|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:15
|
#1
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
US Elections
The US population takes little relative interest in other countries electorial campaigns. Little will be shown regarding our own elections in the US, or other countries for that matter. Yet ourselves and the rest of the world take a great interest in the US Elections. Sure, this may be because of the small gap between the candidates, or indeed because of world interest sparked by the 9/11 attacks.
Most likely though, I expect this is because of the sheer size and global effect that the United States has on this planet. The biggest military force, the most political leverage and the strongest economic power. In comparison, every other countries elections are seemingly insignificant to the world. I'd expect that this Presidential campaign is one of the most talked about since the rise of democracy in Russia.
So, why do we all care? Because it indirectly effects the world in which we live, the civilisation in which we work towards and with regards to issues such as the Kyoto accord, the planet on which we live on.
Now, I know there is much talk about who will win and what will change. If we look at the two major players, Bush and Kerry are both quite conservative in their views on certain subjects. Personally, I doubt a great deal will change regardless of who wins these elections. I'd expect policies on Iraq and the 'war on terror' to remain relatively stable. I would be suprised if America all of a sudden joined the Kyoto accord or the International Criminal Court.
Still, the results of these elections will affect the whole planet and, indirectly, every soul who resides upon it. Both political candiates have had teams carefully analysing international views on the campaign. Both candiates teams have come to different conclusions, which means 'they aren't really sure'.
My question to you is this - for a moment forget about the methods in which the following would be accomplished, although please take into account whatever problems you may think are apparent.
Should the US Presidential elections be restricted to only the American people who are unlikely to think about the international ramifications their vote may cause - or should the US Elections take into account maybe a snapshot of international votes?
Just a thought.
Last edited by skiddy; 2 Nov 2004 at 00:22.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:18
|
#2
|
Made of Twigs
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,459
|
Re: US Elections
This question appeared on another set of boards I frequent.
I replied with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew
There are potentially externalities from every decision, especially those of a political nature, however, these others affected are very rarely consulted - it's life. Americans, in a selfish way should vote in a president that will do best for the American nation.
Maybe the only way this would work if like Nato controled foreign (military) policy for all its members and we get a say on the leader of that, but to say we should have a say about the next American president is a tad silly.
|
__________________
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor - James
It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am - Muhammad Ali
So **** y'all, all of y'all; if y'all don't like me, blow me! - Dr. Dre
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:22
|
#3
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
Re: US Elections
My bad
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:24
|
#4
|
Made of Twigs
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,459
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
My bad
|
Liar, you blatantly did that on purpose
__________________
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor - James
It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am - Muhammad Ali
So **** y'all, all of y'all; if y'all don't like me, blow me! - Dr. Dre
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:25
|
#5
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew
Liar, you blatantly did that on purpose
|
It sounded correct when I typed it, then Deepflow pointed it out in hashforums and I eventually twigged on that it sounded correct because in a way it was, but just not the way I wanted!
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:29
|
#6
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: US Elections
While we still have national governments it's ridiculous to imagine other countries have a right to any say on US Elections.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:40
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: US Elections
its their country, its none of our buisness who they vote for. most things their goverment decides dont affect us, so why should anyone but the people who live there have a say about it?
all we can and should be able to do (or better said the politicians we voted for) is deal with whoever the us-citzens vote for and convince him of that whole international cooperation-stuff, like kyoto, icc, free trade, whatever.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 00:48
|
#8
|
7H4 B4R73ND3R
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: University of South Florida
Posts: 206
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
While we still have national governments it's ridiculous to imagine other countries have a right to any say on US Elections.
|
I absolutely agree. You guys look at our elections strictly through an international view, which is fine as that suites your needs. I however, am voting for Bush not becuase of his international policies, but for his domestic policies. It is true that America gets itself embroiled in lots of foreign affairs and issues, but so did England at one point and almost ever other major European power. This is jsut the course of history. There is no outstanding reason what so ever to break with history and give the US presidential vote to the world. Simply because for Americans, the domestic issues are more important in the presidency rather than the international issues.
