Kerry is well ahead in the Electoral College now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any poll that allows unqualified flooding, certainly voting more than once, should be discredited. We have sportingly or defensively engaged in some of those ourselves re AWB renewal. A poll should also qualify respondents, minimally relying only upon registered voters, not kids with a keyboard.

Of course, the best polls would be those with a good track record of predicting prior election outcomes. In a close election, polls do more harm than good. In fact, all polls are harmful, because they herd people in one direction or another, I believe few are actually informed and objective about important issues.

To simply wait for debates, like they are some sort of reality TV with viewer scoring, is bizarre. That seems to me like voting for the most skillful liar, the best actor, or the quickest thinker, never mind actual policy and philosophy. Candidates will have to then be selected for debate performance more than anything else. Of course, actors as Governors or Presidents is nothing new. It's all so superficial, with a small percentage of uninformed, emotion driven voters actually determining the outcome and the course of our nation.

To think of the two candidates as considered close in what type of President they might be is just depressing. Dems and Repubs are miles apart, and the polarity is more pronounced now than ever with Kerry far left and Bush to the right of center. Among voters, or at least those participating in polls, it seems to have more to do with team spirit than actual issues and knowledge of government or a candidate's true positions.

And when you add in the regular stupid people, the felons in jail they are registering, the dead people they are registering and the underage voters they are registering, I think there's a real chance of these unethical people pulling it off.

And yet some argue in another context that election oversight isn't needed. If nothing else, these common beliefs need to be documented further or laid to rest.

I think effective voting software and electronic devices could help tremendously, assuming voter registration validations are reasonably legitimate. Both processes need to be credibly audited, timely enough to validate the announced polling results and declaration of winners .

I think the FBI or Secret Service, some Federal policing, should have something to say about voter fraud, particularly registrations and votes by non-existent or ineligible people or improper disqualifications. Validation is especially important in a close race, so accusations of fraud and corruption will be high profile afterward. Hindsight will not do it nor be publicized, because by the time it is finalized it could invalidate an inaugurated administration. At a minimum, I would say the offenses should be identified and prosecuted in principle without declaring the effect it could have had on an the election outcome.
 
And we better hope this "hidden earpiece" thing goes away or that will totally kill him. The site has a photo which does have some weird things happening on Bush's back.

Bush wears a bullet proof vest in all public appearances these days -- you can see it in other pictures where he looks as if he's put on some weight when in fact he is actually wearing a vest under his shirt. That is most likely the imprint you were seeing (and yes, I've see the picture). There was no "hidden earpiece". That was a wholly manufactured contrivance of Salon to boost their share price from .02 cents to .04 cents.
 
The link above has nothing to do with going after one group of voters, such as black voters. Also, it is regarding a directive before the fact. The directive was trying to standardize things to reduce variables that might make counting the votes harder.

So, how about trying to toss the military vote in 2000?
 
Vile and hateful Liberal speech

Kerry would have to be at least 10 percentage points in the actual popular vote to win this election. Between the Repug electronic voting systems and shenanigans among election officials in Florida and elsewhere, I don't give him much of a chance. Big biz is not going to let the economy tank until after the election. And of course, the administration can always pull some phony alert or cook some war news to sway some of the security sheeple.

All of this is just as well, IMO. I don't like Kerry a bit, and when we end up leaving Iraq without acheiving any kind of goal and after the economy slips into the next recession, the neocon philosophy will have a wooden stake in the heart. Can't wait.



It is document truth that the demos are the ones who cheat in the election. The judge that kept the polls open in St. Louis, the dead indians voting in SD and the dead in Chicago.
The fact is that the demos are the reason Florida was the mess it it was, why do you insist on blaming the repubs?
 
The law says

that they are supposed to be done is a certain way so they should be done in that why. THe demos are always cheating in some why and they always compain when they loss. Like Senator Frank from NJ. He should be tossed out the senate becuase his election violated NJ law. Yet another example of why liberal activitist judges should be thrown off the bench.,
 
Well I put up this piece of info on polls. Last month PM Howard was being told that he was close to toast according to the polls. For those not in the know Prime Minister Howard sent troops to Iraq over the supposed wishes of the general public as told by the left leaning media in Australia. Well look at the election results from Australia today.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11019497%5E36596,00.html

Nation puts its trust in Howard
By Paul Colgan and wires
October 9, 2004

PRIME Minister John Howard has claimed victory in the federal election that returned him to office for a fourth term in a vote that saw surprise gains for the Coalition across the country.


