![]() |
|
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 |
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?? |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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? |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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?? |
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." |
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. |
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