Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on October 21, 2004, 10:35:33 PM
-
America On Line (AOL) has some the largest and most current polls anywhere, and its Presidential Straw Poll, with 245,464 votes so far from every state and DC, shows Bush ahead of Kerry and Nader by a considerable margin.
The poll, cleared at the beginning of each month to reflect the most current opinions, was last cleared Oct. 1. Don't know whether AOL will do a one-day November clearance before the election.
The October straw poll shows the following so far:
Electoral Votes
Bush 474 (270 needed to win), all states except 6 and DC
Kerry 64, 6 states (ME, VT, NY, MA, RI, CT) and DC
Nader 0
Popular Vote
Bush 55%,
Kerry 44%,
Nader 1%
-
Halo, this is like what I felt and said all along. Bush will win in a landslide. I even predicted he would get over 400 electoral votes.
-
I'd say this even if it showed kerry ahead....
If AOL decided our election we have alot more to worry about than terrorism!
-
pffft. AOLers..... mmmmkay.
-
Nash, if I am right about the election, will you consider me a "fluke" and wright off my prediction as a lucky statement from a Bush supporter?
-
i'm not saying i believe any"polls" but most polls sample about 700 people , AOL's poll has 245,464
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, if I am right about the election, will you consider me a "fluke" and wright off my prediction as a lucky statement from a Bush supporter?
Pretty much, I have to say.
Nobody is getting a landslide. There will be no landslide. To even consider that idea, let alone vehemently support it, is referred to in some circles as cognitive dissonance.
-
Well Nash, there are so many factors that point to Bush that it isn't conceivable that Kerry could win.
cognitive dissonance? I see that in you actually
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nobody is getting a landslide. There will be no landslide. To even consider that idea, let alone vehemently support it, is referred to in some circles as cognitive dissonance.
there are no US troops at the bagdad airport, the US troops are lost in the desert.
-
Interesting...
You do realize that Houston just lost, right?
I think that says it all. Neatly folded, signed, sealed, and delivered.
What else could there be?
What are these so-called 'factors'?
-
What's the definition of a landslide victory? Would think it would be at least 60-40 and maybe even 70-30 for popular vote. But if that electoral count is anywhere close, that could be a landslide by just about any definition.
We have to wait for final result before cognitive dissonance, don't we? Rationalizing to justify a decision after the fact.
Tough to get an untainted poll. AOL may not represent the general population or the general voting population. But the sheer size and spread of its sampling ought to count at least as much as other polls which often sample fewer than 1,000 people.
-
I have a few basic thoughts and observations that lead me to predict a Bush landslide.
I am using logic ( well, my logic), not emotion when I make these statements
-
Originally posted by Halo
" AOL may not represent the general population or the general voting population. But ..."
Yeah.
It's a deadly accurate sampling of RETARDS.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I have a few basic thoughts and observations that lead me to predict a Bush landslide.
I am using logic ( well, my logic), not emotion when I make these statements
Lay it on me.
-
refresh my memory.....
according to this http://www.electoral-vote.com/ kerry is at 271 bush at 257 with minisota being tied
If a canidate does not get 270 votes doesnt the senate decide the election?
-
(http://www.tiscali.cz/mult/images/5/2/8/5/528571.jpg)
Mr.President, are you sure these AOL CD's are part of "No Child Left Behind"?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lay it on me.
okay.
Bush is a proven leader, Kerry is not... and every American knows this. American security is no.1, and Kerry rates dead last in people's minds in this regard.
Bush is considered more likeable, a better choice for CIC, and more honest.
The recession Bush inherited was whiped out in record time. The economy is good, unemployment low, interest rates low, new home ownership at all time high.
Bush is strong on defence while Kerry never has seen a weapons procurement he has liked.
Kerry cannot escape his past nor himself and Americans see this.
Kerry is all words, Bush is action. Kerry has done exactly nothing with his 20 years in the Senate ( well, other than oppose Reagan's cold war) while Bush led this nation through a crisis of a large, world changing scale.
Bottom line: Bush has done everything right, while Kerry has done nothing at all. Americans will stay with the known and reject the "smooth" talking liar.
-
Taking swipes at AOL is so passe. It's only the largest, most successful, and most innovative on-line service by a huge margin.
Nevertheless, AOL is only one of many information sources. Pick and choose carefully.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Taking swipes at AOL is so passe. It's only the largest, most successful, and most innovative on-line service by a huge margin.
Nevertheless, AOL is only one of many information sources. Pick and choose carefully.
"it's so easy no wonder it's number one"
YEA FRIGGIN RIGHT. That's one of the main reason's AOL sucks.
They didn't start introducing "advanced features" till a few years ago. It's what drove most people away. The fact that up until about v6.0 you had to sit there and wait for the our glass when you knew the page wouldnt load.
The only thing I got good to say about AOL is if you live in BFE they probably have a local dial up number....it's probably busy most the time and you will only download at a wopping 1.5kps but hey it's access!
PS can anyone answer my previously asked question?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
okay.
Thanks for stepping up and answering Nuke. Seriously.
But... I just don't know how to respond to it.
Sure is fascinating.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
PS can anyone answer my previously asked question?
yeah.
It's yeah.
-
AOL is best as 9.0 Optimized bring your own provider (preferably cable) for $9.95 a month.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The recession Bush inherited was whiped out in record time. The economy is good, unemployment low, interest rates low, new home ownership at all time high.
And then theres that record setting debt thingy...
-
Originally posted by rpm
And then theres that record setting debt thingy...
The debt had to be rpm.
911 causes nearly 2 million jobs to go bye bye, the airline industry collapsed, homeland security was created and we went to war.
Deficit spending is the only way to pay. Do you have a credit card?
Plus, the debt is not a record based on GDP.
-
Nuke shall we make our 4 year bet from Jan 01, 2005 to Jan 01, 2009? Figured it should be settled by Jan 01 as to the winner of the election.
-
Okay.
p.s. Why do you like Kerry?
would you be interested in a Pat Tillman ASU Jersey?
-
This just proves most republicans are AOL users.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
refresh my memory.....
according to this http://www.electoral-vote.com/ kerry is at 271 bush at 257 with minisota being tied
If a canidate does not get 270 votes doesnt the senate decide the election?
I've been following that same site on a daily basis just for hahas.
Seems to keep going back and forth Bush Kerry Bush.
