drivemytrabant
War Child
DaveC said:
I love the tactic of "oh well if the polls don't go for my guy they must be false and we shall ignore them."
bush will win.
- Thread starter BestDrummer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I love the tactic of "oh well if the polls don't go for my guy they must be false and we shall ignore them."
drivemytrabant said:
Some of us here have been saying that the polls are a poor indicator for months, when there was a lead, when there was not a lead, when there was a tie, when the sky was purple and so on.
I learned my lesson in the Canadian elections this year. The pollsters were so wrong it wasn't even funny. They had the Conservatives polling higher than the liberals, poised to form a minority government, only days before the election. Turns out the Liberals essentially routed them.
Re: Re: bush will win.
In 1971, John Kerry went before Congress and accused ALL officers at all levels of command in Vietnam of either participating, approving, or having knowledge of yet doing nothing about, war crimes in Vietnam.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
In 1971, John Kerry went before Congress and accused ALL officers at all levels of command in Vietnam of either participating, approving, or having knowledge of yet doing nothing about, war crimes in Vietnam.
drivemytrabant
War Child
anitram said:
Are the polls 100% correct all the time? No. They wouldn't be polls if that was the case. When the polls show Kerry in the lead, I accept that it is an accurate representation of the people being polled. All I ask is the same when the President is in the lead. The polls are all we have to go on until Tuesday.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Australian elections went differently though
> Incumbent conservative government that went into Iraq, opposition party supported pulling troops out.
> New young and dynamic opposition leader versus old and loathed by the media PM.
> PM lost the debate according to the studio audience.
> Polls were "tied" right to election day.
> Government picks up seats and gains a majority in the senate.
But the system is entirely different than the American Electoral College so yeah.
Now there were major factors behind it, the opposition blames a scare campaign on interest rates etc. but the result was what it was.
> Incumbent conservative government that went into Iraq, opposition party supported pulling troops out.
> New young and dynamic opposition leader versus old and loathed by the media PM.
> PM lost the debate according to the studio audience.
> Polls were "tied" right to election day.
> Government picks up seats and gains a majority in the senate.
But the system is entirely different than the American Electoral College so yeah.
Now there were major factors behind it, the opposition blames a scare campaign on interest rates etc. but the result was what it was.
Last edited:
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
drivemytrabant said:
You obviously didn't read the rest of the post.
An 11% change in a day is impossible in Ohio. And Kerry could not possibly be leading by 5% in Colorado, nor could Bush be leading by 6% in New Mexico.
It's not a matter of "my guy" not being ahead.
It's a matter of shitty polling.
drivemytrabant said:
When your "lead" is within the margin of error, it is not actually a lead at all. It is meaningless. That constitutes basic statistics.
For example, I work in cancer research. If I am testing a blocker which kills 73% of cancer cells +/- 5%, but it also kills 69% of healthy cells, it is completely useless and means nothing at all.
drivemytrabant
War Child
DaveC said:
The point is that you assume that the poll that gave Kerry the lead was right in the first place--thus giving you the 11 point margin. If you wanna look at it the way you are, then perhaps that poll was inaccurate and this one is dead on. But instead you just assume that the Zogby poll must be the wrong one because the President is ahead. I think what the polls are showing is that Ohio is gonna be close--whoever wins--and we are gonna have an interesting Tuesday evening.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The best way to pick it is to look at where they are campaigning and putting the advertising, because all that reflects internal party polling.
drivemytrabant
War Child
anitram said:
Well if you wanna get technical, the Zogby poll has the President leading in Ohio 47% 42% +/- 4. So it indeed does show the President with a one point lead even assuming the full margin of error.
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
drivemytrabant said:
I assume the Zogby poll is incorrect because of the extreme fluctuations from the previously established data.
Every single poll for the past 2 months has shown Bush ahead in Colorado by more than 5%, including the most recent. Then all of a sudden Kerry has a lead of 5%.
Every single poll for the past month has shown Kerry ahead in New Mexico by about 3%-5%. All of a sudden, Bush is ahead by 6%.
Doesn't that make you sketchy at all? It's not just Ohio I'm looking at here, although you seem to be.
It doesn't matter anyways. Kerry will win Pennsylvania, Iowa and Ohio, and most likely Florida too if the undecideds do in fact break 2-1 (or even if they go 5-3). Bush NEEDS to basically make a home in Florida for the next week and open up a lead of at least 5% there, or Kerry is the winner, not only of Florida, but the whole Presidency.
The story of today that almost 350 tonnes of explosives went missing in Iraq due to gross incompetence can't help Bush either.
As long as there are no major gaffes, or Osama doesn't magically appear over the next week, Kerry has won the election.
