LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteStill too close to call Gio. Good try. I would be ashamed of my self if I had won a Presidential election on a technicality, knowing that the majority of the US people did not want me as President.
WASHINGTON - New poll data released Thursday suggest that President Bush is in a strong position to win one state that Al Gore carried in 2000, Iowa, and is putting pressure on Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry in six other states Gore won, with Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes the biggest prize of those six.
In Iowa, the new MSNBC/Knight Ridder poll shows Bush with a 49-43 percent lead over Kerry, with six percent of voters undecided.
Gore carried Iowa by 4,144 votes four years ago.
In New Mexico, which Gore carried by a mere 366 votes, Bush leads Kerry 49-44 percent with six percent undecided.
Meanwhile in Michigan, a state Gore won by more than 200,000 votes, Kerry and Bush are in a statistical tie, with Kerry at 47 percent, Bush at 46 percent and six percent undecided.
Neither candidate has made the state a personal priority in the last two weeks. The last time Kerry campaigned in Michigan was on Sept. 15; the last time Bush appeared there was Oct. 6.
When Mason-Dixon did its previous round of polling for MSNBC and Knight Ridder newspapers in Michigan in mid-September, Kerry stood at 47 percent, with Bush at 41 percent and 10 percent undecided. Bush has thus gained five points in about a month.
As of Oct. 8, according to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan research group, Kerry and his supporting groups had outspent Bush and his allies by one-third, $16 million to $12 million, for broadcast television advertising in Michigan.
Veteran Michigan analyst Bill Ballenger, the editor of Inside Michigan Politics, said, “The idea that Kerry has this wrapped up in Michigan is baloney. He personally has not spent much time campaigning in Michigan; he’s given it short shrift.”
As for the statistical tie in the poll data, Ballenger said, “I’m surprised, but I’m not sure I ought to be surprised.”
It would be exceedingly difficult for Kerry to win the presidency without carrying Michigan, which has 17 electoral votes and which not gone Republican in a presidential election since the elder George Bush won it in 1988.
Bush a frequent Pennsylvania visitor
In Pennsylvania, which Gore carried by more than 200,000 votes, Kerry and Bush are also locked in a statistical tie, with Kerry at 46 percent, Bush at 45 percent. Eight percent said they were undecided.
Terry Madonna, Director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said he thinks Kerry will still manage to win Pennsylvania in the end.
“I think the last-minute Democratic push in the big cities probably gives Kerry a couple of percentage points. Bush needs a two- to three-percentage point lead going into the election” in order to win Pennsylvania, Madonna said.
The last GOP candidate to carry Pennsylvania was the elder Bush in 1988.
Bush campaigned in Downingtown, Philadelphia, and Hershey, Pa., on Thursday and will speak in Wilkes-Barre on Friday. Since becoming president, Bush has made 40 trips to Pennsylvania, more visits than to any other state.
That, Madonna noted, “is making Kerry spend a lot of time and money here in Pennsylvania. He’s playing on Kerry’s turf.”
One factor Madonna pointed to that may weigh in Kerry’s favor in Pennsylvania: a large number of newly registered college students “who seem to be more for Kerry than for Bush” and who strategically have chosen to vote in Pennsylvania, rather than in their home states of New York and Connecticut, states Kerry will likely win easily.
On Friday, Kerry will bring the battle to Bush turf by campaign in two states Bush carried in 2000, Nevada and Colorado.
In three other battleground states, Oregon, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Mason-Dixon polling also found statistical ties.
Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted the polls from Oct. 15 through Oct. 18. A total of 625 likely voters in each state were interviewed by telephone. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Another new poll, by the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, also found a statistical tie in Wisconsin, with Bush at 48 percent, Kerry at 47 percent and Nader at 1.7 percent. That poll interviewed 623 likely voters and had a margin of error of four percentage points.
