MERGED-->FYM Election Poll

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

Who will you be voting for, for US President?

  • Kerry

    Votes: 171 66.0%
  • Bush

    Votes: 74 28.6%
  • None. I'm a loser and won't vote.

    Votes: 4 1.5%
  • Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race.

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • Undecided between Bush and Kerry.

    Votes: 7 2.7%

  • Total voters
    259
Status
Not open for further replies.
To the comment about the Dems winning in 2008, there is almost no chance of that occurring, IMHO. If Rudy Guiliani runs for the office, he will win, even if the lefties do choose Hilary. He's a middle of the road republican with both consevatives and liberals embracing him. He has probably the most respect of any politician in the country and has the support to make a very strong campaign.
 
I don't know, I feel like Don Quixote right now. :wink: If Giuliani runs in 2008, he'll be a tough candidate to beat. The one thing I'm thinking of: what if McCain runs against him in the primaries? He might have something to say about wanting the nomination himself; I'm not sure he's completely given up his presidential ambitions.
 
The result is that I've hit a creativity explosion on my history site. My Celtic link selection on my URL List is looking pretty kick-ass now. I went in there Friday when the bad news started to come in and decided that part of the list was so small it really sucked. It's the first time I've done anything to the list since I've had DSL. I don't know how I did that stuff on dial-up. This is much easier. By election day this thing is going to be great.
 
The new CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP poll is in and George Bush leads John Kerry by 52% to 45%. That is a 7 point margin well above the margin of error. It is however only a 2 point bounce in the number of people voting for Bush. But that is better than the negative 1% bounce that Kerry received.

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12922&pg=1
 
Here are the leads that the candidate who was ahead on labor day had and whether they ultimately won the election 2 months later. Here are the last 17 election year labor day leads starting in 1936.

1936 4 won
1940 9 won
1944 5 won
1948 8 lost
1952 16 won
1956 11 won
1960 1 lost
1964 30 won
1968 12 won
1972 28 won
1976 11 won
1980 4 lost
1984 11 won
1988 8 won
1992 9 won
1996 17 won
2000 3 lost
2004 7 unknown
Of the past 17 elections, 13 have gone to the candidate that was ahead on labor day weekend. In the four elections where this did not occur, 3 of them were leads that were still within the margin of error.

Still in 1948, Truman did come from behind and 8 point lead by Dewey to win. Kerry is going to have repeat that history in order to win.
 
Utterly Useless Statistics:

The Latest Poll
By LEE KALCHEIM

40 percent of parents who dislike 30 percent of their children prefer George W. Bush.

60 percent of households that fly flags think America can do no wrong 26 percent of the time.

70 percent of women who think Mr. Bush is more likeable than their husbands prefer John Kerry.

52 percent of people with wall-to-wall carpeting dislike Mr. Bush's plan for redecorating Iraq.

98 percent of people who are hearing-impaired like 50 percent of what they hear from Mr. Bush.

100 percent of Spanish-American War veterans are dead.

98 percent of World War I veterans can't remember the name of either candidate. Both prefer Coolidge.

43 percent of women think Mr. Bush has more presidential hair. 26 percent think John Edwards has more vice presidential hair. 47 percent think Mr. Edwards has more presidential hair and 26 percent think Mr. Kerry has more vice presidential hair. 92 percent think Dick Cheney has no hair. 73 percent think Mr. Bush's hair is irrelevant. 54 percent think Mr. Bush is irrelevant.

76 percent of women think Teresa Heinz Kerry colors her hair. 53 percent of those women would prefer a different color. 42 percent would prefer a different first lady.

One-half of all Jewish mothers like one-half of Mr. Kerry.

63 percent of single women over 50 think John Kerry is too tall for his own good. 71 percent of divorced women say George Bush would be an ideal ex-husband.

Before the Republican convention, 86 percent of the population thought Zell Miller was a professional golfer. After the convention, 92 percent of the population would not like to be in his foursome.

50 percent of the electorate think that polls are misleading, inaccurate and inconclusive. The other 50 percent agree 30 percent of the time with 40 percent of the results.
 
LOL, that reminds me.....

intello.gif


Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.
 
In 2000 Al Gore had an eleven point lead in the polls before the debates and look what happened. I'm not necessarily saying that sort of thing will happen again, but I'm just saying it has in the recent past and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand WV. Most of the people out there are very old fashioned morally and philosophically, so you'd think the democrats would be too far left for them. But they almost always go democratic because they hold onto the belief that they are for the poor. I don't believe any politician is really for the poor. The only difference is, some lie about it and some are open with it.
 
