Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Anybody want to display their political accumen?

Here's mine: Kerry will win in a squeeker, but a larger margin than predicted.

I looked up last election polls for late Oct. Take a look at the below.

Basically, (and generally) polls then showed Gore trailing Bush by more than polls show Kerry trailing today. The same reasons the polls were wrong in 2000 are more in play today.

Kerry is trending up in the important states: WI, OH, IA, FL. The war, the flu shots, the privatizing social security comment, refusal to fund stem cell research will all work against Bush. But more than anything, the general feeling that Bush is incompetent and dishonest is growing. The undecideds will break for Kerry. The kids with cell phones (not polled) will go for Kerry, the first time voters will break for Kerry. Its pretty much a done deal. No wonder the Repubs are trying so hard to subvert democracy in Ohio and Florida and elsewhere.

In latest (2004) polls:

Rasmussen: Bush 50, Kerry 48
Zogby: Bush 47, Kerry 47
TIPP: Bush 46, Kerry 46

From 2000:

Tracking poll: Bush edge unchanged
By CNN Polling Director Keating Holland

October 31, 2000
Web posted at: 10:10 p.m. EST (0310 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Today's CNN/USA Today/Gallup three-day tracking poll shows Texas Gov. George W. Bush maintaining a narrow three-point lead over Vice President Al Gore.

Bush garners support from 47 percent of likely voters and Gore draws 44 percent, unchanged from yesterday's results. This confirms recent indications that the race has tightened as the campaign enters the final week, but it is important to note that Bush has held on to at least a small lead for seven consecutive days. The survey of 2,182 likely voters was conducted October 28-30 and has a 2 point margin of error.

A broader six-day tracking poll for October 25-30 shows Bush with a 48 percent-43 percent edge, also unchanged.

Bush has 48 percent and Gore has 45 percent in the latest ABC News daily tracking poll. The Washington Post daily tracking poll has Bush at 48 percent and Gore at 45 percent. The Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby tracking poll has the contest at 46 percent for Bush and 41 percent for Gore.

CNN will be releasing the results of its tracking polls every day until the November 7 elections. The polls monitor public opinion of the presidential race over intervals of two to three days.

I'd guess bush will win by about 5% of the popular vote and a whopping 15% of the electoral college. (I made this prediction on this forum months ago, and it still looks like a good prediction to me)

A number of reasons for this, most based on voter turn out.

1) Bush's supporters overwhelmingly like him, while Kerry's supporters don't really like Kerry. (more Kerry voters don't like Bush than those that actually like Kerry!) I think this will cause more of them to stay home, than those on Bush's side.

2) After listing to a year of lies by those like Michael Moore and Al Gore who say the last election was stolen, or that Bush was selected rather than elected, will cause a larger than expected pro Bush turn out--so we conservatives don't have to listen to this whining and lying for another 4 years.

3) A lot of dems. realize that the threat of terrorism is far more important to our future than any other issue, and Bush is much stronger on this issue in voters eyes.--expecially since the terrorist shootings in the school in Russia.

4) More Kerry gaffs as he gets more desperate-- to say anything to get votes will turn off a lot of voters the closer the election gets. Like the missing weapons nonsense he is talking about now.

5) Voters will think about things like the flu vaccine problem that was caused by fraudulent lawsuits by lawyers like Edwards and his ilk. Blaming bush for things that have been caused by democrats won't work anymore due to the internet and news agencies like FOX being able to, since the liberals don't have a strangle hold on the media anymore, even though they still are very over-represented.

----------------------

On a side note, to put things into perspective about Iraq and terrorism.

The unprovoked 9/11 attack cost the US an estimated one trillion dollars and 3,000 lives in just one day.
The war in Iraq has only cost an estimated 120 billion (200 billion appropriated so far) and 1,000 American lives in over one year.
That means the war on Iraq was far less costly than this one terrorist attack!! (you won't hear that on the news!)

What would another attack do to the US economy (cost us) vs. not fighting this war on terrorism? (Yes, I know Kerry has said he would fight them too, but he also said this was the wrong war (after he said that it was crucial) and he consistently voted against intelligence funding and military funding.

Rodney

From Rodney:
"The unprovoked 9/11 attack cost the US an estimated one trillion dollars and 3,000 lives in just one day. The war in Iraq has only cost an estimated 120 billion (200 billion appropriated so far) and 1,000 American lives in over one year. That means the war on Iraq was far less costly than this one terrorist attack!! (you won't hear that on the news!)"

Actually that info has been reported over and over and over. You seem to be trying to get at some point or another, but just couldn't spit it out. Did you have a point? Or just dribbling again....

yawn.....

The point is that the liberal news media won't compare the two to put them into perspective, not that they won't cover then separately.

They will gloss over the enormous economic loss and job loss from Clinton's recession, and the enormous damage from 9/11 (again job losses and economic losses), and then they will emphasize the far far smaller war costs as being absolutely horrible.--As something that will ruin the economy. This simply isn't true. When considering economic matters, you should listen to the words of economists, not politicians or liberal new sources with all their biases--like Dan Rather!-LOL

Also, all your points for Kerry winning the election are bogus.

