I'm glad I put my money on Bush!

TomF

Although it is still about six weeks before the U.S. November election, at the moment it looks as though George W. Bush is heading for a landslide re-election. Maybe Kerry will win Massachusetts, which even votes for the Kennedys (!), but it is hard to see him winning many more states.

"GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- In a new Gallup Poll, conducted Sept. 13-15, President George W. Bush leads Democratic candidate John Kerry by 55% to 42% among likely voters, and by 52% to 44% among registered voters. These figures represent a significant improvement for Bush since just before the beginning of the Republican National Convention."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=13066

Hobbes

Based on 1,022 adults. Not to mention the fudging they mention they did in the survey at the end as well as the disclaimer.

The only poll that is going to matter is the voting one.

Merrion

Bush is ahead 9and will stay ahead) in the polls of people who always vote - the only way Kerry can win (IMO) is to persuade those 50% of US citizens who don't vote to give it a try this time.

Hobbes

Or to quote someone on /.

"Where are they getting these figures from? I only know 3 people who are voting for Bush. They are probably working out how many votes Diebold will give him".

ionapaul

I really considered putting a few hundred down on Bush back when Kerry was moving ahead in the polls and seemed to have momentum. I truly hope Bush loses but can't see it happening - this is more down to Kerry and his campaign's failings rather than Bush's appeal. There is the ammunition there to really hammer at Bush, but the Dems haven't been able to really do it yet. I am sure Kerry will win the debates, but as in the last election, the Repubs will have already set the expectations so low for Bush that unless he actually slobbers on himself during the debates, they will spin it as a 'victory' for him.
It is always sad to realise how gullible the vast majority of people are. What was it that Homer said...? Oh yes, DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK

ionapaul

Not many /. posters from the heartland of America - all coastal intellectuals People were the same in San Francisco, they couldn't understand how Bush was elected, as they didn't know anyone who would vote for him.
I feel the same way about Ming the Merciless - who the funk voted for him?

Meh

Hasn't Kerry already been written off for dead once in this election campaign (back in the primaries, remember when Dean was going to win the nomination)? I wouldn't count your winnings just yet...

Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!
Most of those polls cannot be trusted. The newsweek poll which gave Bush a 11 point lead used a very odd sample..38% Republicans to 31% Democrats and 31% independents.
Considering Democrats have 4% more registered voters than Rep's then those polls greatly exaggerate the Bush lead.
The Zogby and Yougov polls each give Bush only a 1 point lead which is probably a bit more realistic.
Once Kerry makes a mockery of Bush in the debates that lead should dissipate.

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

I feel the same way about Ming the Merciless - who the funk voted for him?

I voted for him I liked his anti-Flash policies.

But your point is taken.

mycroft

"Oh Ken statistics can be manipulated to show any result, 90% of Americans know that"


One thing no one has mentioned is there are two presidental debates coming up. JFK nailed Nixon in 62.

I'm not saying theres going to be a Barlett esque West Wing moment but if Kerry can drag some some charisma and lunge some serious pointed attacks on Bush, and I dunno the radio link between Bush and his handlers falls apart so he's suddenly left thinking for himself....



Hey look, a liberal can dream can't he?

flogen

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is the thousands of votes from Americans outside the US, which are not being counted in any polls.
/edit its actually around 5 million voters outside the US, and so no doubt that they can effect the result

A democrat convention in the UK recently noted an huge increase in turn out, and the word is people registering to vote outside the US is at a record high. No-one knows which way these votes will go, but its very possible that they could win the election for either candidate.

flogen

Hobbes

That other site you linked Flogen also mentioned that cell-phone polls are not taken (to be confirmed). Which if true means a large number of the demographic are ignored in taking the poll.

grumpytrousers

I feel the same way about Ming the Merciless - who the funk voted for him?

Loads of people. Exceeds quota on first count. not just young people, i knew plenty of 'Adults' who voted for him...

flogen

Hobbes wrote:

That other site you linked Flogen also mentioned that cell-phone polls are not taken (to be confirmed). Which if true means a large number of the demographic are ignored in taking the poll.

yeah, just read that a minute ago, and doing some guess work (the whole young people dont have as many landlines, and young people tend to go dem over rep) it could mean good things for Kerry.

flogen

ionapaul

Unfortunately, young people tend not to vote in comparison to older people too...

