NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes the polls are in for MSNBC and Newsweek. They both had stats that showed Kerry with a lead after the debates.

Kerry:47%
Bush:45%
Nadar:2%

Than there are other independant parties but the important thing is, Kerry is looking great, doing great, and if he can do as well in the next two debates as he did on Thursdays, He can and will win this election baby!

Its too bad it took him s long to get good though, I mean if he had worked this hard the whole time he had been running he would have been kicking Bushs ass all over the place.

Whatever, he is still losing the electoral vote count. :)

Whatever, he is still losing the electoral vote count. :)
No polls out for the electorals yet.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Special friend Kevin? That you?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Look at the poll dates...

Kerry-supporter here, and I'll say only this--it's one poll, we don't have th emethodology or the party splits, and it's a poll I was criticizing roundly just two or three weeks ago, so I'm taking these results with a huge grain of salt. I'll wait until there are some other polls out that confirm or question these results. And even then I won't get excited until November 2.

Kerry:47%
Bush:45%
Nadar:2%

Hoho! Look out Johny and Georgy, Nader's nipping at your heels! :rolleyes:

error of +/- 3% or so percent everyone...

Kerry-supporter here, and I'll say only this--it's one poll, we don't have th emethodology or the party splits, and it's a poll I was criticizing roundly just two or three weeks ago, so I'm taking these results with a huge grain of salt. I'll wait until there are some other polls out that confirm or question these results. And even then I won't get excited until November 2.

Finally i can agree with you Incertonia. When Bush was in the lead in the polls i didnt care. The polls show the results of the people who vote on them. Not everyone in the United States runs to there computer and votes on these polls, or votes on the same polls, or even have a computer to vote on any poll. So the polls themselves are sketchy at best.

Kerry: 47%
Bush: 45%
Nader: 2%

A sad demonstration of the two party system.

Its too bad it took him s long to get good though, I mean if he had worked this hard the whole time he had been running he would have been kicking Bushs ass all over the place.
He was kicking Bush ass for most of the summer.

Kerry-supporter here, and I'll say only this--it's one poll, we don't have th emethodology or the party splits, and it's a poll I was criticizing roundly just two or three weeks ago, so I'm taking these results with a huge grain of salt. I'll wait until there are some other polls out that confirm or question these results. And even then I won't get excited until November 2.
Is this one of the polls that was oversampling Republican voters? If so, then you should be ecstatic as to what the other polls will show?

Yes the polls are in for MSNBC and Newsweek. They both had stats that showed Kerry with a lead after the debates.

Kerry:47%
Bush:45%
Nadar:2%

Than there are other independant parties but the important thing is, Kerry is looking great, doing great, and if he can do as well in the next two debates as he did on Thursdays, He can and will win this election baby!
Hmm. MSNBC and Newsweek; two of the most left-biased media outlets in history. Surely those results aren't at all skewed.

GO NADER!
*runs away*

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Even more good news for Democrats:

Early in the year, the Republicans couldn't control their glee at the possibility of picking up as many as five Senate seats in the South, which has become increasingly Republican over the years. But a funny thing happened on the way to the election. The voters had different ideas. Not only are the Democrats holding four of the five seats in the South, but they are leading in all three formerly Republican seats. They are also leading in the only two really contested seats in which an incumbent might lose: Alaska and South Dakota.

If the Senate election were held today, the Democrats would take control of the Senate, 52-48 (counting independent Sen. Jeffords as a Democrat, since he caucuses with the Democrats). And this realignment does not take into account the possibility that Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) might pull a Jeffords and jump ship. He is from a hugely Democratic state and, like Zell Miller, would be much more appreciated in the other party. :) :D

"it's one poll, we don't have th emethodology or the party splits, and it's a poll I was criticizing roundly just two or three weeks ago, so I'm taking these results with a huge grain of salt."

I agree. The methodology has been quite shaky in some of the polls done recently. Also, having being ahead within the margin of error (which I would assume given it is 2 points) really doesn't constitute a "lead".

"Hmm. MSNBC and Newsweek; two of the most left-biased media outlets in history. Surely those results aren't at all skewed."

IIRC Fox News often showed Bush with a smaller "lead" than the CNN/Gallup poll, for example. I suggest you expand your horizons and actually search for "real" liberal media, and then you'll see the folly of claiming MSNBC and Newsweek as being "two of the most left-biased media outlets in history".

