Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 28, 2004, 05:43:44 PM
-
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak28.html
Pollster John Zogby surprised the political world back in April with a long-range prediction that John Kerry would defeat George W. Bush for president. On Monday this week, Zogby told me, he changed his mind. He now thinks the president is more likely to be re-elected because he has reinforced support from his base, including married white women.
you go girl! :D
-
"On Monday this week..."
Funny, I heard him on TV last night (Wednesday) saying he still thinks his prediction is gonna hold.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
you go girl! :D
:D
-
Originally posted by Nash
"On Monday this week..."
Funny, I heard him on TV last night (Wednesday) saying he still thinks his prediction is gonna hold.
Consistent with Kerry's flip flop then, eh?
-
AND again last night, Zogby said he predicts a Kerry win.
I think the only flip flop here is on Rip's feet.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
AND again last night, Zogby said he predicts a Kerry win.
I think the only flip flop here is on Rip's feet.
Oh goodness! I get credit for a Chicago news column! Thankyou...when can I expect the check?:cool:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh goodness! I get credit for a Chicago news column! Thankyou...when can I expect the check?:cool:
Heck, you're the only one that's tossed up a link so far. The rest is:
"Hanoi John called me last night and told me he was going to win."
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The rest is:
"Hanoi John called me last night and told me he was going to win."
I heard it! I heard it...
:rofl
-
He said last night on the Daily show he thinks Kerry will win but he said he really didn't know for sure.
He said the challenger almost always gets a surge right before the election but then again Bush is still ahead by almost the margin for error so he isn't sure.
Translation: He wants Kerry to win but he doesn't have the numbers to back it up.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
He said last night on the Daily show he thinks Kerry will win but he said he really didn't know for sure.
He said the challenger almost always gets a surge right before the election but then again Bush is still ahead by almost the margin for error so he isn't sure.
Translation: He wants Kerry to win but he doesn't have the numbers to back it up.
"If you wish upon a starrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...."
he may get his wish, Boston won! America loves an underdog.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"If you wish upon a starrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...."
he may get his wish, Boston won! America loves an underdog.
Boston won......then Curt Shilling urged his fans to vote for Bush.
DOH!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I heard it! I heard it...
:rofl
Oh yeah? And what were Zogby's exact words to Novak?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh yeah? And what were Zogby's exact words to Novak?
Originally posted by Martlet
"Hanoi John called me last night and told me he was going to win."
(Pssst...should have saved those brain cells for old age! ;) )
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
He said last night on the Daily show he thinks Kerry will win but he said he really didn't know for sure.
He said the challenger almost always gets a surge right before the election but then again Bush is still ahead by almost the margin for error so he isn't sure.
Translation: He wants Kerry to win but he doesn't have the numbers to back it up.
Kick that spin machine in high gear! He predicted Kerry, deal with it.
-
I don't think he has a big enough lead. Every major city in this country is going to have a 115% turnout for the Democrats (they always do) , plus the 'Mexican' vote in the Southwest.
Oh, and I think the Governor of Ohio said he as a couple of counites with more registered voters than adult citizens living there.
You need at least a 5-6% lead at the start to beat that or you're 'toast'.
It's going to be a long night on Tuesday.....
:D
-
Originally posted by Otto
It's going to be a long night on Tuesday.....
:D
The election will not be decided on Nov. 2nd. More like Dec.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The election will not be decided on Nov. 2nd. More like Dec.
You got that right :(
We have to find a solution to this mess but I'm not sure how. I think the Federal Government has to step in and set a 'standard' that all the states have to follow but not be involved with the actual election.
National voting procedures run by the States.
It's too late now.......
:eek:
-
Originally posted by rpm
Kick that spin machine in high gear! He predicted Kerry, deal with it.
The more important thing he said on the Daily Show was that emotions were running so high that a large part of the population wouldn't accept the outcome if their candidate lost in a close race. Not surprising after Florida in 2000, though Republicans calling foul in '04 would be a bit ironic.
So yeah, expect lots of recounts and intrigue ... maybe worse. So y'all better stock up on ammo and bottled water, it could be a long week.
-
yep.. could be interesting... Bush is still ahead by a couple of percent in the popular vote and a tad ahead in the electorial... but..
A lot of the states that kerry needs he is holding on to with his fingernails... he not only needs to take some from Bush but he needs to hold on to states that are a vitual tie...
It could go that Bush wins by one real state like last time or... a couple that are close.. I have no doubt the democrats will try to subvert the will of those people again. there will be a huge mess...
It could also be that Bush takes three of the key states... In that case... I don't think the people will stand the overturning of all three states by lawyers... I don't think the democrats would persue that one because of the damage it could cause them in the long run.... they will run polls tho to see how much they can get away with.
or... bush could lose by one or so states and that would be the end of it. He would congradulate kerrie and be done with it.
lazs
-
After all the crying of "an army of 10,000 Democrat lawyers" it will be interesting to see how Republicans try to defend the "Army of Litigators" the GOP will unleash.
