Who Will Win the Election?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Unlike the boy scout Dems, and their dead voters, eh?

Strawman. We were talking about why some Kerry backers believe that Bush is still going to win, and that for many it's because they think the GOP is crooked.

Not by my estimate, given the overall leftish flavour of Apolyton.

Um, I said U.S. polling, meaning the non-Apolyton world (i.e., actual public opinion polls). And they show a distinct trend towards people being less and less confident that Bush will win.

Bush is still leading, which is incredible.

And his lead is dramatically smaller than in U.S. national surveys on the same question. So why is it so incredible?

And given that you are part of Kerry's base, it would be the same as me suddenly changing my confidence as an Evangelical voter for Bush.

Again, having confidence that a particular candidate will win at any given moment says nothing to who will actually win, and certainly doesn't reflect the voting choices of the people being polled. Why is it so hard for you to understand the difference here?

Again, it demonstrates, that Kerry's base doesn't seem all that confident in Kerry, as recently as 3 weeks ago.

And Bush's base is less confident now. So what? 3 weeks is a long time in an election, and as I said, 3 weeks ago things looked very different.

Now, if something can change that much in 3 weeks, surely it can also change back?

Possibly, but given that there are 3 days until the election, such a change is unlikely. My switch in confidence didn't happen overnight, although Kerry's debate wins helped. It was a gradual shift, and unless there is a release of dozens of polls that are suddenly lopsided to Bush, or some other dramatic surprise, I doubt the confidence I have now will wane much.

Regardless, my support and vote for Kerry certainly isn't going to change, which goes back to the main point: belief in who will win isn't relevant to who people want to win.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you think I'll be disillusioned, you seem to forget how much I despise Bush

And that's why you'll be bitter. Voting for a candidate is much more fun, than voting against another candidate.

[Boris Godunov]

Imran has been for Kerry all along. You must not have been paying attention much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No he hasn't. Ever since the BEGINNING of the primaries, I've backed Kerry. I feel he is intelligent and diplomatic. He will weigh each issue in his mind rather than making knee-jerk reactions. He may make decisions I don't agree with, but I feel we need an intelligent man in power... a Philosopher President, so to speak.

[Boris Godunov]

Minnesota might just be off the table now:

Kerry surges in Minnesota



In a state that's been too close to call for months, Sen. John Kerry opens up an eye-popping eight point lead in Minnesota, according to today's Minneapolis Star Tribune. The poll found Kerry with the support of 49 percent of likely voters, compared to Bush's 41 percent. The finding mirrors the latest Zogby tracking poll results released on Saturday which showed Kerry with 49 percent to Bush's 43 percent in Minnesota. A Star Tribune poll conducted just two weeks ago showed the state too close to call.

What could be behind the late Kerry surge? The newspaper reports, "The repeated airing of Osama bin Laden's latest video Friday may have been one reason there was a spike in support for Kerry in the interviews conducted that night, compared with three previous nights of interviewing." The Star Tribune quotes the University of Minnesota's Larry Jacobs agreeing: "Maybe it was bin Laden, maybe it was the news about the missing explosives [in Iraq], but the news seems to have been injected with the seriousness of national security events."

The poll results were across-the-board good news for Democrats in what is considered to be a must-win state. For instance, Kerry leads Bush among likely, independent voters 46 percent to 34 percent, while Bush's support among self-descrbied conservatives has dropped ten points in the last two weeks.

Appearing on Fox News today, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich addressed the question of polls over the weekend that continue to show Bush losing ground, one percentage point at a time. Gingrich's spin was Republican candidates always poll stronger during the working week and Democrats do better on the weekends. But that rationale doesn't apply to Bush's weak showing in Minnesota; the poll was conducted Tuesday through Friday.

Posted from salon.com

[MrFun]

Some good news there, Boris.


Now if Kerry can make a similiar surge like this in one or two other states . . . . . . .

[Ben Kenobi]

Strawman. We were talking about why some Kerry backers believe that Bush is still going to win, and that for many it's because they think the GOP is crooked.

Right, and how many Conservatives believe that the Democrats will also employ dirty tricks in order to retain power?

The only way you can justify making a differential, is to say that more people see through the dirty tricks of the Dems, rendering their effectiveness much less than the Republicans.

Of course, this assumes that both sides employ dirty tricks, which may not be the case.

Um, I said U.S. polling, meaning the non-Apolyton world (i.e., actual public opinion polls). And they show a distinct trend towards people being less and less confident that Bush will win.

And I'm talking about this one poll here. I'm not surprised to see US polls show that Bush voters are less confident, given the overall media backing of Kerry. I'd only be surprised if they would admit the latter.

And his lead is dramatically smaller than in U.S. national surveys on the same question. So why is it so incredible?

Yet, you say most are not confident of Bush winning? Seems to me if most believe Bush will win in the national polls, than he should win in the election.

Again, having confidence that a particular candidate will win at any given moment says nothing to who will actually win, and certainly doesn't reflect the voting choices of the people being polled. Why is it so hard for you to understand the difference here?

I'm saying that people's confidence in a candidate affects their voting patterns. You seem to believe the two do not influence each other.

And Bush's base is less confident now. So what? 3 weeks is a long time in an election, and as I said, 3 weeks ago things looked very different.

Three weeks is nothing in your elections process.

Possibly, but given that there are 3 days until the election, such a change is unlikely. My switch in confidence didn't happen overnight, although Kerry's debate wins helped. It was a gradual shift, and unless there is a release of dozens of polls that are suddenly lopsided to Bush, or some other dramatic surprise, I doubt the confidence I have now will wane much.

Seeing as Bush held his ground, I can see why you are not that confident in Kerry. Shouldn't Kerry have been able to tear Bush to shreds in both debates, especially given that the original knock against Bush was his unfamiliarity with foreign policy? Isn't that supposed to be Kerry's strong suit, his ability to obtain the support of the UN, and various unnamed foreign leaders from across the world?

Regardless, my support and vote for Kerry certainly isn't going to change, which goes back to the main point: belief in who will win isn't relevant to who people want to win.

For most people it is. It was for me, and I don't think I'm that prone to blow in the wind.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran has been for Kerry all along. You must not have been paying attention much.

Seeing as I post with Imran across two sites, I do know this. It's part of why I made this after the conservative point, because I know Imran considers himself a conservative.

No he hasn't. Ever since the BEGINNING of the primaries, I've backed Kerry. I feel he is intelligent and diplomatic. He will weigh each issue in his mind rather than making knee-jerk reactions. He may make decisions I don't agree with, but I feel we need an intelligent man in power... a Philosopher President, so to speak.

Then we are going to disagree. I've always trusted simplicity rather than elegance. Honesty rather than rhetoric.

[debeest]

I'm a little annoyed that there's no voting option for "More people will try to vote for Kerry, but the cheating will make it look like a tossup, and the Supremes will elect Bush again." I had to simplify that to "Bush," which was thoroughly unsatisfying.

[Ben Kenobi]

What could be behind the late Kerry surge? The newspaper reports, "The repeated airing of Osama bin Laden's latest video Friday may have been one reason there was a spike in support for Kerry in the interviews conducted that night, compared with three previous nights of interviewing."

Didn't Kerry say that OBL means nothing to him?

He's going to cut and run on National security when he gets in.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Then we are going to disagree. I've always trusted simplicity rather than elegance. Honesty rather than rhetoric.

So why doesn't Bush's superficial rhetoric about "spreading democracy" raise any of your concerns for the real truth?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I know Imran considers himself a conservative.

No I don't... I'm a libertarian.

Then we are going to disagree. I've always trusted simplicity rather than elegance. Honesty rather than rhetoric.

We will disagree between similicity and elegance. But Bush is as big, if not more, a liar than Kerry. Honesty doesn't work for this President.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Didn't Kerry say that OBL means nothing to him?

No, that was Bush.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I know Imran considers himself a conservative.

No I don't... I'm a libertarian.

I was going to say something, but then I remember that we all have our own flaws.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Didn't Kerry say that OBL means nothing to him?

Imran responded to this already, but I want to be more specific.

Four months after 9/11, Bush made a gallingly forthright statement to a press conference, saying that he was not at all concerned about Osama Bin Laden.




President Bush: strong on incompetence, and weak on defense.