__________________
...during this process you may even begin to question yourselves, but dont worry for this is healthy. For what are we if we are not what we believe.
The Last Ride of Stephen Whatley and His Immortals
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 01:52
|
#9
|
Bored
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
|
Re: US Elections
maybe we should get a vote if it's tied...
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 09:09
|
#10
|
Brain Overload
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Derby, Newcastle and Cardiff
Posts: 209
|
Re: US Elections
is there not a small village/town/city/state, that has always voted the same as the result? ok i admit i got this from watching the west wing, so could be wrong. but if it is true what's the result there (or when is the vote taken there?)
__________________
once you reach the top, take a breath and slide all the way down on your ass.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 09:54
|
#11
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 433
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammstein
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika, ist wunderbar!
|
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 10:52
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Event_Horizon
I absolutely agree. You guys look at our elections strictly through an international view, which is fine as that suites your needs. I however, am voting for Bush not becuase of his international policies, but for his domestic policies. It is true that America gets itself embroiled in lots of foreign affairs and issues, but so did England at one point and almost ever other major European power. This is jsut the course of history. There is no outstanding reason what so ever to break with history and give the US presidential vote to the world. Simply because for Americans, the domestic issues are more important in the presidency rather than the international issues.
|
i dont think bush is that great at the domestic issues neither, at least from what i read so far.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 15:03
|
#13
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: US Elections
People in other countries care so much because whoever controls the states ( at the moment in my opinion its the corporations ) , has rather a lot of influence over others, the power to either do good, or mess the rest of the world up ( as is currently happening )
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 16:42
|
#14
|
7H4 B4R73ND3R
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: University of South Florida
Posts: 206
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
i dont think bush is that great at the domestic issues neither, at least from what i read so far.
|
He could be better, but he is still way better than Kerry in my opinion. Basically Kerry/democrats are for more government programs/socialism and Bush/republicans are for less government programs and for more capitalism. I support the privitization of social security. I am for less socialistic programs like medicare. Too many people just live off the government simply becuase it is easier to do that than actually put yourself through school, get a job, and work a 40 hour week. I also think that Bush's tax cuts are good. He gave tax cuts to every American equally, including the richest 1%. Kerry wants to cut there tax cuts. They already pay 35% of their salary into taxes!!! Why should people be punished for being successful. Under Kerry's ideology he will destroy any incentive for entrepreneurship(sp?) and success. I support the death penalty, as does Bush, but Kerry doesn't. I am against partial birth abortion as is Bush, but Kerry is not. I do think that Bush needs better immigration policies and he could probably do a little bit better on job creation and education. But as a whole, Bush represents more capitalism and smaller government, which is how I feel. I mean Bush must be doing something right if pratically half of the US is still willing to vote for him after the mess in Iraq. And before you guys say "well, americans are just stupid rednecks" it is this "stupid redneck country" that dominates the world...
__________________
...during this process you may even begin to question yourselves, but dont worry for this is healthy. For what are we if we are not what we believe.
The Last Ride of Stephen Whatley and His Immortals
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 16:47
|
#15
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: US Elections
ah, right wing americans, doncha just love em?
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 16:55
|
#16
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: US Elections
The above post made me like Event Horizon this <----------------------------------> much more. However I would ask whether or not you think that there is a distinct danger of the original intentions of the founders of the United States, in terms of the separation of church and state, being lost if Bush continues his opposition to both gay marriage and abortion. I do not find myself eagerly anticipating the day that the country of personal liberty and opportunity enshrines the classic family unit in it's constitution and inhibits personal choice. Do the arguments used so frequently in support of the right to bear arms not hold up in these areas? I have also heard that Bush has appointed rather right-wing judges to the supreme court (but I'm not really sure on this issue so I'd hesitate to offer a definite verdict).
