Bush's lead disappearing

[Daradon]

Polls are ranging widely between different companies, but one hing they all have in common is that Bush's post convention support is waning... We gonna see a repeat of the 2000 election where papers have to print off three headlines in the morning?

'The first of two national polls by Pew, done Sept. 8-10, reflected the president's post-convention bounce. Bush was ahead of Kerry 52-40 among registered voters and by an even wider margin, 54-39, among likely voters, a narrower group.

By the second poll, done Sept. 11-14, the Bush lead had evaporated, the center said Thursday. In that poll, Bush and Kerry were knotted at 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush was at 47 percent and Kerry at 46 percent. '



Polls vary, but Bush support dropping after convention high

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 17 2004, 07:57 AM
Polls are ranging widely between different companies, but one hing they all have in common is that Bush's post convention support is waning... We gonna see a repeat of the 2000 election where papers have to print off three headlines in the morning?

'The first of two national polls by Pew, done Sept. 8-10, reflected the president's post-convention bounce. Bush was ahead of Kerry 52-40 among registered voters and by an even wider margin, 54-39, among likely voters, a narrower group.

By the second poll, done Sept. 11-14, the Bush lead had evaporated, the center said Thursday. In that poll, Bush and Kerry were knotted at 46 percent among registered voters. Among likely voters, Bush was at 47 percent and Kerry at 46 percent. '



Polls vary, but Bush support dropping after convention high

Guess I shouldn't have said "It's over" last week when Bush was way in front!!

The interesting thing about this is that ZERO appears to have changed from the Gore/Bush race of four years ago versus Kerry/Bush.

The same statistical dead heat. The same people voting the same way?

Viewed that way, is Iraq and the four years of Bush really been irrelevant?

Why the same result?

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Why the same result?

Because partisan politics has gripped this country and refuses to let go.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 17 2004, 01:35 PM
Why the same result?

Because partisan politics has gripped this country and refuses to let go.

You seem to be agreeing with my premise that it may not be about GW Bush being divisive given this is now the second election in a row at a dead heat.

Coincidentally, a BBC article on the "divisiveness" of GW Bush below. Also, comments indicating he's "never lost a debate." Also, that he's a moron. Sounds divisive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3665276.stm

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Sadly, the polls that are based on people likely to vote show bush with a huge lead.

Man, I live in such a Bush neighbourhood. I'm tempted to put up a Kerry sign, but am scared that would lead to violence!

[Cowperson]

A new Gallup poll gives Bush a gigantic 13 point lead among decided voters, 55% to 42% and 54% to 44% amond registered voters.

Quite at odds with the Pew Poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...llup-poll_x.htm

Cowperson

[troutman]

Although they are close in the polls in popular vote, Bush still has a big lead in the mystifying Electoral College system. Bush could win the same way as he did vs. Gore; losing the popular vote, but winning the Electoral College. And they call it Democracy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/special...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 17 2004, 01:46 PM
You seem to be agreeing with my premise that it may not be about GW Bush being divisive given this is now the second election in a row at a dead heat.

George W Bush, divisive? I don't even know what you mean? How can a candidate be divisive when you can run a dead mule against a candidate and have the dead mule win? This country is all about partisan politics so if you're looking for a divisive factor look no further than the antiquated bi-polar two party system they use down here.

Really, George Bush has nothing to do with this election. To me this election is all about who will be driving the bus after the election. To me that means getting the neo-con PNAC lunatics out of the Whitehouse at all costs. I don't care if George Bush hangs around (well maybe I do a little as the guy is an embarassment of unbelievable stature every time he attempts to speak publicly) but the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elliot, Dobriansky, etc. have to go and go fast. They have got this country on a fast track to oblivion.

[Jaybo]

As Troutman says, polls are pretty much meaningless because they provide a (possible) snapshot of the entire country's popular vote at a single point in time. More relevant are the electoral college polls which try to predict how individual states might go and who might win on that basis (remember in 2000, Gore won the popular vote but lost when George W. Bush was awarded Florida's electoral votes by the US Supreme Court.)

