in a blue country ...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
here you go Irvine.

mar6bc.gif
 
Justin24 said:
here you go Irvine.

mar6bc.gif

Here is the problem with making a map based on the polls of the Presidents approval rating. For most of Bush's Presidency including the day of the 2004 election, his job approval rating in the polls has been below 50%. The Election showed that we are living in a primarily red country according to the map showing which candidate each states electoral votes went to, but using this maps colored code criteria and percentages, on election day 2004 the country would have been light blue or gray in most states with only a few red ones.

A random poll of a thousand people is simply no where near as accurate as the votes received on election day.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
A random poll of a thousand people is simply no where near as accurate as the votes received on election day.



well, this wasn't intended to be a hard-core thread, more a bit of porn for the Dems ... however, you bring an interesting point, which speaks less to Bush's popularity or his ability to win election and more to the ineptitude of the Democrats and the deeply unappealing Kerry campaign -- you're essentially saying that Bush is winning by not losing, that he's the "least worst" option in the minds of many voters, and i think that might be very accurate. simply because you finish first in an election doesn't mean that you're very popular, or admired, or liked, or even respected; these days, Bush is none of those things. he was simply viewed as preferable to Kerry on one Tuesday in November.

we can agree "primarily" red country is inaccurate -- it is a 50/50 country, most noticeably split between urban/rural populations.
 
Last edited:
Actually, based on population, the popular vote, it was 50.73% to
48.27%.

I actually made a mistake above. Bush's approval rating was above 50% early in his administration and through most of 2003. 2004 is when you saw most polls having him below 50%. But, in the Gallup poll, Bush did not drop below 50% until May 2005. Also, Gallup had Bush with a 51% approval rating around election day 2004 which is about the percentage of the popular vote he received in the election. So, at least in the case of Gallup, a poll can closely reflect who people are willing to vote for almost to a tee.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
So, at least in the case of Gallup, a poll can closely reflect who people are willing to vote for almost to a tee.



so ... today, someone would only have to get more than 37% of the vote to beat Bush who seems stuck somewhere between 32 and 36% approval?
 
My state is pink. It's funny, "pink" used to mean "lefty" when "red" meant Communist. Now this means that I live on one of the most right-wing states in the country. I'm not surprised.
 
verte76 said:
My state is pink. It's funny, "pink" used to mean "lefty" when "red" meant Communist. Now this means that I live on one of the most right-wing states in the country. I'm not surprised.



you should tell everyone it means the state is gay
 
I'm sure Stephen Colbert will give America a chance to apologise for this terrible showing in the polls.

He's waiting, guys...
 
Irvine511 said:




so ... today, someone would only have to get more than 37% of the vote to beat Bush who seems stuck somewhere between 32 and 36% approval?

Bush was at 38% in the last Gallup poll. I think a strong democratic candidate could win with as little as 45% of the vote. I don't think Hillary could beat Bush though, although it would be close. The Democrats best candidate is a governer from the south.
 
Back
Top Bottom