-
I'm gonna go with Gallup on this.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=13792
I'm betting that when Kerry sees the handwriting on the wall he will bow out gracefully.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Kick that spin machine in high gear! He predicted Kerry, deal with it.
Spin?
I did not challenge his numbers I did not challenge his comments I just stated what he said and what he didn't say. Which was the numbers do not show Kerry to be the clear winner.
He gave his opinion and said it may or may not be right but he hoped it was. "Hoped" not definite.
So how was my comment a spin?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Translation: He wants Kerry to win but he doesn't have the numbers to back it up.
When you start reading people's minds and inserting your opinion you entered Spin City. You meet Michael J Fox yet?
-
Originally posted by rpm
When you start reading people's minds and inserting your opinion you entered Spin City. You meet Michael J Fox yet?
HELLOOO is this thing on?
He said that Kerry would win but he didn't have the numbers to back it up so how is this mind reading?
-
iron... I bet if kerrie loses more than two key states he will bow out gracefully. I am betting that if it is only one or one major and one minor he will fight like a little girl who has been spoiled all her life and is being told no for the first time.
lazs
-
hehe lazs, we won't have to wait much longer to see
-
yep... I will survive either way... just hope it doesn't do too much damage to the system.
lazs
-
Lazs.
About the only thing I do agree with you about is that if it looks like Kerry won, W will be gracious and offer his kind congratulations. He'll need to sedate Cheney first, of course.
In a way, maybe a huge debacle would be the best thing. Another Watergate ... riots at the voting booths ... an angry mob descending on Fox News with torches and pitchforks ... get Bob Villa to rig some nice guillotines. Then when the dust settles and the bodies are buried we can ditch this retarded electoral college and put in some good solid 20th Century technology to let the popular vote actually decide the damn election.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Lazs.
About the only thing I do agree with you about is that if it looks like Kerry won, W will be gracious and offer his kind congratulations. He'll need to sedate Cheney first, of course.
In a way, maybe a huge debacle would be the best thing. Another Watergate ... riots at the voting booths ... an angry mob descending on Fox News with torches and pitchforks ... get Bob Villa to rig some nice guillotines. Then when the dust settles and the bodies are buried we can ditch this retarded electoral college and put in some good solid 20th Century technology to let the popular vote actually decide the damn election.
I think your assessment of the result of wide spread rioting and overthrow of our government is a fantasy much like the idea of utopia shared by many liberals. If there is to be revolution the ones with the guns will win.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think your assessment of the result of wide spread rioting and overthrow of our government is a fantasy much like the idea of utopia shared by many liberals. If there is to be revolution the ones with the guns will win.
So you're calling me a liberal?
But I'm a gun owner.
Don't you feel safer now?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
He said last night on the Daily show he thinks Kerry will win but he said he really didn't know for sure.
He said the challenger almost always gets a surge right before the election but then again Bush is still ahead by almost the margin for error so he isn't sure.
Translation: He wants Kerry to win but he doesn't have the numbers to back it up.
Which Daily Show were you watching?
Basically he is picking Kerry because it is too close to call, and the undecideds usually don't vote for the incumbent. He said he hoped he was right, not because he wants Kerry, but because his job is to be accurate.
But you can spin it like a top all you want.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
So you're calling me a liberal?
But I'm a gun owner.
Don't you feel safer now?
If you are advocating riots and overthrow of our constitution should Bush win the election, then yes, I'm calling you a liberal.
I feel pretty safe here in Texas, do you? I didn't feel so safe in Las Vegas in '92.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If you are advocating riots and overthrow of our constitution should Bush win the election, then yes, I'm calling you a liberal.
I feel pretty safe here in Texas, do you? I didn't feel so safe in Las Vegas in '92.
Ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahaha hahaha ... I needed that.
The electoral college is an antiquated system built for a different time - centuries ago. It. Is. Obsolete. That you twist this into "overthrow of the constitution" and bandying about the L-word does not help your cause one bit.
The two years I spent in Texas was the longest decade in my life. I didn't feel safer there by a long shot - I wouldn't expect you to understand why.
But that wasn't what I was asking about - you said the people with the guns will win. Well, you say I'm a Liberal, and I am from Boston ... but I own guns and I was on the pistol team in college, and I'm decent with a hunting bow if need be ... so I guess I win, huh? Now do you feel safe?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahaha ... I needed that.
The electoral college is an antiquated system built for a different time - centuries ago. It. Is. Obsolete. That you twist this into "overthrow of the constitution" and bandying about the L-word does not help your cause one bit.