Is this one of the polls that was oversampling Republican voters? If so, then you should be ecstatic as to what the other polls will show?
Gallup was the company that was seriously oversampling Republicans, but Newsweek and Time both ran post-convention polls that actually started during the convention and didn't take that into account. There was some minor oversampling as well, but not to the degree that Gallup was/is doing it.

What I'm really saying is that this is only one poll, and I haven't seen any others yet. It could be a baseline--it could be an outlier. Until I see the universe of polls, I won't be able to tell. I have a gut feeling that Kerry improved his position with his strong debate performance combined with Bush's petulant one, but just how much is still up in the air. I expect there will be a lot of fluctuation in the next couple of weeks with the debates, but it will probably be within the margin of error unless one of the candidates really falls apart.

Kerry-supporter here, and I'll say only this--it's one poll, we don't have th emethodology or the party splits, and it's a poll I was criticizing roundly just two or three weeks ago, so I'm taking these results with a huge grain of salt. I'll wait until there are some other polls out that confirm or question these results. And even then I won't get excited until November 2.

In this statement, Incertonia demonstrates the difference, in general tone, between liberal thought and conservative (more precisely, neo-conservative,) thought.
No rush to judgement. An awareness of the facts and past history patterns. Cynicism about statistics without disclosure of methodology,

I heard many Bush supporters declare victory as soon as his numbers topped out post-RNC. As one can see, numbers change, and they may only have a small similarity to reality. Bush, I think, leads in a similar way. As soon as one thing comes out favorable to his point of view, he siezes on it, runs with it, and disregards all information that runs contrary to his favored view. This, of course, is no way to lead, it it really a way to fall behind, usually spectacularly...or should I say it's a catastrophic success?

That being said, I am a bit heartened by the better numbers for Kerry, and I notice a definite change in tone for the better in both Kerry's campaign, and in the press. The press, to some extent, seems to have shaken off a bit of it's reluctance to call Bush on his blunders in the last couple of days.

So, while there's no smoking gun of Kerry victory, signs are definitely looking optimistic for the good guys (i.e., anyone who is not a neo-con.)

I'm more interested in an accurate assessment than I am in deluding myself about the electoral position of my favored candidate. I'm no fool--I want to know the real situation, whether good or bad. Two weeks when everyone on the right was crowing about Bush's position, I smelled a rat and sure enough, there it was. It would be hypocritical for me to rejoice over the same poll just because it favors my guy now, not without looking at the same factors that caused me to question it before.

Gallup was the company that was seriously oversampling Republicans, but Newsweek and Time both ran post-convention polls that actually started during the convention and didn't take that into account. There was some minor oversampling as well, but not to the degree that Gallup was/is doing it.

What I'm really saying is that this is only one poll, and I haven't seen any others yet. It could be a baseline--it could be an outlier. Until I see the universe of polls, I won't be able to tell. I have a gut feeling that Kerry improved his position with his strong debate performance combined with Bush's petulant one, but just how much is still up in the air. I expect there will be a lot of fluctuation in the next couple of weeks with the debates, but it will probably be within the margin of error unless one of the candidates really falls apart.
Well at least there is a lot to look forward to this month for Democrats.

The "Vote For Change" concerts led by Bruce Springsteen and company.

Possibly the showing of Fahrenheit 911 on TV, although I have not heard about this recently.

And of course the last two Presidential debates.

It basically tied up again, no one is "winning". Yeah, its good news for Kerry people, that their no longer obviously losing, but don't read too much into.

I support Kerry for two main reasons.

(1) IMO, Bush is the absolute worst president since the early 20th century.

(2) and this one's kind of wierd but it will be the 2nd time there will be a Democrat in the White House with the initials JFK. Kerry's middle name is Forbes.

I'm afraid that we educated and politically active folk overestimate the power of those debates. Here we have a debate between two candidates who, combined, have about as much personality as a rock. I think those of us who actually watched the entire debate are going to find ourselves in the minority. This is good for me and my fellow Republicans, because we are still in the lead. However, it is bad for the Democrats because even though their candidate did much better in the debate, it was so pathetically boring that 90% of the viewers turned it off. And the other 80% of the country never turned it on. Again, you seriously overestimate the effects of these debates. Not enough people will watch them, and fewer still will understand what is being said. Not to mention that the polls on www.electoral-vote.com are all from late September, and therefore about as recent as can be expected. If you check the trends shown in each state, you will see that Bush has an upward trend, as marked by the thin red line on the graph, while Kerry generally has a downward trend, as evinced by the thin blue line. Go see for yourselves. Whether it is right or not, not enough of America will even bother to watch those debates. Just like only 40% of America will even vote.

I'm afraid that we educated and politically active folk overestimate the power of those debates. Here we have a debate between two candidates who, combined, have about as much personality as a rock. I think those of us who actually watched the entire debate are going to find ourselves in the minority. This is good for me and my fellow Republicans, because we are still in the lead. However, it is bad for the Democrats because even though their candidate did much better in the debate, it was so pathetically boring that 90% of the viewers turned it off. And the other 80% of the country never turned it on. Again, you seriously overestimate the effects of these debates. Not enough people will watch them, and fewer still will understand what is being said. Not to mention that the polls on www.electoral-vote.com are all from late September, and therefore about as recent as can be expected. If you check the trends shown in each state, you will see that Bush has an upward trend, as marked by the thin red line on the graph, while Kerry generally has a downward trend, as evinced by the thin blue line. Go see for yourselves. Whether it is right or not, not enough of America will even bother to watch those debates. Just like only 40% of America will even vote.
Bush has been off a bounce from his convention (hense the up line) while Kerry has been going down since his (down line)...

I'm afraid that we educated and politically active folk overestimate the power of those debates. Here we have a debate between two candidates who, combined, have about as much personality as a rock. I think those of us who actually watched the entire debate are going to find ourselves in the minority. This is good for me and my fellow Republicans, because we are still in the lead. However, it is bad for the Democrats because even though their candidate did much better in the debate, it was so pathetically boring that 90% of the viewers turned it off. And the other 80% of the country never turned it on. Again, you seriously overestimate the effects of these debates. Not enough people will watch them, and fewer still will understand what is being said. Not to mention that the polls on www.electoral-vote.com are all from late September, and therefore about as recent as can be expected. If you check the trends shown in each state, you will see that Bush has an upward trend, as marked by the thin red line on the graph, while Kerry generally has a downward trend, as evinced by the thin blue line. Go see for yourselves. Whether it is right or not, not enough of America will even bother to watch those debates. Just like only 40% of America will even vote.


Not quite all that correct, but some good ideas.

A lot of people watched the debate, and yeah a lot of people turned it off as well, that much is clear. Despite this poll, Bush holds a lead inmany key states, as well as being very close in strong Democratic states (ennsylvania specifically. As I stated, its basically tied up.

As far as the actual debates, I agree neither side actually can be said to have "won" the debate, despite what the Kerry hierophants may claim, but clearly Kerry came out on top as far as style goes. As far as actual substance, Bush made far more actual, substantial points and rebuttles to Kerry's claims.

That you see is one of the problems with these debates, one that goes all the way back to Kennedy-Nixon: the actual substance of the debate doesn't matter, what rellly matters and what can really give a boost is how one candidate looks in the end. Everyone at the time agreed that Nixon won the first presidential debate as far as substance goes; the problem was, he looked like crap in front of Kennedy and thats what hurt him.

Anyway, just some points, not saying I'm right or wrong or whatever, just a different way of looking at this.

As far as the actual debates, I agree neither side actually can be said to have "won" the debate, despite what the Kerry hierophants may claim, but clearly Kerry came out on top as far as style goes. As far as actual substance, Bush made far more actual, substantial points and rebuttles to Kerry's claims.

I respectfully ask what debate you were watching? Since when does ad nauseum repetitions of "it's hard work", "my opponent is inconsistent" and the word "freedom" constitute substantial points and rebuttals?

Hey, Penguinista--you may want to rethink your use of the word "hierophant" because it's ridiculous in that context.

Not sure if I should really say anything since I can't really vote in american elections, but what the hell I'm gonna start talking anyway.

I would actually want to see what would happen if Nader won, I just think it would be fun to see. So come on now all you americans go and vote for Nader and entertain the rest of the world and make us surprised, and stun us with awe at how Bush can win this election when people don't even vote for him (I'm sure he would find a way).

Also I think it's fun that you call Democrats for liberal when in Sweden they are more rightwing than the most major rightwing party we got (they have even argreed on that we need the 33% taxes and well they want to lower the richman tax a wee bit to maybe 45%).