|
Bush Opens DoubleDigit Lead (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
How is any of it irrelevant? |
you mean relevant?
| quote: | | It's obviously a poorly operating system that one could have at least tried to find some solutions to (instead of just answering his cronies' calls to privatize - see Wackenhut Corrections Corporation) |
so your against CP, right?(seriously, i don't know)
a flawed criminal justice system? sure, but again, the executive branch is only so influential in that sense.
| quote: | You don't find it a bit hypocritical that someone so devoutly Christain made it such a habit of violating the Ten Commandments?
"Thou shall not murder" |
i assume its called separation of church and state. i would think you would be more critical if he used his ideology to overrule the judicial branch against the will of the people as an executive?
bottom line is he is an elected official and serves the state thru his office. |
|
|
| Renegade |
The Electoral Vote Predictor has Bush leading 275-247, but 93 of those points are in states where Bush's lead is within the margin of error (+/-4%). Considering he's the incumbent president and that he's just had the RNC to artificially boost his rating, I wouldn't say that he's in a particularly strong position at all.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
bring on the debates.
so Bush can put the last nail in the coffin. |
Either you're kidding or you have an even lower estimate of the US voting public's intelligence than I do. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
The real thing starts after labor day, and just watch Bush's rating sleep down slowly once again ( it always happens after a major speech of his, big rating, sleeps down rather fast ).. and with all the MEdicare been raised up.. I thing that'll become an issue that all the ELDERS will look into.. or, the public in general.
This could be some what of a downer for all those Rep. Hopefulls..
| quote: | Despite this being a holiday weekend, we actually have a real poll, and an important one at that. Bush has take a 3% lead in New Mexico, a major switch since the previous poll, where Kerry was 6% ahead. However, it should be pointed out that this poll was taken during the RNC and just after Bush campaigned there.
Rasmussen has started publishing a 3-day rolling average every day. For Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, (all post-speech), Bush's lead nationally has shrunk to 1.2%. Rasmussen looked at the Time and Newsweek polls we had yesterday and said the samples had too many Republicans in them. When he corrected for this effect, he concluded that the Time and Newsweek data might support the conclusion of a 3% Bush lead, not more. This observation is noteworthy because it is relatively rare when one pollster says that his colleagues blew it. |
We've just got to be realistic here a bit. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Either you're kidding or you have an even lower estimate of the US voting public's intelligence than I do. |
Re: the debates. Bush has been very good at debating, and not necessary because of the precise ideas he puts forth, but because he's able to connect with people. On sheer informational value, yes, Gore probably "won" the debates in 2000. But most ended up believing the opposite. Bush can hold his own on policy, and can come across as truly caring about the result. A stark contrast to the pancake makeup-faced Gore, and hopefully the disconnected, aloof Kerry.
Re: the comments by Rasmussen. I don't think the Time poll is exactly right, but I don't think Rasmussen is either. The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I put no stock in what Rasmussen says because of the 2000 election. He had one of the most inaccurate polls, if not the most inaccurate, and had no real explanation for why he was so wrong. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Re: the debates. Bush has been very good at debating, and not necessary because of the precise ideas he puts forth, but because he's able to connect with people. On sheer informational value, yes, Gore probably "won" the debates in 2000. But most ended up believing the opposite. Bush can hold his own on policy, and can come across as truly caring about the result. A stark contrast to the pancake makeup-faced Gore, and hopefully the disconnected, aloof Kerry.
Re: the comments by Rasmussen. I don't think the Time poll is exactly right, but I don't think Rasmussen is either. The real answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I put no stock in what Rasmussen says because of the 2000 election. He had one of the most inaccurate polls, if not the most inaccurate, and had no real explanation for why he was so wrong. |
Last debates:
Liberals Called for Gore to win way before the debates were scheduled.
Their so called "Brainiac" Al Gore
ended up tieing with George W. Bush
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/poli...postdebate.html
Alot of people love to just assume whose going to win without looking back at history. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The Electoral Vote Predictor has Bush leading 275-247, but 93 of those points are in states where Bush's lead is within the margin of error (+/-4%). Considering he's the incumbent president and that he's just had the RNC to artificially boost his rating, I wouldn't say that he's in a particularly strong position at all.
|
looking at that map, there appears to be a few flaws... tennessee will probably go to bush, not kerry. but if you fix it for kerry getting new mexico and florida, the election should go to the democrats. i have a feeling that the republicans are carrying some voter opinion trump card to be played after the kerry boost from the debates. i can read the headlines now: "Osama Bin Laden Captured"; with the byline "found in pakistan in May"
flame on, Bush bots.:D
BTW, do we have any info on faux news' coverage of the RNC? just curious. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
flame on, Bush bots.:D
|
I was thinking along the lines of "Killer Drones"
:D |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I was thinking along the lines of "Killer Drones"
:D |
i didn't want to resort to name calling:D |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
i didn't want to resort to name calling:D |
Hey, it wasn't ad hominem though! Was it? :toothless |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Hey, it wasn't ad hominem though! Was it? :toothless |
lol |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I think you should start studying Polling and how its done/how accurate it can be.
America's most trusted poll: the Gallup Poll does about 1000 people as a sample size. So do a little research before you start barking in this forum and labeling polls as a piece of trash.
Time Poll is not your anyday aol msger poll
http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp:rolleyes:
However, IMO,
Most polls once said and done will have the race...with Bush ahead by 5-9 points... |
Funny thing is.. I just saw a CNN/GALLUP poll posted on cnn.com that says Bush with a modest lead of 3-2 percent only.. heh.. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Funny thing is.. I just saw a CNN/GALLUP poll posted on cnn.com that says Bush with a modest lead of 3-2 percent only.. heh.. |
I'll give that one more credibility then.
Ive always liked the CNN/Gallup poll the best |
|
|
|
|