These findings make it all the more important for Kerry to hold Pennsylvania, where former President Clinton is scheduled to campaign with him Monday, and to try to take away at least one Bush state, such as Ohio or Florida.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6301044/
Still too close to call Gio. Good try. I would be ashamed of my self if I had won a Presidential election on a technicality, knowing that the majority of the US people did not want me as President.
Clinton never had a majority, Perot split the Republican vote for Slick Willy to win. Then again, Clinton feels your pain, but knows no shame.
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.
I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.
If Perot hadn't run in 1996, Dole would have definitely won Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee. That's 65 electoral votes. Florida, New Hampshire, and New Mexico would have been swing states, totaling 57 electoral votes.Originally Posted by Horrido
Clinton never had a majority, Perot split the Republican vote for Slick Willy to win. Then again, Clinton feels your pain, but knows no shame.
Without Perot, if Clinton had won all the swing states, he would have defeated Dole 314-224 in the electoral college. If Dole had won all the swing states (unlikely), he would have won 291-247.
It goes without saying, Bush Sr. would have won the 92 election hands-down without Perot in the race. Democrats screamed about Nader taking votes from Gore, look how many Perot took from Bush. The popular vote for Perot and Bush together totaled 60 million vs. Clinton's 45 million.
The rules are the rules, play by them or try to change them. I personally will not support a true democracy, under any circumstance.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
There is one problem with your analysis, you are assuming that all those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush/Dole. I would say that is an inaccurate assumption. You have to ask why did they vote for Perot in the first place? The answer is that they were disgruntled with Bush/Dole. In the event Perot had not run, it is very likely that majority of these voters would have simply not bothered to vote at all and stayed home, some would have voted for Democrats.
It is an established fact of American politics that when voters do not like their candidate, they abstain from voting, rather than vote for somebody who do not confirm to their political ideology.
Now if you take into consideration the points I have just raised, you would be able to conclude that Clinton would have still won with majority of the votes!
Why are you opposed to true democracy?
"There is one problem with your analysis, you are assuming that all those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush/Dole. I would say that is an inaccurate assumption. You have to ask why did they vote for Perot in the first place? The answer is that they were disgruntled with Bush/Dole. In the event Perot had not run, it is very likely that majority of these voters would have simply not bothered to vote at all and stayed home, some would have voted for Democrats. "
There are many Republicans disgruntled with Bush, and Democrats with Kerry, yet in this coming election, there will be high turnout. Instead of staying home and not bothering to vote, they will be "voting against" the other candidate.
"It is an established fact of American politics that when voters do not like their candidate, they abstain from voting, rather than vote for somebody who do not confirm to their political ideology."
The coming 2004 election stands as the best example of voters not liking their candidate, yet voter turnout is expected to be high.
"Now if you take into consideration the points I have just raised, you would be able to conclude that Clinton would have still won with majority of the votes!"
For the 1996 election I would concede that Clinton would have won a plurality (he never won a majority of the popular vote in either election). In the 1992 election, Bush would have won hands down.
You would agree with me that 2004 election year very different from 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections.
There is too much at stake for both side, that is why new voters have registered in record numbers and turnout is expected to be unusually high compared to the last few elections.
In 1996 Clinton won 49.23% of the popular votes, he would have definitely got an additional 0.78% more votes and thus the majority of the votes, if Peort, who got 8.40%, was not running.For the 1996 election I would concede that Clinton would have won a plurality (he never won a majority of the popular vote in either election). In the 1992 election, Bush would have won hands down.
You don't think Clinton would have got an additional 0.78% if Perot was not running?
In 1992 Clinton got 43.01%, Bush got 37.45%, and Perot got 18.91% of the vote. Now I don't know wheather you can recall or not (depends on how old you are), but Perot got 18.91% because blue coller moderates/republican voters were really really unhappy with Bush.
Clinton just needed 7% cross-over votes out of the 18.91% of Perot's vote to get a total of 50.01% of votes and thus a majority, in case Perot was not running.
Given the level of disenchantment of Perot voters, I don't see why Clinton would not have got an additional 7% out of the 18.91% who voted for Perot.
