NationStates Jolt Archive


No Convention Bounce!

Formal Dances
03-08-2004, 04:20
Ladies and gentlemen, the numbers are in and guess what? No Convention Bounce for Kerry!

here is some proof!

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12565

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/polls.bounce/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127807,00.html

These are but a few polls that show that Kerry got little or No Bounce at all in a convention that should've gotten him something bigger.

Please keep the bashing down! Thank you!
Friends of Bill
03-08-2004, 04:21
Hell, he lost ground in some polls.
Opal Isle
03-08-2004, 04:23
1) Despite being only about a day old: Old news.

2) In this election year, a majority of the voters have already made up their mind. The nation has never been this polarized.
Antebellum South
03-08-2004, 04:24
The "convention bounce" must be some sort of secret issue of supreme national importance that the Iraq War and the economy must have been distracting me from. I guess I won't vote for Kerry then. [/sarcasm]
The Black Forrest
03-08-2004, 04:25
Just looking at the gallop pull; isn't a 4 point error rate kind of high?

I am not a statistician so I don't know.

Canuck? Steph?

Besides. Polls change at the drop of a dime.....
Stephistan
03-08-2004, 04:26
Yup, it appears not.. which leads me to believe either will the Republicans.. I think this backs up what we have been hearing for months, the Dems are already united. The base is out in full force and has been since before the convention which is amazing so early. Usually the convention gets the base out, yet it would certainly appear they didn't need the convention to achieve the goal. I suspect the same will probably happen with the Republicans convention. I'm sure their base is out in full force as well and don't really need the convention to get there base out. Just goes to prove how polarized the country is. It's pretty exciting to witness. Provided nothing major happens in world affairs, I think we are in for another nail-bitter of an election.
Brennique
03-08-2004, 04:27
Just looking at the gallop pull; isn't a 4 point error rate kind of high?

I am not a statistician so I don't know.

Canuck? Steph?

Besides. Polls change at the drop of a dime.....


yes. a 4 point error rate is very high and i would argue that this is not statistically significant...
Stephistan
03-08-2004, 04:28
Just looking at the gallop pull; isn't a 4 point error rate kind of high?

I am not a statistician so I don't know.

Canuck? Steph?

Besides. Polls change at the drop of a dime.....

The error of margin is usually 3 points, but I wouldn't say it's all that odd for them to say 4 points.
Friends of Bill
03-08-2004, 04:29
You know, had the bounce come as expected, all the liberals on this site would be saying that Kerry is pulling in the undecided, but know you are all making excuses for why Kerry couldn't draw Soccer moms if he was a chocalte eclair.
Laidbacklazyslobs
03-08-2004, 04:32
I'm not so sure that the election will be a "nail biter." I was watching some politicos talking about where the undecideds etc are, and it seems that if things stay pretty much as they are right now (no guarantee on that I will admit) that Kerry will pick up all the states that Gore picked up plus 4-5 others. This would put Kerry far over the top in the electoral college.

Of course it is early yet and lots can happen that might swing voters one way or another, scandals, terrorist attacks, war news, etc. etc. But if the course remains pretty much as is, I expect the dems will pick up the presidency as well as probably the senate.
Opal Isle
03-08-2004, 04:34
You know, had the bounce come as expected, all the liberals on this site would be saying that Kerry is pulling in the undecided, but know you are all making excuses for why Kerry couldn't draw Soccer moms if he was a chocalte eclair.
I didn't expect a bounce...
Friends of Bill
03-08-2004, 04:35
I didn't expect a bounce...
Sure...
Stephistan
03-08-2004, 04:38
I'm not so sure that the election will be a "nail biter." I was watching some politicos talking about where the undecideds etc are, and it seems that if things stay pretty much as they are right now (no guarantee on that I will admit) that Kerry will pick up all the states that Gore picked up plus 4-5 others. This would put Kerry far over the top in the electoral college.

Of course it is early yet and lots can happen that might swing voters one way or another, scandals, terrorist attacks, war news, etc. etc. But if the course remains pretty much as is, I expect the dems will pick up the presidency as well as probably the senate.