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 17:02
|
#17
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: US Elections
i think the issue re the right wing judges is that 3 or 4 are likely to die/retire during the next term, and bush has already made it obvious he will appoint very very right wing replacements opposed to abortion/gay marriage etc.
basically the next president will have a much larger supreme court influence than any recent ones due to the age of the current supreme court. Which is a bad thing for women/gays if he wins today.
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 17:08
|
#18
|
7H4 B4R73ND3R
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: University of South Florida
Posts: 206
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
The above post made me like Event Horizon this <----------------------------------> much more. However I would ask whether or not you think that there is a distinct danger of the original intentions of the founders of the United States, in terms of the separation of church and state, being lost if Bush continues his opposition to both gay marriage and abortion. I do not find myself eagerly anticipating the day that the country of personal liberty and opportunity enshrines the classic family unit in it's constitution and inhibits personal choice. Do the arguments used so frequently in support of the right to bear arms not hold up in these areas? I have also heard that Bush has appointed rather right-wing judges to the supreme court (but I'm not really sure on this issue so I'd hesitate to offer a definite verdict).
|
Well, Bush personally opposes abortion, but I do not think that he is prepared to propose any thing that would overturn roe v wade. Kerry has said that he too personally opposes abortion, so in this respect they are the same. Most Americans believe that Pro-Choice is the right way therefore the view of the whole must be upheld. Now, I am against Bush on the gay marriage ban. I think it should be left up to the states, because by banning the title of gay marriage, that sets a precedent for giving the federal government more power to impose its will on the people. Bush and Kerry both agree on civil unions and the right of gay's to receive equal treatment in the financial respect as heterosexuals.
And no, I do not think that the country would REGRESS and combine church and state. The are too many checks and balances for one president to screw up separation of church state. Bush also has never implied or said that he is not for separation of church and state. The right to bear arms is clearly in the constitution and is not in any danger. Hell, Kerry being the most liberal senator in the senate, just a couple of weekends ago politicized his geese hunt.
__________________
...during this process you may even begin to question yourselves, but dont worry for this is healthy. For what are we if we are not what we believe.
The Last Ride of Stephen Whatley and His Immortals
Last edited by Event_Horizon; 2 Nov 2004 at 17:17.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 17:32
|
#19
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: US Elections
I doubt Kerry is the most liberal senator in the senate. Isn't there some independent socialist elected (or maybe that's the house of representatives I'm thinking about)? As far as Roe vs Wade goes I imagine that any possible overturning is due to the danger of Bush appointing very conservative, very christian judges. Obviously I was not implying that Bush could single-handedly destroy the fabric of the constitution if given another four years in power. What I was referring to was the domination of portions of the Republican party by Christian fundamentalists (I mean this in a more moderate sense than how it's understood at the moment) and the danger, over extended periods of time in power, of this influence subtly altering the perception of the constitution and the "essence" of America in favour of a more intolerant and indeed repressive nature. Perhaps I phrased my sentiments on the church-state idea badly. I imagine Bush, from what I've read of and about him, desires a more christian flavour to America. While this does not mean that you'll be paying tithes next year I still think it's not a healthy attitude to have. As well as this you should note that he probably doesn't tell you all of his most controversial opinions*. One has to appeal to the middle-ground don't you know?
*I'm sure this applies to Kerry as well.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 18:13
|
#20
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: US Elections
Every election affects the rest of the world, it's just a question of scale.
