Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on October 02, 2004, 10:26:00 PM
-
source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/)
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004
Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.
Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.
In fact, Kerry’s numbers have improved across the board, while Bush’s vulnerabilities have become more pronounced. The senator is seen as more intelligent and well-informed (80 percent, up six points over last month, compared to Bush’s steady 59 percent); as having strong leadership skills (56 percent, also up 6 points, but still less than Bush’s 62 percent) and as someone who can be trusted to make the right calls in an international crisis (51 percent, up five points and tied with Bush).
For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,013 registered voters aged 18 and older between Sept. 30 and Oct. 2 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
-
Newsweek.
:rofl
Try this (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm) Check it in 10 days.
(Look back to August with those historic dates down below on that webpage...WOW!:eek: )
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Try this (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm) Check it in 10 days.
NONE of which were taken after the debate.
Which kinda brings nothing to the table here Rip does it?
Rpm is talking about the effect of the debate... and you post old numbers and tell us to check back in 10 days.
Geez.... thanks.
-
I just see it as history repeating it's self. Bush,Sr.'s campaign fell apart in the last 30 days, too.
-
What I'm saying is one liberal rags poll, would almost certainly be favoring Kerry. ;)
Lets get a Fox poll next! Wanna bet Bush leads that one 49-43? ;)
-
Then I agree... One poll isn't enough...
There's quite a few out there that I consider quite sketchy, and wouldn't trust even if I liked what it showed.
Newsweek isn't even on my radar.
-
From the same article
interesting to note
Although the subject of the draft was only briefly addressed during the debate, four in ten voters (38 percent) believe that because of the war in Iraq—which 50 percent of all voters now view as unnecessary—a second Bush administration would reinstate the draft. Just 18 percent feel the same would happen if Kerry were elected. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) feel a draft should not be considered at this time and 28 percent said a draft should at least be considered.
I find this interesting because while there is a bill currently being proposed to re-instate the draft. And it has been touted at an effort by the current administration to sneak it in while everyone is focused on the election
It has been put forth not by the Bush administration or republican party but by 2 Democrats.
-
Polls at a national level are worth just a little more than the polls on BBS's, that is to say, they are worth 2 dog turds in a ripped plastic sack.
There is a poll taken on 11/2/04 that counts. Until then, you should use Vegas odds, not "random polls".
-
I completely agree Liz... to a point.
National polls are meaningless except in the case of general impressions. "Leadership abilities". Or "Team building abilities", for example.
-
I can't wait next week. Kerry will give the FINAL BLOW!
And yes, its gonna be about domestic issues
-
Nash, I do not argue that the statisical anaylsis is wrong, just that the answers given are not truthful. That is the problem with any poll or questionaire; people will answer as they wish they were, or they think you want, instead of the truth.
-
I dunno about that Liz...
I guess it's like you said, we'll know on the 2nd.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I can't wait next week. Kerry will give the FINAL BLOW!
And yes, its gonna be about domestic issues
Final blow to what?
Just saw a recent report that in electoral votes Bush still very much has a commanding lead and just picked up another state.
I may be wrong but I have this Gut feeling that Kerry isnt going to do as well in the next debate as his supporters think he will.
Either way this election goes its turning into a hell of a good game.
-
the subject of statistics can only be right so many times.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Final blow to what?
I may be wrong but I have this Gut feeling that Kerry isnt going to do as well in the next debate as his supporters think he will.
He will if Bush still waffles statements like this during a debate.
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Very reasuring.
...-Gixer
-
Not that I actually read the article....but alot of polls do not take into account states electoral votes.
This election is not going to be decided by the voters but wich states have the bets lawyers standing by.
Dred thanks for bringing that up. Them two idiot democrat senators intorduced that bill not because they want to institute a draft but to draw attention to the Iraq war.
There's several emails going around that the administration is the ones pushing for it.
again this is one point that Bush could have came out on the offensive about during the debate but all he did was mention a 2 second mutter saying we'll continue to have an all voluteer army and left it at that.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
the subject of statistics can only be right so many times.
