where he is because he has shown
people who he isn't. But nobody really knows how much support there is
based on who he is. I personally think there are a lot of people who will
talk Kerry right through October, but go with W in the voting booth.


Now, that's just plain stupid. A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.

Tuuk May 13th 04 12:56 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

Are you as nuts as your name sounds? This latest incident will only further
cement Bush's re-election. It is clearly obvious that the U.S. is further
****ed off, and wants Bush to continue, he is the only leader really who has
shown strong leadership.







"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.b997f617e02668e7d381415e63328ab6@108 4387094.nulluser.com...
From the Rasmussen nightly automated survey:

Kerry 46% Bush 45%

Election 2004 President

National Ballot
Bush 45%
Kerry 46%
Other 4%
Not Sure 5%


Wednesday May 12, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential
Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry with 46% of the vote and
President George W. Bush earning 45%.

Senator Kerry has now been ahead or tied for nine of the last ten days.

Data released yesterday showed that most Americans now say it is
unlikely that Iraq will emerge as a peaceful nation enjoying freedom and
democracy. Earlier in the week, Rasmussen Reports polling found that
just 46% of voters believe the United States and its allies are winning
the War on Terror.

As Americans assess the economy, geopolitical events have overwhelmed
Friday's report of job creation. The Rasmussen Consumer Index, a daily
measure of the nation's economic confidence, has fallen for three
straight days. Normally, that Index would have made double digit gains
following a better than expected employment report.

----------------------------------------------

Perhaps America's long nightmare with G.W. Bush is coming to an end.





NOYB May 13th 04 12:59 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message

...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2gg05hF2edj5U1@uni-

.....Bush, arguably a
popular if not accomplished POTUS, is doing so poorly compared to an
Eastern establishment pol who is cerebral and complex.


But he's not doing poorly; why do you make such an obviously contrived
statement? Half the country (+/-) think W is doing the right things and
doing them reasonably well.


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.

My sense is that a substantial portion of
Kerry's support is there simply because he is *not* Bush.


Thankfully.

Back during the
primary season, Kerry surged during the last week of the Iowa campaign
because he was *not* Dean, who already had people feeling skittish. He
solidified his position through NH and later because he was *not* Clark,

who
couldn't quite figure out big league politics, and because he was *not*
Edwards, who in my view couldn't get traction outside SC because his

syrupy
smooth southern tongue reminded too many people (nervously) of the

previous
eight years.

Bottom line is that Kerry has wound up where he is because he has shown
people who he isn't. But nobody really knows how much support there is
based on who he is. I personally think there are a lot of people who

will
talk Kerry right through October, but go with W in the voting booth.


Now, that's just plain stupid. A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.


The Democratic party base is comprised of a conglomeration of union
lemmings, sexual deviants, welfare recipients, people with education levels
below a high school diploma, and ex-cons who successfully got their names
expunged from can-not-vote lists. You really think the bulk of the
Democratic party even has a "clue" about Kerry's stances on the environment,
the economy, and other social issues?



Harry Krause May 13th 04 01:08 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Tuuk wrote:

Are you as nuts as your name sounds?


Say what?


This latest incident will only further
cement Bush's re-election.


Really? So are you saying the Bush Administration should plan activities
in Iraq that result in more beheadings?



It is clearly obvious that the U.S. is further
****ed off, and wants Bush to continue, he is the only leader really who has
shown strong leadership.



Clearly obvious? To whom? Someone like you who is suffering from dementia?


Paul Fritz May 13th 04 01:23 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message

...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2gg05hF2edj5U1@uni-

.....Bush, arguably a
popular if not accomplished POTUS, is doing so poorly compared to

an
Eastern establishment pol who is cerebral and complex.

But he's not doing poorly; why do you make such an obviously

contrived
statement? Half the country (+/-) think W is doing the right things

and
doing them reasonably well.


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.

My sense is that a substantial portion of
Kerry's support is there simply because he is *not* Bush.


Thankfully.

Back during the
primary season, Kerry surged during the last week of the Iowa

campaign
because he was *not* Dean, who already had people feeling skittish.

He
solidified his position through NH and later because he was *not*

Clark,
who
couldn't quite figure out big league politics, and because he was

*not*
Edwards, who in my view couldn't get traction outside SC because his

syrupy
smooth southern tongue reminded too many people (nervously) of the

previous
eight years.