Personally I'd quite like to have a substantial say in Italian politics, like JJ.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 18:35
|
#21
|
7H4 B4R73ND3R
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: University of South Florida
Posts: 206
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I doubt Kerry is the most liberal senator in the senate. Isn't there some independent socialist elected (or maybe that's the house of representatives I'm thinking about)? As far as Roe vs Wade goes I imagine that any possible overturning is due to the danger of Bush appointing very conservative, very christian judges. Obviously I was not implying that Bush could single-handedly destroy the fabric of the constitution if given another four years in power. What I was referring to was the domination of portions of the Republican party by Christian fundamentalists (I mean this in a more moderate sense than how it's understood at the moment) and the danger, over extended periods of time in power, of this influence subtly altering the perception of the constitution and the "essence" of America in favour of a more intolerant and indeed repressive nature. Perhaps I phrased my sentiments on the church-state idea badly. I imagine Bush, from what I've read of and about him, desires a more christian flavour to America. While this does not mean that you'll be paying tithes next year I still think it's not a healthy attitude to have. As well as this you should note that he probably doesn't tell you all of his most controversial opinions*. One has to appeal to the middle-ground don't you know?
*I'm sure this applies to Kerry as well.
|
Kerry is deemed the most liberal in the senate according to the National Journal's congressional vote ratings. Well even if Bush does appoint right wing supreme court justices I would find it hard to believe that they would overturn roe v wade. My main reasoning for this is because the supreme court's biggest influence in a decision is the outcome of a preceding case. Very, very rarely do they overturn a decision (let alone even review one) that a previous supreme court has already come to. I just find it a stretch.
I do agree that Bush would favor a more christian view of America, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Moderate Christian principles I believe are good for a society and most societies tend to closely mirror the "rights and wrongs" of the Bible. I do not think that Christian views should be shoved down anybodies throat, but I do think that some of the ideas in the Bible apply to our current system of law and government, ie pay your taxes (render unto caeser what is caesers), thou shalt not kill, do unto others as you would have done unto you, etc. Really this is just common sense stuff. Also the founding fathers of America set up the country based on judaeo-christian principles. I think that there can be a separation of church and state and still have traditional ideas such as In God We Trust engraved on our coinage.
__________________
...during this process you may even begin to question yourselves, but dont worry for this is healthy. For what are we if we are not what we believe.
The Last Ride of Stephen Whatley and His Immortals
Last edited by Event_Horizon; 2 Nov 2004 at 18:40.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:09
|
#22
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Event_Horizon
Kerry is deemed the most liberal in the senate according to the National Journal's congressional vote ratings.
|
I have no idea what that is but okay.
Quote:
Well even if Bush does appoint right wing supreme court justices I would find it hard to believe that they would overturn roe v wade. My main reasoning for this is because the supreme court's biggest influence in a decision is the outcome of a preceding case. Very, very rarely do they overturn a decision (let alone even review one) that a previous supreme court has already come to. I just find it a stretch.
|
I thought the entire point of a supreme court was to formulate new principles.
Quote:
I do agree that Bush would favor a more christian view of America, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Moderate Christian principles I believe are good for a society and most societies tend to closely mirror the "rights and wrongs" of the Bible. I do not think that Christian views should be shoved down anybodies throat, but I do think that some of the ideas in the Bible apply to our current system of law and government, ie pay your taxes (render unto caeser what is caesers), thou shalt not kill, do unto others as you would have done unto you, etc. Really this is just common sense stuff. Also the founding fathers of America set up the country based on judaeo-christian principles. I think that there can be a separation of church and state and still have traditional ideas such as In God We Trust engraved on our coinage.
|
I don't believe any uniquely Christian principles are highly laudable or desirable in society. "Common sense stuff" can stand on it's own merits. Why do we need to introduce christianity into the equation? I do not believe in god, why not write in liberty, or the constitution, or in man we trust? And the founding fathers were mostly deists.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:24
|
#23
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: US Elections
problem is that there are sensible christian principles and then there are dumb ones.
if i run around murdering people, then i can see where they may have a point. however, if i want to take it up the ass for fun and/or profit, what business is it of theirs? all this shite about gay marriage and such is blatantly due to christian fundamantalists sticking their oar in where it doesn't concern them and generally fking life up for other people so that they can feel better about their upstanding morals. i have actually been told by a christian that it's his duty to judge others, which i found particualrly disgusting.
a democracy is supposed to protect the minority as well as serving the majority, and in a huge number of cases i see religious principles interfering with that, from all religions.