My paternal grandfather was born in West Virginia. You're right, they used to vote Democratic because of economics. It was a "pocketbook" vote. They are more socially conservative, which might explain their present situation as a more Republican state than in previous times.
 
verte76 said:
In 2000 Al Gore had an eleven point lead in the polls before the debates and look what happened. I'm not necessarily saying that sort of thing will happen again, but I'm just saying it has in the recent past and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.

An eleven point lead? Who's polling data are you using? Gallup polling data shows that Al Gore only had a 3 point lead on labor day which was within the margin of error, which means essentially a tie. We know the 2000 election was one of the closest in history, so the Labor Day 2000 Gallup poll really hit the nail on the head.

The Labor day Gallup poll has predicted 13 of the past 17 elections. Two of the elections the labor day gallup poll failed to predict were actually within the margin of error, meaning a close election that could go either way. Barring those two elections, the Gallup labor day poll has a 87% success rate in predicting the election.
 
I wouldn't know whose polling data that was. Obviously it was not Gallup. Apologies for some pretty sloppy research, I should have been able to cite the source. I have been having serious problems with my concentration recently. I don't know if this has anything to do with being an autistic or not. At any rate, I am an autistic! Even the best ones screw up. Cantor and some of the other medievalists blatantly contradict each other. I thought a research project on medieval universities, which took me sixteen months to do, was going to put me in my grave. Quite often I had to pick which conflicting account I was to use, which was nerve-wracking, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
OK, but don't you think one problem with polls is that they don't differentiate between "soft" and "hard" support for a candidate? "Soft" support is at least potentially transient; "hard" support isn't going anywhere. Yes, Kerry's campaign is in trouble. It's not looking good for him at all.
 
Last edited:
verte76 said:
OK, but don't you think one problem with polls is that they don't differentiate between "soft" and "hard" support for a candidate? "Soft" support is at least potentially transient; "hard" support isn't going anywhere. Yes, Kerry's campaign is in trouble. It's not looking good for him at all.

It would be great to have that aspect in the poll and in fact I think Gallup does do that. I'll have to look back at the full report though.
 
odowdpa said:
To the comment about the Dems winning in 2008, there is almost no chance of that occurring, IMHO. If Rudy Guiliani runs for the office, he will win, even if the lefties do choose Hilary.

You have no way of knowing what will happen in 4 years to sour the population against the Republicans. A war or two more, an economy truly in the shitter and people will be itching for change. Hillary v. Giuliani would be hilarious though.
 
anitram said:


You have no way of knowing what will happen in 4 years to sour the population against the Republicans. A war or two more, an economy truly in the shitter and people will be itching for change. Hillary v. Giuliani would be hilarious though.

That's very true. Lately things haven't been so great for second-term presidents. Nixon didn't even make it through his, Reagan had Iran-Contra, which was really damaging and we all know what happened to Clinton. If things don't go well then the Democrat might have an advantage. Bush could louse up the economy or whatever. By the same token a President Giuliani would be interesting. I also stand by my view that McCain isn't through with presidential politics.
 
anitram said:


You have no way of knowing what will happen in 4 years to sour the population against the Republicans. A war or two more, an economy truly in the shitter and people will be itching for change. Hillary v. Giuliani would be hilarious though.

So you agree they are not itching for change now?
 
We can't allow Bush to have four more years. He is a danger to the wellbeing of the country and to the world.

Cut military spending, use the money saved to start a national healthcare system. Cut back on capital punishment. Stay out of the bedroom and out of the womb altogether. Give full funding to stem cell research. And give BIG, BIG amounts of monetary and medical aid to third world countries in Africa and elsewhere to save so many lives from AIDs and other diseases. And have all the troops out of Iraq within two or three years. And no more going to war without UN approval. That's my ideal scenario. Now, it's not like all of it will happen under Kerry, but some of it will. None of it will happen under Bush. Vote Kerry Nov. 2.
 
What the world thinks about the US and the upcoming election:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm

Global research company GlobeScan Inc and the University of Maryland found clear leads for Mr Kerry among those polled in 30 of the countries.

Only Filipino, Polish and Nigerian respondents clearly backed Mr Bush.

Most said Mr Bush's foreign policy had made them feel worse about the US since his election in 2000.

...

