Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on October 03, 2004, 11:23:14 PM
-
Don't tell us who ya work for...
But tell us what polls you put stock into, and why.
Tell us how you see this race going.
Tell us what, in the next few weeks, Bush needs to do, and what Kerry needs to do.
Give us yer prediction on the outcome.
Thanks! :aok
-
I don't put any more credence in particular polls than others except for, perhaps, the National Elections Studies (NES) poll conducted out of the University of Michigan. The NES poll is purely scientific, however, and it is meant to explain electoral outcomes ex post facto rather than predict them. As long as the sampling methodology and survey design follow accepted scientific standards, most "major" polls should yield reasonably accurate results. I think you'll find that aggregating (i.e. averaging) the results of major polls provides a more accurate picture of electoral goings-on.
In that sense, Gallup has been a bit odd since the primaries (an observation Zogby has noted recently) since it consistently provides poll results that differ rather substantially from the mean. That's not to say that Gallup is inaccurate, but it does suggest that they might employ a sampling methodology that differs a bit from most of the other major polls.
If you average poll results, I think the difference between Bush and Kerry before the debate was about 2 to 3% in favor of Bush. I have no idea how that stands now since only a few polling organizations have released comprehensive polling data since the debate.
I personally see this race as Bush's to win or lose. National security is his strong point, and now it has become a central theme in the campaign. In addition, he sits on an economy that has slowly but consistently grown in the last year. However, public perception of economic improvement often lags by as much as three to six months, so any sudden improvements now will probably not help the president.
Another point to keep in mind is that voters tend to evaluate incumbent presidents retrospectively and challengers prospectively. So essentially, Bush must run on his record on national security, the economy, and more. If he can convince voters that he did an acceptable job on key election issues, he'll probably win. Expect him to put a good spin on his record but not waste much time on talking about what new things he will do. On the other hand, Kerry must both discredit Bush's record and demonstrate that he could do better in the future than Bush has done in the past on key election issues. It is not enough for him to demonstrate that Bush has failed in Iraq or on the economy; he must also convince voters that he would do as well or better.
I honestly can't predict an outcome at this point. Bush should hold most of the cards though, so I would say that his probability of winning is greater at this point than Kerry's.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Wow, you guys are like the Big Giant Head. I salute you.
-
There should be some kind of "I am not worthy" emoticon.
Thanks DMF.... 'preciate it.
But... heh... I disagree with ya on just about every conclusion you drew.
Nonetheless... it's wicked to hear your POV.
In my opinion, this isn't Bush's race to win or lose. It's Kerry's. It always has been. It will be up until the 2nd.
You say "National security is his strong point, and now it has become a central theme in the campaign."
National Security was (read was) Bush's strong point. Kerry has blurred the line such that being tough on Iraq doesn't equate to security. Kerry has a bit more to do in this regard, but it's starting to sink in. National security as it pertains to the war in Iraq is Kerry's. National security as it pertains to the 'homeland' is still Bush's. So far...
Kerry has won the last two weeks, and it was due to coming out hard against Bush's foreign policy. Foreign policy was GW's turf... and that turf has become a great deal more uncomfortable.
In any event, and despite the fundamentals, any question of national security has started to work towards Kerry's favour. Still not passing Bush, but the gap has begun to close.
Again, as to "Bush's race to win or lose"... You said: "Another point to keep in mind is that voters tend to evaluate incumbent presidents retrospectively and challengers prospectively.
Exactly right... What has Bush done, and what will Kerry do?
It's a choice between bad, and the unknown...
Is there any evidence that shows that people tend to choose the bad over the unknown?
I don't know of any.... but certainly Reagan was a leap of faith if there ever was one.
Bush doesn't hold the cards here... My completely honest belief. He has never held the cards. It's Kerry's to lose.
Pls reply.... I really look forward to hearing your POV.
-
Bush/Cheney 2004
Hope this helps.
-
I go for the NES too. Mike Tyson's Punch Out RULES!
-
Too close to call at this point. The election will be won/lost over some stupid soundbite.
Remember, in the US, our voters are such profound thinkers that we actually elect movie stars to public office.