Statistically speaking of course
-
Whats the third debate supposed to be about?
-
Turns out I got mixed up... I thought the 3rd debate was going to be a town hall free for all. But the 2 sides juggled it - the third debate is now on the economy, the 2nd is the town hall.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again this is one point that Bush could have came out on the offensive about during the debate but all he did was mention a 2 second mutter saying we'll continue to have an all voluteer army and left it at that.
You mean thats only one point he could have attacked on.
there are a bunch of others.
Kerry won the debate. but I think bush did more to loose it then Kerry did ot win it.
Kery was certainly vulnerable on a number of issues. Bush just didnt exploit them
-
All Kerry HAD to do to win the debate was show up. There's a reason he was a champion debater in college while Bush was a cheerleader.
-
Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,
Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?
Get over it you Kerry Mongers... there is no free ride anymore!
*insert middle finger here*
BTW look at all the DemoCraps records in the Senate and the Congress.... Then talk to me.
2 cents worth.
Do you want a Dollars worth?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
What I'm saying is one liberal rags poll, would almost certainly be favoring Kerry. ;)
Lets get a Fox poll next! Wanna bet Bush leads that one 49-43? ;)
According to your link the Newsweek poll was rating Bush as the winner for the other two they've done since August.
50-45 - 5 point Bush lead on 9/10
54-43 - 11 point Bush lead on 9/3
The 9/3 poll gives Bush the highest lead of all the polls taken 5-days either side.
All in all they don't look too skewed towards Kerry.
But as many have pointed out Polls aren't very accurate.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?
Reagan ,Clinton what did I win ?
-
yep... it looks like kerrie will take new york and California. A polll amoung likely voters on the newsweak staff showed a landslide popular victory with all zero newsweak electorial votes going to kerrie.
lazs
-
Originally posted by -dead-
But as many have pointed out Polls aren't very accurate.
I think it has more to do with honesty than accuracy.
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
recent poll.
the electorial poll is not as recent but shows Bush at 213 and kerrie at 169 with more of kerries states iffy than Bush's
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm
recent poll.
the electorial poll is not as recent but shows Bush at 213 and kerrie at 169 with more of kerries states iffy than Bush's
lazs
As per my last post on this subject the one I saw had bush at 310 Forget what Kerrys #s was but those results were supposed to be as recent as last night.
Of course as with any other polls the results will vary from poll to poll
so your results arent really all that surprising.
I will however predict that NJ will end up going to Bush primarily because of the fiasco's our blockhead govenor has been involved with.
As of yesterday I heard it was a dead heat here between Bush and Kerry. But our Givenor (not a typo) has left a bad taste in alot of folks mouths around here (pun intended)
-
dred... even the poll I stated could be interpreted as over 300 for Bush... they are very conservative with the swing states and don't really give the tossup ones to anyone. Bush's support in the "weak Bush" states is better than the kerrie support in the "weak kerrie" states.
NJ is shocking but what is even more shocking is that it is not a democrat landslide in California.... the state will still go commie but by less of a margin than anyone had expected. even the hippies in oregon and washington are not turning out for kerrie..
if it wasn't for canada and finland kerrie would lose the election.
lazs
-
Statisitic are "polls" and meaningless when showing a Kerry lead, and "reports" when showing a Bush lead. Kerry has "flip-flops" and Bush has "changes in tactics."
Sheep logic - its whats for breakfast.
Fear mongering - its whats for lunch.
I think I'll skip dinner.
-
so tweety.... who do you want to appoint the next supreme court judges?
lazs
-
I don't care. I know I'm not afraid a being beat up if I have to go to school with latinos, nor am I afraid my son will start wearing a dress if two guys in San Francisco have a ceremony.
But then I ain't the cowardly type. I can understand the shutins cowering under beds hoping big bad Bush will keep them safe from the world. They've been fear mongered into paralysis.
Again- a coward dies a thousand deaths etc...
-
here is another one supposedly updated as recently as today
the kerry folks will enjoy.
