Why are the polls so Goddamn close?

This election should be a slam dunk for the democrats but instead, two weeks after their convention it's a dead heat. We need to face the very real possibility that we may be faced with four more years in the Bush leagues, and that is damn depressing.

First there's Kerry. It's hard to get excited about the guy. Unlike our current president he's able to put together a full sentence, but those full sentences are DULL sentences! He makes a lot of sense, and he might make a good president but it's hard to tell! I believe substance is more important than style, but style is still important nonetheless. John Kerry is charismatic looking, but that's his problem, his charisma is only skin deep. I still plan to vote for him but mainly to vote against Bush.

Then there's our oh-so-noble war on terror. As long as the fear of another 9/11 looms in American's minds the Republicans will capitalize on it. "We're keeping America safe! Don't worry, we've got your back!"

The RNC is in just over two weeks and the streets will be filled with protesters. I hope this will help turn public opinion against Bush, but with the right spin doctoring he might come out of it smelling like a rose. A few anarchists protesting the convention get out of control and they get branded as homegrown terrorists, the T word! Raise the terror alert to red!

I guess I had to get that off my chest. It's time to adopt W.C. Fields' philosophy:

 

The polls are close because Americans are split. As much as people may dislike Bush, at least they know what flavor of bullshit they'd be getting into by voting for him. Kerry couldn't be more vague on the issues if he tried to be, the only semi-strong message he sends is "I'm not George Bush," and although that message alone might carry him far, it certainly won't win him an election. And coming out and saying that he would have voted for the Iraq war if he knew there were no WMDs? WTF, is he trying to lose? I'm not a liberal, I wouldn't have voted for the war if I knew what we know now.

Thing is, Kerry is trying to encompass everybody, and that's not how our system works. Bush knows the game, and he appeals to the republican vote first before going for the centrists. And he just doesn't give a shit about the liberal vote. Kerry, on the other hand, isn't trying to win over any specific group; rather, he's trying to have a little something for everybody. And it's making him a very weak candidate.

 

its still over my head this voting thing who would you vote for my vote wouldnt get any of them but i would still like to see a journey to the moon

 

Wow Max! That was pretty insightful really. I'm not too sure what to think now about you in particular, except to say that yer not so narrow minded as I once thought you were. Just goes to show that I'm actually listening (so to speak) to what yer on about. Anyways, well said on that score, Max.

Trin

 

Thank you Trin, I'm honored.

 

It's unusual that Kerry and Bush were tied in the polls long before the convention. The challenger is usually down about ten points in the popular vote and then picks up steam after the convention. Clinton was actually running in 3rd place behind Bush and Perot going into the convention in 1992.

It seems people were stuck in their ways even before the conventions regarding who they were going to vote for. Not much changed in the polls after Kerry's convention either.

It may come down to how few debates there will be in the fall, how many will be on the Larry King Show, and how many will be scheduled opposite the baseball playoffs.

 

Lets get to the moon i say Yippe let britain go this time.

 

The moon mission thing is a farce. It was Bush's knee-jerk reaction to China putting three people into space. Bush called for it about a month after the Chinese mission.

P.S. Most people in the U.S. probably aren't even aware that China put people in space using their own vehicle. The media didn't even cover it, although China made all the video and press conferences available to the international media.

 

If I'm interpreting your post correctly - I also agree with you. We have an idea what Pres. Bush is, his core beliefs, whether we agree with him or not. Sen. Kerry, even after the primaries, political commercials, speeches, the convention (a week long infomercial), nobody can still identify his core beliefs. Seems to be a separation between what he has said recently and his Senate voting record. An example of this gulf is his voting record concerning the Iraqi war. Didn't he vote to go in, but voted against the war budget. He has critizised the Pres. for CIA failures, but skipped many of his own intel briefings.

As for the polls, at least this season, I don't give them a whole lot of weight. I think it was either Edwards one of the other candidates (names are escaping me) was suppose to win the first primary in Iowa. Sen. Kerry was about 4th down on the list. As it turned out, Sen. Kerry won almost all of the primaries. How did they intially get it so wrong?

It also seems we believe the polling data are correct if we happen to agree or like the results of the poll.

 

Dean was supposed to be the front runner in the primaries. It's interesting how independent type thinkers like Dean, McCain, and Perot seem to have a lot a popular support and funding. Yet when the primaries come, they run into a brick wall, and the establishment figures like Kerry and Bush rise to the top. Something is fishy with the whole primary process.

 

That's right, Howard Dean...Thanks. I couldn't remember his name.

I wonder if sometimes the so called "Popular Support" is more of an illusion. Something that appears to be very solid and substantial, but having neither width, length, or depth. These illusions could be manufactured by the candidate -wishing to imply he is a force to be concened with (Al Sharton comes to mind), the news outlet - that an actual horserace is in progress and not something as boring as sure bet (networks need high ratings), or the candidate supporters themselves - being delusional or honest conviction thier guy is the real deal. That they can effect the platform of either Dems or Republicans or the outcome of the election (play nice with us or we'll ruin it for you - Ralph Nader, Ross Perot).

 

Perot was no ordinary third party candidate. He ended up with almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992. And that was after he dropped out of the race and turned it over to Admiral Stockdale. When independent Anderson ran in 1980, he only got about 5% of the popular vote.

In 1996, the RNC and DNC didn't allow Perot in the debates because they claimed he was not a viable candidate. The reason they kept him out was because he WAS a viable candidate.

Perot:

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

 

Perot got something like 14% of the popular vote, who the hell would vote for him and his damned graphes? Once the debates come, Cheney is gonna wipe the floor with Edwards, it's gonna be brutal.

 

We should stick McCain or Dean in the VP debates as well. Maybe it will be as entertaining as the 1992 VP debates with Gore, Quayle, and Stockdale.

Perot got 19% of the vote according to the above link. Shows you how frustrated people are with the two-party system.

 

Most of his votes were from like disenfrancized republicans pissed that daddy bush had to raise taxes to pay for Reagan.

 

Or it could turn out the same way the Kennedy/Nixon telivised debates turned out - Kennedy was prettier, smoother, and more eliquent then his opponent, even if he was less substantial.

 

Edwards and Cheney are so rich we might as well forget a verbal debate. Why don't they each bring their giant money bags and duke it out like a pillow fight with $1000 bills flying everywhere.

 

that would be one of the funniest things ever aired on tv. one hit and Cheney's hip would pop off

 

Shit Cheney's a goddam cyborg. His hip will fly off and reveal the metalic one. Then he will blast edwards with his deathray from his pacemaker.

 

Edwards, being an ex-trial lawyer, would probably cheat and substitute the cash for rolled coin.