-mist
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:28
|
#24
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: US Elections
on a complete tangent, over here we seem to swear people in to the witness box using a bible, which seems totally meaningless to athists etc. do the us do something similar, and if someone's of a different faith do they get the appropriate (lack of?) holy book?
-mist
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:32
|
#25
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: US Elections
peter ****ing snow just appaired on my television with his swing-o-meter
peter ****ing snow
the bbc is basically covering the us election as intensively as the us one, i care what happens in the us but ffs not that much
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:34
|
#26
|
Bored
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nusselt
peter ****ing snow just appaired on my television with his swing-o-meter
peter ****ing snow
the bbc is basically covering the us election as intensively as the us one, i care what happens in the us but ffs not that much
|
I didn't see a swing-o-meter!
AND a 5 minute clip on the news about the biggest world story of the day and the main thing a lot of people in this country are talking about is not unreasonable.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:46
|
#27
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
all this shite about gay marriage and such is blatantly due to christian fundamantalists sticking their oar in where it doesn't concern them
|
That metaphor deserves some kind of award.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 19:50
|
#28
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: US Elections
it said swing im sure off it and not eating typing and watching tv at the same time i swear
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 20:38
|
#29
|
Klaatu barada nikto
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
i have actually been told by a christian that it's his duty to judge others, which i found particualrly disgusting.
|
I think people should judge one another, as long as they respect each other's rights while doing so. So far today, I've judged a waitress at the cafe (B+), the guy who came to fix my garage door (B), and the election official who directed me to the wrong line (D-).
Quote:
on a complete tangent, over here we seem to swear people in to the witness box using a bible, which seems totally meaningless to athists etc. do the us do something similar, and if someone's of a different faith do they get the appropriate (lack of?) holy book?
|
In the US, the bible is typically offered but you are not obligated to put your hand on it. Depending on the specifics of the case and the demographics of the jury, an attorney might inquire of a witness if they have any objections to swearing on a bible and, if so, arrange with the judge ahead of time to ensure the bible isn't offered.
As an atheist, I would have no ethical objection to swearing on the bible--or a copy of Mad magazine for that matter; although the later might encourage the jury to give less weight to my testimony.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 20:51
|
#30
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
Terribly Inaccurate Early (Exit) Polling Numbers (maybe not threadworthy. but i care. aren't i a loser)
AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
ps:
iowa is a huge early-voting state. i think something like 25% of voters already voted there.
Last edited by acropolis; 2 Nov 2004 at 20:58.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 20:58
|
#31
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
oh here's what i want to know.
how do you do exit polling?
do you select a couple hundred precincts at random, and have someone at each one interview people coming out at random, and just assume that each precint will behave exactly the same as the geographically closest precincts?
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 21:05
|
#32
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
and of course my "predictions," which are crap simply based on what the polls have said (assuming the bush numbers are accurate):
Arizona:
Bush: 51
Kerry 47
Colorado:
Bush 49
Kerry 48
Florida:
Bush: 48
Kerry 49
Iowa:
Bush: 47
Kerry 51
Michigan:
Bush: 45
Kerry 53
Minnesota:
Bush 46
Kerry 52
Missouri:
Bush 50
Kerry 48
Nevada:
Bush 49
Kerry 49
New Hampshire:
Bush 47
Kerry 51
New Jersey:
Bush 43
Kerry 55
New Mexico:
Bush 48
Kerry 50 (*)
Ohio:
Bush: 47
Kerry 51
Oregon:
Bush 45
Kerry 53
Pennsylvania:
Bush: 46
Kerry 52
Virginia:
Bush 52
Kerry 46
Washington:
Bush 45
Kerry 53
West Virginia
Bush 51
Kerry 47
Wisconsin:
Bush 48
Kerry 50
*doubt it. as i said, this is poll-based, and my gut tells me bush has NM.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 21:25
|
#33
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
Should the US Presidential elections be restricted to only the American people who are unlikely to think about the international ramifications their vote may cause - or should the US Elections take into account maybe a snapshot of international votes?
|
It should have nothing to do with international votes, for a multitude of obvious reasons.