I believe the states which will see the highest turnouts of young voters are already in the Kerry camp - California, Mass, New York, etc...

The situation as it stands seems to hinge on the handful of 'undecided' states and the undecided voters that reside within, rather than the undecided voters of the entire country (doesn't really matter if either camp get thousands of extra undecideds in Texas, California, or New York, those contests are over). I am not confident that Kerry can win the swing states - not because the Repubs will try anything particularly sneaky or illegal, but because he lacks appeal, his campaign is lack-luster, and the attacks on his name and record have worked in the eyes of many.

I hope I am wrong. That said, unlike a lot of posters, it won't be the end of the world for me if Bush wins again nor will it impact my life too much in the long run (hopefully )

sovtek

flogen wrote:

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is the thousands of votes from Americans outside the US, which are not being counted in any polls.
/edit its actually around 5 million voters outside the US, and so no doubt that they can effect the result

If I'm anything to go by....Bush is screwed and Kerry needs to come up with something other than the blatantly obvious "I'm better than him...even though I can't tell you why".
That's assuming that I get my ballot and it is actually counted. I'm not completely convince this will go smoothly this time around.
I want to verify that my ballot is recieved and counted...but I'm not aware of any way to do that.
I heard that the absentee ballots are going out this Saturday.
I don't even know if the candidate I want to vote for is on the ballot or not (Nader/Texas respectively).

bonkey

Wow...

yet another post/thread from TomF informing us that its all over because there's yet another single-piece-of-flawed-evidence which might suggest as much.

As I've said before, and as I'll no doubt say again....anyone who thinks that the result is a foregone conclusion is either kidding themselves, or trying to kid whoever it is their message is targetted at.

Bush has an excellent chance to get re-elected, and no doubt the GOP election-machine has some well-timed "events" in the pipes to try and help that along.

Kerry too has an excellent chance of getting elected, and his biggest opportunity to make a difference will be the televised debates (assuming - perhaps foolishly - that Dubya is forced to enage in them without the ubiquitous little earpiece).

As pointed out, there are also several significant unknown factors, as well as several known factors which are so volatile that their effect can change from day to day (notably the oil-market instability, and the situation in Iraq.)

So sorry to burst your bubble Tom, but it ain't over yet. Not that you probably care....I can't remember a single one of these topics that you showed an interest in discussion. Just making the "attention grabbing" declaration of victory and then leaving seems to be the order of the year....and looking at the increasing numbers of people here who seem to be buying into it (i.e. those that become "more and more convinced" that Bush will win) I can clearly understand why.

jc

PH01

OK jc so it's not a foregone conclusion, but what about 'feeling'? The 'feeling' is that Bush seems unstoppable after the Republican Convention. And I'd say that if you have money on a Bush win then it's safe.

Bush has tapped into and has taken advantage of American insecurity about the war on terror. All he has to say 'who do you feel safer with'? More Americans feel safer with GWB then with Kerry, simply because the democrat is an unknown quantity. Now I don't have any numbers on this only what I'm picking up in the coverage.

It's sad but most probable, Bush is going to win come November 4th.

bonkey

PH01 wrote:

OK jc so it's not a foregone conclusion, but what about 'feeling'? The 'feeling' is that Bush seems unstoppable after the Republican Convention.

The point I'm making is that this "feeling" is one which appears to be largely propagated by pro-Republicans.

Its the type of manouever which strikes me as trying to be a self-fulfilling prophecy :

The GOPers have been saying for months that its a clear victory for Bush. People start believing them, and believe it will be a clear victory for Bush. This in turn will deter some voters for "wasting" their time voting for Kerry because "clearly" Bush is going to win, so whats the point.....

It's sad but most probable, Bush is going to win come November 4th.

The more Americans who believe that prior to November 4th, the more likely it is to be true.

This whole thing reminds me of a Formula1 racing season. Schumi wins the first couple of races, and immediately the question is "So, Michael...is the season over". He loses a race and its "So Michael...is this the end of Ferari dominance".