But they will hate what they see if they click on "Projected final map"
http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)
-
so tweety... you think that supreme court judges only rule on gay marriage? or what was it? if it is ok for "latinos" to beat up on whites at school? or... that liberalism equates to courage?
Not sure what your point is. What is it that you think kerrie will do for you or.... what do you think liberal supreme court judges will do to make your life and the country better? What is it abiut the constitution that you feel should be changed?
it would appear that at this point in time Bush would win with close to 300 electorial votes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
NJ is shocking
lazs
When you consider what this clown has done since in office its not really surprising at all.
bout half of his appointments and financial supporters have been connected to curruption or organised crime. (All Democrats)
Including the guy he appionted to be head of the State troopers
And one guy he imported from Isreal then appointed for NJ homeland security Turned out not only be unqualified for the job but in the end also turned out to be the same person he was having a gay affair with.
Basically he was connected in one way or another to one fiasco after another and has the lowest approval rating of probably anyone in the states history.
Now he's resigning after the presidential electioon which in my opinion only helps the republican party because it only keeps the subject alive till after he leaves whereas had he immediately resigned it would probably have been mostly forgotten by now due to the same affliction therest of the country seems to have.
that is . A short attention span
-
Yes... those are good reasons I suppose.... I guess the whole trend ios kinda shocking... states that were solidly in the blue for the democrats with even a loser like gore are now in Bush's column or toss ups. the trend is very bad for kerrie... he appears to have little chance at this point. gaining a little ground in solid kerrie states and losing in the important swing states.... overall, the popular vote seems to reamain about the same also with a solid Bush lead....
Bush will have to literaly Implode in order to lose at this point it seems...or as my liberal brother contends.... the actor that is taking Bush's place while the real Bush is in a stress induced comma hidden awya in the white house.... well... that actor will have to be exposed.
Allomost any event I can concieve of short of a complete gas shortage will only strengthen Bush at this point.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Statistically speaking of course
:D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I don't care. I know I'm not afraid a being beat up if I have to go to school with latinos, nor am I afraid my son will start wearing a dress if two guys in San Francisco have a ceremony.
But then I ain't the cowardly type. I can understand the shutins cowering under beds hoping big bad Bush will keep them safe from the world. They've been fear mongered into paralysis.
Again- a coward dies a thousand deaths etc...
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Laz, I'm not going to get into the stupid game of "liberal' vs "conservative."
The battle is more accurately decribed as progressive vs regressive.
The regressive crowd is against any change for one reason - FEAR. They are afraid of change - any change. Societies don't survive in a stagnant state, they fall or they progress.
I am so sorry the many shrinking violets would love for the U.S. to remain in the Bandstand years, but life goes on - societies go on and progress. So hold up under the bed and long for the days of Dick Clark if you like, and stagnate. I plan to try to keep step in the world.
"Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled" - Dylan
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I plan to try to keep step in the world.
Kudos....
If you're not growing, you're dying. It's sad to see people in the street that look completely stuck in a certain era. Or saying "Skynard rules." You can tell something about a person by it. It's like a time capsule... It is the tangible expression of the moment that they chose to start dying.
As far as political expression is concerned, Archie Bunker comes to mind.
-
Every generation fancies themselves "progressive". Change isn't always better.
-
If you simply look at a biology text, you'll find change is *required*
When you stop, you die.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
If you simply look at a biology text, you'll find change is *required*
When you stop, you die.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You mean thats only one point he could have attacked on.
there are a bunch of others.
Kerry won the debate. but I think bush did more to loose it then Kerry did ot win it.
Kery was certainly vulnerable on a number of issues. Bush just didnt exploit them
again couldnt agree with you more. ANYONE could see the set up in some of Kerry's statements and did nothing. Other than his speaking skills kerry didn't impress me one bit with his answers....or the content there of.
You can mark my words. This election is going to be one by the lawyers in a court room......not the people in voting booths.
Both partys in every state have TEAMS of lawyers ready to pounce at the validity of the election results.
In some states it is actually the judges that can decide wich canidate to give the state's electoral votes to. Pretty scary if you ask me.