Norway: 74%-7%
Germany: 74%-10%
France: 64%-5%
Italy: 58%-14%
Spain: 45%-7%
UK: 47%-16%
Canada: 61%-16%
Mexico: 38%-18%
Brazil: 57%-14%
China: 52%-12%
Japan: 43%-32%
Indonesia: 57%-34%
India: 34%-33%
Philippines: 32%-57%
Nigeria: 33%-27%
Poland: 26%-31%
Thailand: 30%-33%

Time to kick the ass out of the new axis of the unsuportive and because of that evil (tm): Norway, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and UK. :wink:
 
Perhaps Kerry should run for the leader of the EU....



At home, the voters see things a little differently


For the first time in a Post-ABC news poll this year, a majority of likely voters now say they plan to vote for Bush. Among those most likely to vote in November, Bush holds a 52 percent to 43 percent lead over Kerry, with independent Ralph Nader receiving 2 percent of the hypothetical vote. Among all registered voters, Bush leads Kerry 50 percent to 44 percent.
 
namkcuR said:
We can't allow Bush to have four more years. He is a danger to the wellbeing of the country and to the world.

Cut military spending, use the money saved to start a national healthcare system. Cut back on capital punishment. Stay out of the bedroom and out of the womb altogether. Give full funding to stem cell research. And give BIG, BIG amounts of monetary and medical aid to third world countries in Africa and elsewhere to save so many lives from AIDs and other diseases. And have all the troops out of Iraq within two or three years. And no more going to war without UN approval. That's my ideal scenario. Now, it's not like all of it will happen under Kerry, but some of it will. None of it will happen under Bush. Vote Kerry Nov. 2.

Cut military spending? Precisely what do you want our military personal not to have? Military spending is vital to national security and is the most important item in the budget. Without national security, other priorties would be impossible to fund.

The United States went to war against Saddam with the approval of the United Nations from not just one resolution but 3! United Nations resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all authorized the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD as well as meeting other obligations from a total 17 UN resolutions Saddam was in violation of!

Bush has strengthend the military and enforced the United Nations mos serious resolutions. One of the worse Dictators in history has been removed as well as the threat to most of the planets energy supply. 50 million people have been freed from brutal dictatorship in Iraq and Afghanistan which are now transitioning to democracy.

Bush has done more to fight terrorism than any other president in history. Thousands of members of Al Quada have been captured and killed.

Kerry's record has shown that he is unsupportive of the military, unwilling to respond to aggression that threatens vital US interest the example being his opposition to removing Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991, and does not have a clear idea about where he stands on other foreign policy issues and international trade.

Bush is easily the better candidate and should be re-elected.
 
A new ABC news poll released today has Bush ahead of Kerry:

52% to 43%.


It was funny to hear Peter Jennings read those results because he did not sound to happy. Peter has had trouble in hiding his liberal leanings in the past.:wink:
 
STING2 said:


Cut military spending? Precisely what do you want our military personal not to have? Military spending is vital to national security and is the most important item in the budget. Without national security, other priorties would be impossible to fund.

The United States went to war against Saddam with the approval of the United Nations from not just one resolution but 3! United Nations resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all authorized the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD as well as meeting other obligations from a total 17 UN resolutions Saddam was in violation of!

Bush has strengthend the military and enforced the United Nations mos serious resolutions. One of the worse Dictators in history has been removed as well as the threat to most of the planets energy supply. 50 million people have been freed from brutal dictatorship in Iraq and Afghanistan which are now transitioning to democracy.

Bush has done more to fight terrorism than any other president in history. Thousands of members of Al Quada have been captured and killed.

Kerry's record has shown that he is unsupportive of the military, unwilling to respond to aggression that threatens vital US interest the example being his opposition to removing Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991, and does not have a clear idea about where he stands on other foreign policy issues and international trade.

Bush is easily the better candidate and should be re-elected.

Convenient how you ignore all the other points I made. You said nothing about aid to third world countries or full funding for stem cell research or national healthcare reform or anything else I said. You took one item and wrote five paragraphs about it. Could that possibly be because you know you can't say anything positive about Bush in those other areas?

The military is already getting more money than it needs to adequetly protect us. There is excess money being spent on it that could better be used on other things. The 'Star Wars' thing, that needs to be cut. Military spending just needs to be cut, the Bush administration is putting far too much importance on the military, so much so that it makes it clear to anyone with a two-digit IQ that Bush either doesn't like or isn't good at diplomacy, and either way, that doesn't sit well with me.