Maybe next time ... Mark Latham waves to supporters. Speech


Labor failed to make any significant gains and senior party figures were conceding defeat just hours into the counting tonight.

Labor leader Mark Latham conceded defeat in a phone call to Mr Howard around three hours after polling finished in the eastern states.

Soon afterwards Mr Howard addressed supporters in Sydney and said he was "truly humbled" by the result and promised to "rededicate myself and all of my colleagues to the service of the Australian people".

He acknowledged Mr Latham's concession and thanked him for "the gracious things that he said."

"There can only be one winner when an election is held," Mr Howard said.

"We are joyful that the verdict has been given by the Australian people but never forget the fact that governments are elected to govern not only for the people who voted for them, but also for the people who voted against them."

The strength of support for the Coalition surpassed all expectations as Labor's vote collapsed in Tasmania and nationally the Coalition looked set to increase its majority in Parliament.

Early Senate results show the Coalition may also command a majority in the Upper House, which would allow Mr Howard to proceed with the sale of Telstra and other controversial Government plans held up by the opposition over the past three years.

Speaking to party faithful in Sydney, Mr Latham said Labor had run a positive campaign that supporters wanted and enjoyed, but it had fallen short.

"We ran on principle, we ran on our positive beliefs about hope and opportunity in this country," he said.

"We wanted to put forward hope and opportunity for the Australian people, and we'll continue to advance our beliefs and our policies in the Parliament in the coming three years."

He closed his address saying: "Thank you very much and I'll see you again."

As if to draw a line under the story of Labor's night, however, a car crashed and burst into flames around the corner from where Mr Latham was speaking.

The Greens increased their share of the national vote, with senior party figures lauding the expected win of a Senate seat in Tasmania as proof the Greens were "the third force" in Australian politics.

Senior Labor figures quickly doused any speculation of a challenge to Mr Latham's leadership. Defence spokesman Kim Beazley said he believed Mr Latham had in fact saved the party from electoral meltdown, based on disastrous internal party polling figures he had seen last year.

"I have mixed feelings (about the result)," he said from his electoral office in Rockingham, south of Perth.

"I have been dreading this night for the last 12 months.

"I assumed from a close study of our polling results late last year that we were likely to lose 25 to 30 seats whenever an election was held, so any seat less than 25 seats that we lose I regard as a stay of execution."

Nationally, the Government achieved an overall swing of 2.13 per cent on a two-party basis.

Election results showed:


THE swing was strongest in Tasmania where there was a 3.6 per cent two-party swing to the Government.

THE Prime Minister suffered a swing of almost 3.5 per cent against him in his own electorate but held his seat;

LABOR struggled to make significant ground in marginal mainland seats and appeared set to lose others;

LIBERALS Trish Worth in Adelaide and Ross Cameron in Parramatta looked set to lose their seats as some of the few comforts for Labor.

The pro-Government swing was weakest in South Australia, where it gained 0.4 per cent support.
Even the Nationals, who had been expected to fare badly, were on track to hold all of their seats and even pick up a Senate seat in New South Wales.

Labor's challenge collapsed early in Tasmania, where a voter backlash against Opposition Leader Mark Latham's promise to save the old-growth forests handed two seats - Bass and Braddon - to the Liberals.

Labor needed to win 12 seats to win power. But the losses in Tasmania made the task that much more difficult.

There were some gains.

Labor could also pick up the New South Wales seat of Richmond.

The ALP was on track to pick up the marginal Adelaide seat of Hindmarsh, where Labor candidate Steve Georganas was ahead by 1.2 per cent with almost 40 per cent of the vote counted.

But in the nearby Adelaide seat of Makin, sitting Liberal Trish Draper was holding on to a narrow 0.7 per cent lead with almost 30 per cent of the vote counted.

In the nation's most marginal seat of Solomon, based around Darwin, the Country-Liberal Party's sitting MP David Tollner was ahead by 5 percentage points with half of the vote counted.

In Dobell in New South Wales, sitting Liberal member Ken Ticehurst was almost 10 points ahead with half the vote counted.
 
paper doesn't know the race or political leaning of the person writing on it. Try again.
No, you try again. It's disengenuous to pretend that the Rep official in Ohio didn't know that the Dems were putting on a major voter registeration push in that state. They've been publicizing downloadable registration forms. He knew very well what he was doing.

I'm not saying the Dems aren't above voter fraud, also. But this year the Reps have their people in place and are ready to do fraud on a scale that hasn't been contemplated since Richard Daley, Sr. And the intro of electronic voting also puts it in a whole new game.

I'm just saying that when you add up the Rep potential for fraud and the Dem potential for the same, Kerry would have to be (order of magnitude) 10 points ahead in the actual vote to have a chance.
 
I'm just saying that when you add up the Rep potential for fraud and the Dem potential for the same, Kerry would have to be (order of magnitude) 10 points ahead in the actual vote to have a chance.

Don't worry.. illegal immigrants voting for Bush in California will offset any Republican fraud. Maybe New York Democrats will also be able to vote in Florida and thus cast two votes, just like in 2000. Given the media bias, Bush has to work much harder than Kerry.

http://drudgereport.com/mh.htm
 
Ask Ralph Nader who's trying to push people off the rolls.

- Gabe
 
I'm not saying the Dems aren't above voter fraud, also. But this year the Reps have their people in place and are ready to do fraud on a scale that hasn't been contemplated since Richard Daley, Sr. And the intro of electronic voting also puts it in a whole new game.
Just setting things up for another bogus stolen election charge if they lose.
 
Malone, I'm so tired of hearing the whine, whine, whine, & paranoia of the liberal left Democrats.

Can you predict the future now? It seems you can when you say Republicans now have the ability in the upcoming election to commit voter fraud & intend to do so without having a shred of proof on your part.

Historically, Democrats have been the ones to use any means possible to have their candidates win, especially in the large Midwest & Eastern citys,( remember the Daley machine in Chicago?).

Republicans are not perfect, but on the whole I believe that most of them,( including me) care about having an political system that is fair & honest.

I don't hear Republicans making wild unsubstantiated statements,(unlike some Democrats, including Kerry) trying to obtain votes by creating fear in the electorate.


Doug
 
tulsamal

B**l S**t!!!
I think it might be close, but I do not think that that many more honest citizens have lost their mind.
 
Actually, guys, I agree with Malone. Electoral fraud, in one form or another, is a very sad part of the political history of this country. The Democratic Party "machine" in places like NYC, Chicago and St. Louis is legendary, but that doesn't mean for a moment that the Republican Party hasn't done its fair share of cooking the books. I believe that both parties routinely engage in any practice that may slant the vote in their favor, and neither has any scruples about doing so. For evidence in this regard, just look at how they happily work together to do anything and everything possible to avoid any threat to the two-party system! (A good example is the Presidential Debate Commission, staffed by both parties, and deliberately slanted, in terms of its rules, to exclude anyone not from the two main parties.) They are comfortable dealing with each other... and neither wants a third party gumming up the works. This is a classic sign of political corruption.
 
Yes, both parties work to their own advantage and against the public at large. Another example, using the debates as example.. Whatever happened to the issue of borders and illegal aliens? They are closing hospitals in California because the hospitals are going broke servicing these folks without reimbursement. All of you are paying more for your health insurance and give your tax monies to provide services for folks that are not in this country legally. I guess that they are waiting to discuss this in the last debate.. Ya .. right.. The two parties work together behind the scenes and attack each other in public. The average party volunteer works for these guys out of conviction, but the folks at the top know that it is about power.
 
Let's see: Andrew Jackson, pathological racist and murderer. slave owner. Author of the Trail of Tears. Dictatoral leader and usurper of the Supreme Court. I'd have to say the Dems have at least improved a little.

Abraham Linclon: Unconstitutional usurper of dictatorial power, elected by a minority. Oversaw the largest division of the country in history. Servant of wealthy northern industrialists, scourge to agricultural economy of the south. I'd have to say the Reps haven't changed much at all...
Let's see, libertarians...whiners, selfish, counter-productive, fringe element whackos, political losers. Nope, nothing has changed there.
 
Gary relayed:

"Today is the first time all year that either candidate has hit the 50% mark in our survey."

Wow. That must have been updated after I checked it this morning.

The poll says that 95% of this three-day rolling poll was taken *prior* to Friday night's debate.

Anybody wanna bet on a small Bush post-debate bump?

Rick
 
Remember. The only poll that counts is the one taken on 11/2/04, and anything before that is like blowing smoke rings They may look nice, but they mean nothing.
 
Regarding Libertarians..

At least they do hold the Constitution above all, and don't twist some of it to their own end. Faith based iniatives with government money? That's hilarious.

However, I have a personal problem with Badnarik this election, so I will not be voting for him. Instead, regardless of my disagreement with 2 or 3 of Bush's policies, I believe him to be the best on the ballot. But that does not mean I am a Republican.

The least evil political thought groups:

1.) My own.
2.) Libertarian.
3.) Republican.
4.) (a distant 4th) Democrat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top