A a few days after each debate Kerry pulled well away only to have the numbers switch back in Bushs favor a week or so later
Kerry was much stronger 2 days ago then he is today Nearer 300 with Bush around 220 and at one point Minnesota at one point was a "Strong Kerry and is now a tie. NJ was also a Strong Kerry and is now a Weak Kerry. Just based on the nonsence going on here Im predicting Bush ends up winning NJ
In any event the trend seems to be heading back towards Bush again just as it has the last several weeks
But
If youve followed that site you may have noticed that even the person doing it doesnt have great confidence in its accuracy as there are in his own words "too many variables"
It is kinda fun to watch though
-
Internet polls are consistantly conservative biased - believe it or don't - I dun care.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
p.s. Why do you like Kerry?
I've never flamed you because of your beliefs and how you see things. Here's how I see it because you asked. If you want to carry it further and in more detail, we can go via email.
Because of what Bush has done.
1) We invaded another sovereign nation under false pretenses.
We've now lost over 1,000 of our own troops. Many innocent civillians have died as a result of it. Survivors of that are friends and family of the Iraqi victims aren't going to forgive so easily. Some of those might even be willing to attack us in return. This is becoming a less safe world in my opinion. I don't feel safer. Had Bush said he made a mistake, I'd respect that. He wanted this war, he got his wish. Their infrastructure is a mess. No organisation. You think the avg Iraqi is going to say that they hate us while facing armed american troops? No, they are going to say they love us, all the while behind the scenes, they are supporting their own against us.
Here's my prediction: As soon as the elections take place and leaders are "elected", they'll be assasinated eventually. As long as we have a presence in Iraq, there won't be peace. They look at us as the enemy. When we finally withdraw, the UN will have to come in to keep "order" less you want to see ethnic/culture massacres.
Iraq is NOT a noble war.
2) He has continued to squander our Social Security surplus dollars to help pay for the general programs our Federal Income Taxes should be paying for.
http://www.hermes-press.com/sss1.htm
3) I have absolutely no confidence of Bush as our CIC. Uniter? Not a nation builder? HAH! What about this massive deficit with no end in sight?!
I'll stop here (Oh I got more reasons).
Regards.
-
anyone that trusts AOL and its members to provide a scientific approach to measuring the feelings of Americans...should be shot.
-
AOL users are too dumb to find a real internet provider.
That bulky interface and all those worthless features - crap.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
refresh my memory.....
according to this http://www.electoral-vote.com/ kerry is at 271 bush at 257 with minisota being tied
As I said my last post.
It keeps going back and forth and now shows the huge lead Kerry had only a few days still being evaporated
"Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 264 Bush 264"
btw a typo in my last post saying Jersey went strong to weak Kerry Should have read Strong to Barely Kerry
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
.
2) He has continued to squander our Social Security surplus dollars to help pay for the general programs our Federal Income Taxes should be paying for.
http://www.hermes-press.com/sss1.htm
Regards.
You've already made it evident you do not wish to debate the subject.
And I will respect that desire with the above exeption
Here is the homepage for your...source
http://www.hermes-press.com/index.html (http://www.hermes-press.com/index.html)
Just by scanning it over and its headlines its quite easy to see its Not exactly what anyone can call an independant or unbiased analysis
Soon as I saw this The entire site lost any kind of claim to credibility Whatsoever IMO
(http://www.hermes-press.com/WMSB.jpg)
In Fact with things like this there it positively reeks of paranoia and radicalism "Declaring himself dictator"?
C'mon now
Comming from you it kinda dissapoints me
-
aol sucks... I wouldn't put much store in any "poll" they had but 245,000 votes does how a trend in at least aol subscribers... Myu personal guess woulda been that any aol poll woulda went the other way they are generally young and liberal and well.... kinda dumb.
I hope they and nuke are right tho. I hope it is at least a landslide enough that the lawyers stay out of it. If there is a close election and kerrie wins then so be it.. I and the republicans will lick our wounds and wait till next time and hope we don't lose too many rights or supreme court judges in the meantime..
if it is close and Bush wins it will be another democracy destroying cry baby democrat crap fest. It will show the worst there is of America like last time. I will be glad to see recounts in states that have provisions for automatic recounts for ONE time only and according to their rules.
If Bush wins and then kerries lawyers loophole and false count kerrie in...
I will not recognize kerrie as my president. I beleive that a lot of people will come to this conclussion if it is a trial and personal injury freak fest.
I believe that the above statement is more serious than a lot of you who believe in "winning at any cost" and "the end justifies the means" can even guess at. I believe that such an election would be the beggining of the end for a lot of Americans.
lazs
-
Yes, this truly is shaping up to be a cluster**** of spectacularly tardrific proportions.
Fantastic.
One nice thing though, they have hot chocolate at work today.
-SW
-
One thing you have to remember about AOL also is you can have up to 7 different screen names. And each screen name can vote in these things. So alot of those votes Im sure are the same people just switching screen names and voting again
I have Cable but keep AOL because I prefer their Email system to anything else I've seen and I HATE Outlook Express and dont like the way my ISP has mail set up either.
Plus it has some stuff that my youngest (8 year old) can access with ease
All my Surfing and anything else internet related though I do by way of Firefox as AOL's browser blows chunks
-
Good points, Drediock. AOL e-mail is excellent as is its spam screening and parental controls. No sense searching in AOL when can search directly via cable access, but it can be convenient when multitasking on AOL.
I wonder how many people actually bother to vote more than once with the other six screen names? That could introduce a huge error into any poll.
That's another good reason to be skeptical of all polls. They're just indicators of what might happen. Some people gravitate toward jumping on bandwagons while others tend to jump off.
Whether it's this AOL poll or other indications I don't know, but to me it looks as if Bush will win by a large enough margin that there won't be any doubts about this election.
-
halo.... I hope that is the case... that either Bush wins by a large enough amount that the dems give it up as hopless to try to steal the election or....
if kerrie wins it will be OK too since I trust the republicans to not want to destroy the country with such dangerous nonsense even if it is close.
lazs
-
Only good thing about Bush getting re-elected is that he will get to live through the consequences of all the wreckless and wrong decissions he has made over the last 4 years.
Though of course he still can't even admit he has made a single mistake.
...-Gixer
-
Hmmm... According to AOL, Kerry won't even win California.
According to this board, AOL users are idiots.
soo... One can assume that the idiots in California are Republican.
-
Hard to imagine anything more idiotic than summarily labeling as idiots the 20 million or so members of the largest internet on-line service.
-
Originally posted by rpm
And then theres that record setting debt thingy...
WRONG.
4% of GDP is NOT A RECORD not even close, go read a history book, I'm tired of debunking this clam.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Hard to imagine anything more idiotic than summarily labeling as idiots the 20 million or so members of the largest internet on-line service.
Not really... they signed up for AOHell's "service".
-SW
-
Originally posted by Halo
Hard to imagine anything more idiotic than summarily labeling as idiots the 20 million or so members of the largest internet on-line service.
Nah, it's kind of like summarily labeling everyone that beats their heads with hammers "idiots".
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'm not saying i believe any"polls" but most polls sample about 700 people , AOL's poll has 245,464
What does that have to do with anything? A large uncientific poll can be more statistically insignificant than a small scientific one.
-
Myelo, theoretically true, but the validity of polls is notoriously hard to establish. Do you have some examples of particularly good small scientific polls that have high successful rates of predicting various outcomes?
Not being smartass, just curious.
-
But very obviously, polls that show results as they are comming in are tainted by the fact those people participating are very concious they are being observed. There's a name for the effect, but I slept a lot during sociology class.
-
Only interesting point from the polls is that the difference is less then the margin of error.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Only good thing about Bush getting re-elected is that he will get to live through the consequences of all the wreckless and wrong decissions he has made over the last 4 years.
Though of course he still can't even admit he has made a single mistake.
...-Gixer
Boosh couldn't care less about the consequences of his actions. He and Cheyne are richer now than they were 4 years ago. Life after office will be one sweeeeet retirement for them. :rolleyes: Meanwhile, the middle class in America falls little-by-little into poverty.
If Boosh is re-elected, Iran will be his next big mistake.
I'm not looking forward to another 4 years under Booooosh.
-
Is it wheat straw or hay?
Latest from pollingreport.com
This one will be as close as last time; I'm saddened by the thought that it'll go to the courts as well. Bad trend, IMO. Fixing that starts with stopping voter fraud, I think but there are folks that will NEVER stand for actual voter verification. Believe it or not, Mexico has far better voter verification than we do.
(http://pollingreport2.com/0410GEN.GIF)
-
lol.... those polls are hideous.
Yesterday, that. Today, this. Tomorrow, that.
It's no wonder that I ever see them posted here every second day.
-
I think the point, Nash, is that they are ALL within the margin of error.
This one is going to be just as closer or closer than last time.
That's what it tells me anyway.
-
Toad, landslide Bush.
Even those polls point to a solid Bush leaning...but I'm not predicting a Bush landslide based on the polls.
In those polls, ( 16 ) Bush has 50% or better in 6 of them, Kerry ZERO at 50 or above and ony 2 at 49%...
Bush is never below 47% ( oops, once he had 46) in any of them, Kerry is 11 times out of the total of 16.
The trend is in favor of Bush in those polls.
-
Oh okay.
Yeah, it's all Florida again. At least that's the safe bet.
Yet, call me cookoo but I have a feeling that this one's gonna hinge on Wisconsin. Imagine that.
The cheese state for all the marbles.
-
Nuke, I don't pretend to be a professional pollster, even though I sometimes sleep in Holiday Inns.
I seriously doubt the "landslide" theory, either way. I think it'll be close and due to the bitterness from last time (despite the numerous recounts all showing the same result) I feel certain this one is going to the courts.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope there's a clear winner for the sake of our electoral system.
(I'd also like to see us adopt something like Mexico's voter validation process for the next one.)
-
Twelve hours after this thread began, AOL poll has another 33,121 votes for total of 278,585 -- with same results.
Here's the link:
http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll_october.adp
-
Hey Toad, will you answer two questions?
How would you characterise John Kerry as a person, a leader and decision maker?
Same for Bush.
By decision maker, I mean decisive....not "wobbly"
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think the point, Nash, is that they are ALL within the margin of error.
This one is going to be just as closer or closer than last time.
That's what it tells me anyway.
Toad, in 7 of those polls, Bush has a lead at 4 % or higher. What margin of error are you going by?
Bush leads 4 or higher:
5%
4%
4%
7%
8%
8%
6%
Kerry's highest:
2%
3%
All the rest lower, one tied with Bush.
Bush will win in a landslide
-
To further break down the poll results:
Number and size of Bush leads in the polls
5
4
4
7
8
8
6
2
3
Number and size of Kerry leads in polls:
2
3
Result? Kerry leads in only 2 polls, and only within the margin of error
-
Those polls, and AOL's poll back up my prediction of a landslide for Bush. Remember, polls are "popular" votes. The results of everything I have seen, plus Kerry's lack of anything to offer, all point to an electoral landslide for Bush.
Mark my words.
-
Nuke, Toad...
Zogby is the only poll that matters.
Yeah it's the same; Bush up, Kerry up, Bush up, Kerry up... But it's the best.
It was the best.... the most best, in 2000... And same deal right now.
Gallup, Rassmusen etc. are hilarious. They all are.
Zogby is gonna nail it again this year.
-
er but... take yer polls and wipe yer butts with them.
Some may get closer than others, but I think they're all gonna be way off.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Some may get closer than others, but I think they're all gonna be way off.
Me too. I think that only a complete moron would vote for Kerry, and there are not enough morons to help him win.
-
Jim: Polls say...
Bob: Polls are...
John: Polls have...
Nuke: Only a complete moron would vote for Kerry...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Jim: Polls say...
Bob: Polls are...
John: Polls have...
Nuke: Only a complete moron would vote for Kerry...
Well, you sure got me there!
By the way, can you explain to me what you like about Kerry?
What do you dislike about Bush?
Then, add it all up and explain why America needs John Kerry. What does Kerry offer?
Do you look up to Kerry? Why?
-
Yeah, I look up to Kerry. Very much so.
Yeah, I look down on Bush. Very much so.
To understand how that could be, you'd need to know me.
It's irrelevant.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah, I look up to Kerry. Very much so.
Yeah, I look down on Bush. Very much so.
To understand how that could be, you'd need to know me.
It's irrelevant.
Nash, you dodge questions like this because you have no answer.
Ask me the same question and I'll answer....no problem.
It tells me that you are afraid or unable to answer a simple question regarding a HUGE issue in your life. Sad.
-
You did answer the same question last night. It was great, and kudos.
But it was the most shrecked up thing I've ever heard.
So shrecked up that, when trying to balance answering you and keeping mum on account of keeping our friendship... well, I kept mum.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You did answer the same question last night. It was great, and kudos.
But it was the most shrecked up thing I've ever heard.
So shrecked up that, when trying to balance answering you and keeping mum on account of keeping our friendship... well, I kept mum.
Well, I will be your friend regardless of what you argue against me
I don't take this stuff personally. I just want to let it all hang out and have real feelings and arguments. Don't back off for my sake.
One of my favorite things is a good argument with friends. :)
-
Cool. :)
If ya wanna know what I think, then ask me a real question. Not much else to it.
I may be totally wrong, but yer questions don't seem real, hence the vaccum.
-
When I ask a question, I really do mean it and am curious about the answer
Anyway, I like to argue with people like you....the one's who can put up a fight.
-
That's awright Nuke. That's been my sense. Lately though... ah nevermind.
Where were we?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Cool. :)
If ya wanna know what I think, then ask me a real question. Not much else to it.
I may be totally wrong, but yer questions don't seem real, hence the vaccum.
What question did I ask you that seemed to be unreal?
I thought I asked very simple questions.
-
Nash, if I may....
You seem to base your arguments on emotion.
-
Just sayin'.... but...
The last few days or so, you have been on an emotion/logic kick...
Maybe too many episodes of Star Trek, I don't know.
But it's creeped in.
Emotion.... Emotion is good.
Logic keeps us alive. Emotion is the reason for trying to stay alive.
-
Emotion has it's place. We all have emotions, but emotion does not decide fact.
An argument based on emotion will not stand up to facts.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You've already made it evident you do not wish to debate the subject.
And I will respect that desire with the above exeption
Here is the homepage for your...source
http://www.hermes-press.com/index.html (http://www.hermes-press.com/index.html)
Just by scanning it over and its headlines its quite easy to see its Not exactly what anyone can call an independant or unbiased analysis
Soon as I saw this The entire site lost any kind of claim to credibility Whatsoever IMO
(http://www.hermes-press.com/WMSB.jpg)
In Fact with things like this there it positively reeks of paranoia and radicalism "Declaring himself dictator"?
C'mon now
Comming from you it kinda dissapoints me
Actually when I scanned the article, I didn't even notice that part. I linked it because I agree with the gist of the argument on the Social Security portion (that is after all why I linked it). I don't look as Bush as have "stolen" any kind of election, or of his "trying" to be dictator. The only ones I blame are those Gore supporters that didn't vote. They are the ones that need to look in the mirror and say "If I wasn't such an idiot by not voting, Bush might not have been elected."
I don't blame Bush or his supporters for his winning the 2000 election. If you check my previous posts, you'll see I've never accused the Republicans of stealing that election. BTW, you'll also note that I don't blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush or his administration either.
Now you want to address the Social Security issue? I say that the Bush Administration has squandered the Social Security surplus on programs that should be paid by Federal Income taxes. We are in a sense paying for the tax cuts through the back door.
You have something to add to counter my claim?
-
Emotion may not decide facts, but even facts do not decide facts.
Emotion may not stand up to facts, but neither do facts stand up to emotion.
You got, like, a mere 80 or so years on this planet. You wanna be logical? That's your business.
Life is three-sixty.
Praying to the God of logical, well, you are cupping your hands over your eyes. You are seeing maybe ten.
That's fine.
What isn't fine, err... I shouldn't say that. What is at least curious, is for folks with such a myopic sense of what living is about, to try to use their narrow world sense, their definition of how life should be lived, to question those in the other 350.
"Emotion has its place". Heh... Damned straight it does.
It will not stand up to facts? Whatever "facts" are you talking about?
Facts drop like flies. Especially, ESPECIALLY these days.
Hang on to 'em. Yer loss.
I aint buyin'. Emotion is the only real thing out there.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Now you want to address the Social Security issue? I say that the Bush Administration has squandered the Social Security surplus on programs that should be paid by Federal Income taxes. We are in a sense paying for the tax cuts through the back door.
You have something to add to counter my claim?
SS has never had a "lock-box". It has always been raided...
Has there ever been a SS surplus?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Emotion may not decide facts, but even facts do not decide facts.
Emotion may not stand up to facts, but neither do facts stand up to emotion.
You got, like, a mere 80 or so years on this planet. You wanna be logical? That's your business.
Life is three-sixty.
Praying to the God of logical, well, you are cupping your hands over your eyes. You are seeing maybe ten.
That's fine.
What isn't fine, err... I shouldn't say that. What is at least curious, is for folks with such a myopic sense of what living is about, to try to use their narrow world sense, their definition of how life should be lived, to question those in the other 350.
"Emotion has its place". Heh... Damned straight it does.
It will not stand up to facts? Whatever "facts" are you talking about?
Facts drop like flies. Especially, ESPECIALLY these days.
Hang on to 'em. Yer loss.
I aint buyin'. Emotion is the only real thing out there.
Let me make it simple for you.
What do you think Kerry will offer America that Bush cannot offer America? Simple question....use emotion or logic, your choice.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
SS has never had a "lock-box". It has always been raided...
Has there ever been a SS surplus?
Started with the Nixon administration IIRC. The Bush administration is using it to help fund his tax cuts. Another red flag for me.
-
a few less lables
-
So Bush is doing the same thing Clinton has done. What's the issue again?
-
Kerry, unlike Bush, is no (yikes) god. There is no divine anything happening...
However..
Kerry reflects our better angels.
-
well, your gonna be sorry when I post pics from my new camera tomorrow....
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So Bush is doing the same thing Clinton has done. What's the issue again?
No he's not. Apples and oranges.
What was the National Debt during Clinton's term?
What is it now under the Bush Administration?
At what rate are we accruing our present debt, daily?
At what point do you say that the Nat'l debt is too large (give me a figure you find unnacceptable)?
Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry would have invaded Iraq like we did under Bush.
Bush has proven to me what type of "leader" he is. I don't agree that his leadership is good for the US.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
well, your gonna be sorry when I post pics from my new camera tomorrow....
Hehe, now something of importance!!! Can't wait! :D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
No he's not. Apples and oranges.
What was the National Debt during Clinton's term?
What is it now under the Bush Administration?
At what rate are we accruing our present debt, daily?
At what point do you say that the Nat'l debt is too large (give me a figure you find unnacceptable)?
Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry would have invaded Iraq like we did under Bush.
Bush has proven to me what type of "leader" he is. I don't agree that his leadership is good for the US.
christ.
the REPUBLICANS balanced the budget during the Clinton term. Republicans controled the House and Senate...passed the "contract with America" and balanced the budget. Look it up.
Iraq??? That was a good call.
Clinton went to war in Somlia, Bosnia, Serbia.......ALL without UN approval.....and what did it accomplish?
I could SLAY you in this debate if you continue.
-
Nuke.... u aint being true to yerself.
In homey parlance, you are fronting.
-
not me..
Lay it on me. Im ready for a fight! :)
-
Why?
-
why what? That depends on the definition of why.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
christ.
Iraq??? That was a good call.
Clinton went to war in Somlia, Bosnia, Serbia.......ALL without UN approval.....and what did it accomplish?
I could SLAY you in this debate if you continue.
What debate? You haven't even addressed my questions.
The Republicans hold majority power in both houses. They control the Presidency. No excuses. You find it acceptable our present debt and its direction? Again, I'll ask:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
Apples and oranges again. Clinton didn't invade then occupy those countries.
Don't tell me that you'll "Slay" me, impress me with logic and facts. So far you haven't.
-
Fahgetaboudit.
Go see a lawyer or something. Ask him about the definition of "is".
Find out also about any case law precedents spock v kirk.
Bored.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
What debate? You haven't even addressed my questions.
The Republicans hold majority power in both houses. They control the Presidency. No excuses. You find it acceptable our present debt and its direction? Again, I'll ask:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
Apples and oranges again. Clinton didn't invade then occupy those countries.
Don't tell me that you'll "Slay" me, impress me with logic and facts. So far you haven't.
Okay.
Fact: 911 caused the loss of almost 2 million jobs, caused the government to bail out the airline industry at a cost in the billions, caused the US to go to war ( in a recession inherited from Clinton) and caused a stock market decline.
Under Bush, we have come out of the recession, dethroned the Taliban, captured Saddam and eleminated Osama as a threat.
Plus, unemployment and inflation are VERY low. NOTHING could be better. Are you saying that Kerry would have done something better to change all of this?
-
I'll ask again(third time):
You find it acceptable our present debt and its direction? Again, I'll ask:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I'll ask again(third time):
You find it acceptable our present debt and its direction? Again, I'll ask:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
The debt is TOTALLY acceptable. Do you use a credit card? Why?
The deficit spending is needed to recover from 911.
What would Kerry have done?
And guess what? The debt is not anywhere near a high
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The debt is TOTALLY acceptable. Do you use a credit card? Why?
The deficit spending is needed to recover from 911.
What would Kerry have done?
And guess what? The debt is not anywhere near a high
Okay, we're getting somewhere.
Now answer the second part:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Okay, we're getting somewhere.
Now answer the second part:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
hold on there cowboy...
You need to answer my questions too.
Do you use a credit card?
What would Kerry have done after 911?
-
if you believe aol, then you are an unquestionable dumb ass.
-
In due time. I expect my questions to be answered first since I asked first. You keep evading and responding with not answers but questions.
For the 5th time now:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
-
It's a great question.
-
It's not a figure, it's a percentage.
If you make $20k a year and you have $10k in revolving debt, then there is obviously a problem. If you make $200,000 a year and you have $10k in revolving debt, you are in a much different situation.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The deficit spending is needed to recover from 911.
Great, now prove that statement.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Toad, in 7 of those polls, Bush has a lead at 4 % or higher. What margin of error are you going by?
[/b]
Nuke, go to this page, it has more data on each poll.
Pollingreport doesn't do polls, it just collects the results from all the major ones and puts them in one place for easy reference.
PollingReport Complete Trial Heat Trends (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm)
That breaks down each poll listed in the table, including MoE.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey Toad, will you answer two questions?
How would you characterise John Kerry as a person, a leader and decision maker?
Same for Bush.
By decision maker, I mean decisive....not "wobbly"
Sure. I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He is more of a Flip-flopper than most. As a life-long politician, one that really hasn't accomplished much of anything in his 20 years in the Senate, I'd characterize him as a parasite. Something on the order of an ambulance chasing lawyer.
A leader? He was a low ranking Junior Officer in VN. There are conflicting statements on the quality of his leadership. Clearly, in the Senate he has been a follower, not a leader.
Decision maker? Who knows? What actual decisions has he made that could have had potentially disaterous results for himself, his comrades or his country? He decided to marry bucketloads of money... I suppose that was a good decision because it's probably easy to avoid her after they got married.
Bush is a I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He's a bit less of a flip-flopper than Kerry, particuarly in matters that touch even peripherally on his sense of religion/god. For example, I doubt Bush is going to flip on stem cell or abortion just to win. In his favor, he hasn't been a life-long politician but there's no doubt he's a politician.
As a leader, Bush in his short time in office has shown the determination to take the reins and lead. And this is not leadership at the Junior Officer level. JO's don't get much chance to lead in anything important. I think the Prescription bill passed for Seniors sort of suxxors... it's not much. BUT he is the first President to get one passed. It will be a base to build upon where before there was nothing. He did a good job after 9/11 rallying the country and the world to a greater state of "threat awareness". Stuff like that makes me think Bush is better at leading than Kerry on the things that Bush feels deeply in his heart. On other stuff, he's no different than Kerry.
Decison maker? He's decisive alright. However, the BIGGEST decision of his Presidential term was to invade Iraq. Had he found the WMD, he'd be seen as "right" by most rational folks. But he didn't. He's shown a remarkable inability to admit this and apologize. He led the US to invade a soverign nation (and yeah I supported it with the caveat that they had to be proven right at sometime about the WMD), remove its government and rebuild its society. Now, the buck stops in the Oval Office. This turned out to be a clusterfork of the highest magnitude and it's the biggest decison he's made so far. One that cost 1100+ US mothers their sons/daughters.
Did I answer all your questions?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
In due time. I expect my questions to be answered first since I asked first. You keep evading and responding with not answers but questions.
For the 5th time now:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
sorry, went to bed. I didn't mean to evade a question.
In a crisis like we found ourselves in after 911, I'd say almost no limit to deficit spending if that's what it takes to put cash into securing America.
Right now, we are not at record deficit levels , as some people love to claim. The economy is in good shape .
-
saburu... neither of us can quntify the debt so far as 9/11 but jobs were lost and the economy slowed.. Bush unquestionably pulled us out of a recession in record time..
now... the debt... we are in a war. we are suffering the effects of a terror war and a real war. These will get paid for eventually... they allways do.
what doesn't get paid is liberal socialist programs... they just get bigger and more expensive and pass on from adminestration to adminestration and no one has the courage to jerk the tit out of the peoples mouth...so... wars=expensive but get paid for... liberal socialism=debt that never ends and simply grows forever.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Halo
Myelo, theoretically true, but the validity of polls is notoriously hard to establish. Do you have some examples of particularly good small scientific polls that have high successful rates of predicting various outcomes?
Sorry, I don’t. I don’t know much about the various political polls and frankly I’m not really interested in them.
But something I do know about is statistical sampling. And the basic goal of statistical sampling is random selection, where every member of the population being studied has an equal chance of being sampled. In nonrandom sampling, as the AOL poll, you can’t reduce bias by increasing sample size.
And that was my point. A poorly designed poll that’s really big is just that – a really big, poorly designed poll.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Actually when I scanned the article, I didn't even notice that part. I linked it because I agree with the gist of the argument on the Social Security portion (that is after all why I linked it). I don't look as Bush as have "stolen" any kind of election, or of his "trying" to be dictator. The only ones I blame are those Gore supporters that didn't vote. They are the ones that need to look in the mirror and say "If I wasn't such an idiot by not voting, Bush might not have been elected."