-
Bush/Cheney 2004
Nothing more to add to this discussion
-
Cool trick Yeager... You have attained the Judo-like ability to morph into a bumper sticker.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Bush/Cheney 2004
Nothing more to add to this discussion
Be interesting to see if Bush does make it for another 4 years especially when he seems incapable of defending himself or his policies in a open arena.
...-Gixer
-
he defended himself just fine from my view. he did fail to nail kerry to the wall half a dozen times given choice opportunities to do so.
-
Inflammatory?!
OK how about I just say that some of us believe morals are being lost in the name of progress.
Progress is not always a good thing. Not saying all is bad but I'm not in a hurry to accept all change.
How was that skuzzy? No mention of peter puffers or states that are going to burn in hell!:D
-
tweety... isn't "regressive" change? Progressive is also an interesting word... building housing and cities is "progressive" too. building an economy is "progressive" taking away peoples rights would be "regressive"
Fear? I watched real fear back in the late 50's and early sixties when the democrats fought civil rights. The democrats are the party of fear. they invented it.
It is very good sounding to say that you are in step with the world until you explain what that really means. How much of your labor (taxes) are you willing to give to "the world" to make it more like other countries want it to be?
lazs
-
Infammatory
-
Regression is a return to a previous state. Its change in the same sense as death is a change from life, I guess.
>>Fear? I watched real fear back in the late 50's and early sixties when the democrats fought civil rights. The democrats are the party of fear. they invented it.
<<
This statement is ridiculous on so many levels. I guess you think its brave to circle the wagons and shake in its center, and cowardly to ge get your teeth knocked out standing up to some inbread redneck with a shotgun.
Edit: Upon thinking about it further - there was a large segment of the democratic party of the late 50's early 60's that were motivated by fear - the Dixiecrats. But they've headed over to the Rpublican party. So yea you're right. In the early sixties, chances are the rednieck with shotgun smashing the heads of civil rights marchers, may have been a southern Democrat (i.e., a Dixiecrat).
-
Also be careful of what number is used from the poll. Registered Voters or Likely Voters distinction is very important.
Most of the numbers from the polls that were showing Bush up 6-10 points were "Likely Voters" numbers. But if take the same poll but look at the "Registered Voters" category, it was much closer say 3-6 points.
I do beleive the poll numbers that CNN and a few others are trumpeting the last couple of days as proof of a "Kerry Comeback" are again "Registered Voters".
This is obvious for several reasons.
One, in surveys the media people themselves identify theirselves as 89% are democrats, a large portion of the rest independents, and a very small percentage republicans. So many of them want Kerry to win and will try to whip up enthusiasm for their canidate any way possible.
Two, its a better news story if its a close race. So they play the "its very very close" card to keep people watching their reports.
Also, I believe that Kerry won the debates (obviously I'm a republican) and that DID give him a small bounce in the polls. But will it stick?
I personally like to watch the poll average over at http://www.realclearpolitics.com where they take the average of all non-biased polls from the likely voter category. And they also have an electoral vote calculator from the battleground states.
Its going to be interesting
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
If you simply look at a biology text, you'll find change is *required*
When you stop, you die.
However, if the change turns out ot be a cancerous lesion, it must be extricated or you die.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Infammatory
Resgusting!
-
I wasn't the one who brought up the "regusting" stuff :D
-
>>OK how about I just say that some of us believe morals are being lost in the name of progress. <<
I believe the world as a whole worries less about morals than it did 50 years ago. Its really easy to blame it on the internet, television, video games, or even the demo's :D But the reason is lazy parenting. Its real easy to use the internet , television and video games as a baby sitter. Its real easy to blow off Sunday services or a family dinner for golf or a football game. There's a sense of entitlement that was absent in the depression era children. That sense of entitilement is your morality buster.