The two years I spent in Texas was the longest decade in my life. I didn't feel safer there by a long shot - I wouldn't expect you to understand why.
But that wasn't what I was asking about - you said the people with the guns will win. Well, you say I'm a Liberal, and I am from Boston ... but I own guns and I was on the pistol team in college, and I'm decent with a hunting bow if need be ... so I guess I win, huh? Now do you feel safe?
If you are a liberal with a gun you are a minority. For the sake of argument, let's exclude our police and armed forces, who would be undoubtedly opposed to those trying to overthrow our government, who do you suppose would win a civil war in this country, convservatives or liberals?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
AND again last night, Zogby said he predicts a Kerry win.
I think the only flip flop here is on Rip's feet.
Zogby is very active in Arab-American PACs, which disqualifies his personal opinion as mere wishful thinking.
Exit polls in early voter states show Bush leading by 7%. WIthout question, exit polling is more accurate than likely voter polling, because there is no doubt that they did, in fact, vote.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Zogby is very active in Arab-American PACs, which disqualifies his personal opinion as mere wishful thinking.
Exit polls in early voter states show Bush leading by 7%. WIthout question, exit polling is more accurate than likely voter polling, because there is no doubt that they did, in fact, vote.
My regards,
Widewing
ROFL.. funny dude.
1. Zogby's job is to be ACCURATE. If he isn't ACCURATE people will not use his services. His prediction was based on evidence and experience. If it isn't he is a fool. If you think that... you are a fool.
2. WTF does Arab American PAC's have to do with it? Are you insinuating that Arab Americans hate Bush en-mass? Or is this just another form of subtle racism?
3. Exit polls accurately show only the segment of the population that is caught exitting! Hardly a cross section or a statistically significant result. Maybe you would like to quote the AOL poll too?
4. I think Zogby is wrong. I think Bush is gonna win. Just getting sick and tired of the constant insinuation that ANYTHING anti-bush must be some kind of hidden agenda. Can't wait till Nov. 3rd.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
... For the sake of argument, let's exclude our police and armed forces, who would be undoubtedly opposed to those trying to overthrow our government, who do you suppose would win a civil war in this country, convservatives or liberals?
Revolutions generally fracture along the same line: haves versus have-nots. There are an awful lot of very angry have-nots right now.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
... Can't wait till Nov. 3rd.
Amen ... lets just end this already ... we're all screwed no matter who wins anyway.
-
gonzo... I don't think that the guns that liberals will allow you to own will do you much good. If you are a kerrie voter then you are a liberal and against private gun ownership in any meaningful way. or... owning guns is really not very important to you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Revolutions generally fracture along the same line: haves versus have-nots. There are an awful lot of very angry have-nots right now.
No argument here, the other was purely hypothetical. So long as the "have-nots" get their new TVs and stereos and then go back home peacefully the police and national guard will be able to handle the situation.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
gonzo... I don't think that the guns that liberals will allow you to own will do you much good. If you are a kerrie voter then you are a liberal and against private gun ownership in any meaningful way. or... owning guns is really not very important to you.
Polls indicate that many "Kerry voters" are really "Anyone But Bush" voters. So your argument is flacid.
-
Since you brought up violence as the impetus to force a change in our constitution Dokgonzo lemme ask for your opinion on this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/ee.mp3
Was that an attempted voter intimidation?
-
how so? it is simple. If you are for keeping your gun rights and against socialism and liberalism then it is anyone but kerrie.... otherwise you are simply pretending to not be a liberal.
really am leaving now... need to go shooting.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No argument here, the other was purely hypothetical. So long as the "have-nots" get their new TVs and stereos and then go back home peacefully the police and national guard will be able to handle the situation.
Many have-nots are on the police force and in the military. I don't think it'd resolve itself the same way in Dallas as it will in Detroit, or in LA or Atlanta or Boston.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Many have-nots are on the police force and in the military. I don't think it'd resolve itself the same way in Dallas as it will in Detroit, or in LA or Atlanta or Boston.
I was one of those have-nots in the military for 20 years and so I think my evaluation of which way the military would go is probably more accurate than what you seem to be suggesting.
Personally, I will never recognize any changes to the constitution made unconstitutionally.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Since you brought up violence as the impetus to force a change in our constitution Dokgonzo lemme ask for your opinion on this:
http://www.drudgereport.com/ee.mp3
Was that an attempted voter intimidation?
I didn't read it that way ... I read it more as a "never again" reaction to what happened in FLA last election.
Look, regardless of what you personally think happened in the 2000 election an awful lot of people feel that W stole the election. An awful lot of people are very, very angry about that. Especially given what's also happened with Iraq and with our economy since he took office.
Once you open the door that a presidential election can be stolen - whether it was or not - then people feel even more powerless to control Our Government than they did before. Which leaves only civil disobedience as an outlet.