What you, and others, want is for America to fall in line with the EU and such...to take a more "global community" approach to things instead of putting our "national interests" first. I do agree with this, to a point. However, who other people think should be president doesn't matter. All that matters is what we think, or what the populace has been led to believe, heh.
I voted Libertarion for the express reason that I cannot support either Bush or Kerry. I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, and more specifically, the way Bush has alienated too many formerly friendly countries with his foreign policies. I don't think he's a smart man, or a very good leader. In fact, I'm fairly certain that he never had anything to do with most of the things he's done. His administration stinks to high heaven of a puppet regime, and it's strikingly obvious.
That being said, I can't support Kerry either. He's a career politician with a generally weak platform, and is basically campaigning as the "not Bush" option. He's a senator, his wife is a billionaire, and he comes off as being fake. That in no way represents who I am, what I believe, and what my values are.
Anyone who says a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush, is sadly mistaken. You make get Bush out by mobilizing voters like never before, but they've thrown their votes away out of fear and desperation.
I voted for what I believed in, and that makes my vote count.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 21:29
|
#34
|
Klaatu barada nikto
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
oh here's what i want to know.
how do you do exit polling?
do you select a couple hundred precincts at random, and have someone at each one interview people coming out at random, and just assume that each precint will behave exactly the same as the geographically closest precincts?
|
That's essentially how it's done. They'll also often add in some additional non-random precincts which are known or expected to vote substantially differently then their neighboring precincts or the state at large (e.g., urban precincts with large minority populations) and would otherwise tend to be underselected in a purely random sample. Then they apply some corrections. For example, they weigh the random precincts higher than the non-random ones. You can also try to correct for people who refuse to be interviewed, and try to estimate their vote based on their observed age, race and sex.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 21:48
|
#35
|
Jolt's best friend
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,101
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactitus
I think people should judge one another, as long as they respect each other's rights while doing so.
|
deciding that someone should go to hell, based on the fact that they put you in the wrong line seems awfully harsh... anyway, how do you resolve issues where the judgement is in relation to people's rights. for example, i think it's perfectly fine to go sleep with whoever i want, assuming they've no objections, it doesn't break up families or do anything else 'bad'. i'd say that's my right. however, aforementioned christian would say it's wrong, immoral and should be illegal
i dunno about having no problems with swearing on the bible... like, if i tell them that i have god as my witness etc, while blatantly not believeing it this somehow seems wrong.
-mist
__________________
<Karmulian> subtle as a kick in the nuts as always
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 21:49
|
#36
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
Re: US Elections
Whoa, I never said I agreed with it, I just wanted to throw the idea at you and see what the responses were.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 21:51
|
#37
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
Whoa, I never said I agreed with it, I just wanted to throw the idea at you and see what the responses were.
|
If Kerry wins, can I give you a blow job in celebration?
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:04
|
#38
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
Re: US Elections
Yes.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:09
|
#39
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: US Elections
John Kerry is assisting in the facilitation of homosexual acts; let the faithful be told.
Mailing www.rnc.org now.
P.S, if Bush wins, can I give you a blow job in order to ease the pain?
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:10
|
#40
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,312
|
Re: US Elections
Yes.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:12
|
#41
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: US Elections
If Nader wins, can I give you a blow job simply on the basis that shit happens?