I believe the state to watch is Ohio.. as we know, no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.. Kerry leads in Ohio at the moment, however it's within the margin of error. All the states Gore won in 2000 appear to still be solid blue states. All Kerry has to do is win the blue/swing states that Gore won +1 to win. Watch Ohio, it will tell the tale.
Zeppistan
03-08-2004, 04:42
Well, the number of undecideds made any sort of bounce unlikely, but it did certainly solidify some other numbers relating to issues.

For example, the most recent newsweek poll asked:

"Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you trust George W. Bush or John Kerry to do a better job handling each of the following issues. What about [see below]? Which do you trust do to a better job handling this issue: Bush or Kerry?" .

"Terrorism and homeland security"

Kerry jumped from 35 to 43% while Bush fell from 56 to 48%

"The situation in Iraq"

Kerry jumped from 38 to 46% while Bush dropped from 53 to 46%


Given the polarization of the country I don;t think anyone expected a huge bounce, but what it DID do was to improve the overall opinion of Kerry in the public domain - which may help down the road, especially if he wins the debates or if something major to Bush's detriment comes up just before the election.
Opal Isle
03-08-2004, 04:43
Sure...
Uh...I think almost all of the country has pretty much decided whether or not they like Bush. How could the DNC get much of a bounce when so much of the country has already decided?
MKULTRA
03-08-2004, 04:45
Im sure Bushs cleverly timed fearmongering terror alerts are just a coincidense too
Dementate
03-08-2004, 04:47
I believe the state to watch is Ohio.. as we know, no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.. Kerry leads in Ohio at the moment, however it's within the margin of error. All the states Gore won in 2000 appear to still be solid blue states. All Kerry has to do is win the blue/swing states that Gore won +1 to win. Watch Ohio, it will tell the tale.

Excellent point. The popular vote doesn't matter so much, since the nation has polarized and many people already know who they plan to vote for. The swing voters are all that matter, and winning the electoral college votes. If Kerry can win over the key states, it could very well mean Bush out the door in 04.
Brennique
03-08-2004, 04:50
The error of margin is usually 3 points, but I wouldn't say it's all that odd for them to say 4 points.


i think i was thinking of something else. blah.
CanuckHeaven
03-08-2004, 05:10
Just looking at the gallop pull; isn't a 4 point error rate kind of high?

I am not a statistician so I don't know.

Canuck? Steph?

Besides. Polls change at the drop of a dime.....
Most of them generally operate in the 2.5 to 3.5 range.

There will be many polls from here to the end and lots could happen in the meantime.

Will Al-Queda strike?

Will Bush produce Bin Laden?

Will gas prices soar? The cost of a barrel just hit a near record $44 per barrel.

Will more jobs be lost.

Will the Republicans lose Ohio?

It is going to be a tight race to the wire!!

BTW, the Newsweek Poll actually show a slight bounce for Kerry:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/

CBS shows a 6% lead over Bush:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/02/opinion/polls/main633546.shtml

Fox had this to say:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127807,00.html

John Kerry (search) either gained a slight bump in his standing with voters or didn't move at all following the Democratic National Convention (search), according to polls taken after he accepted the party's nomination for president.

So there either was a bump or a small one. I like the CBS Poll most!! ;)
CanuckHeaven
03-08-2004, 05:15
Ladies and gentlemen, the numbers are in and guess what? No Convention Bounce for Kerry!

here is some proof!

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12565

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-01-poll-kerry_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/polls.bounce/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5568072/site/newsweek/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127807,00.html

These are but a few polls that show that Kerry got little or No Bounce at all in a convention that should've gotten him something bigger.

Please keep the bashing down! Thank you!
According to some of those you listed, there is indeed a bounce even though it may be small.

One poll that you didn't list, actually showed Kerry with a 49% to 44% lead.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/02/opinion/polls/main633546.shtml

So your thread title might be somewhat misleading?
Friends of Bill
03-08-2004, 05:36
No Bounce. 'nuff said.
MKULTRA
03-08-2004, 07:35
No Bounce. 'nuff said.
Bush is gonna get a bounce in the form of a big black boot kicking his ass out of the White house this fall and he can take his hick wife with him and her cheesy pantsuits
Texastambul
03-08-2004, 07:47
2) In this election year, a majority of the voters have already made up their mind. The nation has [never been this polarized.