And you can quote me on that. In fact, if someone wants to bet with me, I'll be more than happy to take you up on that.
drivemytrabant
War Child
DaveC said:
Yes I was just talking about Ohio. I have not studied the consistencies between other polls on a week to week basis. However, I don't believe that a 10% swing in polling samples of 1500-3000 is necessarily very drastic at all depending on what part of a battleground state the poll is concentrated in. This is, after all, why they are battleground states to begin with. I do believe that Kerry will win Pennsylvania--but it will be close and I believe that is in part because the Heinz name is not all that beloved in Pittsburg--I live about 2 hours from there and Teresa is effecting this election in that area of the state. But even if that were not the case--PA was also quite close in 2000. Iowa is VERY close now and was in 2000 when Gore won the state. Bush carried Ohio in 2000--again by a slim margin. If Kerry were to win all of these states--Bush can still win by nailing down Florida and a few other key battlegrounds like Arkansas and Wisconsin. So I tend to agree that between Florida and Ohio--Florida is the more important "get" for the President. As far as a wager--I'm broke or I'd take you up on it.
Last edited:
sharky
New Yorker
ok, polls are wrong. I want to get back to something Drummer said about Clinton going out to campaign. does anyone else see this as a negative? I mean, no one protested when Carter campaigned for Kerry. and why isn't the last Republican president -- bush Sr. -- campaigning for his son? Heck, he wasn't even allowed to address the Republican convention. what does that say about him?
drivemytrabant
War Child
sharky said:
Here are some numbers--decide for yourself the validity of polling:
Gallup Poll Accuracy Record
First number is the last Gallup poll--the second is the actual count--the third is the difference between the two.
2000
Bush 48.0 47.9 +0.1
Gore 46.0 48.4 -2.4
Nader 4.0 2.7 +1.3
1996
Clinton 52.0 49.2 +2.8
Dole 41.0 40.7 -0.3
Perot 7.0 8.4 -1.4
1992
Clinton 49.0 43.3 +5.7
Bush 37.0 37.7 -0.7
Perot 14.0 19.0 -5.0
1988
Bush 56.0 53.9 +2.1
Dukakis 44.0 46.1 -2.1
1984
Reagan 59.0 59.2 -0.2
Mondale 41.0 40.8 +0.2
1980
Reagan 47.0 50.8 -3.8
Carter 44.0 41.0 +3.0
Anderson 8.0 6.6 +1.4
Other 1.0 1.6 -0.6
1976
Carter 48.0 50.1 -2.1
Ford 49.0 48.1 +0.9
McCarthy 2.0 0.9 +1.1
Other 1.0 0.9 +0.1
Last edited:
drivemytrabant
War Child
sharky said:
I don't see how President Clinton campaigning for John Kerry can be a bad thing for Mr. Kerry. You wait till the last minute to bring out your big guns and Clinton is it. One of the talking points on the parrot show tonight (hannity and colmes) was " will Bill Clinton help or hurt John Kerry?" What a ridiculous question. The guy is an extremly popular democrat. If I'm Kerry I want him out there with me everyday until Tuesday.
Inner El Guapo
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 609
Every poll worth it's salt the last few weeks has had Kerry up in Pennsylvania and Bush in Florida. So if I were a betting man, I would bet on those guys, in those states.
Ohio? Who knows. I am guessing that Kerry is doing well there, he continues to press there, but again, that may just mean he is desperate.
The original message on this thread didnt make any sense.
Ohio? Who knows. I am guessing that Kerry is doing well there, he continues to press there, but again, that may just mean he is desperate.
The original message on this thread didnt make any sense.
drivemytrabant
War Child
Inner El Guapo said:
Well I think what BestDrummer was saying (please correct me if I'm wrong here Drummer) is that Clinton wishes his wife to be President and the chances of that happening if Mr. Kerry is elected are slim. Some people believe that the fact that he is out campaigning with Kerry is an admission that he doesn't believe that Kerry can win and this will set up a Presidential run for his wife in 2008. So the theory is that he would not help Kerry if he thought he was going to win--because he wants to be first "gentleman?" Decide for yourselves the validity of this claim.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Re: Re: Re: bush will win.
Yes but read what he said in context.
He was going to vote for him until Kerry accused his family...so he was going to vote for him over 30 years ago? There's just too many things wrong with this person's original post and that's why I think this guy is trolling.
STING2 said:
Yes but read what he said in context.
He was going to vote for him until Kerry accused his family...so he was going to vote for him over 30 years ago? There's just too many things wrong with this person's original post and that's why I think this guy is trolling.
Inner El Guapo
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 609
Absurd, that's what it is. Who is recycling this nonsense? Hannity, Rush, O'Reiily? My goodness.