I don't need a law to make me atracted to females. In fact, at 6, I might have swore I hated girls, but I really thought they were cute. At 12, I was damn sure of it. I never made the decision to like the opposite sex, and in some bizzarro world if it was illegal, I would still be attracted to the opposite sex. Anyone's who sexual orientation is affected by the law is pretty ambiguous from the get go. Anyone who *decided* to be heterosexual, is not truly heterosexual even if they opted for a heterosexual lifestyle. Sexual orientation is a basic drive, not a decision. I don't decide to be hungry, I don't decide to be thirsty and I don't *decide* to be attracted to the oposite sex.
So no law you pass is going to change the "peter puffers" (as you put it). What it will do, is make you feel important by persecuting others for the way they were born. And if any is so afraid that their sexual orientation is so fragile to be influenced by the orientation of a VERY small minority, they need therapy and not rhetoric. And those that use such naive rhetoric to hurt others for the sole sake of advancing themselves, need to be kicked in the teeth with a size 12 steel toe.
-
Yeah, I agree with that TweetyBird. People who are gay aren't hurting anyone else. There is absolutely no reason to discriminate against them.
One of the reasons I admire Arnold. He has the balls to publicly support the right view, even if it means alienating some of his constituency.
-
LOL
nm
LOL
-
I won't even bother to vote for Bush or Kerry. The popular vote means absolutely nothing. The Electoral College will decide who is president, not us.
I wont worry about who is in office as President ever because I have absolutely NO control over who gets there.
-
>>The popular vote means absolutely nothing. The Electoral College will decide who is president, not us.
<<
Well it matters in battleground states. I wouldn't break a leg getting to the polls in California.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I won't even bother to vote for Bush or Kerry. The popular vote means absolutely nothing. The Electoral College will decide who is president, not us.
I wont worry about who is in office as President ever because I have absolutely NO control over who gets there.
wrong, wrong and wrong.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I won't even bother to vote for Bush or Kerry. The popular vote means absolutely nothing. The Electoral College will decide who is president, not us.
I wont worry about who is in office as President ever because I have absolutely NO control over who gets there.
Colorado is *highly* in play....
-
Originally posted by NUKE
wrong, wrong and wrong.
I'm not wrong. There is absolutely NOTHING that requires the Electoral College to vote the same way the popular vote goes. Until that changes any votes for President by your average Joe Citizen are absolutely meaninless.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Colorado is *highly* in play....
Doesnt matter imo since it's the EC votes that actually count and not mine.
-
I don't follow you....
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Doesnt matter imo since it's the EC votes that actually count and not mine.
You vote in Colorado, and the "popular" vote in Colorado decides how the state casts it's vote for President. Colorado is a swing state, but even if it were not, your vote counts.
The EC ensures you have a voice....if there were no EC, New York and California would decide the elections.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't follow you....
Nash, there is no law that requires the Electoral Collage to vote according to the popular vote of their respective states. Never has been one and most likely never will be one either. At least twice the Electoral College hasnt followed the popular vote. I forget which Presidents though.
IF (and thats a huge if) I were to go and vote for the president, the Electoral Collage can, if it so chooses, ignore the popular vote and cast their votes however they choose.
You show me how MY vote counts when the Electoral College can vote opposite of the popular vote. (Thats assuming I had voted for the candidate that had won the popular vote).
During Presidential elections they never wait for all the popular vote to come in. There are always absentee ballots and such. The winner is declared after all the Electoral Collage votes are in.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You vote in Colorado, and the "popular" vote in Colorado decides how the state casts it's vote for President. Colorado is a swing state, but even if it were not, your vote counts.
The EC ensures you have a voice....if there were no EC, New York and California would decide the elections.
There is no law that requires the EC to vote the same way as the popular vote. The EC can and has, voted against the popular vote in the past.
-
Sorry, but I think you're being kind of paranoid.....
-
Originally posted by Elfie
There is no law that requires the EC to vote the same way as the popular vote. The EC can and has, voted against the popular vote in the past.
yeah, your right... not voting gives you a lot more say than voting does.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I'm not wrong. There is absolutely NOTHING that requires the Electoral College to vote the same way the popular vote goes. Until that changes any votes for President by your average Joe Citizen are absolutely meaninless.
I think this is determined by the state.
-
Elfie has a good point.
