Posted on 08/14/2004 4:15:09 PM PDT by quidnunc
name: liberalmedia
password: sucks
"I understand about retrospective studies but it seems that if pervasive patterns are found, they should at least be acknowledged. Nobody suggests that he's got a crystal ball."
Most of the time economics IS most important in elections, but not always. There are still some things that trump economics. I suspect that the public would still not reelect an incumbent male President presiding over an economic boom if he were publicly shown to be in bed with a dead girl or live boy (though I'm not certain about the latter). There are still some outer bounds of behavior that even our jaded electorate will not tolerate, even in boom times.
War also has the ability to trump economics, I believe.
This is hilarious. The NY Times Reporter sounds SOOOOOO disappointed in the election prediction. It is like she is saying, "But...but how can this be so?" Then she switches gears and pushes Ray C. Fair as to whether he is a Bush supporter just trying to help Bush with his prediction. It turns out that he is a Kerry supporter. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Actually a lot of people have gotten rid of their home phones in favor of cell phones. Since pollsters are forbidden to call cell phones this skews any poll. I think this topic will be much discussed after the November election. BTW, have you noticed that is mostly older Democrat clueless types that don't use cell phones?
Then the DEMS lose bigtime no matter who they choose because it would be too late to change most state ballots. Yeah, there are some corrupt states like New Jersey that would allow the DEMS to pull a Torricelli but it won't happen in most states, including Florida.
What converted you to conservatism? 9/11??
"Yeah, there are some corrupt states like New Jersey that would allow the DEMS to pull a Torricelli but it won't happen in most states, including Florida."
Unless the Florida Supreme Court has has some dramatic turnover since 2000, there is almost nothing it wouldn't do for the Dims.
So do I. Depending on the character of that war and whether we are perceived to be winning. Lincoln was convinced he couldn't be re-elected until the victories at Vicksburg/Gettysburg, followed by Sherman's taking of Atlanta just before the election. Johnson made no effort to enlist public support for the Vietnam War, defaulting to a pro-communist media which crucified him. He became so unpopular he didn't even bother to run for re-election. Now we're engaged in a diffuse, unconventional war that is likely to be protracted over a period of decades. This is a much more difficult sell, especially with the media doing everything possible to lend support to the enemy, at times practically denying that there even is an enemy. Sherman considered reporters no better than enemy spies and sometimes treated them as such.
I am a Registered Democrat, and yeah, kind of an old guy but not entirely clueless due, in part, to paying a lot of attention to FreeRepublic these past 5+ years.
'But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.'
I finally understand why all the polls are rigged to make it look like Kerry is winning-predictions can be self-confirming...! No wonder the polls were wrong in GA during the 2002 election! Democrat polls are a bunch of lies; they aren't measuring public opinion; rather, they are attempting to shape public opinion! People are naturally drawn to winners (perceived as strong etc). Well it didn't work in GA , and I don't think it will work in 2004.
Democrats are a bunch of liars. It's part of their general moral depravity. To them, lying is nothing more than a clever tactic.
As I have told my wife and others for a long time, President Bush will win in a landslide. Then he will redo the income tax or try to and then the leftists will get hold of congress for a little while, the Senate and then Rudi Giuliani will be the next President of the USA.
No, it didn't work in Georgia in 2002, and it didn't work in Florida in 2002, and it didn't work in New Hampshire or Missouri or Minnesota, either.
And it didn't work in California last year.
Because Grant's casualties in Virginia (mainly the Wilderness Campaign) were so massive, Lincoln still expected to lose, notwithstanding the Gettysburg and Vicksburg victories.
The fall of Atlanta was decisive (along with the military vote).
Dems are liars...a poster (much wiser than me) pointed out that pollsters never predict Republicans will win and then the Republican loses (small or large). But pollsters are always having to explain why they pick Democrats and they lose...it seems quite obvious now, but I didn't think of it...plain old liberal bias at work: Dem polls=crap.
It's not going to work this time either...at least I don't think so. You know if Kerry loses, the mainstream media loses also. They will never be the king-makers they once were (in Camelot).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.