I don't blame Bush or his supporters for his winning the 2000 election. If you check my previous posts, you'll see I've never accused the Republicans of stealing that election. BTW, you'll also note that I don't blame the 9/11 attacks on Bush or his administration either.
Now you want to address the Social Security issue? I say that the Bush Administration has squandered the Social Security surplus on programs that should be paid by Federal Income taxes. We are in a sense paying for the tax cuts through the back door.
You have something to add to counter my claim?
My primary issue was the credibility of the site your source came from. Which you gotta admit smacks of radicalism.
Just kinda surprised me to see it comming from you.
But overall I dont see how Bush has been a whole lot different in raiding the SS then anyone else.
SS IMO has been being squandered for quite some time
And does this not also require the approval of congress, a certain percentage of them most assuredly had to be Democrats.
And overall with reguard to taxes I dont see how Gore would have or could have done anything much differently.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
sorry, went to bed. I didn't mean to evade a question.
In a crisis like we found ourselves in after 911, I'd say almost no limit to deficit spending if that's what it takes to put cash into securing America.
Right now, we are not at record deficit levels , as some people love to claim. The economy is in good shape .
Actually its duel answer.
We got hit with a double whammy.
a recession then 911
It wasnt the recession alone nor was it 911 alone but both together or to be more accurate one immediatly followed by the other that more or less forced the measures taken to be taken.
Had only one or the other took place and not both. few of the numbers everyone likes to throw out here would be the same. Certainly the bad numbers wouldnt be as high
-
Nuke,
For the 6th time now:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
I asked a simple, direct question. Quit dancing ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Nuke,
For the 6th time now:
What figure will you finally say is too high?
I asked a simple, direct question. Quit dancing ;)
I say that no figure is too high.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sure. I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He is more of a Flip-flopper than most. As a life-long politician, one that really hasn't accomplished much of anything in his 20 years in the Senate, I'd characterize him as a parasite. Something on the order of an ambulance chasing lawyer.
A leader? He was a low ranking Junior Officer in VN. There are conflicting statements on the quality of his leadership. Clearly, in the Senate he has been a follower, not a leader.
Decision maker? Who knows? What actual decisions has he made that could have had potentially disaterous results for himself, his comrades or his country? He decided to marry bucketloads of money... I suppose that was a good decision because it's probably easy to avoid her after they got married.
Bush is a I think Kerry is a typical politician that will say, do, pretend, photo-op anything to win. He's a bit less of a flip-flopper than Kerry, particuarly in matters that touch even peripherally on his sense of religion/god. For example, I doubt Bush is going to flip on stem cell or abortion just to win. In his favor, he hasn't been a life-long politician but there's no doubt he's a politician.
As a leader, Bush in his short time in office has shown the determination to take the reins and lead. And this is not leadership at the Junior Officer level. JO's don't get much chance to lead in anything important. I think the Prescription bill passed for Seniors sort of suxxors... it's not much. BUT he is the first President to get one passed. It will be a base to build upon where before there was nothing. He did a good job after 9/11 rallying the country and the world to a greater state of "threat awareness". Stuff like that makes me think Bush is better at leading than Kerry on the things that Bush feels deeply in his heart. On other stuff, he's no different than Kerry.
Decison maker? He's decisive alright. However, the BIGGEST decision of his Presidential term was to invade Iraq. Had he found the WMD, he'd be seen as "right" by most rational folks. But he didn't. He's shown a remarkable inability to admit this and apologize. He led the US to invade a soverign nation (and yeah I supported it with the caveat that they had to be proven right at sometime about the WMD), remove its government and rebuild its society. Now, the buck stops in the Oval Office. This turned out to be a clusterfork of the highest magnitude and it's the biggest decison he's made so far. One that cost 1100+ US mothers their sons/daughters.
Did I answer all your questions?
Toad, you did answer my questions.
I the only thing I don't agree with you on is the Iraq war.
-
what's funny is this site flip flops more than kerry
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I say that no figure is too high.
Thanks! 'Bout time you gave a straight answer!! :D
Now my responses to yours:
1) Fact: 911 caused the loss of almost 2 million jobs, caused the government to bail out the airline industry at a cost in the billions, caused the US to go to war ( in a recession inherited from Clinton) and caused a stock market decline.
Under Bush, we have come out of the recession, dethroned the Taliban, captured Saddam and eleminated Osama as a threat.
Plus, unemployment and inflation are VERY low. NOTHING could be better. Are you saying that Kerry would have done something better to change all of this?
1a)First, it would have been Gore, not Kerry had someone other than Bush been President. I'm not clairvoyant, but I'd bet the farm that Gore (or Kerry) for that matter would not have gone to war with Iraq under the same circumstances as Bush's.
Bush has proven to me what type of leader he is. I'm not in favor of how he's "leading."
2) Fact: 911 caused the loss of almost 2 million jobs, caused the government to bail out the airline industry at a cost in the billions, caused the US to go to war ( in a recession inherited from Clinton) and caused a stock market decline.
Under Bush, we have come out of the recession, dethroned the Taliban, captured Saddam and eleminated Osama as a threat.
Plus, unemployment and inflation are VERY low. NOTHING could be better. Are you saying that Kerry would have done something better to change all of this?
2a) I'll disagree about the 9/11 attacks "caused" us to invade Iraq. Bush had been chomping at the bit to invade Iraq and believed any and all reports that gave him a reason to go in. Heck, he couldn't even wait the 3-6 months that the UN was asking for to finish their inspections. It was almost as if the Bush administration couldn't wait because they didn't want their main reason for invasion proven wrong.
What get's my goat is that he isn't even taking responsibility as CIC of accepting that he made the wrong decision. Gawd, it's like Clinton with his claims on "NOT having sexual relations with that woman!" Their credibility with me is ZERO. Leadership? No way.
Because Bush keeps saying he knows how to lead, doesn't make it so. He hasn't been doing a good job of leading in my book.
Saddam was never a threat to us, we were the threat to him. Heck, even with our support, he couldn't defeat a weakened Iran in his war which he started.
Heck, Al Quaida considered Saddam as one of their enemies as he was suppressing a 60% majority of his muslim population. We have now set the stage of having another Iran type Islamic Fundamentalist government running Iraq in the long term.
The Taliban were busy fighting their own civil war against the Northern Alliance. They were no threat to us.
The Taliban were busy in their own civil war with the Northern Alliance.
Eliminated Osama as a threat? He's dead? IMHO, Al Quaida just isn't the big boogey man of a threat we want to make them to be.
Now if we keep invading/occupying muslim sovereign nations and keep causing innocent civillian casualties, we just might create a self-fulfilling prophesy by filling the ranks of Al Quaida into a force to be reckoned with.