In practical terms though, it is extremely likely that CO's electoral votes will go with the CO popular vote.
But it does seem silly that they don't put it in writing. Is there any particular reason they don't?
-
Originally posted by phookat
Elfie has a good point.
In practical terms though, it is extremely likely that CO's electoral votes will go with the CO popular vote.
But it does seem silly that they don't put it in writing. Is there any particular reason they don't?
It's my understanding that it has been tryed (on a federal level) but never passed through Congress.
I think this is determined by the state.
I believe it is determined on a Federal level since its a Federal election. (Could be wrong on that though)
Nash, how am I being paranoid? Fact is, the Electoral Collage can and has overruled the popular vote in the past. Did the popular vote count then? I think we both know the answer to that :) Just because the Electoral Collage *usually* votes with the popular vote doesnt make my (or yours) vote more meaningful to me. As long as the Electoral College has the option of over ruling the popular vote my vote and yours are meaningless imo.
-
You're saying that *nobody* should bother voting. You know that, right?
-
Here, don't curse the darkness.. turn on a light.
Legally, the electors may vote for someone other than the candidate for whom they were pledged to vote. This phenomenon is known as the "unfaithful" or "faithless" elector.
And:
Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 156 faithless Electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast their votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three Electors chose to abstain from casting their Electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 Electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the Elector.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You're saying that *nobody* should bother voting. You know that, right?
For the office of President, yes.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I believe it is determined on a Federal level since its a Federal election. (Could be wrong on that though)
They're called "faithless electors" and it's a state issue.
-
Has anyone said differently Toad? I don't want to say "duh".... but...
Thanks for the light, anyways....
Using *this* for a reason not to vote, however, is a bit nuts...
Just sayin'.....
-
BTW a word on those Newsweek polls.
turns out that last two polls.
The first had Bush ahead
The last one had Kerry ahead.
Well in the first one the majority of people who took the poll were Rep.
and the Second one the majority that took the poll were Dem
Hmmm wonder why each poll had the results it did lmao
-
Using *this* for a reason not to vote, however, is a bit nuts...
I just dont believe that my vote has meaning Nash. At least not when it can get overridden. If it were to become mandatory for the Electoral College to vote with the popular vote, then my vote would have meaning, and I would exercise my right to vote.
Until then......maybe I am a bit nuts :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
You're saying that *nobody* should bother voting. You know that, right?
I think he just want to get ride of the EC.
Frankly ,why isn't the popular vote wich count ?
-
CO has gone R since 88 cept for 92 and as of early Sept is 50% Bush 38% skerry
so yes, if you planned on voting for herman, save your gas
-
There are usually plenty of local thyings to vote on anyway so you might as well vote for Bush while you are in the booth in California or new york or mass or washington..
nash... you won't get to vote no matter what.
support for kerrie in the electorial college seems worse by far than it was for gore even. the states that are "barely kerrie" are more important to him than the states that are "barely Bush" is to Bush.
If held today Bush would win by about 290-300 electorial votes.. if all the states that were tossups were divided Bush would win... if Bush lost most of the swing states he would still win. If kerrie doesn't gain some states fast he will lose.
convincing more voters in California and new york and mass and seatle to get out and vote for kerrie isn't going to do it. Putting kerrie edwards bumper stickers on every bus and taxi isn't going to do it.
lazs
-
Maybe it will all be resolved in the courts, just like last time?
...-Gixer
-
at this point there would be no need to resolve it in the courts as Bush's electorial lead is so large that 3 or 4 states would have to be contested in the courts to change his victory. even the democrats aren't that bold.
I don't really think the democrats want to bring up gores pouty and dishonest grab at the election.
lazs
-
:D
[size=20]LANDSLIDE BUSH!!![/size]
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I won't even bother to vote for Bush or Kerry. The popular vote means absolutely nothing. The Electoral College will decide who is president, not us.
I wont worry about who is in office as President ever because I have absolutely NO control over who gets there.
Let me pile on here, Elfie.....WRONG!
-
Originally posted by type_char
:D
[size=20]LANDSLIDE BUSH!!![/size]
Cod I hope you're right. The DNC would just implode if that happened.:lol
-
Originally posted by straffo
I think he just want to get ride of the EC.
Frankly ,why isn't the popular vote wich count ?
You can't get rid of the EC Straffo. The EC makes sure that a few states, like California and NY with their high populations don't decide the entire vote. With the EC in place it ensures that each state has a say in the election.
My problem with the EC is that it is NOT required by law to vote the same way the popular vote goes.
-
I don't really think the democrats want to bring up gores pouty and dishonest grab at the election.
lazs [/B]
I'm sure neither do the Republicans, overall it was a shocking display equally by both parties. Still don't understand how that whole system works of each state having so many electoral votes or what ever it is. So you can have more votes overall but still loose. Seems out of date to me.
And then for it all to be decided in the courts. Bad day for democracy that one.
Almost as bad as the stupid MMP system we have here in this country.
...-Gixer
-
It was not decided in the courts. There were specific issues related to the recounting of votes in specific districts of one state, but the election was decided by the American voters, just like every other Presidential election we have held.
-
Actually it's not a bad system. It keeps bigger states from forcing their will onto others.
As far as the courts deciding the election that was another good thing.
Democrats sent a team of lawyers down to Florida to make sure everything was done legit on the recount. The recount didn't go their was so they used the courts to have another recount. That didn't go their was so they got another recount. That wasn't going their way so they went to court to change the way the count was done. That didn't work so they went back to change the way they were recounted again. They went to court to try and get absentee ballots thrown out also.
The Republicans went to the US Supreme Court because the judges in FL were breaking federal and state laws by changing the rules.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the ballots were to be counted in accordance to Federal and State law.
Bush won. Actually he won on ALL the counts.
Just because the courts had to get involved doesn't mean it was bad. Granted it was ugly but it turned out right.
I don't mean it was right because Bush won I mean it was right because the Judges in FL had no right to change election laws nor did they have the right to make changes in the middle of an election.
There were rules and procedures that were agreed upon before the election by both parties and it was not right to try and change them during the election just because your side was losing.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
And then for it all to be decided in the courts. Bad day for democracy that one.
...-Gixer
Couldn't be more wrong, mate.
It was one of democracy's finest moments.
The people voted; there was a problem. Various recounts were made without satisfactory resolution. The Supreme Court resolved the problem.
That's EXACTLY the way the system set up by the Founders was supposed to work.
No gunfire, no riots, no murder and bloodshed. The problem just worked its way through our Constitutional system and was resolved. The Republic continued.
EC outmoded? Nah, NOW more than ever before it is needed. As for the "why" of the EC:
Electoral College serves its Purpose (http://piercecollege.edu/title3/aln/elect04/why.html)
...In 1956 a Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College was defeated after a vigorous defense by Sen. John F. Kennedy.
He declared that "direct election would break down the federal system under which most states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power."
Of particular concern at the time was that the South could impose a racist demagogue on the country by voting in overwhelming numbers for that regional candidate.
Kennedy observed that under the Electoral College, no candidate can be elected president who does not have substantial support in every region of the country...
That's it in a nutshell.
-
Good post Toad. your post is why I dont want the EC to go away, I just want them to be legally bound to vote the way the popular vote goes.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
You can't get rid of the EC Straffo. The EC makes sure that a few states, like California and NY with their high populations don't decide the entire vote. With the EC in place it ensures that each state has a say in the election.
My problem with the EC is that it is NOT required by law to vote the same way the popular vote goes.
I guess it's because of a different background/education but it's the part §I do find extremly shocking in the EC.
I posted this in another thread the key part is my last sentence (but I can be wrong :))
Originally posted by straffo
we had in France something similar to the EC (albeit my country is not made of states) it sucked greatly but again this is not a federal country (we have "région" instead).
I would be pissed to see the enphasys put on some particuliar area because they are small and sucked so much they completly missed the industrial revolution.
I guess you are first citizen of a states then citizen of the USA whereas in France whatever place you are born you are french and should have the same rights whatever is your living place.