I would like to preface my post by stating up front that I am voting for Harry Brown.
Yes, Bush is a little closer to my ideal than Gore, but not by all that much. I see Gore as taking this country into the crapper at 90 mph, while I see GW taking us there at 35mph. I don’t want to debate about who is the best candidate, just about who is going to win.
I think that the major news outlets have a stake in making this race seem close. The election is sort of like the Superbowl of politics. If they admit it is a blowout to soon, then nobody watches.
There are some major indicators I see that make me think this election is as good as over already.
Gore is fighting for his home state.
Bush is fighting for California.
Bush has campaign crowds consistently in the thousands, many over 10,000.
Republicans HATE Clinton. There could be a nationwide 10 ft. high blizzard and the Repubublicans would still go out and vote against Gore.
I think that there will be a backlash among many Americans who harbor a little secret racism against Jews. I do not know if this will make them vote for Bush, but it could turn into VERY LOW turnout.
Al’s environmental policies will hurt him in industrial states. (that spotted owl is going to bite him on the ass in Washington)
I am not a Bush cheerleader. In fact, I am VERY uncomfortable with a former President’s son being President. I feel like we will be crowning King W. But I do think this race is over.
It sure seems close right now, but I never thought Bush would retake the lead in the polls like he did, especially after the first debate. I’m beginning to wonder if you might be right.
Of course, what matters is the electoral vote, not the popular vote. Back in '96 I remember seeing a map in The Nation where every state was colored based upon what the popular polls showed in that particular state, which were then added up to see who would get the most electoral votes. Anyone see anything similar this year?
Wish I could agree with you there Freedom, but the simple fact is that they didn’t get out and vote in '92 and they didn’t get out in '96. We can only hope they’ll get out in '00, but hatred for Clinton will not be a real factor, I don’t believe.
I’m still hoping Nader will be a factor in California and other more liberal states. He can only steal votes from Gore.
Well, if this election goes to Gore – and, to tell you the truth, I hope it does… I can’t stand Dubya (spelled with a “Duh”) – it will be very apparent that the Electoral College system gives a bit of a bias to the smaller states, since Gore is leading across most of New England.
Also, to the person who mentioned the industrial states: But isn’t that where union votes are going to matter the most? And aren’t the unions pretty solidly behind Gore?
No, in todays paper (SJMN)it was shown that Bush, trailing by some 10%, has conceded CA to Gore. His main ads are to support GOP congressional cand. Gore has CA & NY as locked as a state can be, so that alone will prevent a landslide.
I predict a VERY close election, something like Gore 47, Bush 46, others 7%.
I doubt if Bush has given up on CA already…it is way too important of a State to do so. I’ve seen many polls and survey, and they vary wildly in their claims (Sorry, I don’t have the references, and I’m too tired to find 'em). It mostly depends on where you are living and the which newspaper it is.
He’s not going to concede California. He might as well drop out of the race. What you read is pure propaganda, DITWD. I’ll give you two guesses as to who those particular journalists support.
Again, more propaganda. For every poll that says Gore has the state locked, I’m sure there’s one that says Bush has it locked. There’s only one way to find out who’s right (unfortunately), and that’s to wait 'til November.
Each candidate seems to have the party core locked in place and the battle is on for the undecided “independants” who will actually be the ones who control the outcome at this point. The independants tend to be centerists and the candidate who seems to be the most “moderate” will have the best chance for capturing their votes. Gore, although he won the first debate on “points”, actually lost ground especially after the VP’s appearance IMHO due to a perception that he was hauty, further left, and like Clinton has tendancy to stretch if not outright break the truth. This race is still young and far from over. All the first debate did is to level the playing field leaving a virtual tie. Bush needs to show that he is in fact presidential material (no stumbling, losses for words) and Gore needs to act like a real person (instead of Eddie Haskell from the old “Leave It to Beaver” show).
Frankly, as an independant, I have made up my mind for Bush. I would rather have a leader who is deliberate and has a record of reaching across the lines of partisanship to achieve results for the common good than someone who preaches class warfare and shown he can change his position (persona) and loyalty at the first shift in the breeze of public opinion. IMHO that makes Mr. Gore an ideal follower, but a lousy leader.
I’m not sure I understand the small-state bias you presume. Bush is leading in a whole lot more states then Gore. Just look at the map. The thing is, the states Bush has secured are mostly those with low electoral vote totals. Thus, if Gore wins, it will be in spite of the small states, not because of them. I certainly don’t see a bias.
Union leadership, as a whole, has endorsed Gore. However, the level of support and enthusiasm is tepid, at best. I’ve seen several midwestern polls that show over 40% of the rank-and-file union members lining up behind Bush. Gore does not enjoy solid union support when it comes to those actually casting the votes.
I haven’t been able to solve three equations for three unknowns since college (and even then I wouldn’t have been so sure), and I would love to have some independant corroboration of these numbers.
So far, it looks OK to me, but I am a bit suspicious because the anonymous author can’t really keep his units and his percentages straight throughout the example he provides. Also, the “conservative news forum” is hardly an unbiased source. Can someone check (or has someone checked) his math?
I always suspected that polls were a tool of the opinion shapers but this sort of analysis would be a whole different story, if true.
I think you are missing a couple of parts of this equation. First, there was INCREDIBLE turnout in 94. Second, Perot was there to suck votes off the very unexcitable Bob Dole. Third, we are now POST-Impeachment.
The Republicans got a little smarter and have not been harping on impeachment, but come election day I think we are going to see how the public feels about it. IMHO Gore=Clinton to the Republicans. I think this turns into high turnout for the Republicans and low turnout for the Dems. MILtan
That’s just the point I’m trying to make. Gore DOES NOT excite his traditional base. He has gone to far to the left fringe in many of his policies.
How can anyone really be excited about a President that wants $4/gallon gas? How can Michigan support a candidate that wants to eliminate the combustionable engine? How can Washington and Oregon be excited about losing their logging industries?
I found the commentary on polling that Freedom2 links to, to be entertaining more than anything else.
The guy accuses Gallup/CNN/USAToday of trying to fudge the poll results to make it look like Gore won the first debate. If that’s so, why did their last polls before the debate show Gore up by 10, and then having Bush catch up, and then take a big lead, once the polls included data collected after the debate?
What Gallup et al. convincingly demonstrated, out there in plain view for anyone (except this klutz) to see, is that Gore blew the debate.
BTW, USAToday was very clear, each day during that stretch, about whether it included poll results collected after the first debate.
RTFirefly
Ummm…I don’t know if I would call the guy a Klutz. It doesn’t really address his points. The bottom line is that he is showing how Gallup manipulates it’s polling method. If you have a disagreement with his method then I would be interested in seeing where you disagree.
One of the things I love about TSD is that when you post something, someone will rip it up based on it’s merits (or lack of). Of course there will always be the 90% noise of insults and spinning.
Simple question:
When the polls were swinging 10-20 points over a week or so, do you really think that many people were changing their mind?