Bill Clinton gave a speech for Kerry when Kerry was up, he did his book tour and prasied Kerry when Kerry was up, he has prasied Kerry numerous times, on interviews etc. He did all of this before the RNC< which is where Kerry fell behind, then Clinton had his heart problems or else he woul dhave been stumping for him then.
He only came out now because he is healthy enough. Clinton wants Kerry to win because if Kerry is elected, Clinton, Bill not Hillary, is the next head of the UN. Hillary will eventually get a crack at it, she's realitively young for a politician.
Bill Clinton gave a speech for Kerry when Kerry was up, he did his book tour and prasied Kerry when Kerry was up, he has prasied Kerry numerous times, on interviews etc. He did all of this before the RNC< which is where Kerry fell behind, then Clinton had his heart problems or else he woul dhave been stumping for him then.
He only came out now because he is healthy enough. Clinton wants Kerry to win because if Kerry is elected, Clinton, Bill not Hillary, is the next head of the UN. Hillary will eventually get a crack at it, she's realitively young for a politician.
drivemytrabant
War Child
Inner El Guapo said:
Um well other than the internet--the only other place I've heard this theory is from Dick Morris author of rewriting history and former Clinton advisor. But I don't listen to Rush or watch Hannity that much so I could be wrong. I have never heard O'Reilly say anything to this affect although he does have Mr. Morris on from time to time.
Zoocoustic
War Child
My prediction:
-Bush wins by a relatively narrow margin. Not as close as 2000, but still only a few electoral votes (20 or fewer)
-There will be challenge after challenge from various groups and organizations until this thing drags out into the late winter
Not good for a country in the middle of a war...and that's what truly scares me. The terrorists may see a country divided over an election as ripe for attack. If my predictions are true, I hope Kerry will concede quickly and clearly, for the safety of the United States of America.
-Bush wins by a relatively narrow margin. Not as close as 2000, but still only a few electoral votes (20 or fewer)
-There will be challenge after challenge from various groups and organizations until this thing drags out into the late winter
Not good for a country in the middle of a war...and that's what truly scares me. The terrorists may see a country divided over an election as ripe for attack. If my predictions are true, I hope Kerry will concede quickly and clearly, for the safety of the United States of America.
drivemytrabant
War Child
Re: Re: Re: Re: bush will win.
Mr. Kerry was not a nationwide figure until the start of this election. What he did 30 years ago was not widely known until recently.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Mr. Kerry was not a nationwide figure until the start of this election. What he did 30 years ago was not widely known until recently.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bush will win.
I've heard conservatives drag this out as soon as he started running.
drivemytrabant said:
I've heard conservatives drag this out as soon as he started running.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
anitram said:
Which will only further divide the country. Letting lawyers in on the action only stripped elections of their dignity.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Kerry has a tactic, announce victory early and never concede defeat. That is what they have stated and it will be messy.
drivemytrabant
War Child
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bush will win.
Yes some of this was brought to light as soon as he announced his candidacy for president--but he was not considered the front runner until the caucuses and not until he had a firm lead did the things he did after returning from Vietnam really come to the national spotlight and could catch the attention of someone who only watches the nightly news for example. If Drummer or someone else was not a die hard politics junky--he/she wouldn't have found this out until a few months ago.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Yes some of this was brought to light as soon as he announced his candidacy for president--but he was not considered the front runner until the caucuses and not until he had a firm lead did the things he did after returning from Vietnam really come to the national spotlight and could catch the attention of someone who only watches the nightly news for example. If Drummer or someone else was not a die hard politics junky--he/she wouldn't have found this out until a few months ago.
Last edited:
The important thing is not whether Bush wins or Kerry wins, but that the American People win!
Unfortunately, with this campaign being fought largely in the "swing states", the majority of the American people have really not had a good chance to see and evaluate the candidates for themselves - we have had to rely on the media, which can have a slant on reporting either one way or the other.
This is what has made this year's campaign process so unfortunate for the majority of the American people.
Unfortunately, with this campaign being fought largely in the "swing states", the majority of the American people have really not had a good chance to see and evaluate the candidates for themselves - we have had to rely on the media, which can have a slant on reporting either one way or the other.
This is what has made this year's campaign process so unfortunate for the majority of the American people.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
For the record, Clinton was planning on starting to campaign for Kerry before he had his surgery. He's only recently hit the campaign trail because he had to recuperate from his surgery. Quadruple by-pass surgery is a major deal. One doesn't go out on a grueling campaign swing right after that surgery, they must be a number of weeks post-op. I'm not a health professional (when I worked in a hospital it was in administration) but I'd imagine it's at least six weeks. So, I don't think it says anything about Kerry's campaign that Clinton is starting to campaign for him right now. It says something about Clinton's health, and as a Kerry supporter this doesn't concern me. I'm stubborn as hell and don't give up until I have to. 
Last edited:
Similar threads