A few sites that are good at tracking electoral vote polls (but which can also show pretty wild swings if you look at their history/trend pages since some of them only add latest poll data as definitive and don't aggregate it ie. if Bush polls winning in Florida today but Kerry has for the last three weeks, they give Bush Florida in today's map):

Electoral-Vote.com - as of today has Bush up 307 to 211 (270 needed to win)

(http://www.electoral-vote.com/carto/sep17c.html also has a map that shows the states sized by the weight of their vote, not their geographical size (ie. New York is huge, North Dakota is small))

Race2004.net - has Bush up 216 to Kerry's 209 with 113 "undecided" (ie. too close to call)

Daily Thoughts has Bush up 202 to 175 and, if you count close ones, Bush wins 291 to 233.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has Bush up 284 to 254.

Poll Watcher has Bush up 330 to 208.

If anything, I think the numbers above show that like polls, electoral vote predictors will also vary widely and also like polls, they are a single snapshot on a single day (or whenever these polls were last updated.) I check these sites regularly and have seen Kerry with a big lead, I've seen them at a dead heat in electoral votes as they are in polls, and I've seen Bush with a big lead.

There's still a month and a half to go until the election and the only thing that's really important is which lever people pull in November (or which button they push on those new electronic voting machines. Er, hopefully that matters!)

Here's the MetaFilter Thread where I first heard about most of these sites (except Electoral-Vote.com) and some interesting back and forth commentary about the topic.

Whoever you like for the election, I think the best thing to hope for is a decisive win by one candidate or the other. If the US has a 2000 all over again where the election is decided by one state and anywhere from 80 to 1000 (I think the official count is ~500) votes, there could be big trouble. This 50-50 partisan split in American politics could become a permanent thing with no hope of ever healing so that the two sides can at least talk to each other without the hatred and loathing we see now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 17 2004, 09:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 17 2004, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Sep 17 2004, 01:46 PM
You seem to be agreeing with my premise that it may not be about GW Bush being divisive given this is now the second election in a row at a dead heat.

George W Bush, divisive? I don't even know what you mean? How can a candidate be divisive when you can run a dead mule against a candidate and have the dead mule win? This country is all about partisan politics so if you're looking for a divisive factor look no further than the antiquated bi-polar two party system they use down here.

Really, George Bush has nothing to do with this election. To me this election is all about who will be driving the bus after the election. To me that means getting the neo-con PNAC lunatics out of the Whitehouse at all costs. I don't care if George Bush hangs around (well maybe I do a little as the guy is an embarassment of unbelievable stature every time he attempts to speak publicly) but the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elliot, Dobriansky, etc. have to go and go fast. They have got this country on a fast track to oblivion. [/b][/quote]
You know, I think we will see those guys shown the door. Powerful members of the Republican party, including George's dad, have probably seen about enough of that bunch. Nobody will say it, but their little project in Iraq has not exactly gone off without a hitch. The chorus of boos will grow louder as it drags on and one by one, I think, they'll either quit or be quietly turfed.

Here's hoping, anyway.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/17/...olls/index.html

Leads me to question the point of these polls. I remember during the Canadian election the pollsters had the Conservative Party pegged at 120+ seats or something and look what happened there...

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Sep 17 2004, 01:52 PM
Sadly, the polls that are based on people likely to vote show bush with a huge lead.

Man, I live in such a Bush neighbourhood. I'm tempted to put up a Kerry sign, but am scared that would lead to violence!

Well, people who would get upset at you or vandalize your sign or house or start some confrontation should be deported because they just don't get what America is about. Put up your sign.

Interestingly, I've had the opportunity to walk a couple of neighborhoods fairly extensively here in the last week or so. There are a lot more Kerry signs than Bush signs in yards. Not sure if that means anything, but I thought it was interesting.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 17 2004, 02:29 PM
Although they are close in the polls in popular vote, Bush still has a big lead in the mystifying Electoral College system. Bush could win the same way as he did vs. Gore; losing the popular vote, but winning the Electoral College. And they call it Democracy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/special...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Yes, we call it democracy and it's hardly mystifying. I don't live in California, New York, Texas or Ohio. A candidate could win 5 or 6 states overwhelmingly and win the Presidency. That's precisely why we have the electoral college. It's to prevent a small group of populous states from dominating policy decisions and leaving the rest of us out of the process.

[Lurch]

Yes, we call it democracy and it's hardly mystifying. I don't live in California, New York, Texas or Ohio. A candidate could win 5 or 6 states overwhelmingly and win the Presidency. That's precisely why we have the electoral college. It's to prevent a small group of populous states from dominating policy decisions and leaving the rest of us out of the process.

Not that I disagree with the intent of the US system, but you should know that it was originally put in place by the upper crust to control the presidential elections. In effect, it was designed as a control on true democracy to benefit the wealthy landowners.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 17 2004, 10:30 PM


Not that I disagree with the intent of the US system, but you should know that it was originally put in place by the upper crust to control the presidential elections. In effect, it was designed as a control on true democracy to benefit the wealthy landowners.

Completely irrelevant and not news to me.

[Daradon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 17 2004, 08:07 AM
A new Gallup poll gives Bush a gigantic 13 point lead among decided voters, 55% to 42% and 54% to 44% amond registered voters.

Quite at odds with the Pew Poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...llup-poll_x.htm

Cowperson

Yeah, that is in the article I linked to too. Also a Harris poll that says they are close again.

'After the Republican convention and its four days of criticism of Kerry, Bush grabbed a lead ranging from 5 points to 11 points in various national polls. That lead appeared to be shrinking by late last week, and a Harris poll out Thursday also showed the race even.'

Three polls, three different results.

Like I said, polls are varied, but they do show a trend of waning support. Will be interesting to see if the debates make large differece to either side.

Man, and we thought Canada was a land divided...

EDIT: To add quote

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 17 2004, 11:23 PM
Three polls, three different results.

Like I said, polls are varied, but they do show a trend of waning support.

The USA Today poll, if I read it right, shows Bush widening his lead to 13 points.

But yes, a puzzling conglomeration of polls.

Cowperson

[troutman]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 17 2004, 09:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 17 2004, 09:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-troutman@Sep 17 2004, 02:29 PM
Although they are close in the polls in popular vote, Bush still has a big lead in the mystifying Electoral College system. Bush could win the same way as he did vs. Gore; losing the popular vote, but winning the Electoral College. And they call it Democracy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/special...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Yes, we call it democracy and it's hardly mystifying. I don't live in California, New York, Texas or Ohio. A candidate could win 5 or 6 states overwhelmingly and win the Presidency. That's precisely why we have the electoral college. It's to prevent a small group of populous states from dominating policy decisions and leaving the rest of us out of the process. [/b][/quote]
It's not a true democracy if every vote is not equivalent. Canada''s system is even worse in this regard.

If one candidate gets more votes across the country than another candidate, what does it matter where the votes came from? Why should citizens of larger states be disenfranchised?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Sep 17 2004, 09:52 AM
Sadly, the polls that are based on people likely to vote show bush with a huge lead.

Man, I live in such a Bush neighbourhood. I'm tempted to put up a Kerry sign, but am scared that would lead to violence!

Well i live in an area dominated by Bush supporters too (mostly retired Floridiots that summer in the mountains).....but my better half is a staunch liberal/democrat and since i cant vote, she has the Kerry/Edwards sign already to fly.

I have zero problem with it myself, and should anyone around us have a problem with it, they can talk to me about it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by troutman+Sep 19 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (troutman @ Sep 19 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yes, we call it democracy and it's hardly mystifying. I don't live in California, New York, Texas or Ohio. A candidate could win 5 or 6 states overwhelmingly and win the Presidency. That's precisely why we have the electoral college. It's to prevent a small group of populous states from dominating policy decisions and leaving the rest of us out of the process.

It's not a true democracy if every vote is not equivalent. Canada''s system is even worse in this regard.

If one candidate gets more votes across the country than another candidate, what does it matter where the votes came from? Why should citizens of larger states be disenfranchised? [/b][/quote]
Who's arguing that it's a true democracy?

I'm arguing that the electoral college isn't mystifying.

Congress keeps residents of populous states from being disenfranchised.

California has more votes in Congress than any other state. They have a lot of power in Congress....they shouldn't have that kind of power in electing a President.