You said The war, the flu shots, the privatizing social security comment, refusal to fund stem cell research will all work against Bush

Kerry has said that he supports this war and that he will continue to fight it, so he is on equal footing with Bush in this matter.
The flu shots are clearly not any fault of Bush's, and every credible economist will tell you this is the direct fault of trial lawyers like Edwards. Privatizing Social security is a good idea, and even if you don't like it, why is a voluntary 2-5% investment in something that will give you a much better return so bad? Social security will still get 95%-98% funding if everyone opts. in, and it will get a higher percentage become some idiots don't know a good deal when they see one, and they won't opt in.
Refusal to fund stem cell research is a lie. Bush is the first and only president to fund it. (Yes, I have seen all the bogus lies on the news about this as well. Even conservative FOX news got it wrong and has called it a ban on research! The liberal stations got it even more wrong.)

Have you been drinking Cool-Aid again, or do you just refuse to think about these matters?

Rodney

What a boring moron.

Typical lib. Resort to name calling between tokes. It's okay now, just remember us conservatives are dim bulbs and go back to your smoke. Everything will work out ju-u-u-st fine
-----
Thane

He's just upset with me because of an earlier post. He said he checked out a quote that I gave him (that Kerry said, which contradicts his current position) and he said that it was a lie. I asked him why he wouldn't tell me which quote was untrue, or what source said it was untrue, and then he went all liberal on me. (Kind of like going postal, but it involves calling names when you don't have any evidence to support your cause!) He's not the best bluffer! I'd like to play poker with him sometime, I could use the extra money! Ever notice how liberals always ask for your source, and you give it, they claim it is biased so it is untrue, you then confirm it with other sources, and they start calling names?.--LOL

I believe this behavior is based on forming your positions with your emotions, instead of using your mind. When your emotions are proven wrong by the facts, your feelings (another emotion) get hurt, and you then lash out by calling names. What's really sad is that these people have an equal vote to those that try to stay accurately informed. I think that is one of the largest threats to this country's future. People voting a certain way because entertainers/liberal teachers/MTV/etc. tell them how to vote.

I also can't help but wonder what is ahead of us, when our schools are socially engineering this kind of person. I consider myself very fortunate. When I went to school, we were taught how to think and reason things out, not what to think.

Rodney

He's just upset with me because of an earlier post. He said he checked out a quote that I gave him (that Kerry said, which contradicts his current position) and he said that it was a lie. I asked him why he wouldn't tell me which quote was untrue, or what source said it was untrue, and then he went all liberal on me. (Kind of like going postal, but it involves calling names when you don't have any evidence to support your cause!) He's not the best bluffer! I'd like to play poker with him sometime, I could use the extra money! Ever notice how liberals always ask for your source, and you give it, they claim it is biased so it is untrue, you then confirm it with other sources, and they start calling names?.--LOL

(T)That's what they're good at. I'm learning that it's pointless to try to point the blind away from the cliff they stumble along towards. Let 'em go.

I believe this behavior is based on forming your positions with your emotions, instead of using your mind. When your emotions are proven wrong by the facts, your feelings (another emotion) get hurt, and you then lash out by calling names. What's really sad is that these people have an equal vote to those that try to stay accurately informed. I think that is one of the largest threats to this country's future. People voting a certain way because entertainers/liberal teachers/MTV/etc. tell them how to vote.

(T)Yes, that's exactly it. Emotions not thinking or logic. Hollywood idiots are having TOO large an effect on how people think in this country.

I also can't help but wonder what is ahead of us, when our schools are socially engineering this kind of person. I consider myself very fortunate. When I went to school, we were taught how to think and reason things out, not what to think.

(T)We're going to homeshool our son. The public school system is becoming the pubic school system, thanks to the extreme left pot-head cretins we're letting overtake our country. I went to school in the days when our system wasn't getting downtrodden too. Nice to know SOME of us still exist.
-----
Thane

Thane,

You really do flatter yourself. Do you really think anything you say would upset me? Ha!

I understand I have to walk some of you simpler guys through these things. I was just pointing out how Rodney was posting lies. Is this really beyond your simple minds? Partial quotes that change the meaning of the utterance is a lie, dipwad. I'll try just once more to show you. And, since I'm not a speciel ed instructor, I won't belabor the point, OK?

====

Rodney's quote:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Yet this is actually what Ted Kennedy said that day:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."
=======

Cheap asss liars...

That sounds exactly like what Bush said. Bush said that the treat is that Saddam supports terrorists, and he could hand off one of these weapons to the terrorist, which could then be used against us. I don't ever remember Bush saying that he thought Iraq or Saddam would try to attack us directly. But that their WMD programs were a threat because terrorists might get ahold of them, either overtly or covertly.

And how it that taken out of context to change the meaning of what Kennedy said? Bush thought they had WMDs, and clearly so did Kennedy, and Kerry, for that matter. Can you read that passage to me again, and show me how you can put it into any context that shows Kennedy didn't think they had WMDs?

The hypocrisy is in them and others condemning Bush for not have 20/20 hindsight, when they were saying the exact same things they are now criticizing Bush for now.

Want another hypocrisy example? Kerry said that the missing weapons were a huge blunder because they are now in the hands of terrorists. But he said Saddam was no threat. Now tell me how Saddam having 1000 times more weapons (that we since destroyed) is no threat whatsoever, and how 1/1000 as many weapons is a huge blunder because of the threat it poses?

(though we know now that Kerry had no idea what he was talking about, and that they never disappeared in the first place, but were destroyed by U.S. forces.)

Rodney

Check it again Rodney - I made it clear. Please don't make me take your hand and walk you through this stuff. I shouldn't have to treat you like a child should I?

they both suck..i'm not voting for either of them