Last edited by turnagainarm; 23 Oct 04, at 15:56.
Because if you can convince 50% of the people plus 1 that death camps are a good idea, we get death camps. True democracy is tyranny of the majority.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
The Perot vote was far more detrimental to Bush than Clinton.
Some statistics of the popular vote in certain states from the 1992 Presidential Election:
Colorado - 8 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 40.1%
George Bush: 35.9%
Ross Perot: 23.3%
Clinton/Bush split: 4.2%
Georgia - 13 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 43.5%
George Bush: 42.9%
Ross Perot: 13.3%
Clinton/Bush split: 0.6%
Iowa - 7 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 43.3%
George Bush: 37.3%
Ross Perot: 18.7%
Clinton/Bush split: 6.6%
Kentucky - 8 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 44.6%
George Bush: 41.3%
Ross Perot: 13.7%
Clinton/Bush split: 3.6%
Louisiana - 9 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 45.6%
George Bush: 41.3%
Ross Perot: 13.7%
Clinton/Bush split: 4.3%
Montana - 3 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 37.6%
George Bush: 35.1%
Ross Perot: 21.7%
Clinton/Bush split: 2.5%
Nevada - 4 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 37.4%
George Bush: 34.7%
Ross Perot: 26.2%
Clinton/Bush split: 3.7%
New Hampshire - 4 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 38.9%
George Bush: 37.7%
Ross Perot: 22.6%
Clinton/Bush split: 1.2%
New Jersey - 15 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 43.0%
George Bush: 40.6%
Ross Perot: 15.6%
Clinton/Bush split: 2.4%
Ohio - 21 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 40.2%
George Bush: 38.3%
Ross Perot: 21.0%
Clinton/Bush split: 1.9%
Wisconsin - 11 electoral votes
Bill Clinton: 41.1%
George Bush: 36.8%
Ross Perot: 21.5%
Clinton/Bush split: 4.3%
Isin't that better than a minority of people deciding that death camps are a good idea?
Any other form of govt. which is not a majority govt. can turn out to be tyranny of the minority over the majority?
Since you have not commented on the 1996 election result, I take it that you have conceded to me that Clinton who got 49.23% of the votes, would have got an additional 0.78% votes and thus won the majority of the votes in the event Perot had not run.
Your claim for 1992 election was that "Bush would have won hands down".
In 1992 Clinton won 370 electoral votes, Bush won 168.
Now even if Bush would have won all the states you have listed above Bush would have got 271 electoral, just 1 more than the required 270.
Would you consider that "winning hands down" ?
I disagree with you that Bush would have won Iowa in 1992 if Perot was not running. In 1988 Dukakis won the state by 10% margin. In 1992 Clinton won Iowa by 6% margin. Iowa in general is a democrat/moderate state and voted democrats in president elections since 1988.
Now of all the states you have listed if Clinton had just won Iowa, Clionton would still get 274 electoral votes, and still win the election.
So I don't see how Bush would have won hands down in 1992 or for that matters won at all, at least the stats. don't indicate it.
Last edited by turnagainarm; 24 Oct 04, at 00:59.
That's why there is a constitution, and 3 branches of government, not including state constitutions and local governments. A republic is a far better choice than a true democracy.
Last edited by Confed999; 24 Oct 04, at 01:06.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
No matter how you slice it any form of govt. will be either of the majority or of the minority.
Govt. of the majority is called democracy, a govt. of the minority is not considered democracy.
Now as far as tyrany is concerned, both majority or minority are equally capable of doing it, so just as democracy can become a tyrany of majority over the minority, so can a minority govt. become a tyrany of minority over majority.
That is just a matter of opinion and you are entitled to it.. A republic is a far better choice than a true democracy.
I of course disagree with that. I believe Gore should have been president in 2000 since he had won the maximum votes.
Last edited by turnagainarm; 24 Oct 04, at 01:25.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: