2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

This could affect some Jewish votes in Florida:

 

 

 

LINK

outside of New York, I dont see Koch as relevant, even to Jewish voters in FL.

[BigSqwert]

outside of New York, I dont see Koch as relevant, even to Jewish voters in FL.

I would think quite a few New Yorkers who have retired in Florida were living in NY when he was mayor.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I would think quite a few New Yorkers who have retired in Florida were living in NY when he was mayor.

that's a good point.

[BigSqwert]

that's a good point.

I have no idea if it will result in any votes but it was worth mentioning.

[whitesoxfan101]

I would think quite a few New Yorkers who have retired in Florida were living in NY when he was mayor.

 

There is no question about this. They don't call Miami "the 6th borough" for nothing. During the many times I've visited down there and seen friends and such, it seems like there are as many native New Yorkers in Miami as there are natives of Miami in Miami. This is ESPECIALLY clear if you go to a sporting event down there with a New York team as the visitor, but is also clear in other ways. The one counter point to this though is there are a lot of Giuliani supporters in Florida too, and Rudy loves McCain as we all know.

Edited September 9, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[Rex Kickass]

There is no question about this. They don't call Miami "the 6th borough" for nothing. During the many times I've visited down there and seen friends and such, it seems like there are as many native New Yorkers in Miami as there are natives of Miami in Miami. This is ESPECIALLY clear if you go to a sporting event down there with a New York team as the visitor, but is also clear in other ways. The one counter point to this though is there are a lot of Giuliani supporters in Florida too, and Rudy loves McCain as we all know.

Try the 7th borough, the 6th borough is Westchester County, NY.

[Rex Kickass]

Hrm... polls are great when they show your candidate ahead. However, it doesn't mean anything this far ahead. It never does.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A96E948260

 

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

 

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

 

This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

 

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

 

This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.

[whitesoxfan101]

Hrm... polls are great when they show your candidate ahead. However, it doesn't mean anything this far ahead. It never does.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A96E948260

 

I don't think anybody is going to argue that polls are not nearly as important as people think, ESPECIALLY in a race where a national poll means nothing because it comes down to what happens in individual states, and not overall national popular vote. But polls themselves are often inaccurate. For instance, didn't all the exit polls have Kerry winning the election in 2004 even on election day itself?

[Steve9347]

I don't think anybody is going to argue that polls are not nearly as important as people think, ESPECIALLY in a race where a national poll means nothing because it comes down to what happens in individual states, and not overall national popular vote. But polls themselves are often inaccurate. For instance, didn't all the exit polls have Kerry winning the election in 2004 even on election day itself?

Some polls aren't important. However, THIS one is...

[whitesoxfan101]

Some polls aren't important. However, THIS one is...

 

None of those people have votes, so that poll is REALLY not relevant. Important perhaps if you find what the rest of the world thinks to matter, but really irrelevant in the sense it gives no picture as to who is going to win. I think it would be nice if the world have a more favorable view of us, but the middle class worker in Virginia has a much better idea of what this country needs than some guy in India.

Edited September 9, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[Steve9347]

 

f*** yes.

[mr_genius]

Hrm... polls are great when they show your candidate ahead. However, it doesn't mean anything this far ahead. It never does.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A96E948260

 

presidential elections are usually won or lost during the debates

[Balta1701]

presidential elections are usually won or lost during the debates

When was the last time this was actually true?

[clyons]

presidential elections are usually won or lost during the debates

 

Not sure about that; I can only think of two in which the debates are generally acknowledged to have had a significant influence: 1960 (Nixon looking shifty-eyed and sweaty on TV) and 1976 (Ford's "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe).

[Balta1701]

Not sure about that; I can only think of two in which the debates are generally acknowledged to have had a significant influence: 1960 (Nixon looking shifty-eyed and sweaty on TV) and 1976 (Ford's "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe).

I mean, I think they're important. But so are a lot of other things. Kerry won all 3 debates against Bush according to the after debate polls. People who watched the 2000 debates thought Gore won, people who tuned in for the post-debate coverage were convinced by the liberals in the media that Bush won. They have an impact, but they're usually not the decisive turning point.

[mr_genius]

Not sure about that; I can only think of two in which the debates are generally acknowledged to have had a significant influence: 1960 (Nixon looking shifty-eyed and sweaty on TV) and 1976 (Ford's "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" gaffe).

 

Carter lost to Reagan during the debates, Mondale lost to Reagan during the debates, Clinton beat Bush I during debates, Clinton beat Dole during debates, Gore lost to GW Bush (unbelievable as it may sound that GW could defeat ANYONE in a debate) during the debates. Kerry sucked during the debates, lost.

[mr_genius]

I mean, I think they're important. But so are a lot of other things. Kerry won all 3 debates against Bush according to the after debate polls. People who watched the 2000 debates thought Gore won, people who tuned in for the post-debate coverage were convinced by the liberals in the media that Bush won. They have an impact, but they're usually not the decisive turning point.

 

Maybe you thought they won, most people didn't. But of course the only reason Gore or Kerry lost was because it was 'stolen' from them

 

*sigh*

[lostfan]

None of those people have votes, so that poll is REALLY not relevant. Important perhaps if you find what the rest of the world thinks to matter, but really irrelevant in the sense it gives no picture as to who is going to win. I think it would be nice if the world have a more favorable view of us, but the middle class worker in Virginia has a much better idea of what this country needs than some guy in India.

My Japanese friend (in the thread I started) actually thought he was elected already and was preparing to take over for Bush at the end of the year.

[lostfan]

Carter lost to Reagan during the debates, Mondale lost to Reagan during the debates, Clinton beat Bush I during debates, Clinton beat Dole during debates, Gore lost to GW Bush (unbelievable as it may sound that GW could defeat ANYONE in a debate) during the debates. Kerry sucked during the debates, lost.

I was overseas and didn't see the debates but I did read that Bush really got his ass handed to him in the first debate, but was much better in the last 2. Actually it was less of Kerry beating him and more of Bush making himself look like a complete fool.

[mr_genius]

When was the last time this was actually true?

 

2004

[Balta1701]

Maybe you thought they won, most people didn't. But of course the only reason Gore or Kerry lost was because it was 'stolen' from them

 

*sigh*

Oh for crying out loud, there is objective data on this. In 2004 John Kerry was the first candidate I believe ever to come out in Gallup's polling data having won all 3 debates and then lose the election. Al Gore came out in the debate polling having recorded a win in 2/3, and then the media went off on him after the RNC put out a video of him "Sigh"ing.

[mr_genius]

I was overseas and didn't see the debates but I did read that Bush really got his ass handed to him in the first debate, but was much better in the last 2. Actually it was less of Kerry beating him and more of Bush making himself look like a complete fool.

 

i watched them and Kerry basically came off real bad. terrible during the debates.

[mr_genius]

honestly i really don't care anymore if you guys think your team only loses because of 'dirty tricks'. it's a bizarre excuse making complex that distracts the Democrat party from the actual reasons they lose presidential elections.

 

yes of course, the debates don't decide it. whatever.

[Balta1701]

honestly i really don't care anymore if you guys think your team only loses because of 'dirty tricks'. it's a bizarre excuse making complex that distracts the Democrat party from the actual reasons they lose presidential elections.

And it's the complete disconnection from reality that has made the Republican party so ineffective at running the government. Just like here. Data? What data. I don't see any data. No one ever does polls after a debate. Nobody. I refuse to believe they exist.

[mr_genius]

And it's the complete disconnection from reality that has made the Republican party so ineffective at running the government. Just like here. Data? What data. I don't see any data. No one ever does polls after a debate. Nobody. I refuse to believe they exist.

 

ABC says the last 2 debates were a draw in their poll, which contradicts your 'kerry won all 3'.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=163784

 

Kerry also won the exit polls,lost. not so sure how accurate polls are.

 

data what data? balta no see any data only swiftboats.

 

also

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/0...a?commentpage=1

Mr Gore led Mr Bush by 46% to 40% in an eve-of-debate tracking poll for Reuters and MSNBC, and by 45% to 39% in a New York Times/CBS poll.

 

after all the debates Bush made up ground and won.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2008 by mr_genius