The bet is on for the 1st 100 days “in office”, ie until about tax day. Sig sounds fine. Again, i will not hold you to the sig, but I will hold you on the “whining”.
Incidentaly, Gore is now way ahead in Florida. Still holding in CA.
Ok, no sig line. I won’t be comfortable with a “fuzzy bet.” We will use April 15th as the cut off for the whining about the other candidate. That seems like a pretty easy reference point.
Do you think there is a media bias? I do. I think that is why we see this race shaping up very differently. This election will be an interesting test case.
If you don’t think there is a liberal bias, will you have a different opinion if the popular vote is split by more than 7%?
BTW…The polls I am looking at show a Bush lead in FL. (Portrait of America) And I read that Republican’s have requested 100,000 more absentee ballots than democrats in Fl. You weren’t referring to the lame Zogby poll were you?
http://www.portraitofamerica.com/
Their EC count is Bush 231, Gore 168
Toss-up votes 139
The end of that last post should have had this on there:
http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1482.html
http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1214.html
Their EC count is Bush 231, Gore 168
Toss-up votes 139
I figured that I would just jump in here and let you know that the DUI thing doesn’t effect my call whatsoever.
If it has any effect (which I doubt) I think it will be to widen the gap by which Bush wins by.
Oddly enuf, I have never heard of the “Portrait of America” poll. It is rather suspicious that all their numbers are so very pro Bush, and completely at odds with any other poll. The most recent Field Poll had Gore leading Bush by 7 points in CA. And the EC count was 10 votes in Gores favor. The Field organization has been around for a long time, and is very respected.
Now, it is also true, that the figures showing Gore ahead in Fla, was from the “Zogby” poll, which I also have never heard of, and all the numbers were oddly high in favor of Gore- in fact they had Fla 57% Gore/29%Bush - which would surprise me. Apparently Zogby is afiliated with Reuters?
The drunk driving arrest should not hure Bush- but his lying about it-that might.
There you go throwing out lies to smear Bush. I was with you on your entire post until the very end there. Please show me one cite where Bush lied about this.
I’m surprised that you have never heard of POA. If you go to their website, you will clearly see that they are the:
** The #1 source for public opinion data. **
They are a legitimate polling company. CNN, MSNBC and the other news shows use their data when comparing all the polls. They have been the most consistent poll this season. They were the most accurate poll during the Republican primaries, from state to state.
Zogby is a big name in polling also. His big claim to fame came by calling the '96 presidential election right on the mark. Republicans suspect that he tilts his numbers to the left until election day is almost upon us, and then “adjusts” his numbers so that his final number is accurate.
I’m guessing that Zogby will see a “surge” in his polls for Bush over the weekend, and his monday numbers will have Bush way ahead.
LOL!!! This is what happens when a candidate is sweeping the nation. :) The numbers are not called “pro-Bush”. they are called accurate.
In 1996, Bush was asked by reporters (after he got out of serving on a DUI jury) if he had ever had a DUI- he denied it. He was asked by reporters at the beginning of the race- if he had anything to hide- and he admitted only to “youthful indescresions”. 31 years old is NOT “youthful”, and a DUi is not a “indescresion”. The 1996 story can be found in todays SJMN.
Link please?
It looks too close to call, according to the polls abstracted at the AOL site linked above.
There is no toss-up. Every national poll has Bush ahead. If it was a toss-up, then both of them would be up in different polls. The only real question right now is by how much Bush is up.
Freedom2 said:
I’ll bite. http://www.dallasnews.com/campaign/092000/205667_bushdwi_03pol.html
The title of your article:
No arrests after '68, Bush told paper
The lead in paragraph:
Burried a little further down in the article:
I have seen several different spins on this story. In another version I think it was a journalist named Slater, writing for the National Review. (I think)
I don’t know if there are now two stories here, or a mixture of one. I also know that when asked specifically about whether he had ever been arrested for a DUI, he answered that he had a “less than perfect record” on that. I also read that he left a question blank on a court questionaire for jury duty that was related to arrests.
If the entire lie angle comes down to this one interview with an obvious left-wing reporter, and they both remember it differently, then I say you have to give the benefit of the doubt to Bush. If there are 10 different issues with Bush denying things he said with several different reporters, then I think there is a legitimate charachter issue here.
I do appreciate how Bush came out by himself and faced the press. He answered all questions, and took full responsibility. When have you ever seen Clinton or Gore do that when confronted with damaging news? You have to admit that he handled this very differently than they would have.
This whole episode just underscores the bitterness of Washington politics. With Gore, I know that we will get 4 more years of this. With Bush, I am hoping there is a way out.
And the latest news from Zogby, our favorite last minute poll adjuster…
**
Wayne Slater was the reporter that asked Bush about arrests after 1968. How is he “an obvious left-wing reporter”, other than the fact that he reported something that Bush denies saying? His newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, endorsed Bush for President. (Although that doesn’t make he himself a Republican, it’s still relevant)
I’ll retract that part for now. My point wasn’t so much that HE was an obvious left-wing reporter, but that an interview WITH an OLWR would not be damning evidence to me. Re-reading my post, I can see that what I typed in didn’t convey what I was thinking.
I have heard several stories, and several different takes on them. I don’t think the final word is out on the details of this interview.
Even if Slater is a decent stand-up guy, if the issue comes down to his word against Bush’s, then I say the benefit of the doubt has to go to Bush. It would take a pattern of stories like this, or some hard evidence to throw Bush’s charachter out the window.
Well, see, the overall % lead of Bush does not seem to be that important- what it means is that in some of the states he is leading he will win by a large margin. But as has been pointed out, the Electoral college “don’t work that way”. Bush could very well win several states (like Texas) by 20% points- all Gore has to do is beat him by one single little vote in enough states- and so far, Gore is doing just that. In the latest Projection, (11/03), in a “small, local, liberal rag*”, umm, what is it called again… Oh, yes- The Wall Street Journal- Gore has an estimated 269 EC votes, with Bush trailing with 248 votes- the only States that are complete 'toss-ups" (according to this article) are Maine (which can actually split), Arkansas, and Tenn.
In the 3 national polls (but see above), Bush is leading- but all within the margin of error.
DITWD
Could you please throw in some links when you reference something? I’m not trying to be anal, but it is hard for me to comment if I can’t see the article you are talking about.
I have seen NO ONE who thinks Gore is ahead in either the popular or Electoral College right now. Most pundits are talking about a 5-7% split on the popular vote, and claiming that it would take a difference of less than 2% to have the situation you are describing. Your situation also assumes that swing states will go in every which way, while history tells us that swing states tend to all swing in the same direction.
BTW…Do we have a vote?
I can’t believe I wrote VOTE.
I was asking if we had a bet.
All the projections I’ve seen have Bush winning, but not by much. http://www.presidentelect.org has had him winning most of the campaign, the only exception being the day before yesterday. Now it’s 298-240 in favor of Bush.
A Yahoo/Reuters estimate has Bush leading as well, but they keep the toss-up states toss-ups (it’s 212-211 in favor of Bush, with 115 too close to call). http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001103/pl/campaign_electoral_dc_10.html
CNN’s site has Bush up 225-171. The toss-ups make up the rest. This is an “interactive pop-up”, so there’s no link.
Doesn’t really look much like a landslide, but all of these give Gore California, and that’s looking more like a toss-up every day.
-
It is hard to “link” to an article i read on an actual peice of newsprint. However, i do give the date & paper, so folks can check me.
-
Well, the Wall street Journal does (Nov 3rd). And the Field poll( (Oct 30, SF Chronicle). And I have quoted both to you, so you certainly have 'seen" it. I have (by your reasoning) also “seen” no-one who puts Bush ahead in the EC- but they all put him ahead in the pop vote. But again, iit looks like in this election, that the Pop vote will not decide the election- the EC will.