Skip to comments.
The coming Bush landslide (woops)
National Review
| Nov 2000
| Joel Rosenberg
Posted on 06/07/2002 2:53:20 PM PDT by cd jones
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
To: lepton
Re:California. How much impact do you think illegal registration of 3 million non-citizens might have affected that? Not by as much as I would have guessed before running some numbers. The final actual California results showed Gore with a 54-42% edge over Bush: 5,721,195 to 4,437,557, with 520,825 for third party candidates.
I'll assume your 3 million non-citizens number is accurate, though I really don't have any idea whether it is or not.
Let's then assume that the voter turnout for that group of people is the same as the national average in 2000 (51%). In all honesty, I think that number is probably way too high for illegals, but let's go with it.
Then we assume that those voters break the same way as Hispanics overall did in California: 68% Gore, 29% Bush. From that we can calculate how many "illegal" votes each candidate received, and subtract them from their totals.
The final result? Gore still wins, but by 8 points instead of 12. Gore 4,681,195 (51%) to Bush 3,993,857 (43%). Closer, but not enough to put the final result in doubt.
All statistics were taken from CNN's 2000 Election archives.
To: BlackRazor
Being that it was DNC associated, I would expect a much higher Percentage of votes cast for Dem candidates. As to the portion that actually voted, you're right - that's a big hitch.
22
posted on
06/08/2002 10:46:57 AM PDT
by
lepton
To: goldstategop
Joel Rosenberg never figured it would be 36 Days. Then again in all fairness neither did the rest of us. Chalk it down as one prediction that missed hitting the bulls-eye on the barn door.No, he was right. He just neglected to factor in Democratic vote fraud.
23
posted on
06/08/2002 10:53:19 AM PDT
by
#3Fan
To: cd jones
For anyone who really wants to understand what a scam polls are (no matter who takes and publishes them) read "MOBocracy How the media's obsession with polling twists the news, alters elections, and undermines democracy," by Matthew Robinson, 2002, Forum/Prima Publishing.
A few nuggets from an excellent, well-researched book that is chock full of real-world examples:
- "Just because polling suits the needs of the media does not mean that representative democracy is better off for it. Just as we must be careful of the wording and methodology in any poll, so too must we be vigilant about how poll results are reported and portrayed...We must also question how and when polls are deployed, because the questions they ask are as important as the results they obtain...Many methodological factors can bias a poll or affect the results in subtle ways." (Bold added for emphasis.)
- "Using polls, journalists reason from effect to cause."
- "The media rarely police themselves and almost never acknowledge their own errors or mistakes..."
- "Media polls aren't just a shallower measure of opinion; they also often create the false impression that public opinion is settled."
- "Instead of challenging media stories or operating as just another source, polls are deployed after the shock troops of political accusation or media expose have hit the public..."
- "When it suits its purpose, the elite community of national journalists is quite capable of ignoring the polls it so adamantly presses in its own stories."
- "When the media conduct a poll that attacks...they stop being simple observers and become active agents."
- "Despite the media's seemingly careful attention to methodology and modern knowledge of statistics and sampling, polls today can be wildly misleading for a number of reasons, few of which are ever clearly explained to the public..."
- "Although journalists and political elites pay close attention to poll numbers and trends in opinion, a simple understanding of methodology casts doubt upon much of the reportage that purports to herald new voter trends."
- "The sad truth is, the polling industry doesn't know how to evaluate the accuracy of its results."
- "Polling is not a serene castle in the air that sits above the tumult of politics. It is not a neutral ground in political debate."
24
posted on
06/08/2002 11:36:56 AM PDT
by
Wolfstar
To: SoDak
Problem is, polls can't take into account how many illegal aliens and dead people will be voting. It isn't easy polling either group.Wrong.
It's easy to figure the illegal votes and the votes of the dear and lately departed.
They will all vote Dumbocrap in whatever numbers are required for the Dumbs to win.
25
posted on
06/08/2002 11:43:26 AM PDT
by
Ole Okie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson