Which candidate would a terrorist want in the White House?
Hear the Donkey Bray
(RealPlayer)
[Expletive deleted] !!!
Posted on 10/17/2004 8:17:12 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
.............."It's 2000 all over again," said pollster John Zogby, who does a daily tracking survey of 1,211 voters for the Reuters news agency.
Zogby's latest poll, which was taken Wednesday through Friday, had Bush up by 4 percentage points with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Earlier last week, his survey had found Kerry up by 3 points.
Zogby said the oscillations in his survey tracked very closely with the patterns in a similar poll he conducted in the final phase of the 2000 campaign.
....The pollster said the movements in his current poll are being driven by a small group of volatile voters - comprising between 6 percent and 12 percent of the real electorate, depending on how many actually vote - who are ping-ponging between Bush and Kerry.
...."There's a narrow majority that wants to get rid of Bush because they've decided he's too conservative and too stubborn and they're upset about Iraq," said Sabato, of the University of Virginia. "But there's also a narrow majority, with some overlap with the first, that's decided they don't want Kerry because he's too liberal, too indecisive and too unlikable."
Adding to the unpredictability of the outcome, Sabato said, is the Electoral College system, in which all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate who finishes first there.
Sabato said a statistical analysis indicates that any time the margin of victory in the national popular vote falls below 3 percentage points, there is a possibility that the winner of the popular vote will lose the presidency. That happened to Gore in 2000, and almost befell Jimmy Carter in 1976.........
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Too conservative and too stubborn (Bush)
vs.
too liberal, too indecisive and too unlikable (Kerry).
Which candidate would a terrorist want in the White House?
Hey! Being stubborn, conservative and having been upset at Iraq is WHY I am VOTING for HIM!
You got that right!!!
Rhetorical question, right?
I'm voting for Bush but I really don't like the idea of saving the Arab world from themselves. The WMD reason was good enough to go into Iraq and I don't fault him for having bad intelligence.
In the future however, I don't think "saving" the Arabs will have long term good consequences for us or even them and the cost is too high. VDH argues diferently however.
I would like to see an "Escape from NY" situation.
Wall in the entire Arab world and let them fend for themselves.
"...."There's a narrow majority that wants to get rid of Bush because they've decided he's too conservative and too stubborn and they're upset about Iraq," said Sabato, of the University of Virginia. "But there's also a narrow majority, with some overlap with the first, that's decided they don't want Kerry because he's too liberal, too indecisive and too unlikable." "
Well, lets put this in market terms. When the consumer (voter) is offered the choice of two products (candidates) and neither fits their needs they usually walk away, choosing not to participate in the market (vote). Thus, my prediction is that a lot of these "undecideds," if they in fact exist, will not show up at the polls.
However, what we really don't know is if these "independent" voters are closet Bush supporters. I'm not really sure where the closet vote goes since the electorate is so polarized and Bush has been so damned in the MSM. It seems to me though that a lot of people might be supporting Bush but are embarrassed to admit out of fear of being labeled "stupid," by the intelligensia.
Yeah, let's wall in the Arab world. While we're at it, maybe we can do it at no cost.
When the oil goes dry and nuclear power becomes widespread in the future, it will be nice to have a large pool of unstable, backward nations for our grandchildren to have to deal with. Just because we didn't want to bear the cost.
"Yeah, let's wall in the Arab world. While we're at it, maybe we can do it at no cost."
You are getting it, good. There will be a cost. The Arabs can pay for it since they don't want the Judeo/Chrtistian pigs to poison their religion.
"When the oil goes dry and nuclear power becomes widespread in the future, it will be nice to have a large pool of unstable, backward nations for our grandchildren to have to deal with. Just because we didn't want to bear the cost."
They can keep their oil. Plenty of other sources of energy available as long as the Marxistenvirofacists stay quiet. Maybe we can send them over to the Arab world since they are so against pollution.
Remember how concerned they were in 1991 as the oil fields in Kuwait burned? Remember how concerned they were when Chernobyl blew? No? But surely you remember when they went to Marthas Vineyard to promote the alternative energy resources that Kennedy didn't want in his back yard?
Which candidate would a terrorist want in the White House?
Hear the Donkey Bray
(RealPlayer)
[Expletive deleted] !!!
I like your solution too.
That would depend on who owns and operates the presidential caricature.
"You have to be a liberal in disguise trying to say outrageous things or just plain crazy."
Yeah that's it. I will wear a Kerry mask for halloween. Show my solidarity with my Marxist brothers and sisters.
Go Che!!!!
Sabato has about as much credibility as Zogby. Zilch.
Here's my modest proposal:
For the next election in 2008, the Congress should limit all campaign expeditures to only the ten states that the candidates agree are swing states.
That way, the rest of us won't have to listen to all the bull....
Second proposal: In each of those ten states, each campaign could simply pay $10,000 to professed 'undecided' voters for a guaranteed promise to vote for their candidate, eliminating some of the 'excess campaign advertising' that bloats the campaign budgets and interrupts important TV programs like various reality series and "Desperate Housewives."
I don't buy this. Add three points to a mainstream poll to correct for pollster bias and you've got a six point Bush lead which sounds about right. There is no volatile electorate out there, except in the minds of anti-Bush journalists. They do have an agenda and aside from wanting Kerry to win, they do need to write about a horse race. Having to write about a Bush blowout isn't news to the MSM - besides its undermines everything they've been pushing all year. So take their polling data with a grain of salt.
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.