More than during Shays's Rebellion, the Civil War, Prohibition, the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement?
Insane Troll
03-08-2004, 08:00
Bush is gonna get a bounce in the form of a big black boot kicking his ass out of the White house this fall and he can take his hick wife with him and her cheesy pantsuits

You know, I kind of expect Bush to get re-elected.
Texastambul
03-08-2004, 08:17
No Bounce. 'nuff said.

There seems to be one very important factor that everyone is overlooking in this rush to make the lack of a "bounce" an issue.

*The candidate was already selected months ago, and there were no in-party opposition hold-outs at the DNC. Normally, atleast one darkhorse candidate will ride out the primaries with a small band of supporters who rally behind their nominee until after the convention. The shift of support from the hold-out to the party nominee is what normally occurs to inflate poll numbers for the new party mascott after a convention. It didn't work out this time because the Democratic Party pressured members to whole-heartedly support Kerry before the primaries were finished and silenced dissent from the liberal voices: the net effect was that Kerry could start campaigning months earlier than normal. So, the reason there was no "bounce" is because the Demcoratic Party was already unified (for better or for worse)
Stephistan
03-08-2004, 12:03
*Bounce* :D
Formal Dances
03-08-2004, 13:42
*Bounce* :D

Thanks Steph, and I'm actually proud of how this thread is going! A nice steady debate and flaming on either side.

You know, I kind of expect Bush to get re-elected.

I do too and I really do think it'll be close but not as close as people say it will be.
Incertonia
03-08-2004, 13:59
Hey Formal Dances--maybe you ought to point out that your first three links are all pointing to the same poll--the CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll. I looked at the Gallup website and there doesn't seem to be any link to the internals of their poll, but considering that it doesn't match up with the other ones, I tend to think it's an outlier in terms of measuring Bush's support.

And the Newsweek poll is a laugher. It's been getting hammered all over the internet because of the huge flaw in its methodology. You see, it started taking the poll last Thursday before Kerry's speech and completed it Friday after the speech and then averaged the two to get the 4 point "bounce." That's retarded and everyone knows it. You take a complete poll before the speech and the same afterwards if you're looking to measure bounce, and you don't take one day polls because they're too volatile.

It seems like you're trying to make your point in a valid way here, so I'll give you credit for the attempt, but you might want to pay a bit more attention to stuff like this in the future.
Microevil
03-08-2004, 14:39
Yeah, I have to agree with most people that have said stuff already. The country is very polarized this election cycle so a great many people that are usually waiting till the last minute have already made up their minds. And yes, a 4% error is quite large it's usually only 3%. But once again, as I have said numerous times before in other posts, polls don't mean a thing and they really don't do anything except catch the bandwagoners. And more importantly we'll see how the polls are after the RNC, if bush gets a small jump we will know that what I and other people have suggested that the country is so polarized that most have already made up their minds.
MKULTRA
03-08-2004, 21:42
You know, I kind of expect Bush to get re-elected.
he may just set off a dirty bomb and pull it off but if dems can liberate the house they can impeach him
Formal Dances
03-08-2004, 21:43
he may just set off a dirty bomb and pull it off but if dems can liberate the house they can impeach him

They won't be able to MKULTRA! The House will remain republican and there is no grounds for impeachment! So again you just killed your arguements. Also this has no bearing on the polls!
Spoffin
03-08-2004, 22:21
there is no grounds for impeachment!
That didn't stop it the last time.
SugarBear-ia
03-08-2004, 22:54
No bounce for Kerry? I suppose that depends on what you count, and how...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Kerry: 328
Bush: 210

Remember, we don't have an election in November. We have 51 of them, and they're each winner-take-all.
Anyone who cites only horserace numbers -- which is to say, almost everyone -- is missing the point at best, if not misleading by omission.

{whispers prayer for a terror-free year}

3 more months until Commander Bunnypants is re-unelected.
Unashamed Christians
03-08-2004, 22:59
I read or heard somewhere, currently can't remember, that there have never been two ridiculously close elections in all of United States history. Then you have the tradition that no Republican has won without Ohio. Streaks are meant to be broken but I happen to think that the electorate is going to break one way or the other. I certainly hope it is for Bush.
Ben the Burly Sailor
03-08-2004, 23:06
I'm sick of how many people are willing to lie to themselves and all of us so openly. It neeeds to stop.

First off, perjury is most certainly a reason for impeachment. The original investigation was off-base, yes, but that doesn't make lying under oath less severe.