Bottom line is that Kerry has wound up where he is because he has

shown
people who he isn't. But nobody really knows how much support there

is
based on who he is. I personally think there are a lot of people

who
will
talk Kerry right through October, but go with W in the voting booth.


Now, that's just plain stupid. A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.


The Democratic party base is comprised of a conglomeration of union
lemmings, sexual deviants, welfare recipients, people with education

levels
below a high school diploma, and ex-cons who successfully got their

names
expunged from can-not-vote lists. You really think the bulk of the
Democratic party even has a "clue" about Kerry's stances on the

environment,
the economy, and other social issues?


You forgot the common thread......they all want guvmint to think for them,
and they want guvmint to take from those who are productive and think for
themselves.







Tuuk May 13th 04 02:02 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
No, not at all Harry,
This latest incident reveals exactly what the world (not just Americans of
which you are). It is shocking to hear you defend these people Harry and put
your own leader down. I just saw the entire video of the beheading, you came
to mind. You and the deadly disease over there that the U.S. must stop. You
Harry, as soon as I saw that poor American held down and screaming I thought
of You Harry. You and your persistent attempts to let those killers live.
You keep saying the U.S. should clean up and drag themselves home with their
tail between their legs, but you would be leaving the same killers alive and
continuing to kill innocent people. Have you seen the complete video there
Harry? Were you cheering the same chant they were? "God is good" tell me
there Harry,, were you applauding when they held the head of the poor
American? Were you shouting and putting down Bush along with them? Not only
are you a liar Harry,, your also a sick human.

Go ahead Harry,,, fling some mud back,,, what are your latest insults
towards me, dementia? That is pretty good one Harry. Harry, why don't you go
to the parents of that young man who had his head cut off, tell them how
much you hate Bush and you want all Americans to return and leave the
disease of killers still alive and actively growing. What are you Harry?
Some kind of a coward?








"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Tuuk wrote:

Are you as nuts as your name sounds?


Say what?


This latest incident will only further
cement Bush's re-election.


Really? So are you saying the Bush Administration should plan activities
in Iraq that result in more beheadings?



It is clearly obvious that the U.S. is further
****ed off, and wants Bush to continue, he is the only leader really who

has
shown strong leadership.



Clearly obvious? To whom? Someone like you who is suffering from dementia?




Harry Krause May 13th 04 02:20 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Tuuk wrote:

No, not at all Harry,
This latest incident reveals exactly what the world (not just Americans of
which you are). It is shocking to hear you defend these people Harry and put
your own leader down.



You'd be more fun if you could think, just a little. Please show me a
post where I defended the thugs who beheaded Berg.

As for putting Bush down, I plead guilty. The man is an unmitigated
disaster as POTUS, and should be held accountable for what is now
happening in Iraq.


I just saw the entire video of the beheading, you came
to mind.



Really? I don't get off on watching people die. I didn't watch the video.


You and the deadly disease over there that the U.S. must stop. You
Harry, as soon as I saw that poor American held down and screaming I thought
of You Harry. You and your persistent attempts to let those killers live.
You keep saying the U.S. should clean up and drag themselves home with their
tail between their legs, but you would be leaving the same killers alive and
continuing to kill innocent people. Have you seen the complete video there
Harry? Were you cheering the same chant they were? "God is good" tell me
there Harry,, were you applauding when they held the head of the poor
American? Were you shouting and putting down Bush along with them? Not only
are you a liar Harry,, your also a sick human.



We haven't the slightest chance of cleaning up Iraq. We shouldn't have
invaded Iraq at all.


Go ahead Harry,,, fling some mud back,,, what are your latest insults
towards me, dementia? That is pretty good one Harry. Harry, why don't you go
to the parents of that young man who had his head cut off, tell them how
much you hate Bush and you want all Americans to return and leave the
disease of killers still alive and actively growing. What are you Harry?
Some kind of a coward?



It's sad that Berg died; he did nothing to deserve being murdered. But,
then, neither do the victims of most handgun killings in the United States.

The information emerging about Berg makes it appear as if he were an
absolute idiot. What the hell was he doing, freelancing for work in a
war zone? If his family really cared, why did it not STOP him from going
to Iraq by whatever means possible? No, I am not saying the victim and
his family were responsible for his death. But Berg certainly lacked in
brain power.