No big conspiracy - just people feeling screwed over.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I was one of those have-nots in the military for 20 years and so I think my evaluation of which way the military would go is probably more accurate than what you seem to be suggesting.
Personally, I will never recognize any changes to the constitution made unconstitutionally.
Fair enough ... but look at some of what's happening with troops in Iraq, or scheduled to rotate there. I'm just saying it won't be the same everywhere.
-
Ah well, like you suggested, unlikely to be rioting around these parts so I'm not really too concerned. All the have-nots really want is a new TV anyhow and those areas subject to rioting are already liberal so they're not likely to have much of a political impact anyway.
-
I think all this discussion about riots is moot anyhow as I think this election will go down without violence though there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
how so? it is simple. If you are for keeping your gun rights and against socialism and liberalism then it is anyone but kerrie.... otherwise you are simply pretending to not be a liberal.
Why do you insist on labelling people? Where did this "all or nothing" mentality come from?
There are a lot of people in this country who lean different ways on different issues - you can be pro-choice and pro-gun, for instance - a lot of people are. So what are they - liberals or conservatives? They're both, they're neither.
What about the gays in the military? Are the liberals because they're gay or conservatives because they defend our country?
As far as I'm concerned, the level of ignorance of calling a pro-choice person a "liberal" is the same as calling a pro-gun person a "conservative."
And, by the way, it's spelled "Kerry."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think all this discussion about riots is moot anyhow as I think this election will go down without violence though there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I'm afraid I disagree. I've already seen some news items about "problems" with voting equipment in Florida and Ohio - mostly in "urban" neighborhoods.
I'm not inciting anything and I really don't want to see it happen, but if minority voters are turned away on election day due to "technical difficulties" it could get ugly.
-
Both parties work very hard to make sure "liberal" and "conservative" are spit from the mouth with venom.
Without lables, the Ford Vs. Chevy, the WWWF politics, the campaign playoffs (go team!) the candidates from both parties would have to run on issues and not emotion. And most of the "issues" are ultimately self-serving and driven by special interests vs. a general sense of national interest when the curtain is drawn back. Nor do most voters seem to want complexity in their politicians or personal political beliefs.
"You're either for us or against us..." There can be no middle ground because middle ground invites a greater freedom of thought beyond the stereotype, and no campaign wants a thoughtful political base.
Charon
-
Well said, Charon. :aok
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ROFL.. funny dude.
1. Zogby's job is to be ACCURATE. If he isn't ACCURATE people will not use his services. His prediction was based on evidence and experience. If it isn't he is a fool. If you think that... you are a fool.
2. WTF does Arab American PAC's have to do with it? Are you insinuating that Arab Americans hate Bush en-mass? Or is this just another form of subtle racism?
3. Exit polls accurately show only the segment of the population that is caught exitting! Hardly a cross section or a statistically significant result. Maybe you would like to quote the AOL poll too?
4. I think Zogby is wrong. I think Bush is gonna win. Just getting sick and tired of the constant insinuation that ANYTHING anti-bush must be some kind of hidden agenda. Can't wait till Nov. 3rd.
1) I saw Zogby interviewed on the tube myself. He wasn't making a prediction based upon polling, he was giving his personal view that he thought (hoped) that Kerry would pull out a win. Zogby's polling shows Bush ahead. Since you didn't bother to pay attention to what I wrote, but jumped to one of your typically twisted distortions, the only fool here is apparently you.
2) Zogby, an Arab-American, is involved in Arab PACs that have thrown their support behind Kerry and openly opposed Bush. Zogby is a regesitered democrat. These are facts. Anything else you read into it is the creation of your own paranoia.
3) Your command of the obvious is breathtaking. Exit polling is THE most accurate tracking method. You are not polling people who might vote, but people who DID vote. Considering that nearly 10% of all voters will have cast their ballots before election day, exit polling will be far more accurate than calling 1,000 people living within the region. Early exit polling is only accurate for the states it samples.
4) I see Bush winning by a significantly larger percentage than many the polls show. Bush is expected to gather 85% of the military vote, the majority of whom vote by absentee ballot. By the way, the terror threat video released today (by ABC News) will only serve to help Bush, who is viewed by the public as being stronger on homeland security than Kerry (especially influenced are married women with school age kids).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Holy christ, Widewing. Take off the tinfoil hat. What's with alla Arab stuff?
He was the pollster who got closest in predicting Bush's 2000 win.
They're all just guessing at this point.
No need to get all weird about it.
-
Along those lines, the electoral college predictor page is red one day, blue the other. It's no longer any good. The winner is gonna be decided on the ground. And nobody knows how that's gonna play out.
Just for kicks, check out this. (http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html)
Waaaay too much math for me. But I'm trying. It might be worth a look.