MERGED-->FYM Election Poll - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Who will you be voting for, for US President?
Kerry 171 66.02%
Bush 74 28.57%
None. I'm a loser and won't vote. 4 1.54%
Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race. 3 1.16%
Undecided between Bush and Kerry. 7 2.70%
Voters: 259. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-05-2004, 02:57 AM   #31
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Without the Nader factor I see Kerry winning in a landslide...

My prediction....since I don't have the updated electoral votes for each state I'm using those from the 2000 election. It would make much of a difference. Keep in mind, this is without Nader in the race.

State Electoral Bush Electoral Kerry
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 8
Arkansas 6
California 54
Colorado 8
Delaware 3
DC 2
Florida 25
Georgia 13
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 22
Indiana 12
Iowa 7
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 18
Minnesota 10
Miss 7
Missouri 11
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 4
New Hamp. 4
New Jersey 4
New Mexico 5
New York 33
North Carolina 14
North Dakota 3
Ohio 21
Oklahoma 8
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 23
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 32
Utah 5
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 11
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 11
Wyoming 3
TOTALS 167 350
__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-05-2004, 02:59 AM   #32
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Okay, that didn't work out the way I wanted it.

Basically Kerry wins in landslide. That's all you need to know.
__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-05-2004, 03:14 AM   #33
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Okay, so here's the prediction:

Bush will definitely win: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

Kerry will win: California, Deleware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

That leaves: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Based on the 2000 election, these states could go either way. However...

Bush will keep Colorado, Louisana, South Carolina, and Tennessee. I don't think Gore's home state has faith in any Democrats.

Kerry will get the rest: Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, N.C. Ohio, and the Virginias.



Based on Nader's impact in 2000 I'd say those states were dead even in votes, so Kerry will edge out Bushie in the end.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-05-2004, 03:38 AM   #34
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Here's a really cool website devoted to prior presidential elections with statistics up the wazoo

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 08-05-2004, 02:43 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 03:31 PM
not voting is not neccessarily the trademark of a 'loser'. rather, a non-vote, when done thoughtfully can be just as meaningful as a vote.
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 08-07-2004, 09:21 AM   #36
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by kobayashi
not voting is not neccessarily the trademark of a 'loser'. rather, a non-vote, when done thoughtfully can be just as meaningful as a vote.

Perhaps that may be true if you were voting for a president of a corporation and there was only one option/choice. In that case, enough non-votes would force/pressure the board of directors to make executive changes.

But... the US Govt is not a corporation and does not have a board of directors which can make such changes. No matter how many people vote or do not vote, electoral votes will still be cast (correct me if I'm wrong) and someone will still be voted into office.
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 08-07-2004, 04:00 PM   #37
Refugee
 
notiti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kong Studios
Posts: 1,336
Local Time: 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I'm not sure if your aware of this, but the vast majority of people at FYM are democrats, liberals or lean to the left and would never think of voting for Bush really.

Your right. I would never think of voting for Bush. I am a college educated female who was raised Buddhist.

Something about that means you can't vote for Bush, funny thing about not voting for people who hate you on principle.
__________________
notiti is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 03:53 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 07:31 PM
I'm voting for Bush.

I'd like to add that I find it very amusing that most of you are supporting the very same candidate that terrorists support...

Doesn't it say something about Kerry when terrorists want him to be our president? *laughs*
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 04:32 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:31 PM
shart1780
oh come on this "the candidate that terrorists support" is a old and false thing.
If Bin Laden would support Mr. Kerry he'd tell us that he loves Bush - why? Because he knows that people in the US hate Bin Laden
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-10-2004, 12:39 PM   #40
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:31 PM
For your Non-partisan viewing pleasure

This is a real hoot.

www.jibjab.com
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-13-2004, 01:41 AM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,388
Local Time: 02:31 PM
To those of you who say that there was no bounce after the DNC...



...this (Electoral College graph) would tend to disagree with you. Although it cooled down somewhat quickly.
__________________
DaveC is online now  
Old 08-15-2004, 03:02 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:31 PM
Kerry is ahead in 7 of the major 8 polls used at pollingreports.
The one where Bush is ahead is the CNN/Gallup which is often cited by Bush supporters.

In all fairness, these polls don't mean shit. It's the state polls you need to look at. The battleground states.

Another site is electionprojection.com, it's run by an avid Bush supporter and he does a pretty good job of being fair. He's got Kerry up too, admittedly it would be quite hard to be biased at this point.

Kerry got a bounce, it wasn't big, but it was a bounce. He gained leads in 2 or 3 states, so something must have given way.

I think it's going to be very close until election day.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-15-2004, 06:15 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Kerry is ahead in 7 of the major 8 polls used at pollingreports.
The one where Bush is ahead is the CNN/Gallup which is often cited by Bush supporters.

In all fairness, these polls don't mean shit. It's the state polls you need to look at. The battleground states.

Another site is electionprojection.com, it's run by an avid Bush supporter and he does a pretty good job of being fair. He's got Kerry up too, admittedly it would be quite hard to be biased at this point.

Kerry got a bounce, it wasn't big, but it was a bounce. He gained leads in 2 or 3 states, so something must have given way.

I think it's going to be very close until election day.
Over the past years, I have found the CNN/GALLUP poll to be the most accurate. But you are correct, the national poll's which are all in general very close, are not what you need to be looking it. Its the Polls in the individual battle ground states as well as the past voting history in those states. In a close election, those are the factors that will count.

It is true that Bush is slightly behind when you look at the battle ground states. But if Bush was not slightly behind at this point in those States, Kerry would not have a shot of winning.

The fact that there may have been a bounce for Kerry is not good news. There is automatically supposed to be a significant bounce after the convention. Anything less than that is not good. When a major polling organization such as Gallup reports that you lost ground after your convention, that is not good news.