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:32
|
#42
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
:/
Gwb Jfk
Oh 49 - 50
Fl 49 - 50
Va 52 - 47
Wi 48 - 51
Ct 40 - 50
Ia 45 - 53
Mo 54 - 45
Mn 44 - 54
Ar 54 - 45
Nm 48 - 50
Nj 45 - 53
Mi 47 - 51
more results.
no matter who wins, this will clearly be mandate-free for the 4th time in a row.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:37
|
#43
|
Bored
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
|
Re: US Elections
where are you getting these from?
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 22:39
|
#44
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: US Elections
Kerry one point ahead of Bush in Ohio? Last poll I saw put Bush three points ahead there.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 23:04
|
#45
|
Klaatu barada nikto
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by mist
deciding that someone should go to hell, based on the fact that they put you in the wrong line seems awfully harsh...
|
I didn't say anything about hell--I just said I judged them. In this case, I judged them to be incompetent (at least in that particular task). Besides, I don't appear to have either the power or authority to send anyone to hell anyways, so what does it matter?
Quote:
anyway, how do you resolve issues where the judgement is in relation to people's rights. for example, i think it's perfectly fine to go sleep with whoever i want, assuming they've no objections, it doesn't break up families or do anything else 'bad'. i'd say that's my right. however, aforementioned christian would say it's wrong, immoral and should be illegal
|
People can disagree about what constitute our fundamental rights, but we have mechanisms for resolving that. The fact that the debate is about 'gay marriage' instead of 'outlaw all sex outside of marriage' indicates where most people are at. The Christian view on these issues has been slowly but steadily eroding since the middle ages.
Quote:
i dunno about having no problems with swearing on the bible... like, if i tell them that i have god as my witness etc, while blatantly not believeing it this somehow seems wrong.
|
*shrug* To me, it's just a ritual--like saying 'God bless you' when somebody sneezes or saying 'Hello' when you answer the phone.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 23:26
|
#46
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ste
where are you getting these from?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
Kerry one point ahead of Bush in Ohio? Last poll I saw put Bush three points ahead there.
|
they are exit polls, not phone polls.
counting people that actually vote. but apparently very dependent on computer models etc.
AP and the major TV stations have a cooperative exit poll effort, but they aren't allowed to give their results in a given state until the polls close there.
obviously they leak like crazy.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 23:46
|
#47
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
leak like crazy yes they do.
The 4 p.m. ET exit-poll numbers:
Florida
Kerry 52
Bush 48
Ohio
Kerry 52
Bush 47
Michigan
Kerry 51
Bush 48
Pennsylvania
Kerry 58
Bush 42
Iowa
Kerry 50
Bush 48
Wisconsin
Kerry 53
Bush 47
Minnesota
Kerry 57
Bush 42
New Hampshire
Kerry 58
Bush 41
Maine
Kerry 55
Bush 44
New Mexico
Kerry 49
Bush 49
Nevada
Kerry 48
Bush 49
Colorado
Kerry 49
Bush 50
Arkansas
Kerry 45
Bush 54
North Carolina
Kerry 47
Bush 53
wow. i will now guarantee that bush does not "win the popular vote but lose the electoral"
these are probably off significantly, but still.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109053/
|
|
|
2 Nov 2004, 23:49
|
#48
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: US Elections
If either candidate wins Ohio by five points, then I'd be surprised.
Not saying the figures are immediately wrong, but a lot of the numbers up there are startling. The NH and Pennsylvania numbers are particularly incredible.
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 00:08
|
#49
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: US Elections
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
If either candidate wins Ohio by five points, then I'd be surprised.
Not saying the figures are immediately wrong, but a lot of the numbers up there are startling. The NH and Pennsylvania numbers are particularly incredible.
|
i agree actually.
probably some of these are earlier (crappy) numbers getting mixed in with the new batch, and i think exit polls are rather crap.
anyway.
|
|
|
3 Nov 2004, 01:23
|
#50
|
It was a Stupid Dream
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Winchester, UK
Posts: 2,077
|
Re: US Elections
First States in: George winning so far with 34 to Kerrys 3
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06.
| |