Jump to content

SDS

Administrator
  • Posts

    10,149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SDS

  1. Clinton BAD! haha  :D  *yawn*

    99221[/snapback]

     

    I wish I could say I was laughing on election eve 1994, but I was too busy crying those tears of joy.

     

    Support Bill all you want - he was the BEST thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. He single handedly delivered a Republican majority for at least a generation....

     

    But hey, he got re-elected!

  2. Interesting how sports fans are countering your argument with incorrect election results as opposed to the obvious "home field advantage" the incumbent party usually gets. Since the 22nd amendment has passed, Carter is the only "new" President (in other words, one who wasn't running as the former VP, like Bush, Ford) who has failed to be re-elected.  "The devil you know..." plays a lot into these campaigns.

     

    I would argue that Kerry outperformed Gore, as Kerry didn't have the power of the incumbency on his side.

    99195[/snapback]

     

    sorry, too much mental masturbation for me...

     

    My only concern was whether he was getting a higher % of votes from state to state than Gore.

  3. Yeah- it's a funny thing about Clinton that he wasn't that liberal on many issues. He signed into law welfare reform. He was fiscally pretty conservative, and didn't push to spend the surpluses the economoy of the 90s gave him.

     

    Clinton would have killed Bush.

    98953[/snapback]

     

    Stellar analysis....

     

    Not.

     

    Clinton was a souless prick - just like Kerry. The 1994 election and the Congress that was swept in - changed Mr. Clinton's agenda REAL fast. Clinton put Clinton first and that meant re-election at all costs. Whatever issue he needed to support to gain re-election is exactly what he did.

  4. After all, Kerry's "8-point" margin was the counter argument to my posting that Kerry was underperforming Gore. I am currently commisioning NASA to determine if 51-49=8 as we speak...

     

    I will go back to reading my unobjective, uninformative, biased, worthless political rags who somehow managed to correctly report every event as it unfolded last last night.

     

    It's not to late to visit:

     

    http://jaycost.blogspot.com/

     

    and read the reports this guy gave throughout the past few days. A partisan with love of the truth... How novel.

  5. I would like to say "you are welcome".....

     

    For those of you who missed this election because you followed it on Slate or Salon - you can catch up on what happened at The Corner at National Review. They did an OUTSTANDING job of relaying CREDIBLE inside info from the BC04 campaign.

     

    Also, Jay Cost - you are the man!

     

    http://jaycost.blogspot.com/

     

    I know you are just a blogging hack, but you brought insight and science and reason along with your partisan bent. You searched for truth and you reported it every step of the way.

  6. Call it a personality flaw...I listen to and consider the positions of others, but my own counsel is what I follow.  It is, after all, the only one I have to live with.  :D

     

    And I say: Ohio ain't close to being decided yet.  Were I forced to bet right now, I'd put my money on Kerry...but his odds are declining rapidly.

    98363[/snapback]

     

    call JFK and give him hope because even they are giving in.... call that quaking fowl a duck and move on.... :D

  7. Still could...but just barely.  It's only 67% reported.  I wouldn't count Kerry out until Cuyahoga's 85% reported or so. 

     

    But like we said above...it's going to be damned thin.

    98336[/snapback]

     

    all I can say, is that the people I have chosen to listen to - partisan hacks or not - have been spot on ALL DAY.

  8. Picking and choosing the states is not objective Mr. Rather/Drudge... take your pick of role models Scott. Your boy may well win, but your propaganda machine (blog?) is not an objective reporting machine.

    98264[/snapback]

     

    I think most of us would be better served if either you actually presented some actual data to further this discussion or jkust shut yer pie hole if you have nothing to say.

  9. [11/02 11:27 PM]

    Want an interesting indicator? John Kerry is doing worse than Al Gore did in a lot of places.

     

     

    In Delaware, Gore beat Bush 55 to 42 — a 13 point margin. This year, Kerry is winning 53 to 46 with 92 percent of the precincts in, a 7 point margin.

     

     

    In New Jersey, Gore beat Bush 56 to 41 — a 15 point margin. This year, with 93 percent of the precincts reporting, Kerry is leading 53 to 46 percent, a 7 point margin.

     

     

    In Connecticut, Gore beat Bush 56 to 39 — a 17 point margin. This year, with 61 percent of the precincts reporting (okay, it's a little early), Kerry is leading 53 to 45 percent, an 8 point margin.

     

     

    Thought one: This sort of thing is going to make a difference in the popular vote.

     

     

    Thought two: How likely is it that Kerry going to overperform Gore in the swing states, but do worse in these blue states?

  10. FROM BUSHIE [KJL]

    Things are looking very good in Ohio. With the exception of a few Appalachian counties, we’re running significantly ahead of where we were four years ago. For example, we lost Columbus County by 5,000 in 2000; we’re now ahead by 15,000. We’re also ahead by a couple of hundred votes in New Hampshire – and the worst parts of that state (for us) have already been counted. So we’re confident about both states.

  11. I think Columbus and Cleveland are still open because there are so many voters in line there. I really do think the economy will do it.

    98147[/snapback]

     

    the time for interpreting the shape of one's stool as an election indicator is over. Votes are being counted - if there is a precinct by precinct, county by county shift in OH to Kerry - let us know.

  12. MORE FROM BUSHIES ON FLORIDA [11/02 10:24 PM]

     

    An individual close to the Bush campaign reports that the Bush campaign assessment on Florida is that the President should win by about three percentage points when all is said and done.

     

    In Broward, the Bush campaign expected to lose by 250,000 votes, but are down only 174,000 with 84 percent reporting.

     

    In Duvall, the Bush campaign expected to win by a 40,000, and they are set to win with a 50,000 vote margin.

     

    Bush is ahead of the swing counties, and north of the I-4 corridor, Bush is set to double the vote margin of victory he had in 2000.

     

    And the Bush campaign says they will have an absentee vote margin of 150,000.

     

    Adding that all together, they estimate a 3 percentage point win.

  13. I thought Kerry would, too, if only on the logic that such high voter turnout was more indicative of extreme dissatisfaction with the incumbent than anything else, ergo much of the turnout above and beyond normal would swing to Kerry.

     

    Sound reasoning...just wrong, apparently.

    98054[/snapback]

     

    Not really sound.... just reactionary. I'm disappointed. :D

     

    High voter turnout didn't phase me because if you listen to the W campaign - they CLEARLY pulled out all stops on the GOTV. For example, I believe this is for PA, they contacted 300k in 3 months in 2000. This year they contacted 1.6M in 72 friggin' hours....

     

    They may lose Pa, but the ground game for W has been fuggin' impressive.

  14. ANOTHER INSIDE READ ON EXITS [KJL]

    Either there is a huge methodological flaw in the exit polling data, or there has been a transformative change in the nature of the electorate. The former is far more likely. Which means that much of the media's narrative of the election so far looks to be very much wide of the mark. Imagine that.

     

    Let me explain what I mean. Here are several data points that indicate that something is amiss on the matter of exit polling:

    **In 2000, George W. Bush lost the white Catholic vote in Wisconsin. This time, he appears to be winning it by 10 percentage points. Yet I believe the exit polls have the white Catholic vote shrinking from more than one-third of the population to less than one-quarter. There's no reasonable explanation for it.

    ***In North Carolina, the exit polls show the voting population to be 63 percent women. That is obviously far too large – and it explains why the exit polls have the President up by only one in North Carolina. That figure won't stand up when the votes are counted; the President will carry North Carolina by a wide margin.

    *** The exit polls have President Bush up in South Carolina by only seven points. He will win South Carolina by more than seven; you can take that to the bank. The Latino population makes up a larger percentage of Florida's population than in 2000. The President is carrying the Latino population in Florida by a greater margin than four years ago. Yet the exit polls have Latinos comprising a far smaller voting percentage of the population than four years ago.

    ***In Ohio, the exit polls show the vote among men to be 50-50. The final votes will almost surely be higher than that. ***President Bush is winning 43 percent of the Hispanic vote -- which, if that remains, means he should win re-election.

    ***Florida is a state in which you can measure absentee ballots early to get a good idea of where things stand. Right now we are dominating in absentee ballots in Florida. To be precise: we are leading by 154,000 votes – while in 2000, we won by only 98,000. So we are in much better shape this election that the last on this significant matter.

    It’s worth recalling that in 2000, the final exit polls were significantly different than the actual vote count in at least seven states. And 2000 may be seen as the high-water mark for exit polling, compared to this year.

    Something is clearly amiss. Indeed, this election may be a dagger at the heart of exit polling. The larger point is that we believe the President will not only carry Florida and Ohio; he has a real shot at carrying New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. That doesn't mean he'll carry all those states -- but it does mean that some of the post-mortems you are seeing on television and elsewhere are wildly irresponsible. I should add that when you talk to some very smart political reporters, they will tell you that they are very suspicious of the exit polling data sets. And they should be. We've gone through a similar situation once before, in 2000. You'd think people would learn. But you would be wrong.

    The bottom line is that people need to exercise reasonable judgment and patience; watching some political commentators take to the airwaves before 7:00 p.m. to interpret the results of the election is like watching housepainters pretending to be portrait artists.

    There is an obvious solution to all this: people -- especially reporters and commentators -- should wait until the votes are cast and counted. And until that happens, they should withhold making judgments based on information that is at the very least suspect.

×
×
  • Create New...