The Republicans have an opportunity to give Bush a good lead with their convention, an opportunity that would not exist had the Democrats succeeded in giving John Kerry at least an average bounce after the convention. The Democratic convention really did very little for Kerry, although that won't be much of a problem if the Republicans do not succeed with their convention. The point here is, the Republicans right now have opportunities that the Democrats do not have, primarily because of the lack of success from their convention.

With the polls and still close across the board, the Republicans have their convention coming up which indeed puts them in the drivers seat. There will be very little the Democrats can do if Bush gets a real bounce from his convention. The only camparable media event would be the debates.

But if the current situation does not change in the battleground states regardless of the next convention and the debates, Kerry will win the election by a margin similar to the 2000 election.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-15-2004, 06:33 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:31 PM
The Republican Convention will suffer the same fate as the Dem Convention quite simply because there aren't enough undecided voters. That's why there wasn't a real discernable bounce, the majority of those who will vote have already made up their mind, some analysts say this could be above 90%.

So if it's around 10 points both parties are playing for and Kerry got 3-4 points depending on which poll you look at, don't believe that there wasn't a bounce, it's an absolute myth, the point is that Kerry is unlikely to LOSE those 3-4 points, unless he has a major gaffe before NOvember.

So the window of opportunity is smaller for Bush, but he does have a chance to get more of that undecided portion of voters, he just doesn't have as much to pull from. Meaning he could get a 5 point bounce, but he is trying to win over a smaller undecided vote.

It's semantics, the only thing I take issue with is people saying Kerry got no bounce yet he gained a lead in several states.

As for the Gallup poll, it's just a poll like any other, it's probably on par with 3 or 4 other nationwide polls sponsored by major media outlets. Some people say Rasmussen is the one to look at, because he continually polls every day, so you can see the fluctuation of support relatively quickly and see how current events sway the margin in the polls. Rasmussen had Kerry with a small bounce, which is probably accurate.

I think events will determine the election. I think Iraq will remain abou the same it is now, which will likely push the undecided voters to the challenger, and according to the pundits I rea and have seen on TV, they say the undecideds tend to vote for the challenger because if they aren't sold on the incumbent yet, they are likely to go for the other guy. The jobs numbers subsided and were actually extremely poor for July. When October rolls around and Kerry starts bring up the negative jobs numbers (currently over a million in the hole under Bush), regardless of whether that is Bush's fault, and it's basically not, people tend to vote with their pocketbooks.

Another thing that could be a blow to the Bush campaign is the financial ruin some of Florida will be in during October because of this tropical storm that just hammered them with a mutli-billion dollar dent in their economy.
Will it hurt Bush? Normally, I'd think not. In a state as close as Florida it very well could.

I still think it will be close and will come down to 3 or 4 states.
I think it will be interesting to see if anything eventful comes out of the Republcain convention, I doubt it. I do think it will help Bush in the same way it helped Kerry. It might not show up in all the polls, but he might pull some state polls back in his column.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 08-15-2004, 10:35 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:31 PM
The Gallup Poll after the convention had Bush 51% and Kerry at 47% among likely voters. Two weeks later the Gallup poll is virtually the same, Bush 50% and Kerry at 47%.

Yes, there are other polls that show things a bit differently, but based on the HISTORY of conventions and polls, it not good to come out of your convention behind your opponent in ANY poll! All things considered, one cannot claim they got a bounce if they are now actually behind in a poll such as Gallup. The majority of polls that showed Kerry was ahead were still within the margin of error. Historically, a bounce is a clear increased lead beyond the margin of error.

Now, while all that is true, it may not be relevant. It is true that the electorate seems to be very polarized. If the Republicans do not give Bush a bounce with their convention, then I would say that case of the polarized electorate is indeed true. If Bush is able to come out of the convention though with a lead beyond the typical 3 to 4 point margin of error, then that would spell trouble for the Democrats as they would have no similar media event to combat such a lead.

Typically what happens with the conventions is that the one that goes first gets a bounce while the one that goes last at a minimum erases the bounce from the opponents convention. If the situation was reversed and the Republicans had gone first and had these results, I would be very concerned about the Democrats upcoming convention.

But, once again, a small number of states will probably decide the election. I think it would be so ironic in 2004 if Bush were to actually win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

On the jobs issue, Bush had actually done very well. There is not another industrialized country in the world that has the GDP growth rate that the United States currently does.

The Unemployment rate in the United States is exactly the same as it was when Bill Clinton was re-elected as president in 1996. It has fallen from 6.4% last year down to 5.5% currently. The United States currently has the 5th lowest unemployment rate in the World. Only Austria, Switzerland, Japan and the United Kingdom have lower unemployment rates.

In addition, the current 5.5% unemployment rate is the 5th lowest unemployment rate of the past 30 years. Only the second Clinton administration had lower unemployment rates and the lowest that it every got was 3.8% for one month. Such an unemployment rate was unsustainable and impossible to maintain. If Kerry gets a elected, there will be very little he can do to improve these numbers because they are already historically some of the best economic numbers the United States or any country for that matter have ever had.

On Iraq, I am worried that there could be a new offensive by the insurgents in Iraq designed to sway public opinion in the United States as well as who will win the Presidential election. The terrorist were able to change the outcome of the election in Spain with their terrorist attack 72 hours before the election. But, I think only a new offensive in Iraq would actually hurt Bush because of the controversy that surrounds the operation there now. Many think though that a terrorist attack on US soil would benefit Bush.


To sum up, Bush is indeed behind when looking at the electoral college, but nationally he is either tied, slightly ahead or slighty behind Kerry, presenting the ironic possibility that he could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com