Next, Al Gore did not win the 2000 election by any count. Not one count managed to find him the winner in Florida. Not the first, not any in the middle, not even the ultimate pro-Gore, unnofficial, post-inauguration count. The Supreme Court was 7-2 in its decision that the incessant count-wrangling had been illegal, including 2 patently liberal justices, so you can't claim that the Supreme Court handed Bush the election. And, even if the ridiculous counting had been allowed to go on, the second sentence of this paragraph still stands.

Furthermore, do not hide behind the popular vote. States like my home in Wisconsin were horribly influenced by the miscalling of Florida while the polls in the panhandle were still open. Had that fiasco never occured, Bush would have carried Wisconsin and several others like it, and we wouldn't be wasting our time here.

Finally, no one should whine about disenfranchisement of the black community in Florida, or any other such tripe. If there was even a shred of evidence beyond hearsay, I would have seen it by now. There isn't. Without anything resembling proof, you're wasting my time, and the time of everyone else here.
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 02:04
I'm sick of how many people are willing to lie to themselves and all of us so openly. It neeeds to stop.

First off, perjury is most certainly a reason for impeachment. The original investigation was off-base, yes, but that doesn't make lying under oath less severe.

Next, Al Gore did not win the 2000 election by any count. Not one count managed to find him the winner in Florida. Not the first, not any in the middle, not even the ultimate pro-Gore, unnofficial, post-inauguration count. The Supreme Court was 7-2 in its decision that the incessant count-wrangling had been illegal, including 2 patently liberal justices, so you can't claim that the Supreme Court handed Bush the election. And, even if the ridiculous counting had been allowed to go on, the second sentence of this paragraph still stands.

Furthermore, do not hide behind the popular vote. States like my home in Wisconsin were horribly influenced by the miscalling of Florida while the polls in the panhandle were still open. Had that fiasco never occured, Bush would have carried Wisconsin and several others like it, and we wouldn't be wasting our time here.

Finally, no one should whine about disenfranchisement of the black community in Florida, or any other such tripe. If there was even a shred of evidence beyond hearsay, I would have seen it by now. There isn't. Without anything resembling proof, you're wasting my time, and the time of everyone else here.Wow, are you full of shit. If you actually believe that calling Florida early influenced the voters in Wisconsin, then you've been drinking the Limbaugh kool-aid for a looooooooong time.

By the way, if you look at the NY Times article (archives cost money, sorry there's no link) that had the misleading title that said Bush won every recount, well--the misleading title bit should warn you of what I'm going to say. Most recounts had Gore winning handily.

Lastly--if you haven't seen proof of the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, you're either willfully blind or stupid. I don't care which it is, since the end result is the same, but I figured you ought to know.
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 02:05
Oh yeah--Formal Dances? Sweety? When are you going to admit that your examples of polls are redundant and questionable as to what they ostensibly prove?
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 02:42
Wow, are you full of shit. If you actually believe that calling Florida early influenced the voters in Wisconsin, then you've been drinking the Limbaugh kool-aid for a looooooooong time.

By the way, if you look at the NY Times article (archives cost money, sorry there's no link) that had the misleading title that said Bush won every recount, well--the misleading title bit should warn you of what I'm going to say. Most recounts had Gore winning handily.

Lastly--if you haven't seen proof of the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, you're either willfully blind or stupid. I don't care which it is, since the end result is the same, but I figured you ought to know.
It never ceases to amaze me how blindly Partisan you are. You can't provide a single recount that gave the election to Gore, you attack Ben with your vile little hate speech. Give it up. Gore lost, this is exactly why Sore/Loserman shirts sold so well. Pathetic.
Purly Euclid
04-08-2004, 02:50
It should be obvious to see why Kerry got no major bounce from this. Many likely voters have made up their minds, already. There may be about three or four percent that still could be swayed, but that's it. All in all, we'll never see any more than a ten percentage point gap between Bush and Kerry. The truely important poll, therefore, comes in November.
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 02:52
Fine FOB--here's the NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ei=5070&en=29153ee54be3bcc8&ex=1091678400&pagewanted=print) Now if you only read the headline and the first few paragraphs, you might come to the conclusion that Bush would have won regardless of what standard was used. But if you actually read the article, here's what comes out of it.

If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive "dimpled chad" standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.

But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.

Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.

And if you throw in the disenfranchised black voters who historically would have overwhelmingly voted for Gore, then you come up with an insurmountable margin of victory for Gore.

Am I partisan? You bet. Am I right? You're goddamn right I am.
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 03:03
Fine FOB--here's the NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ei=5070&en=29153ee54be3bcc8&ex=1091678400&pagewanted=print) Now if you only read the headline and the first few paragraphs, you might come to the conclusion that Bush would have won regardless of what standard was used. But if you actually read the article, here's what comes out of it.



And if you throw in the disenfranchised black voters who historically would have overwhelmingly voted for Gore, then you come up with an insurmountable margin of victory for Gore.

Am I partisan? You bet. Am I right? You're goddamn right I am.Spare me the crap about disenfranchised voters, okay, because I am sure the democrats did everything to make sure that the dead and convicted felons were not disenfranchised. And Gore all but salivated at the thought of throwing out the military vote.
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 03:08
Fine FOB--here's the NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ei=5070&en=29153ee54be3bcc8&ex=1091678400&pagewanted=print) Now if you only read the headline and the first few paragraphs, you might come to the conclusion that Bush would have won regardless of what standard was used. But if you actually read the article, here's what comes out of it.



And if you throw in the disenfranchised black voters who historically would have overwhelmingly voted for Gore, then you come up with an insurmountable margin of victory for Gore.

Am I partisan? You bet. Am I right? You're goddamn right I am.
Not to mention you have selectivly quoted this story. Here is the begining.




November 12, 2001
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.


And here is the end.

But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?

The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.

The Florida Legislature earlier this year banned punch-card ballots statewide, directing counties to find a more reliable method. Many counties will use paper ballots scanned by computers at voting places that can give voters a second chance if their choices fail to register. In counties that use that technology, just 1 in 200 ballots had uncountable presidential votes, compared with 1 in 25 in punch-card counties.

Others will invest in computerized touch-screen machines that work like automated teller machines.

Kirk Wolter, who supervised the ballot review for the National Opinion Research Center, said that the study not only provided a comprehensive review of uncounted ballots in Florida but would help point the way toward more accurate and reliable voting systems. All data from the consortium recount is available on the Web at www.norc.org.

The review produced databases to study this election from a historical perspective, said Mr. Wolter, the research center's senior vice president for statistics and methodology, adding, "I hope in turn this can lead to voting reform and better ways of doing this in future elections."

So, by asking each county what standard they would use, Gore would win. Wow, violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution would have allowed Gore to win. Good Article, sloppy citing. You remain very uncredible.
Stephistan
04-08-2004, 03:10
Sorry Bill, Incertonia has you there. Deal with it!
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 03:18
Spare me the crap about disenfranchised voters, okay, because I am sure the democrats did everything to make sure that the dead and convicted felons were not disenfranchised. And Gore all but salivated at the thought of throwing out the military vote.
Based on what? The little voices that come out of your ass and imbue you with the wisdom of the ages?
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 03:18
Sorry Bill, Incertonia has you there. Deal with it!
Okay, I am humbled by your wity presentation of the facts. The sources you present are way too much for me.


Whatever, the article is there for you to read too. You choose to be blinded by his crap, that your problem.
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 03:22
Fine FOB--here's the NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ei=5070&en=29153ee54be3bcc8&ex=1091678400&pagewanted=print) Now if you only read the headline and the first few paragraphs, you might come to the conclusion that Bush would have won regardless of what standard was used. But if you actually read the article, here's what comes out of it.



And if you throw in the disenfranchised black voters who historically would have overwhelmingly voted for Gore, then you come up with an insurmountable margin of victory for Gore.

Am I partisan? You bet. Am I right? You're goddamn right I am.Hey, the lunatic left called, they want their talking points back. You have worn them all out here.
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 03:23
FOB--I said from the outset that I was selectively quoting the NY Times article. Go back and read my post. That doesn't change the fact that the same article said that 7 different recounts found Gore winning, and that if the disenfranchisement of black voters had not taken place, that Gore would have stomped a mudhole in Bush in the state of Florida.
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 03:26
FOB--I said from the outset that I was selectively quoting the NY Times article. Go back and read my post. That doesn't change the fact that the same article said that 7 different recounts found Gore winning, and that if the disenfranchisement of black voters had not taken place, that Gore would have stomped a mudhole in Bush in the state of Florida.
You must be reading some bizarro alternate reality version of that article, because it says over and over that bush would have one no matter what the crackpots in Palm Beach tried.
CanuckHeaven
04-08-2004, 03:47
Democrat

http://www.sturmads.com/Images/bounce-logo.jpg
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 03:51
You must be reading some bizarro alternate reality version of that article, because it says over and over that bush would have one no matter what the crackpots in Palm Beach tried.
I quoted it assmunch. Try again.
CanuckHeaven
04-08-2004, 03:57
FOB--I said from the outset that I was selectively quoting the NY Times article. Go back and read my post. That doesn't change the fact that the same article said that 7 different recounts found Gore winning, and that if the disenfranchisement of black voters had not taken place, that Gore would have stomped a mudhole in Bush in the state of Florida.
I read the whole article and confusing as it may be, I have to concur with your observations Incertonia.
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 04:17
The main thing I hope to accomplish with that article is to put the lie to the claim that Republicans often make that Bush would have won under every recount scenario. I've seen it in print, on tv and heard it on the radio more times than I can count, and it just ain't so.

What's more, when you factor in the voters disenfranchised thanks to the pre-election purge (presided over by Katherine Harris, the head of the Bush campaign in Florida), you get a margin so large (it is estimated some 98,000 people were illegally deprived of their right to vote) that there wouldn't have been a recount in the first place.
Microevil
04-08-2004, 04:21
The main thing I hope to accomplish with that article is to put the lie to the claim that Republicans often make that Bush would have won under every recount scenario. I've seen it in print, on tv and heard it on the radio more times than I can count, and it just ain't so.

What's more, when you factor in the voters disenfranchised thanks to the pre-election purge (presided over by Katherine Harris, the head of the Bush campaign in Florida), you get a margin so large (it is estimated some 98,000 people were illegally deprived of their right to vote) that there wouldn't have been a recount in the first place.
You're also forgetting the mass voter fraud with the absentee ballots from the military that didn't really follow regulations but were counted anyway.
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 04:25
You're also forgetting the mass voter fraud with the absentee ballots from the military that didn't really follow regulations but were counted anyway.
I know, but those votes would have been counted regardless because there was no way Gore was going to challenge them. Even if he had won, he would have been crippled as President if he'd won on those grounds. That's also the reason he got the Senate to stand down and not support the Congressional Black Caucus in their protest of the election--he didn't want to be put in the position of having to cast a tie-breaking vote in his own favor.
Microevil
04-08-2004, 04:27
I know, but those votes would have been counted regardless because there was no way Gore was going to challenge them. Even if he had won, he would have been crippled as President if he'd won on those grounds. That's also the reason he got the Senate to stand down and not support the Congressional Black Caucus in their protest of the election--he didn't want to be put in the position of having to cast a tie-breaking vote in his own favor.
Indeed. Which makes him the crapiest president ever, he wins the election and then he lets this other guy run the country for 4 years... how irresponsible.
Ellbownia
04-08-2004, 04:48
Okay people. Florida aside, all Al Bore had to do was WIN HIS "HOME" STATE!
Stephistan
04-08-2004, 04:49
Okay people. Florida aside, all Al Bore had to do was WIN HIS "HOME" STATE!


Why? He won Florida.. :headbang:
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 04:52
All of which is beside the point--the thread was about the Kerry bounce which some polls have as large as 8 points and which some (read Fox News) have said is nonexistent because of a single outlier poll that just happened to be reported by 3 groups (Gallup/CNN/USA Today).
CanuckHeaven
04-08-2004, 04:53
Okay people. Florida aside, all Al Bore had to do was WIN HIS "HOME" STATE!
Kerry will win it for Gore this time around?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 04:58
I did just see a poll here (http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/TN040803president.pdf) (careful, it's a pdf file) that puts the gap between Bush and Kerry in Tennessee at 2%, within the margin of error of 4.2%.

Now honestly, if Kerry wins Tennessee, it's likely because he's going to win 40 states or more and is just romping over Bush, and while I can see that happening, it's not likely. But what this does is puts Tennessee in play and forces Bush to spend time and resources in a state that should be safe for him, thereby keeping him from spending as much time as he needs to in battleground states like Ohio and Florida.
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 05:46
Why? He won Florida.. :headbang:
I understand you are Canadien, so I here it goes.