John Gaquin May 13th 04 04:58 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he simply
can't be said to be doing poorly.


snip gratuitous insults


..... A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.


No, half the country doesn't "....like what Kerry stands for...", half the
country responds to polls at this time by saying they prefer Kerry to Bush.
But Kerry's support is not deep at all. The general analysis right now is
that if Nader garners more than 3% - 5% of the vote, it will be impossible
for Kerry to win. That is very thin support indeed.

If you look carefully at the progression of support through the early part
of the primary season, you see that Kerry was usually running behind until
the person in the lead tripped somehow. He's like the guy who runs through
the entire ten-mile road race far back in fourth place, but wins when the
first three contenders all get tangled and fall a half-mile from the finish
line.



Harry Krause May 13th 04 05:37 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.



Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he simply
can't be said to be doing poorly



Absolutely absurd.



NOYB May 13th 04 06:33 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.



Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he

simply
can't be said to be doing poorly



Absolutely absurd.


In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.



basskisser May 14th 04 12:11 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he

simply
can't be said to be doing poorly



Absolutely absurd.


In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.


Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

basskisser May 14th 04 12:14 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point. If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he simply
can't be said to be doing poorly.


Using YOUR analogy, one could also say he simply can't be said to be
doing GOOD, then right?


snip gratuitous insults


..... A lot of people, right about half of
the country, like what Kerry stands for, likes his environmental,
economic, and social issues stances.


No, half the country doesn't "....like what Kerry stands for...", half the
country responds to polls at this time by saying they prefer Kerry to Bush.
But Kerry's support is not deep at all. The general analysis right now is
that if Nader garners more than 3% - 5% of the vote, it will be impossible
for Kerry to win. That is very thin support indeed.


With Bush now at less than 50%, the exact same thing could be said of
him!

If you look carefully at the progression of support through the early part
of the primary season, you see that Kerry was usually running behind until
the person in the lead tripped somehow. He's like the guy who runs through
the entire ten-mile road race far back in fourth place, but wins when the
first three contenders all get tangled and fall a half-mile from the finish
line.


As long as the ignorant, lying, cheating, scum bag falls all the way
to Crawford, Texas, fine!

John Gaquin May 14th 04 02:38 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.


Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes.


Each candidate will get at least one vote. I suppose, in your world, a
candidate might run for office and then vote for his opponent. Not in the
real world.



John Gaquin May 14th 04 02:53 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

Using YOUR analogy, one could also say he simply can't be said to be
doing GOOD, then right?


Right. And I never did say that. It's essentially an even race.


The general analysis right now is
that if Nader garners more than 3% - 5% of the vote, it will be

impossible
for Kerry to win. That is very thin support indeed.


With Bush now at less than 50%, the exact same thing could be said of
him!


sigh What does the 50% point have to do with it? There are no reasonable
scenarios wherein a 5% Nader vote causes Bush to lose and Kerry win. A
Nader candidacy simply does not siphon significant votes from the Republican
ledger.


He's like the guy who runs through
the entire ten-mile road race far back in fourth place, but wins when

the
first three contenders all get tangled and fall a half-mile from the

finish
line.


As long as the ignorant, lying, cheating, scum bag falls all the way
to Crawford, Texas, fine!


What are you talking about? There was no one from Crawford in the Dem
primaries. Please try to keep up.



NOYB May 15th 04 03:49 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point.

If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he

simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.


In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.


Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.


Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he wins.



NOYB May 15th 04 03:51 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.


Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes.


Each candidate will get at least one vote. I suppose, in your world, a
candidate might run for office and then vote for his opponent. Not in the
real world.


Plus, we can always count on those geniuses in Palm Beach County to punch
the wrong chad at least once.



basskisser May 17th 04 06:10 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things, and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the point.

If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support, he

simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.


Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.


Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he wins.


Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.

NOYB May 17th 04 06:14 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message

...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,

and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.
If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,

he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.


Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Harry Krause May 17th 04 10:54 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message


...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,


and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the


point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,


he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he


wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.



So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.

NOYB May 17th 04 11:16 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message


...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,


and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the


point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,


he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he


wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.



