Could It Be That Election Might Be A GWB Landslide?

[Eightball]

Could the media be just hyping things to make it seem closer than it really is? Afterall, aren't all Demos.
their "poster boys/girls"?

Well, maybe not a landslide, but a clear GWB lead ala Bush41/Dukakis?

Regards, Eightball

"When we worship intellect, we defecate on common sense."

 

[dmp]

It may help ya - go to USER CP on the upper left of your screen; select 'signature' and put your quote there...you won't have to keep re-typing it



And about the election? I doubt landslide...I 'pray' closer than the last election was.

 

[phadras]

sense.. I personaly think that the media and certain pollsters are coming up with skewed polls and results.. The idea being if near the election sKerry is up in the polls it could discourage Repubs from voting as the race is "lost"..



Normally I view pre-election polls with a grain of salt.. It depends on the sampling and the framing of the questions... But this year is particularly suspect as various polls have jerked up and down too much to truly represent a good sampling...


I think there is more support for the President than these polls indicate..
Many new registered voters across the country would not be on the pollsters sampling lists and thus unaccounted for in polling...


It's constantly stated (yakked at by the talkin' heads who know nothing themselves) that a re-election of a President is more a referrendum on the incumbent.. I believe here they are incorrect.. Due to the nature of the National Security threat we are under the challenger must demonstrate that he will offer more security than the current President..


IMHO Kerry has clearly shown that he will not offer a safer security situation which leads me to think more folks will switch their votes to Bush in the voting booth rather than Kerry. I'd say a 4-7% shift to Bush..


Regardless it will be facinating to watch people possibly vote for a candidate in Kerry that would obviously lessen National Security.. Those folks will have to answer should Sen. Lurch win... Because he would very shortly be tested by the terrorists in an attack....

 

[dilloduck]

Could the media be just hyping things to make it seem closer than it really is? Afterall, aren't all Demos.
their "poster boys/girls"?

Well, maybe not a landslide, but a clear GWB lead ala Bush41/Dukakis?

Regards, Eightball

"When we worship intellect, we defecate on common sense."

I wouldn't put it past em. A tight election gets em more money.

Remember " DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN " ?

 

[acludem]

This election will be as close if not closer than 2000. There will be no landslide here.

acludem

 

[MJDuncan1982]

This election will be as close if not closer than 2000. There will be no landslide here.

acludem

I agree. This is going to get uglier than 2000. Who knows when we will know for sure who is President.

I don't think there's a media conspiracy though - I thought us libs only came up with conspiracise!

 

[5stringJeff]

I disagree. I call Bush 51-48.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I disagree. I call Bush 51-48.

51-48 what? Popular vote? That doesn't matter remember.

All of the states that supposedly 'matter' are statistically dead even. We'll have to recount each one of those states. There's a good chance about 60 electoral votes will be unknown for a long while so unless either candidates absolutely wipes the other one out (unlikely), we are in for a debacle.

 

[phadras]

that went for AlGore are now in play. States in play with electoral vote Wisconsin-11,Vermont-3,Pennsylvania-23, New Jersey-15,Michigan-18, and Iowa-7,... The overall popular vote will not be as close, and the subsequent electoral college would be heavier in favor of Bush... Bush had 271 in 2000, He could add these states and get to 348.. Even if Bush were to lose Ohio, which he won in 2000, he could still have 328.. Amount to Elect is 270 of course..

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I want to go into a deep freeze and wake up sometime in february. I can't take anymore!


AHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA!

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I want to go into a deep freeze and wake up sometime in february. I can't take anymore!


AHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAA!

I'm with you on that. Wake me when it's all over.

 

[5stringJeff]

OK. electoral vote: Bush gets ~285-295 and wins. Kerry gets the remainder and loses. I had a state breakout somewhere but I lost it.

Popular vote (that doesn't count, thanks MJDuncan) I've got Bush 51-48.

 

[Mainframe]

are there vegas odds on that??

 

[5stringJeff]

Check out www.tradesports.com. I think Bush is up around 52-53%.

 

[Mainframe]

damn my fascist regime work blocks it

i gotta check that out, i swear you can literally bet on just about anything.

 

[YoungChristian]

Considering a majority of our country would probably call themselves Christian in some respect, George W. Bush should win by a landslide. However, so many people in today's country compartmentalize their lives and forget about what they claim to believe in. Take liberal "Christians" for instance. The only other two words that are more of an oxymoron are gay marriage.

 

[Avatar4321]

This election will be as close if not closer than 2000. There will be no landslide here.

acludem

Ok. how on earth will the election be closer than in 2000. you do remember that election dont you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Bush will win with atleast 58 percent.

 

[nakedemperor]

How's he going to change one in ten minds over the next 3 weeks?

He's 48-49ish right now, how on earth do you think he's going 58?? Some state polls don't even poll college kids (e.g. Wisconsin) who vote majority Democratic.

I'm still not sure how the electoral college "evens the playing field". Why isn't there just majority rule in presidential elections. One vote = one vote and everybody gets one vote (in most cases.. =P ).

What's the logic behind it?

Not criticizing, just interested.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

How's he going to change one in ten minds over the next 3 weeks?

He's 48-49ish right now, how on earth do you think he's going 58?? Some state polls don't even poll college kids (e.g. Wisconsin) who vote majority Democratic.

I'm still not sure how the electoral college "evens the playing field". Why isn't there just majority rule in presidential elections. One vote = one vote and everybody gets one vote (in most cases.. =P ).

What's the logic behind it?

Not criticizing, just interested.

One reason is that if there is no majority, only a plurality, then the House and Senate pick the P and VP. Lately that would be bad because few have gotten 50% + 1 and the people would no longer be electing the two people. However, it could just be changed...

Another is to let the states have a say in it as well, not just the people.

I personally believe we should do as Canada and have translation in the electoral college.

Ex.: State X has 10 electoral votes. 10 percent of the pop votes green, 50 votes rep. and 40 votes dem. 1 of the electoral college votes goes to the green candidate, 5 go to the republican and 4 go to the democrat. This winner-take-all system we have is not very democratic.

State X could have 51 percent rep. and the voices of 49 percent of the population are erased in the electoral college voting system.