GORE


LOST


.
Stephistan
04-08-2004, 05:48
I understand you are Canadien, so I here it goes.


GORE


LOST


.

Only because of Republican elections fraud!!!

"Canadian" btw...
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 05:50
Only because of Republican elections fraud!!!

"Canadian" btw...
No, Canadien, becuase you take the postiton of the frenchie socialist government everytime.


and it was because of inept democrat voters and election commitees.
Goed
04-08-2004, 05:52
No, Canadien, becuase you take the postiton of the frenchie socialist government everytime.


and it was because of inept democrat voters and election commitees.

http://www.mahopa.de/bilder/lustige-forenbilder/you-not-funny.jpg
Stephistan
04-08-2004, 05:55
No, Canadien, becuase you take the postiton of the frenchie socialist government everytime.


and it was because of inept democrat voters and election commitees.

No, I would argue it was because of Florida's Sec. of State Katherine Harris took thousand upon thousand of legal registered democrats off the elections list (mostly African Americans) tis been proven, so... had she not done that, Gore would of won easily, Bush only won by 500+ votes.

Any way, it's a fact, believe as you wish...Kerry is not Gore, so we shall see in Nov what happens this time..

I'll drop it, it won't change what happened.. it's just a damn shame it did in the first place is all.
Friends of Bill
04-08-2004, 06:09
No, I would argue it was because of Florida's Sec. of State Katherine Harris took thousand upon thousand of legal registered democrats off the elections list (mostly African Americans) tis been proven, so... had she not done that, Gore would of won easily, Bush only won by 500+ votes.

Any way, it's a fact, believe as you wish...Kerry is not Gore, so we shall see in Nov what happens this time..

I'll drop it, it won't change what happened.. it's just a damn shame it did in the first place is all.
And I argue that had the networks not called the electtion for Gore an hour before polls closed in Fla, thousands of Republicans in the panhandle would have not stayed away from voting.

Trot out the lies again, it is the best they have been able to muster since 2000 anyways.
MKULTRA
04-08-2004, 07:38
No, I would argue it was because of Florida's Sec. of State Katherine Harris took thousand upon thousand of legal registered democrats off the elections list (mostly African Americans) tis been proven, so... had she not done that, Gore would of won easily, Bush only won by 500+ votes.

Any way, it's a fact, believe as you wish...Kerry is not Gore, so we shall see in Nov what happens this time..

I'll drop it, it won't change what happened.. it's just a damn shame it did in the first place is all.
whats also funny is that many of the so-called "felons" purged where black (who usually vote dem) and none were cubans (who usually vote GOP)
Goed
04-08-2004, 08:56
And I argue that had the networks not called the electtion for Gore an hour before polls closed in Fla, thousands of Republicans in the panhandle would have not stayed away from voting.

Trot out the lies again, it is the best they have been able to muster since 2000 anyways.

"I'll drop it, since it is in the past. Let's hope for the future"

"OH NO YOU WON'T!"

:D
Formal Dances
04-08-2004, 12:28
That didn't stop it the last time.

Spoffin you really are ignorant of this aren't you!

Clinton committed Purgery! That is lying under oath thus making it a misdeminor which is in the Constution about Impeachment proceedings. Congress had the grounds and they used it! Not to mention he obstructed justice. Another misdeminor!
Formal Dances
04-08-2004, 12:32
Wow, are you full of shit. If you actually believe that calling Florida early influenced the voters in Wisconsin, then you've been drinking the Limbaugh kool-aid for a looooooooong time.

By the way, if you look at the NY Times article (archives cost money, sorry there's no link) that had the misleading title that said Bush won every recount, well--the misleading title bit should warn you of what I'm going to say. Most recounts had Gore winning handily.

Lastly--if you haven't seen proof of the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, you're either willfully blind or stupid. I don't care which it is, since the end result is the same, but I figured you ought to know.

Incertonia? It can be proven that many voters went home in FLORIDA when FLORIDA was called for Gore! Most of those where Bush voters. How do I know this? They came out and stated as such. Florida was a battleground state and everyone decided that whoever got Florida would WIN the election. When it was called, i'm sure that many people went home thinking it was over. We would never know!
Formal Dances
04-08-2004, 12:35
Oh yeah--Formal Dances? Sweety? When are you going to admit that your examples of polls are redundant and questionable as to what they ostensibly prove?

I don't think I said it was redundant! Just pointing out that everyone was expecting a bounce and it didn't happen!

I saw an electoral count? That is pre-election and anything can still happen.
Formal Dances
04-08-2004, 12:39
Why? He won Florida.. :headbang:

and if he won his home state, we would have President Gore and not President Bush! :p
Formal Dances
04-08-2004, 12:41
No, Canadien, becuase you take the postiton of the frenchie socialist government everytime.


and it was because of inept democrat voters and election commitees.

FOB! I responded enough on this issue so now its time to drop it! Drop it now and start a thread (I wouldn't recommend it) and get back to the subject at hand!
Incertonia
04-08-2004, 13:33
I don't think I said it was redundant! Just pointing out that everyone was expecting a bounce and it didn't happen!

I saw an electoral count? That is pre-election and anything can still happen.No dear--go back and look at my first post on this subject. You posted the same poll 3 times in order to try to make your point. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll was the same poll--giving three different links to the same poll doesn't change the fact that it was still the same poll. You also neglect to say that the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll is the only one that doesn't show a bounce for Kerry. All the other polls show a small, but noticeable bounce, even including the Newsweek poll which has some of the most screwed up methodology of all time.
Incertonia
05-08-2004, 05:40
I'm going to try to resurrect this thread with a piece by William Saletan of Slate.com. You can find it here. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2104745/)
I'm also going to break copyright law and paste an inordinately large portion of it.

Warm Bread
Bush's grim poll numbers.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2004, at 3:48 PM PT

If you've read or watched news reports about polls taken since the Democratic convention, you've probably heard that John Kerry didn't get much of a "bounce." These reports miss the important data. Let's look at the numbers.

1. What's changed. Three major media polls have been taken since the convention: ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, and CNN/USA Today. Prior to the convention, Kerry's favorable rating was nine points higher than his unfavorable rating in the ABC poll. Since the convention, this margin has grown to 19 points. Bush's positive margin on the same question is just two points.

In a CBS poll before the convention, the percentage of voters who were uneasy about Kerry's ability to handle an international crisis was 19 points higher than the percentage who were confident in his ability to handle such a crisis. After the convention, that margin of unease has shrunk to 11 points. Bush's negative margin on the same question is 12 points. In the CBS pre-convention poll, voters said by a 51-36 margin that the Democrats did not have a clear plan for the country. After the convention, they say by a 44-40 margin that the Democrats do have a clear plan.

In a CNN poll before the convention, voters agreed by a 12-point margin that Kerry had "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have." After the convention, the margin is 20—eight points higher than the margin for Bush on the same question. Before the convention, by a 51-43 margin, voters trusted Bush rather than Kerry "to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief of the military." Now the candidates are even. Before the convention, more voters trusted Bush than Kerry "to protect U.S. citizens from future acts of terrorism." Now more voters trust Kerry than trust Bush.

2. Trial heats. Before the convention, Bush led Kerry 48-46 among registered voters in the ABC poll. After the convention, Kerry leads 50-44. In the CBS poll, Kerry turned a 45-42 lead into a 48-43 lead. The CNN/USA poll goes the other way, boosting Bush from a 47-43 deficit to a 48-47 lead. That's counterintuitive, given the pro-Kerry media coverage around the convention. It doesn't square with the CBS or ABC polls. Nor does it square with an American Research Group poll, which bumps Kerry from a 47-44 lead to a 49-45 lead, or a Newsweek poll—taken on the last night of the convention and the night afterward—which bumps Kerry from 47-44 to 49-42. So my guess is that the CNN poll is off the mark.

Look at the numbers for Kerry in these trial heats: 50, 48, 49, 49. Even in the CNN poll, he's got 47. Kerry is that close to making a Bush victory mathematically impossible. And look at Bush's numbers: 44, 43, 45, 42. Even the 48 percent for Bush in the CNN poll is too low, given how few undecided voters show up for the incumbent on Election Day.

The last two points deal with Bush's flat line in his re-elect numbers and the indication that Kerry is close to solidifying the necessary percentage for victory. So much for the no-bounce theory, huh?