Poll Win v. Election Win

[Superman]

Four years ago, Al Gore got the majority of votes (yes, I understand the concept of the Electoral College and no, I am not whining about it...just pointing out who the most popular candidate was at that time).

I know of not a single democrat who voted for Gore, who would even consider switching and voting for Dubya today.

I know plenty of republicans, who voted for Dubya last time, who will not vote for him this time. I saw a Republicans for Kerry bumper sticker within the last hour. A number of republicans are prepared to mutiny.

Many new voters have been registered, and we're expecting a record turnout. According to my understanding, high voter turnouts favor the liberal candidate.

So now tell me something I'm having a hard time understanding. The polls seem to be favoring Dubya. How? In order to win, Dubya will have to receive at least no less than the same vote he got last time, and some suggest an exact repeat will not win him re-election (something about his brother, and voting irregularities and a less-than-500-vote margin). But he seems to be losing more support than he's gaining. His popularity, and the popularity of the Iraq War, have fallen in the past couple of years. right?

[RickM]

Originally posted by Superman
I know of not a single democrat who voted for Gore, who would even consider switching and voting for Dubya today.

I know plenty of republicans, who voted for Dubya last time, who will not vote for him this time.

I saw a Republicans for Kerry bumper sticker within the last hour. A number of republicans are prepared to mutiny.

According to my understanding, high voter turnouts favor the liberal candidate.

So now tell me something I'm having a hard time understanding. The polls seem to be favoring Dubya. How?

Maybe what you know, see and understand is through rose colored glasses.

[widebody911]

Yup. GWB's aces in the hole are Diebold and their lot, and brother Jeb in the hurricane state.

[jm951]

And let's not forget the voters "rights" groups that are actively seeking to disenfranchise the entire overseas military vote because it will be very heavily pro W. Hey, for them it's register to vote, so long as you vote for Kerry.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Superman
I know of not a single democrat who voted for Gore, who would even consider switching and voting for Dubya today.

Zell Miller? Ron Silver?

Originally posted by Superman
So now tell me something I'm having a hard time understanding. The polls seem to be favoring Dubya. How? In order to win, Dubya will have to receive at least no less than the same vote he got last time, and some suggest an exact repeat will not win him re-election (something about his brother, and voting irregularities and a less-than-500-vote margin). But he seems to be losing more support than he's gaining. His popularity, and the popularity of the Iraq War, have fallen in the past couple of years. right?

The vote totals don't matter. We could have a billion new registered voters in CA voting Democratic down the line, and it won't help Kerry one iota.

It's all about the swing states. National polls aren't telling us a thing at this time.

And I'm not going to take your ever-so-subtle bait and talk about what you really want to talk about - the "voting irregularities."

[RickM]

These must be the Republicans who are turning their backs on GWB....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=4&u=/nm/20040908/ts_nm/campaign_bush_logcabin_dc_5

[mikester]

Polls don't vote.

notice the difference in a day...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

http://www.electoral-vote.com/sep/sep07.html

[Superman]

Another thing not in Dubya's favor: Farenheit 9/11. I was chatting about movies yesterday evening when a young person interrupted my conversation to ask if I had seem F911 and to tell me that young people are turning out in droves to see it. the young man is going to vote.

so, I guess I'm not understanding how Dubya might be doing well in the polls. His margin of victory four years ago was as thin as gold leaf.

And no, Colin. Not only am I not trying to discuss the Electoral College, I wouldn't probably participate if a debate of that sprung up. You guys are in a fantasy world, although I do understand that you think I am too. At some point, a president is going to deal with that antiquated system, like Dubya promised. But no, I'm not sure what anyone would even say, if the subject got discussed in detail. And no, I'm not interested in participating if it does.

[RickM]

Wonder if these numbers have changed here in Pelican OT land:



Taken 07/09/04 through 07/13/04

[mikester]

I'm looking very forward to seeing how many people actually turn out to vote.

[jm951]

Superman- the electoral college is there for a reason- mainly to prevent the population centers from deciding all national elections. Good system and should stay.

There's lots of talk among some of the young who are now eligible to vote, but I'd about bet that most will have "something else" come up and decide to no show or they'll forget about it altogether until the day after.

[dd74]

Bush received a better bounce from the RNC than Kerry from the DNC. Couple that with just simple TV exposure, and we see Bush's increased popularity. Secondly, the RNC was a much better convention than the DNC. Bush et al stayed on msg. Kerry wandered.

Also, people might be coming to the conclusion that with Iraq as a main focus of this election, it could be better to stick with the devil they know as opposed to putting a newcomer in the White House.

[Burnin' oil]

Super,

Perhaps the nation's voters do not mirror your personal (local) observations . . .

[Superman]

jm, we're the only industrialized country on the planet with a democracy that's not decided by popular vote. And if voting and citizenship is about people, then why would we want to essentially make rural votes count more than urban ones? Finally, it is my understanding that the Electoral College was created for a very simple reason. Delegates from the colonies had to ride horses, carrying their colony's wishes, to the voting place in order to be counted. There was no telephone, etc. Each carried a certain number of votes, according to the relative populations of the colonies. I don't think it has, or should have, anything to do with reducing the clout of populated areas.

[dd74]

Jim - is this thread really more an admission of defeat? Because it looks like Kerry's going to lose.

[Superman]

Perhaps. Would someone like to chime in here from one of the more totalitarian parts of our great nation and report that democrats are turning their back on Kerry and voting for Dubya, even though they voted for Gore last time?

Colin, Dixiecrats are not democrats.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Superman
Perhaps. Would someone like to chime in here from one of the more totalitarian parts of our great nation and report that democrats are turning their back on Kerry and voting for Dubya, even though they voted for Gore last time?

Colin, Dixiecrats are not democrats.

I'm starting a new thread on this very subject. Keep your eyes peeled...

[jm951]

Here's a few links to why it should be kept, and if you think I would like to be like France or Germany, think again.

Keep Electoral College 1
Another set of good reasons
Probably the best researched Reasons

These are but a few links. I favor keeping the system, especially for the reasons laid out in link 3.

[jm951]

Super- Also note that we are NOT a democracy regardless of what you might have been spoonfed in school. We ARE a representative republic.

In case you didn't know- Dixiecrats WERE Democrats who organized against the Civil Rights movement, a factoid also not taught in our current school curriculae.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Superman
Colin, Dixiecrats are not democrats.

Anyone with a stub that says "Registered Democrat" is a Democrat. You don't have to think like Superman to be a Democrat. Just as I don't have to think like Bush to be a Republican.

PS - are you saying Ron Silver is a Dixiecrat?