 |
Who will win?
This poll is closed. |
| Bush |
   |
86 |
49.43% |
| Kerry |
   |
88 |
50.57% |
| Total: |
174 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Am I screwed? |
Yes.
quote:
New Mexico 5 more likely than not.
Colorado 9 same
Nevada 5 same
Arkansas 6 same
West Virginia 5 same |
Absolutely true. Granted.
Not so much. All indicators are trending Kerry recently. This is first-hand knowledge, I see it all around me, and it's quite evident in state polling.
This is probably true. I don't see Kerry winning Florida unless something very surprising happens.
quote:
Michigan 17 toss up
Pennsylvania 21 toss up |
Wrong. I'd be quite surprised if Bush won either of these states; flabbergasted if he took both.
True.
quote:
Minnesota 10 not unreasonable
Wisconsin 10 same |
True. Not unreasonable. But is it likely he'll take both, when he can't crack 46 or 47 in either state's polling?
quote:
New Jersey 15 same. |
No, very unreasonable. The only polling firm that has Bush so much as tied with Kerry in New Jersey is Strategic Vision, an avowed Republican polling firm. They are admittedly partisan.
quote:
You are the one that should be worried. All your hopes are pinned on New Jersey. If Kerry loses New Jersey, you are likely shafted on all the rest.
To have it come down to one state, is where I want it to be. |
No way, man. All my hopes on New Jersey? All I need is for Kerry to take one state out of six where he currently leads, or pull a surprise in Florida or Colorado.
This is almost as big a lock as the Miami Dolphins not winning the Super Bowl this year.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Something the polls can't fully handle is that there is going to be a massive turnout this year. Analysts in Florida predict that 70% of the eligible electorate will vote. The polls can't properly assess how likely these new voters are to actually vote, because this election is not like anything we've seen in modern polling times.
Large turnouts always favor Democrats, so if anyone gets a significant boost, it will be Kerry. It is, of course, very likely he will get a good boost.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dojoboy
|
 |
Tansi (USA)
Nov 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
WHY BUSH WILL WIN
By DICK MORRIS
October 29, 2004 --
HERE'S a two-part test to determine who will win on Tuesday:
a) Ask yourself: What is the issue we are talking about these days? Are we focused on terrorism and Iraq, or on health care and jobs? The answer is obvious: terrorism and Iraq.
b) Now look at the polls. Not the page that shows who they're voting for. That changes every hour. Look at the page that asks, "Which candidate do you think would do the best job of handling the war in Iraq?"
The answer is always President Bush, usually by 10 points. And right below that, on "Which candidate do you think would do the best job of handling the War on Terror?" Bush leads again, usually by 20 points.
If the issue is terrorism and Iraq, and Bush wins those issues by double digits, then the winner will be . . . voila, Bush!
John Kerry was on the verge of moving out to a victory after the third debate. Taking advantage of its pre-ordained focus on domestic issues, he had finally, finally swung the debate back to the issues on which he has — and has always had — a lead: domestic policy. Next he got a short-term bounce from Bill Clinton's presence on the campaign trail and seemed on his way to closing the Bush lead.
Then came the "disappearing explosives" story. Kerry's handlers, tacticians to the last, disregarded the needs of basic strategy and hopped on the issue with all four feet, running a TV ad lambasting Bush for losing the weapons after the invasion.
Strategically, this flawed decision assured that the final week of the campaign would focus on the areas of Bush's strength and Kerry's weakness: Iraq and terrorism. Tactically, it tied the electorate's confidence in John Kerry to the mystery of what actually happened in an ammo dump in the desert 18 months ago.
Then it began to explode in Kerry's face. Soon we heard that there were only three tons of explosives . . . and they weren't there when we occupied the dump . . . and they were removed by the Russians before we got there . . . and, perhaps, there are satellite photos to prove it.
All of a sudden, Kerry seems just not ready for prime time.
The backfire is amplified by the involvement of CBS and The New York Times. The plans of "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather to break the story on the Sunday before the election reflect overt partisan bias — an overt conspiracy of these leading outlets to stack the deck in favor of Kerry.
This controversy unraveling in front of us all, replete with conspiracy theories and denouement of media bias, is enough to occupy our attention and rivet our focus as Election Day approaches. It will drive all other stories off the front pages and will make the war in Iraq the key element in the election.
At this writing, the possibility that the alleged al Qaeda tape virtually endorsing Kerry will hit the airwaves makes one even more confident of a Bush victory. A threat to let blood run in the streets of America if Bush wins won't intimidate voters, but rather remind them of the importance of sending a warrior to fight the terrorists — and seal Bush's victory. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So far that hasn't been the case.
I think people forget all the Evangelicals who sat on their hands in the last go round. |
You misunderstand.
Yes, the Republicans will get a boost in the *numbers* of people voting for them. Democrats get a boost in the numbers *and the percentage* of people voting for them.
The fact is that there are more Democrats than Republicans, and that Democrats much more often than Republicans don't vote. Large turnouts mean more of those Democrats are now voting.
Net boon for Kerry, that's why some of the vile people that want Bush to win are trying to supress the vote across the nation. I'd note that Democrats aren't supressing the vote anywhere.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Pollsters can't find the 4 million evangelicans that Rove is always going on about.
And Bush is having a little difficulty with them, what with the criticism by Pat Roberston, and his recent comments on civil unions.
|
I don't think the pollsters are going out of their way to find them.
As for Pat Robertson, he has his own credibility problems.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 30-10-2004 at 22:42
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I guess you somehow miss all the reports how various republicans are trying to supress tens of thousands of democratic voters across the nation, focused in swing-states, primarily.
I guess you don't read about how Jeb Bush told everyone to follow his highly flawed list of ex-cons in not letting them vote (it doesn't include much of the typically republican minorities, such as hispanics, and the people that made the list have denounced it as so flawed it should be thrown out).
There are some cases of democrats behaving badly, but none of them are trying to supress the vote, and none of them are doing anything that will affect tens of thousands of voters. The Harris incidient I have already denounced, and is just an example of a single democrat doing something vile and foolish. No one was hurt however, and no one last their right to vote.
And you have to live in some sort of bizarre world to not notice that though Republican registrations have increased, the Democratic registrations have increased on a much larger level (to say nothing of how they have always been higher to begin with). Are you counting on Republicans ripping up voter registration forms and trying to supress the vote as a counter to the increased registrations?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-10-2004 22:03
|