Author Topic: If you follow Zogby... (Read 867 times)

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #45 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:28:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Since you brought up violence as the impetus to force a change in our constitution Dokgonzo lemme ask for your opinion on this:

http://www.drudgereport.com/ee.mp3

Was that an attempted voter intimidation?

I didn't read it that way ... I read it more as a "never again" reaction to what happened in FLA last election.

Look, regardless of what you personally think happened in the 2000 election an awful lot of people feel that W stole the election. An awful lot of people are very, very angry about that. Especially given what's also happened with Iraq and with our economy since he took office.

Once you open the door that a presidential election can be stolen - whether it was or not - then people feel even more powerless to control Our Government than they did before. Which leaves only civil disobedience as an outlet.

No big conspiracy - just people feeling screwed over.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:29:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I was one of those have-nots in the military for 20 years and so I think my evaluation of which way the military would go is probably more accurate than what you seem to be suggesting.

Personally, I will never recognize any changes to the constitution made unconstitutionally.

Fair enough ... but look at some of what's happening with troops in Iraq, or scheduled to rotate there. I'm just saying it won't be the same everywhere.

AKIron · « **Reply #47 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:35:18 PM »

Ah well, like you suggested, unlikely to be rioting around these parts so I'm not really too concerned. All the have-nots really want is a new TV anyhow and those areas subject to rioting are already liberal so they're not likely to have much of a political impact anyway.

AKIron · « **Reply #48 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:38:16 PM »

I think all this discussion about riots is moot anyhow as I think this election will go down without violence though there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #49 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:38:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
how so? it is simple. If you are for keeping your gun rights and against socialism and liberalism then it is anyone but kerrie.... otherwise you are simply pretending to not be a liberal.

Why do you insist on labelling people? Where did this "all or nothing" mentality come from?

There are a lot of people in this country who lean different ways on different issues - you can be pro-choice and pro-gun, for instance - a lot of people are. So what are they - liberals or conservatives? They're both, they're neither.

What about the gays in the military? Are the liberals because they're gay or conservatives because they defend our country?

As far as I'm concerned, the level of ignorance of calling a pro-choice person a "liberal" is the same as calling a pro-gun person a "conservative."

And, by the way, it's spelled "Kerry."

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #50 on:** October 29, 2004, 01:41:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I think all this discussion about riots is moot anyhow as I think this election will go down without violence though there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I'm afraid I disagree. I've already seen some news items about "problems" with voting equipment in Florida and Ohio - mostly in "urban" neighborhoods.

I'm not inciting anything and I really don't want to see it happen, but if minority voters are turned away on election day due to "technical difficulties" it could get ugly.

Charon · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2004, 03:25:50 PM »

Both parties work very hard to make sure "liberal" and "conservative" are spit from the mouth with venom.

Without lables, the Ford Vs. Chevy, the WWWF politics, the campaign playoffs (go team!) the candidates from both parties would have to run on issues and not emotion. And most of the "issues" are ultimately self-serving and driven by special interests vs. a general sense of national interest when the curtain is drawn back. Nor do most voters seem to want complexity in their politicians or personal political beliefs.

"You're either for us or against us..." There can be no middle ground because middle ground invites a greater freedom of thought beyond the stereotype, and no campaign wants a thoughtful political base.

Charon

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #52 on:** October 29, 2004, 04:42:56 PM »

Well said, Charon.

Widewing · « **Reply #53 on:** October 29, 2004, 06:13:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
ROFL.. funny dude.

1. Zogby's job is to be ACCURATE. If he isn't ACCURATE people will not use his services. His prediction was based on evidence and experience. If it isn't he is a fool. If you think that... you are a fool.

2. WTF does Arab American PAC's have to do with it? Are you insinuating that Arab Americans hate Bush en-mass? Or is this just another form of subtle racism?

3. Exit polls accurately show only the segment of the population that is caught exitting! Hardly a cross section or a statistically significant result. Maybe you would like to quote the AOL poll too?

4. I think Zogby is wrong. I think Bush is gonna win. Just getting sick and tired of the constant insinuation that ANYTHING anti-bush must be some kind of hidden agenda. Can't wait till Nov. 3rd.

1) I saw Zogby interviewed on the tube myself. He wasn't making a prediction based upon polling, he was giving his personal view that he thought (hoped) that Kerry would pull out a win. Zogby's polling shows Bush ahead. Since you didn't bother to pay attention to what I wrote, but jumped to one of your typically twisted distortions, the only fool here is apparently you.

2) Zogby, an Arab-American, is involved in Arab PACs that have thrown their support behind Kerry and openly opposed Bush. Zogby is a regesitered democrat. These are facts. Anything else you read into it is the creation of your own paranoia.

3) Your command of the obvious is breathtaking. Exit polling is THE most accurate tracking method. You are not polling people who might vote, but people who DID vote. Considering that nearly 10% of all voters will have cast their ballots before election day, exit polling will be far more accurate than calling 1,000 people living within the region. Early exit polling is only accurate for the states it samples.

4) I see Bush winning by a significantly larger percentage than many the polls show. Bush is expected to gather 85% of the military vote, the majority of whom vote by absentee ballot. By the way, the terror threat video released today (by ABC News) will only serve to help Bush, who is viewed by the public as being stronger on homeland security than Kerry (especially influenced are married women with school age kids).

My regards,

Widewing

Nash · « **Reply #54 on:** October 29, 2004, 07:03:03 PM »

Holy christ, Widewing. Take off the tinfoil hat. What's with alla Arab stuff?

He was the pollster who got closest in predicting Bush's 2000 win.

They're all just guessing at this point.

No need to get all weird about it.

Nash · « **Reply #55 on:** October 29, 2004, 07:16:04 PM »

Along those lines, the electoral college predictor page is red one day, blue the other. It's no longer any good. The winner is gonna be decided on the ground. And nobody knows how that's gonna play out.

Just for kicks, check out this.

Waaaay too much math for me. But I'm trying. It might be worth a look.