So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the

odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.


basskisser isn't arguing about the electoral college. Nevertheless, if Bush
gets 50% of the electoral college vote, he still wins. There are 538
electoral college votes up for grabs this year. If Bush gets 50% (269
votes) and Kerry gets 269 votes, the Republican-controlled House breaks the
tie...and guess who they'll choose? If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he
wins.






May 17th 04 11:32 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Don't count on that....
You are missing a very important part of this... That being the combined
House and Senate will include all outgoing senators and Congressmen, as well
as all incoming from both sides...

Just remember, a landslide on either side by the Democrat Party can very
easily remove any margin of certainty.

And the fact that the Congress and Senate will have to vote what their
particular area voted, and not by party line...

Granted, they aren't required to, but should they wish to get elected again,
they would need to.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message

...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,

and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,

he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS,

you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those

Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then

he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the

odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or

the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.


basskisser isn't arguing about the electoral college. Nevertheless, if

Bush
gets 50% of the electoral college vote, he still wins. There are 538
electoral college votes up for grabs this year. If Bush gets 50% (269
votes) and Kerry gets 269 votes, the Republican-controlled House breaks

the
tie...and guess who they'll choose? If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he
wins.








NOYB May 17th 04 11:49 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

wrote in message
link.net...
Don't count on that....
You are missing a very important part of this... That being the combined
House and Senate will include all outgoing senators and Congressmen, as

well
as all incoming from both sides...


The House would decide before it switched hands, should your impossible
fairytale even occur.



Just remember, a landslide on either side by the Democrat Party can very
easily remove any margin of certainty.


It wouldn't matter, since the House would vote before Congress changed
hands.


And the fact that the Congress and Senate will have to vote what their
particular area voted, and not by party line...

Granted, they aren't required to, but should they wish to get elected

again,
they would need to.



Wait just a minute. If a Republican Congressman was already voted out of
office (as predicted in your scenario), why would he/she give a **** about
getting elected again.
If Bush gets 50% of the vote, he wins.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message

...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG

things,

and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available

support,

he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS,

you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those

Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then

he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate

will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about

the
odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or

the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.


basskisser isn't arguing about the electoral college. Nevertheless, if

Bush
gets 50% of the electoral college vote, he still wins. There are 538
electoral college votes up for grabs this year. If Bush gets 50% (269
votes) and Kerry gets 269 votes, the Republican-controlled House breaks

the
tie...and guess who they'll choose? If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he
wins.










Jack Goff May 18th 04 01:50 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote:


If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.


Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.


Gore LOST in the electoral college, dummy, meaning Bush WON, yet you still
try to claim Bush wasn't "elected".

So which is it, two-faced? Does winning the electoral college vote count
for being elected, or not?

Spin it again, halfwit...

Jack



Jack Goff May 18th 04 01:54 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"NOYB" wrote:


Wait just a minute. If a Republican Congressman was already voted out of
office (as predicted in your scenario), why would he/she give a **** about
getting elected again.
If Bush gets 50% of the vote, he wins.


Damn, don't you just hate clear headed logic, getyaheadout... I mean
gehyahtahi??






Harry Krause May 18th 04 10:15 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:


If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.



Gore LOST in the electoral college, dummy, meaning Bush WON, yet you still
try to claim Bush wasn't "elected".

So which is it, two-faced? Does winning the electoral college vote count
for being elected, or not?

Spin it again, halfwit...

Jack





Uh, we're talking about an honest win in the electoral college. That
excludes Bush's 2000 "victory."

jim-- May 18th 04 11:23 AM

Are polls taking a toll?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:


If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.



Gore LOST in the electoral college, dummy, meaning Bush WON, yet you

still
try to claim Bush wasn't "elected".

So which is it, two-faced? Does winning the electoral college vote

count
for being elected, or not?

Spin it again, halfwit...

Jack





Uh, we're talking about an honest win in the electoral college. That
excludes Bush's 2000 "victory."


For Christ's sake, get over it already. Your guy lost.



basskisser May 18th 04 02:18 PM

Are polls taking a toll?
 
"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message

...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,

and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.
If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,

he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.


My word you are stupid!! What does ODDS have to do with anything? If
you want to put it that way, there is also a chance that Nader will
NOT vote for himself. HE could punch the wrong chad. There is also a
chance that NO person will punch the wrong chad. You are wrong, plain
and simple. The possibility, no matter how slim, is still there, that
with 50% of the votes, Bush might not win.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com