And once again, I remind you of Adelai Stevenson's response to a crowd which shouted "atta boy, Adelai, every thinking man will vote for you!" His response: But, I need a majority.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
"...I remind you of Adelai Stevenson's response."
That guy was deep.... holy...
"the rents and tears across the entire fabric of human affairs caused by the constant vendettas carried on by competing faiths."
I can't remember too much about him, but I have the nagging sense that he was the guy who blew his brains out (or something less severe) because he went in front of the UN saying something which turned out to be false.
Was that him?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That guy was deep.... holy...
"the rents and tears across the entire fabric of human affairs caused by the constant vendettas carried on by competing faiths."
I can't remember too much about him, but I have the nagging sense that he was the guy who blew his brains out (or something less severe) because he went in front of the UN saying something which turned out to be false.
Was that him?
Yes, very bright fellow. No, I don't recall him blowing his brains out. Here's a nice page which summarizes his activities.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAstevensonA.htm
curly
-
National Security was (read was) Bush's strong point. Kerry has blurred the line such that being tough on Iraq doesn't equate to security. Kerry has a bit more to do in this regard, but it's starting to sink in. National security as it pertains to the war in Iraq is Kerry's. National security as it pertains to the 'homeland' is still Bush's. So far...
The problem is he has waited so long to articulate the message. Kerry allowed himself to be defined by the opposition from the start, and has been reactive and fighting non-issues until the debate. There's not a lot of time left to turn that around.
Is there any evidence that shows that people tend to choose the bad over the unknown?
I think that without a clear choice, there is a tendency to go with "The Devil you know..." I know a number of conservative leaning moderates who don't care for Bush, and generally disagree with how Iraq is shaping up. But, Kerry hasn't shown them a clear alternative. I don't think it's up to either Kerry or Bush to lose, but it's up to Kerry to win and there is not much time left to do that now.
Charon
-
nash you really crack me up... you really do.... you scour the world for data that meets your preconcieved notions.... when you don't find it or a source you trust tells you the truth you say...
"wow... really great analalysis and management of the data but I will have to disagree with you because it isn't the answer I like... Do you know of any data out there I that I agree with that sounds kinda legit so that I can post it and make a fool of myself again?"
In a gun thread you claimed that the FBI data isn't good enough and that the data for crime you will be using is your own... you gotta let go man!
lazs
-
What's this got to do with SpitVs?
-
Super Techmo Bowl!
-SW
-
OK guys.... duty calls and it's time for me to step forward.
I'm asking for your write-in vote.
You see.......... I have a PLAN!
Actually, I have several but you can write me in knowing that all will be well because I DO have a PLAN!
I thank you for your support.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
OK guys.... duty calls and it's time for me to step forward.
I'm asking for your write-in vote.
You see.......... I have a PLAN!
Actually, I have several but you can write me in knowing that all will be well because I DO have a PLAN!
I thank you for your support.
;)
Which lab gets to be "First Lady" ? ;) (or would that title be changed to "First Biatch"?)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Which lab gets to be "First Lady" ? ;) (or would that title be changed to "First Biatch"?)
Nancy Reagan's back?
-
With turnout estimates running in the 58-64% range any prediction of outcome without considering factors other than 'likely voters' could be off by a wide margin. This is why current polls should be viewed with a huge grain of salt.
Just google for stories regarding voter registration, some counties are reporting huge increases in new registrations. These people don't get polled hardly at all.
-
It appears that if held today.... Bush would get between 290 and 300 electorial votes. He is doing better than he did with gore. He would win handily. howard stern, michelle more and a handful of canadians not withstanding.
I must say that while I am no great fan of Bush I am pleased.
If Kerrie pulls it out some how tho....
I will survive... I survived under klinton and I will survive under kerrie.
and lars... new regestrations may not be the boon to your cause that you expect since there is a decided shift to the right in college students lately.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and lars... new regestrations may not be the boon to your cause that you expect since there is a decided shift to the right in college students lately.
lazs
From my experience helping to register college students I'd say the reality is just the opposite. In California, Oregon and Colorado, my personal experience as well as those of 40 of my fellow 'activists' show an advantage to Democrats on the order of 68% to 32%.