We, the USA are the single most strongest nation on earth. Funny how some of us tremble in fear of some small countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, N Korea, etc.,) or of a relatively small group (Al Quaida).
Unemployment figures are skewed as the benefits have been cut. The figures are based on those under unemployment and those applying for it. Those unemployed that do not receive and/or do not qualify, are not counted in the figures. I could be wrong about this though as I'm not an "expert" in the field.
Nothing could be better? The Iraq occupation and the runaway deficit are two huge reasons for me why I'm voting for Kerry. It could be a LOT better.
Would Gore (or Kerry) have done it differently? On a hunch, you bet! I'd be feeling a hell of a lot more secure with our standing in this world.
3) Do you use a credit card?
What would Kerry have done after 911?
3a) Apples and oranges.
Yes I do. You see, I have a maximum limit on my credit card. I have to pay a minimum monthly payment or my credit rating goes to hell. There are a lot of things I'd love to have. Perhaps you can show me where I can secure one of those cards that allow me to buy anything I want with no limit , no minimum monthly payments. Heck, I'll buy everything I want. I'll even expand my photography business so I can employ some people. All of our kids/grandkids can pay off my wreckless spending/borrowing, though.
After all, deficit spending is good for the economy, right?
Gore (or Kerry) would have been more responsible with the huge tax breaks that Bush was not. It is the HUGE tax breaks that are mainly responsible for our huge deficit. It's growing at what, $1.2 billion/day?
Bush is masking the tax cuts effects by taking Social Security funds to help pay for necessary gov't programs. It's because deficit spending at the rate we're going is the reason he's touching Social Security.
*****************
Now my questions to you:
I say that no figure is too high.
a)What economic tools can we use in today's America to help pare down the debt?
I'm not talking mearly balancing the budget, year after year, but bringing it to a point where we have no deficit.
You've got "x" amount of government programs and "x" amount of revenue. Since it looks like you want the reduced taxes that Bush has instituted, I guess you're not going to raise taxes.
b)How do you do it?
Do me a favor and not have me ask multiple times just to get a straight answer out of you. Go ahead, slay me with your logic and intellect.
-
SaburoS
Problem is the deficit under Kerry will not be much smaller. If its smaller at all
In fact I have not been able to find a single independant anayisis (That being one that doesnt seem to originate from one camp or the other) that claims that the deficit will go down by very much under Kerry..or Bush either for that matter.
The most common deficit projections I have found place the deficit at around
450 Billion under kerry and 380 billion under Bush
"If Congress enacted all of Bush's proposals, or all of Kerry's, the deficit wouldn't shrink much. Under Bush, it would be $375 billion by 2009, and $447 billion under Kerry", - economic research firm Global Insight
A large part of the problem is Kerry's so called "Health care plan" which is on of Kerry big promises. One which the more I look at it the more it becomes obvious he has no way of really paying for
"The benefits of Kerry's health care plan to employers could be outweighed by its cost — $653 billion over 10 years, economists said. That plan and his deficit reduction pledge "work against each other" - Jared Bernstein, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute.
Most i've found call it a wash between Bush and Kerry
But some such as The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Indicates Budget Deficit would explode under Kerry. "Even with that generous accounting, the Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount of money. Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years."
But I do question the AIEs claim to being "independant"
Actually it wasnt the "huge tax breaks" that ran up the Deficit
According to the Office of Management and Budget, about 75 percent of the increase in discretionary spending over the past three fiscal years was due to our nation's response to 9/11 and the war.The Congressional Joint Economic Committee found that 73 percent of the downturn in the budget surplus over the last three years was the byproduct of increased government spending and the weak economy. Only 27 percent of the dissipation was caused by the Bush tax cuts
Had there been no tax cuts, the federal government would still have run substantial budget deficits. In fact, by cushioning the economic fallout from the 9/11 attack and strengthening the economy, the tax cuts had the effect of putting a floor under the tax revenue base. Without the Bush tax cuts, the recession would have been longer and deeper, thereby producing an even larger budget deficit.
As the Top fan and president of the Bush fan club Tom Daschle put it,
"This is deficit spending once again and it's very disconcerting to many of us. But I don't know that there is an alternative."
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Do me a favor and not have me ask multiple times just to get a straight answer out of you. Go ahead, slay me with your logic and intellect.
Do me a favor and don't ask me 15 questions all at once...it makes it hard to figure out what you want answered :)
By the way, the best way to debate or argue is to state your case, not ask a barage of questions.
That's the funny part. You and I both know that the debt was whiped out during Clinton years. You are asking a rethorical question.
"Originally posted by SaburoS
No he's not. Apples and oranges.
What was the National Debt during Clinton's term?
What is it now under the Bush Administration?
At what rate are we accruing our present debt, daily?
At what point do you say that the Nat'l debt is too large (give me a figure you find unnacceptable)?
Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry would have invaded Iraq like we did under Bush.
Bush has proven to me what type of "leader" he is. I don't agree that his leadership is good for the US. "
The National Debt was close to zero under Clinton, but Clinton had little to do with it. The Republicans controled both the House and Senate.
Also, by the end of Clinton's term, the economy was in the tank. Bush inherited Clinton's downturn and THEN we were hit with 911 and forced to go to war.
You say Clinton, Gore, nor Kerry would not have invaded Iraq like we did under Bush? Well Clinton sure had no problem goining into Somalia, Bosnia and Serbia without the UN.
The National debt does not concern me in the least. What concernes me is that we have our country. The deficit spending was needed because we went to war ( no, I never said 911 caused us to go to Iraq), we had to pay for homeland security and bail out the economy which lost nearly 2 million jobs as a result of 911. If Kerry was faced with the exact same situation, I believe he would had spend as much as was needed as well.
I want to spend WHATEVER is needed for our security and worry about paying back later. The debt is not a national security issue or even a large economic problem for us.
Let me tell you someting that you may not have thought about regarding Iraq. Iraq had kicked out the UN inspecters and the ONLY reason inspecters were allowed back was because Bush put a huge force on Saddam's doorstep. That force is expensive to keep there and they could not stay on standby forever while the UN played games. I'm not saying that just because we had them there, they had to be used...but after a certain point, with Saddam still shrecking us around, then yes, it was go time to finixsh the clown off.
All intelligence Bush recieved was pointing to Saddam and a very real threat. Russia sent word that Iraq was planning an attack. The UN said Iraq had WMD. Even Saddam was not cooperating STILL.
What should Bush do faced with that after what had just happened on 911?? Pull the troops back?
The Iraq war was justified and it was a good call. I can see all the naysayers screaming if Bush had NOT gone into war, then something happened with Iraq.