The media won't refuse ink, and there are plenty of pre-aligned pundits who want to use that ink to tell us that its all over. By believing either group, you're only helping to serve their agenda. By encouraging others to believe, you're helping even more. And while thats perhaps an intrinsic part of electioneering, I'd much rather see all people be encouraged to vote for the candidate that they support, rather than some be discouraged by being told that its all over and their vote for the other guy will only be a waste of time and therefore (as some will inevitably conclude, and as is a primary purpose of this type of proclamation) not worth bothering to go to the hassle of voting.

jc

FatherTed

This should have been an easy election for Kerry to win. Economy bad, Iraq etc. But instead at the Democrats convention they focus on his record in Vietnam and rarely mentioned Bush. This is all fine and dandy for Kerry's fans but for the middle of the road voter like me, it didnt sit well. He should be pounding Bush for the disasterous last 4 years but instead the big news over here right now is regarding what Bush did over 30 years ago. And the Kerry campaign is backing it. They should say, we don't care what he did 30 years ago. It doesnt matter. What matters is now. Same too with Kerry being a war hero. It doesnt matter.

On the other side, the Bushies have run a shrewd campaign, jumping on the story that a few guys in Vietnam didnt like him so much and put fear back in to the minds of some people saying Kerry would be unsafe for the country. Plus they exploited Kerry's Iraq double talk. I'm still voting for Kerry but he really is a poor candidate so far. The only postitive thing left is that Kerry has a history of being a good finisher meaning in his past senatorial campaigns he improves dramatically in the last few weeks. But winning in the swing states is a whole lot different than winning in liberal Massachutsetts.

I really don't think the debates will have that much of an impact. In 2000, Gore "won" the debates but Bush came off looking the more likable guy.

Redleslie2

I remember Labour being way ahead in the polls in the UK 1992 general election but the tories still ended up winning. Trust not the polls.

Gambling's for mugs anyway.

PH01

bonkey wrote:

The point I'm making is that this "feeling" is one which appears to be largely propagated by pro-Republicans.

How dare you say I'm a republican! Oh, er-mmmmm, well maybe an Irish Republican. You can't tar us all with the same brush you know!

Perception is everything in Politics as you well know. And the perception out there is that Kerry looks like losing this. And that loud and clear. FatherTed may agree.

If Kerry is going to win this he's going to have to start kicking ass fast! If her's not back on level peggings in the next 10 days it's all over for the Kerryman (but then again he might 'McDowell' it).

flogen

well the fact that come the 24th all records on Bush's war-service must be made public, he may have a chance.
His campaign has gotten teeth lately, but I dont know if people are still listening, he's going to have to go for the neck if he wants to win, and at that, he'll have to be careful not to look desperate/bitchy. The republican war machine is great at dishing out the dirt, and then looking like a victim when the same happens to them

flogen

PH01

I see that Paddy Power are offering 2-1 on Kerry and 4-11 on Bush. Say it all, doesn't it?

flogen

PH01 wrote:

I see that Paddy Power are offering 2-1 on Kerry and 4-11 on Bush. Say it all, doesn't it?

Yes, because Paddy Power call the election. :rolleyes:
Why on earth is everyone saying "you'd get good odds on that" for the US and Irish presidential election?

In other news, by the polls Kerry has closed the gap from 116 electoral votes to just 17. Naturally the polls should never be trusted one way or the other, but they do help give some idea of whats going on. And don't forget the huge amount of voter groups being overlooked... there' still hope.

flogen

PH01

flogen wrote:

Yes, because Paddy Power call the election. :rolleyes:
Why on earth is everyone saying "you'd get good odds on that" for the US and Irish presidential election?

Sorry, what are you saying? Do you mean that when you put a surething with a not-so-surething you'd get better odds?

flogen wrote:

Naturally the polls should never be trusted one way or the other, but they do help give some idea of whats going on.

Depends on what poll you look at some can be quite accurate.
What kind of numbers are there for the swing states?

flogen

http://www.electoral-vote.com is a good way to find out... uses most of the good polls rather than just one or two.

And what I'm saying about the bookies is people seem to think the odds the bookies give say it all, its not as simple as that though.

flogen

PH01

flogen wrote:

http://www.electoral-vote.com is a good way to find out... uses most of the good polls rather than just one or two.

Thanks for the link.
From reading the graph Kerry looks like he's coming back strongly, but I'm not sure the trend is with him though.