It all boils down to who actualy votes and by what numbers. The left is much more motivated this election cycle than ever.
I'll be driving shuttles for two local retirement communities to their polling places as my last effort to get out the vote this year and we are coordinating with 'Meals on Wheels' to do the same for the shut-ins.
We'll see, won't we. < insert stupid smiley emoticon here >
-
yes lars... of course.. we will see. to predict at this point is probly premature.
even so... I predict that all your efforts will swing Californias electorial votes to the socialist kerrie.
At this point, you will easily be able to get kerrie into the 200 range for electorial votes in the election.
As I have said... my vote for Bush is pretty wasted in California but I have other things to vote for while in the booth so it is not much more effort to vote for Bush while I am at it.
I do think that you should be ashamed at taking advantage of young mush brains and poor old people. kinda low I would say.
lazs
-
But... heh... I disagree with ya on just about every conclusion you drew.
LOL, you're so biased that you have no hope of seeing reality, even were it a train 'bout to mow you down.
Exactly right... What has Bush done, and what will Kerry do? It's a choice between bad ....
Please, tell me all the bad things Bush has done.
Oh, and I beg you since I am unable to find it, take a moment to tell me exactly what Kerry's foreign policy is. Please, tell me.
-
Kerry's foreign policy on Iraq is one I just love. He's probably right that the United States has incurred 90 percent of the casualties and paid 90 percent of the cost of the Iraqi conflict.
Somehow, perhaps through sweet talk, intimate evenings in the hot tub and massages with slightly warmed Heinz ketchup, he's going to persuade the Germans and French to send their sons to die in Iraq in place of ours and get them to pay for the experience.
I admire a "plan" like that one. It's good to have a foreign policy so well grounded in the "possible". What is that guy smokin', anyway?
As for the polls, the two since the debate essentially show a return to a tie. The "Bush bounce" from the convention is clearly gone but neither guy has any lead that isn't covered by the spread in the margin of error.
-
New Polls are out...
Nash is conversely bouncing about his apartment pulling his hair out and lying in a puddle of tears bawlin his eyes out.
"why...why...he WON...he WON the debate...."
-
You're definitely not seeing what I'm seeing, Liz...
I have zero doubt about what is going to happen on the 2nd.
-
I'm waiting, Nash.
-
>>Somehow, perhaps through sweet talk, intimate evenings in the hot tub and massages with slightly warmed Heinz ketchup, he's going to persuade the Germans and French to send their sons to die in Iraq in place of ours and get them to pay for the experience.
<<
Toad, neither candidate can give an exit strategy for Iraq - BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. We might as well get it through our heads, there will never be a way for the US to exit the region.
Now of course some might dispute this - please feel free to post a possible exit strategy that doesn't compromise the vast oil resources of Iraq. You start, Toad.
-
Be glad to.
Here's how I see it. It's not an "exit strategy" for anyone but me, OK?
1. We invaded a sovereign nation, something we haven't done real often, with the intent of removing the existing government from power. The "why's" of that decision have been beaten to death, so let's skip that part.
2. Since we were the "prime mover" in removing said government, it is our responsibility to replace said government, or more correctly, to enable the people of Iraq to replace that government through free elections monitored by the UN.
3. It obviously isn't going to be easy because there is an obvious underlying struggle for power in Iraq. This struggle is not based around any sort of "free elections", it is base around coercion.
4. We have various elements that have no interest in having a democratic Iraq. There are our external obvious enemies like A-Q, there are less obvious internal and external enemies like Muslim fundamentalist religious wackos that want power for themselves, there are AT LEAST three distinct internal factions that want as much power as they can grab (Kurds, Sunnis, Shias) and there are external Muslim governments that may have designs on Iraqi influence (Iran, Syria) and there are external non-Muslim governments that would like to see us fail miserably. I'll let you guess at the top contenders there.
5. So what do we have? Basically, we have all the makings of a lovely Civil War in Iraq with lots of external instigators.