And why should Bush admit he was wrong when he wasn't wrong? What was he wrong about? Reacting to a threat that everyone in the world said was a threat?
Now Kerry is just a joke. Kerry doesn't even do his current job most of the time. What specifically do you see that you *really* like about him? I honestly cannot think of one thing good about Kerry, his Senate record, or leadership. Leadership?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do me a favor and don't ask me 15 questions all at once...it makes it hard to figure out what you want answered :)
By the way, the best way to debate or argue is to state your case, not ask a barage of questions.
Most of mine were rhetorical....and over several posts. How about we keep this about the other's previous post?
These, I wanted your thoughts on:
(2nd time btw)
Now my questions to you:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say that no figure is too high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a)What economic tools can we use in today's America to help pare down the debt?
I'm not talking mearly balancing the budget, year after year, but bringing it to a point where we have no deficit.
You've got "x" amount of government programs and "x" amount of revenue. Since it looks like you want the reduced taxes that Bush has instituted, I guess you're not going to raise taxes.
b)How do you do it?
*********
How about we ask each other a direct question with a related follow-up? This is of course after we answer the other's direct question(s). This will keep our discussions from getting into a rambling mess. LOL, in your comments of my asking too many questions at once, you asked several in a single post as a response ;)
You want me to answer your questions? How about you answer mine as well?
Let's try this format of answer the one direct question w/ its follow up, then ask our own direct question with its follow-up. It'll keep us on track in our discussion. :)
-
funny you say that skerry would not have gone to war if he were POTUS yet, seeing/hearing the same intel as Bush, skerry voted to give Bush the power to go to war...
another hindsight 20/20 expert...
I truly belive if Bush HAD NOT invaded, the election cry from the left would be:
"WHY HASN"T BUSH INVADED IRAQ!!! HE IS TOO WEAK!!! HE DOES NOT WANT TO UPSET HIS OIL BUDDIES!!! HE WANTS ANOTHER 9/11!!!"
"VOTE FOR ME, JOHN SKERRY AND I PROMISE YOU I WILL INVADE IRAQ, KICK SADDAMS ARSE AND PROTECT YOU FROM ANOTHER 9/11 FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!! ... cause I have a plan"
LOL LOL LOL
-
Five days after this post began, with another 55,536 votes to make a total of 334,121, the AOL Presidential Election October straw poll shows Bush still leading the popular vote by the same 10-point margin and gaining one state, Maine, for four more electoral votes.
The latest:
Electoral Votes
Bush 478 (270 needed to win), all states except 5 and DC
Kerry 60, 5 states (VT, NY, MA, RI, CT) and DC
Nader 0
Popular Vote
Bush 55%,
Kerry 44%,
Nader 1%
http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll_october.adp
-
After the election, take a look at this poll with its huge numbers and see how it ranks with other much smaller polls in predicting the winner.
Bush leads in spite of a Democratic party anti-Bush ad on AOL's lead-in screen the past month or so.
-
Four days after last update and nine days after this post began, with another 55,131 votes to make a total of 389,252, the AOL Presidential Election October straw poll shows Bush still leading by the same 10-point popular vote margin and 88.8% of the electoral college votes.
The latest:
Electoral Votes
Bush 478 (270 needed to win), all states except 5 and DC
Kerry 60, 5 states (VT, NY, MA, RI, CT) and DC
Nader 0
Popular Vote
Bush 55%,
Kerry 44%,
Nader 1%
http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll_october.adp
__________________
-
Originally posted by Halo
Four days after last update and nine days after this post began, with another 55,131 votes to make a total of 389,252, the AOL Presidential Election October straw poll shows Bush still leading by the same 10-point popular vote margin and 88.8% of the electoral college votes.
The latest:
Electoral Votes
Bush 478 (270 needed to win), all states except 5 and DC
Kerry 60, 5 states (VT, NY, MA, RI, CT) and DC
Nader 0
Popular Vote
Bush 55%,
Kerry 44%,
Nader 1%
http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll_october.adp
__________________
I know it's a straw poll but they have Kerry winning Kalifornia???? Cmon!:rolleyes:
-
Ahnuld has big broad shoulders for more Republican piggybackers than anyone suspected.
(feeling a song coming on) ... George Bush wins it, this I know, for the BigPoll tells me so ....
-
funny
how the largest poll of the election has not made the media airwaves :)
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!!!!
(http://www.web-friend.com/wp/group1/usa-eagle-800.jpg)
-
That is strange, Eagler. Of course every poll has its own advocates, and some are media-sponsored. All have much smaller populations although some supposedly are more scientific and hence representative than AOL's.
Aside from some Aces High bulletin boarders' snide remarks about AOL and its customers, even with potential multi votes from the seven possible screen names available to each customer, the poll has more than 300,000 votes from some 20 million AOLers.
That's 300 times more people than are in most other polls of less than a thousand people.
My best guess at generalizing the AOL population is reasonably savvy computer users big on user friendly interface, probably average income or above, but from there on I can't even guess the demographics other than to say nationwide as shown by the polling.
So you and AOL are the main predictors of a Bush landslide.
Will be fascinating to see how accurate or inaccurate you both are when the dust settles.
-
At 395,766 votes, a day before the election, Bush continues his same leading margins and is unlikely to pick up any of the five states and DC remaining for Kerry.
The two closest state races seem to be California and Minnesota, each showing Bush leading only 50% to Kerry's 49% and Nader's 1%. California has 55 electoral votes and Minnesota 10.
-
(http://www.cyberus.ca/~gwalls/images/sadbeaver.bmp)
NEVAR FORGIT TEH BEAVAR!
-
Still same lead with 415,795 votes, as of 8:45 a.m. on election day.
This year the closest state race might be California with its huge number of 55 electoral votes.
In California, AOL straw poll shows Bush still leading Kerry 50% to 49% by only 388 votes, 20,169 to 19,781, of 40,277. Nader has 1%, 327 votes.
-
So President Bush got re-elected as the AOL poll predicted, but not by the landslide predicted.
Instead of 478 electoral votes, Bush got 286 (including 12 not yet announced, 7 from Iowa and 5 from New Mexico).
Instead of 60 electoral votes, Kerry got 252.
Instead of winning all states but 5 and the District of Columbia, Bush won 31 states (counting Iowa and New Mexico) while Kerry won 18 and the District of Columbia.
Bush won the popular vote 51% to 48%, the largest margin in recent elections, but not the 55% to 45% the AOL poll predicted.
Still, not a bad showing for the huge AOL Presidential Straw Poll, as good or better than most other much smaller polls.
Probably the most obvious generalization is AOL members apparently are more Republican oriented than the general public, especially in the 13 states the AOL poll predicted would go to Bush but instead went to Kerry.