And your comment about Bush doing more to fight terrorism than any other president in history is blatantly ignorant. Would you consider the Nazis to be terrorists? I certainly do. They tried to kill an entire race off for no good reason other than that they were brainwashed by a dictator who was probably worse than Saddam ever was. As tragic as the 3000 death toll from 9/11 and the 1000 death toll from the war are, they pale in comparison to the amount of Jews that were killed during the Holocast. Now, who was the president at the time? FDR. And he had a significant part in the events that led to Hitler's death and the collapse of Nazi Germany. And that's just one easy arguement against yours that Bush has done the more than any other president against terrorism.

As for the current election, polls show that the majority of other countries would like to see Kerry elected. Do you understand the implication of that? It means that outside of America, most developed countries feel like Kerry would be better for the entire WORLD than Bush would be. I for one agree. Look what's happened in Bush's term:

The biggest surplus in history was transformed into the biggest deficit in history.

Healthcare rates skyrocketed to the point where our healthcare premiums are by far the highest in the world, and to the point where literally tens of thousands of people travel to other countries, especially Canada, on a regular basis to get their healthcare drugs.

$300 Billion and 1000+ young lives were wasted on an immoral, baseless, pointless, unwinnable war that was presented to the American public under false pretenses, which is just a generous way of saying Bush lied his ass off to the entire country, and as a result the world is now a more dangerous place.

The commander-in-chief actually wanted to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

The commander-in-chief absolutely murdered, destroyed, decimated, the English language on a near daily basis, and proved that he is one of the worst, dare I say possibly the worst, public speaker in the history of politics.

The commander-in-chief has proven himself to be of less than the average intelligence usually desired in a president.

Unprecedent world support for America on 9/11 has disappeared, thanks to GWB, and we are now damn-near hated in the international community, and if that doesn't bother you, you're a fool.

The wealthiest of the wealthy were given the biggest tax cuts.

I could go on and on.

And please, please, stop complaining about Kerry being a flip-flopper. They're all guilty of it, even your guy Bush. When running in 2000, Bush said he'd renew the Assault Weapon Ban. Well, it's expiring, and though it hasn't reached his desk yet, it's a fact that if it did, he'd let it expire, just for the sake of getting the NRA's endorsement and more votes. You don't have a leg to stand on to be talking about Kerry's flip-flopping.

I believe that Bush is a danger to the world and to this country. I don't think Kerry will be great but I do think he'll be 1000 times better than Bush could ever hope to be.
 
The Nazi's were not terrorists because the Nazi regime held power over a country, Germany. They are not terrorists - they were evil despots to be sure but not terrorists. The war against Islamofascism is an entirely different fight than WW2, you are battleing a non-state political entity that can operate freely withing the confines of any open society. That is a false analogy and discredits an entire line of your argument.

Seperate issues here
Terrorism - Bush has done more to fight than any other President because today terrorism and rogue states are the principle enemies to US interests.

War in Iraq - Firstly every leader thought that Iraq possessed WMD (France, Russia etc.), Iraq did not verifiably disarm its banned weapons as directed to under the ceasefire treaty (Sting please drop a list down, thanks). Iraq had links to Islamist terrorist organizations. This tired old argument that it was a useless and immoral war makes absolutely no sense.

Before the war tens of thousands of innocent people died in Iraq every year because of the regime manipulating UN sanctions, the Baathists bribed UN officials to keep this scam running and a lot of information has come out about this post war.

The war claimed 13,000 civilian lives since its beginning, this is a very small figure considering that in that same time span up to 150,000 people would have been killed by the regime.

You are trying to tell us all that standing by and letting 150,000 innocent people die, leaving a persistent threat to stability in the region and not even trying to intitiate democratic change in the Arab world is more moral than intervening, if that is what you believe then I don't think there is anything I can do to sway your misguided opinion.

What ever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called. --John Stuart Mill
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
A new ABC news poll released today has Bush ahead of Kerry:

52% to 43%.


It was funny to hear Peter Jennings read those results because he did not sound to happy. Peter has had trouble in hiding his liberal leanings in the past.:wink:

I'm glad I'm not an anchor for a major network. I don't let bad political news really get me down. I used to, and I got tired of it, so I don't now. I mean, hell, when life gives you lemons, drink lemonade. :wink: Now, I could do without that hassle I'm having with a link on one of my sites.........I e-mailed the guy whose site it is and I haven't heard from him, but I know he didn't take down his site! But the link is screwy. At a ny rate we've got two more months in this election cycle, and then when it's over, gosh, it's always a relief to have Election Day out of the way!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom