HOW YA LIKE THESE NUMBERS? BUSH 52%, KERRY 41% - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - HOW YA LIKE THESE NUMBERS? BUSH 52%, KERRY 41% (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/4/2004 8:17:00 PM EDT

[#1]

I heard today that Newsweek's latest poll has Bush ahead 10 or 11% too.

Zogby currently has Bush up 4% also. I'll settle for that since Zogby himself is an Arab and I am suspicious of the manner with which his polling is conducted.

Posted: 9/5/2004 3:30:11 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Union guys from Penn will vote for a painted roclk if it calls itself a democrat.

Posted: 9/5/2004 4:43:02 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Posted: 9/5/2004 10:51:44 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Because the demographics of the state have changed since then. Gun owners have left, conservative "democrats" have left. minority populations have increased, immigrant populations have increased, Union membership has increased. The census data can be used to predict the outcome of nearly every state. Politicians cannot talk someone into voting for them. Bush is never going to campaign enough to get a liberal union democrat to vote for him. Kerry is never going to campaign enough to get an assault weapon owning conservative to vote for him. Lables (Democrat & Republican) are more important to most voters than the men themselves.

Will you admit you are wrong when Kerry takes PA?

Posted: 9/5/2004 10:54:19 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Because the demographics of the state have changed since then. Gun owners have left, conservative "democrats" have left. minority populations have increased, immigrant populations have increased, Union membership has increased. The census data can be used to predict the outcome of nearly every state. Politicians cannot talk someone into voting for them. Bush is never going to campaign enough to get a liberal union democrat to vote for him. Kerry is never going to campaign enough to get an assault weapon owning conservative to vote for him. Lables (Democrat & Republican) are more important to most voters than the men themselves.

Will you admit you are wrong when Kerry takes PA?

Given the results of Fridays polling RikWriter has more to back his argument than you do AR15fan.

Posted: 9/5/2004 12:28:26 PM EDT

[#6]

"What was that about counting chickens?"

Thomas E. Dewey

Posted: 9/5/2004 12:34:24 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
"What was that about counting chickens?"

Thomas E. Dewey

www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/archive/truman.gif

DING WRONG answer!

Truman was the incumbant, it therefore, is Kerry's people who got overly optomistic over his summer of neck and neck polls who is playing the part of Dewey.

Posted: 9/5/2004 1:53:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
"What was that about counting chickens?"

Thomas E. Dewey

www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/archive/truman.gif

As has been pointed out to you, Truman was the war-president incumbent and Dewey was the challenger.

Posted: 9/5/2004 1:54:02 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Because the demographics of the state have changed since then. Gun owners have left, conservative "democrats" have left. minority populations have increased, immigrant populations have increased, Union membership has increased. The census data can be used to predict the outcome of nearly every state. Politicians cannot talk someone into voting for them. Bush is never going to campaign enough to get a liberal union democrat to vote for him. Kerry is never going to campaign enough to get an assault weapon owning conservative to vote for him. Lables (Democrat & Republican) are more important to most voters than the men themselves.

Will you admit you are wrong when Kerry takes PA?

As long as you admit you are wrong when the President takes the electoral votes from PA.

Posted: 9/5/2004 4:42:34 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"What was that about counting chickens?"

Thomas E. Dewey

www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/archive/truman.gif

As has been pointed out to you, Truman was the war-president incumbent and Dewey was the challenger.

Actually you missed the point. It has nothing to do about who the incumbent was. The polls indicated that Dewey was going to win the election by 5-15 percentage points which may have actually worked to Truman's advantage.

"The Truman victory was also an embarrassment for the emerging public opinion polling community. Truman's 4.4 percentage point election margin contrasted with the pre-election polls predicting a Dewey victory ranging between 5 to 15 percentage points. After the election, analysts attributed the polls' failure largely to completing their surveys too early, thus missing a late swing in voter sentiment in favor of the President. Ironically, the polls themselves may have helped Truman's late surge to overcome Dewey when press reports of their surveys showing Dewey ahead energized the Democrats to mount late efforts to increase turnout, and made the Republicans over-confident of any need to get their own voters to the polls."

Posted: 9/5/2004 6:46:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"What was that about counting chickens?"

Thomas E. Dewey

www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/archive/truman.gif

As has been pointed out to you, Truman was the war-president incumbent and Dewey was the challenger.

Actually you missed the point. It has nothing to do about who the incumbent was. The polls indicated that Dewey was going to win the election by 5-15 percentage points which may have actually worked to Truman's advantage.

"The Truman victory was also an embarrassment for the emerging public opinion polling community. Truman's 4.4 percentage point election margin contrasted with the pre-election polls predicting a Dewey victory ranging between 5 to 15 percentage points. After the election, analysts attributed the polls' failure largely to completing their surveys too early, thus missing a late swing in voter sentiment in favor of the President. Ironically, the polls themselves may have helped Truman's late surge to overcome Dewey when press reports of their surveys showing Dewey ahead energized the Democrats to mount late efforts to increase turnout, and made the Republicans over-confident of any need to get their own voters to the polls."

Can you say flawed poliing? Most of the polling in 1948 used biased methods. The bias was not intentional, but it badly skewed the polls. Since then, polling methods have improved dramatically.

Posted: 9/5/2004 6:55:11 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"What was that about counting chickens?"

Thomas E. Dewey

www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/archive/truman.gif

As has been pointed out to you, Truman was the war-president incumbent and Dewey was the challenger.

Actually you missed the point. It has nothing to do about who the incumbent was. The polls indicated that Dewey was going to win the election by 5-15 percentage points which may have actually worked to Truman's advantage.

"The Truman victory was also an embarrassment for the emerging public opinion polling community. Truman's 4.4 percentage point election margin contrasted with the pre-election polls predicting a Dewey victory ranging between 5 to 15 percentage points. After the election, analysts attributed the polls' failure largely to completing their surveys too early, thus missing a late swing in voter sentiment in favor of the President. Ironically, the polls themselves may have helped Truman's late surge to overcome Dewey when press reports of their surveys showing Dewey ahead energized the Democrats to mount late efforts to increase turnout, and made the Republicans over-confident of any need to get their own voters to the polls."

IIRC, this was LONG before the idea of scientific sampling had been instituted.

Posted: 9/5/2004 6:56:53 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Kerry cannot and will not win. It would upset Hitlery's run in 2008. Period.

Pray hard that she wins the Democraps nomination for 2008. It would ensure another 4 years of Republican leadership.

Posted: 9/5/2004 7:02:51 PM EDT

[#14]

Still close in PA, but I think we will get 'em. I expect the Kerry campaign to only get worse from here.
Bush wins debates, Bush wins.
Bush draws debates, Bush wins.
Bush loses debates, we'll see.
Kerry is a loser candidate. Bush is beatable, but not by this sucker. (I hope)
tony

link www.electoral-vote.com/states/pennsylvania.html

Posted: 9/5/2004 7:19:06 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Because the demographics of the state have changed since then. Gun owners have left, conservative "democrats" have left. minority populations have increased, immigrant populations have increased, Union membership has increased. The census data can be used to predict the outcome of nearly every state. Politicians cannot talk someone into voting for them. Bush is never going to campaign enough to get a liberal union democrat to vote for him. Kerry is never going to campaign enough to get an assault weapon owning conservative to vote for him. Lables (Democrat & Republican) are more important to most voters than the men themselves.

Will you admit you are wrong when Kerry takes PA?

Given the results of Fridays polling RikWriter has more to back his argument than you do AR15fan.

Be sure to check this thread after election day.

Posted: 9/5/2004 7:27:31 PM EDT

[#16]

This is great news but I'm still appalled that 41% support kerry. Even after the dems dragged out all the party's freaks for the world to see (at both conventions!) 41% would still vote for an anti war, gay loving, leftest rich boy from the north east. Shocking, truely shocking!

Posted: 9/5/2004 7:53:54 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Because the demographics of the state have changed since then. Gun owners have left, conservative "democrats" have left. minority populations have increased, immigrant populations have increased, Union membership has increased. The census data can be used to predict the outcome of nearly every state. Politicians cannot talk someone into voting for them. Bush is never going to campaign enough to get a liberal union democrat to vote for him. Kerry is never going to campaign enough to get an assault weapon owning conservative to vote for him. Lables (Democrat & Republican) are more important to most voters than the men themselves.

Will you admit you are wrong when Kerry takes PA?

Given the results of Fridays polling RikWriter has more to back his argument than you do AR15fan.

Be sure to check this thread after election day.

As long as you promise to as well.

Posted: 9/5/2004 9:57:55 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1988 a really long time ago. Past results are very indicative of future performance in elections.

Right...so since this is another case of a President Bush facing a Massachussets far-left liberal, the results should be similar.

The geographic location of the voter is far more important than the geographic background of the candidate.

Then why didn't PA go Democrat in 1988? Or 1984? It appears that the CANDIDATES are the most important thing after all...

Because the demographics of the state have changed since then. Gun owners have left, conservative "democrats" have left. minority populations have increased, immigrant populations have increased, Union membership has increased. The census data can be used to predict the outcome of nearly every state. Politicians cannot talk someone into voting for them. Bush is never going to campaign enough to get a liberal union democrat to vote for him. Kerry is never going to campaign enough to get an assault weapon owning conservative to vote for him. Lables (Democrat & Republican) are more important to most voters than the men themselves.

Will you admit you are wrong when Kerry takes PA?

Given the results of Fridays polling RikWriter has more to back his argument than you do AR15fan.

Be sure to check this thread after election day.

As long as you promise to as well.

Of course I will.

Posted: 9/5/2004 10:01:55 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
This is great news but I'm still appalled that 41% support kerry. Even after the dems dragged out all the party's freaks for the world to see (at both conventions!) 41% would still vote for an anti war, gay loving, leftest rich boy from the north east. Shocking, truely shocking!

What is shocking about it? You underestimate the numbers of "anybody but bush" voters. It is difficult to get voters to change their minds. Your membership on this board leads me to believe you are a gun owner, and libertarian or conservative. how royally fucked up would Bush have to be for you to vote for Kerry? Has anything Michael Moore said caused you to burn your NRA card, melt your rifles for scrap, and vote for Kerry? Of course not, and it's equally unlikely to convince leftist to vote for Bush, not matter how bad Kerry is.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - HOW YA LIKE THESE NUMBERS? BUSH 52%, KERRY 41% (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us