6. My exit strategy is pretty simple. We're responsible. We have to stay until they have a somewhat stable government up and running with the necessary attendant supporting institutions. You'll need an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch and a Judiciary. You'll need Army, Education, Public Health and other supporting players.
We have to provide security until they can hold elections, maybe even a few rounds of elections. We have to help them rebuild the ancillary institutions.
It's going to take our soldier's lives. A lot more of them.
It's going to take more billions. A lot more of them.
It's going to take years. At least 4-5, maybe even 10 of them.
And when we've done all that, we can leave. Oh, we may "draw down" through the years but until they get their stuff together, we have to be the one's that ensure they have a chance.
Anything else is a far worse "solution" that will rebound to haunt us for 100 years.
Cutting and running before this is done will only encourage our enemies, rouse their bloodlust to an even greater degree and endanger the US even further.
We HAVE to leave it better than we found it. WAY better. Or we'll pay far more than we're paying now in blood and treasure.
As for Kerry expecting ANY other nation not presently involved to "report for duty".......... he's forking crazier than a bedbug.
NOBODY in their collective governmental right minds would want to jump into this now. Particularly governments that fought against this all the way and are now enjoying their "told you so" moments.
The French and Germans aren't going to send their sons to die for a "free and democratic Iraq". They're not going to spend national treasure to that end either. Kerry's nutso on that plan; he probably knows that too. But hey... he has a "plan".
BTW, I spent the weekend hunting on Ft. Riley. I probably talked to a dozen soldiers that we met in the fields. EVERY single one was recently back from Iraq, some a month or two, some only a week or two. Lt. Col down to PFC ranks. I did not meet even ONE that thought the news media here was painting a fair picture of Iraq. Every single one said it's not as bad as the media portrays. Small sample, I know, but there you are.
Now, your turn Etch.
-
I should say right now (and consider it blanket for all my posts)...
I APPROVE OF THIS OR ANY OFF TOPIC POSTS IN ANY OF MY THREADS.
Really Skuzzy, I don't mind... Let 'em go.
It would be like getting punched in the gut to write something so well as Toad did, then find it replaced by "off topic". Don't do it man....
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Toad, neither candidate can give an exit strategy for Iraq - BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. We might as well get it through our heads, there will never be a way for the US to exit the region.
Man, you're right! We might as well just all kill ourselves then.... Throw in the towel, that's the American way!
Kerry has "a plan"..."a better plan" and he "can do better" and do it "the right way". If those aren't some great plans, tell me what is? Very inspiring.
-
Ya, what is his plan?
Nash doesn't know, even though he favors Kerry over Bush(he just can't tell you why he does).
does anyone know his plan?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Ya, what is his plan?
Nash doesn't know, even though he favors Kerry over Bush(he just can't tell you why he does).
does anyone know his plan?
Steve, don't you know?
"Help is on the way" and he is "reporting for duty" with "a better plan".
How many times does he have to say that before people will understand?
-
Steve,
I was telling my brother about our lunch conversation today :)
Those two other guys who overheard us were pretty nice.
Yeah, I admit....I brought up Nash as an example of a Kerry supporter not knowing wtf Kerry stood for.
Anyway.
-
How many times do I have to tell you?!!
Leadership abilities!
-
>>6. My exit strategy is pretty simple. We're responsible. We have to stay until they have a somewhat stable government up and running with the necessary attendant supporting institutions. You'll need an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch and a Judiciary. You'll need Army, Education, Public Health and other supporting players.
<<
Agree 100%. But I disagree with your time table. I think 100 years is closer to the mark, for one simple reason. we can't let them have a strong enough military to defend themselves until they like us. And thats gonna take awhile.
-
My thoughts are that we protect them until an election cycle or two goes by and they have their institutions up and running.
Then we throw a big farewell party and slip out the back after they're drunked up but before the booze runs out.
Then if the fall back into Muslim v Muslim conflict and Civil War we just "tsk, tsk" from a distance. We don't go back though.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Agree 100%. But I disagree with your time table. I think 100 years is closer to the mark, for one simple reason. we can't let them have a strong enough military to defend themselves until they like us. And thats gonna take awhile.
Kind of like how Germany and Japan took 100 years....
-
Germany and Japan have token armies, incapable of defending those nations. We made them sign a paper to insure it.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Germany and Japan have token armies, incapable of defending those nations. We made them sign a paper to insure it.
when has a signed paper ensured anything? If a signed paper is all we need, then lets make Iraq sign one too, agreed? Problem solved.
-
>>Then if the fall back into Muslim v Muslim conflict and Civil War we just "tsk, tsk" from a distance. We don't go back though.
<<
That would be a wonderful idea if oil wasn't a strategic resource.
It is, and a peoples wants it - most in the region who wants it aren't friendly with us.
-
Nuke, Iraq is different. It has strategic natural resources - OIL. If it had none - we wouldn't be there, like so many places in Africa we aren't. Yes there are atrocities in those countries in Africa, but there is no huge oil supply. We NEED Iraq to be defended. Its a black chip ($100 chip). Japan and Germany resources were human (green $5 chips).
Its completely different
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Nuke, Iraq is different. It has strategic natural resources - OIL. If it had none - we wouldn't be there, like so many places in Africa we aren't. Yes there are atrocities in those countries in Africa, but there is no huge oil supply. We NEED Iraq to be defended. Its a black chip ($100 chip). Japan and Germany resources were human (green $5 chips).
Its completely different
So now you bring up oil when before you stated that we can't leave until they "like" us and never before used oil in your argument ?
Okay, now tell us why we can't leave before 100 years because of oil.
This is good stuff.
-
Good night Tweety.
-
Its really pretty simple. Because there is so much oil under Iraq we can not let its control be up to chance, or fall into the the hands of Iran - most likely not by an outright attack, but by a war of religious factions supported by Iran. Oil fuels the tanks and the planes, as well as most economies in this world. Iran can't have it - trust me. Just watch the Dow index when a pipeline explodes.
Iraq needs to have a strong enough military to defend a government that is alien in the region (i.e. democracy). It can't be a token army, especially with Iran having nuclear capabilities. Such an army, capable of dending Iraq, would be a threat to Isreal. So before they can have it, we have to make damn sure they're on our side. They have to like western society. Thats going to take awhile.
The realistic option is not to expect them to be able to defend themselves, in which case we'll be permanent guards of Iraq.
That is the likely scenario, and it aint gonna be cheap.
-
So now you suddenly enter "oil" into your argument?
I thought you said we couldn't leave until "they liked us"?
If oil was the main objective, why didn't we take it in the first war? Since when has the US ever relied on Iraqi oil?
So, why do you think we need to stay in Iraq for 100 years again? Why not just make them sign a paper like Germany and Japan?
goodnight.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
[B
That would be a wonderful idea if oil wasn't a strategic resource.
It is, and a peoples wants it - most in the region who wants it aren't friendly with us. [/B]
Ya ever try to eat oil?
That oil WILL be sold. If it's sold, it can be bought.
Get Milo to explain the world oil market to you.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Iraq needs to have a strong enough military to defend a government that is alien in the region (i.e. democracy). It can't be a token army, especially with Iran having nuclear capabilities.
No, it needs a strong enough military to rule it's own country.
As we've done for many other countries before Iraq, the US can be the shield against other more militant potential agressors. The precedent is proven.
-
Toad, now you ruined everything....Tweety won't be back.
Thanks a lot !
-
>>Tweety won't be back.
<<
Yea, you bet on that. But I'm going fly now.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Tweety won't be back.
<<
Yea, you bet on that. But I'm going fly now.
well at least you are going to do something that you may have a chance at.
-
things could change of course but latest polls show Bush at 300 electorial votes to kerries 235... some of kerries support has weakened..
now... he could pick up all the states he is weak in and Bush could lose all the states he is weak in but "weak" means about 6% of the vote in those states for either guy with kerrie a little weaker than bush even percentage wise.
kerrie could win but it is highly unlikely at this point in time.
it's not the end of the world either way... I survived klinton, I will survive kerrie if he and his army of media guys pull it off...
I like to be opptomistic... whenever a democrat wins people realize how not liberal they really are before it's all over.
lazs