Pre Vote Poll 2004

[Cutter]

my point was close to yours brain, people quote things off michael moore's website and claim them as true. for every post taken off the internet that is supposedly true, another can be found proving the first wrong. dr. no posted a quote from a page and alaric posted a link disproving dr. no's post.  michael moore hated bush with a passion before he was the president, having him as a president for the last four years has only infuriated his hate for bush. if your going to make an arguement against bush, using michael moore quotes is not the most convincing way to do so. the thing that gets me going is that people like moore call the president a deserter, a liar, and compare him to hitler and get all the kids to follow along and repeat what he says without investigating all the facts. then when they realize they were wrong they get all bitchy and try their hardest to find something else to whine about.

[Brain]

i was mimicking cutter's post in an effort to show that he was guilty of what you have accused me of.

on a side note. those are the wrong fallacies to accuse me of.  while circular reasoning looks like what i committed. it isn't because what i am stating is that if i can change the truth of the world simply through my force of will and words, than do i not have the same ability as God to alter the universe as i see fit?

as for argumentum ad hominem. i specifically said i wasn't attacking anybody i was attacking the fact that simply making a statement does not make it true.

as for cutter's reply. i understand that you feel that mr moore is biased (i say feel because i have no way of judging whether or not he is or not by the contents of one article)  however i can also point out countless other's that are biased for bush.  there for i would prefer to look  at the facts of the situation. it doesn't matter to me wether or not bush was a damn good pilot in someone else's opinion. what matters to me is whether he satisfactorily completed his obligation to our nation. now then, according to Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881) there are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. since any current argument of bush's past obligations will be inevitably be based on the 3rd kind of lie, i prefer to look at what bush has done in the past 4 years as a sufficient indicator of what he will do in the next four years if he is reelected.  and frankly i really don't like what i see

[BTs_GhostSniper]

i was mimicking cutter's post in an effort to show that he was guilty of what you have accused me of.
on a side note. those are the wrong fallacies to accuse me of.  while circular reasoning looks like what i committed. it isn't because what i am stating is that if i can change the truth of the world simply through my force of will and words, than do i not have the same ability as God to alter the universe as i see fit?
as for argumentum ad hominem. i specifically said i wasn't attacking anybody i was attacking the fact that simply making a statement does not make it true.
as for cutter's reply. i understand that you feel that mr moore is biased (i say feel because i have no way of judging whether or not he is or not by the contents of one article)  however i can also point out countless other's that are biased for bush.  there for i would prefer to look  at the facts of the situation. it doesn't matter to me wether or not bush was a damn good pilot in someone else's opinion. what matters to me is whether he satisfactorily completed his obligation to our nation. now then, according to Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881) there are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. since any current argument of bush's past obligations will be inevitably be based on the 3rd kind of lie, i prefer to look at what bush has done in the past 4 years as a sufficient indicator of what he will do in the next four years if he is reelected.  and frankly i really don't like what i see

lol....you may not like what you see, but get ready, Bush will be re-elected to another term in office.

And pretty much the only way Bush will NOT be elected President again come November is by an assassin's bullet.....in which case Colin Powell or Dick Cheney will be elected President in 2004

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Damn Ghost, having the ability to predict presidential election outcomes months in advance is impressive. You should be a Political Analyst for a major television network, as I'm sure they could use your claravoent insight.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Damn Ghost, having the ability to predict presidential election outcomes months in advance is impressive. You should be a Political Analyst for a major television network, as I'm sure they could use your claravoent insight.

Care to make a small gentleman's wager if you think I'm wrong?  

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

I dont see the choice for no party pref... Im registered as a independant.. not the american independant party..

[Brain]

I would much rather cheney or powell take over that oval office than bush again.

[tasty]

Ghostsniper, if you paid any attention at all you would realize that Bush's disapproval rating is higher than his approval right now (47 approve, 50 disapprove according to the AP poll of Feb. 6) and that in a head to head poll against the likely democratic nominee (John Kerry) Bush is losing 49-46. Granted, that's no runaway victory for Kerry, but it doesn't really bode well for the incumbent. Historically, the challengers numbers will rise once they actually start campaigning against the incumbent and the nomination ceremony typically yields an additional 4-6 percent boost. Bush has just pissed too many people off. Kerry is a strong candidate, and I think he will win.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Ghost, obviously its smart to place your money on the candidate with a $132 million War chest, but November is a long ways off.

Brain, I'd hafta disagree with you one that one. Powell perhaps, but I'm nearly postive Cheney is the incarnation of the Anitchrist, plus he is a whole hell of a lot more cunning than George W. Bush which makes him even more scary.


   

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Ghostsniper, if you paid any attention at all you would realize that Bush's disapproval rating is higher than his approval right now (47 approve, 50 disapprove according to the AP poll of Feb. 6) and that in a head to head poll against the likely democratic nominee (John Kerry) Bush is losing 49-46. Granted, that's no runaway victory for Kerry, but it doesn't really bode well for the incumbent. Historically, the challengers numbers will rise once they actually start campaigning against the incumbent and the nomination ceremony typically yields an additional 4-6 percent boost. Bush has just pissed too many people off. Kerry is a strong candidate, and I think he will win.

I have NEVER held much stock in political polls.  You can make a poll say anything you want it to simply by cherry picking the group of people that you poll.  Happens all the time.  This is one of the BASIC lessons I learned from my degree in Political Science.  So just because you show me one poll that says his disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating, I can show you another poll that says the exact opposite.  Let's just make a small wager and see what happens come election time

[Cossack]

Polls are usually done scientifically that means they take from a whole bunch of people from different demographics. Polls dont mean shit. Look at the Iowa Caucus. Everyone was placing their money on Dean. Now look at him, he has not won one primary and his enitire campaign rests on Wisconsin.


What I do know is that down here in Austin, Texas everyone I meet is very angry at Bush. Thats sorta troubling considering I am in the middle of Texas.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

That 49 - 46 poll had something like a 5% margin of error, so it means little.

I'll probably end up voting for Ralph Nader if the Green Party's movement to draft him works out.

Bush is a cocksucker, plain and simple.  Not everything he has done is wrong, but what he's gotten right is either by mistake, for the wrong reasons, or shot down anyway because he's so hated.

If I could put Dean and Liberman together, I may get a democrat I liked, cut out about half of what each one says and you have a solid candidate there.

Anyway, The Greens, Libertarians and Reformists haven't come close to picking anyone yet, and I sure wont be voting for either Bush or Kerry, so I wait to see.

Here is a good web site for looking up info on most of the candidates:

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

Just tells you where they have voted and spoken on issues, which is what I really care about.

[tasty]

I'll probably end up voting for Ralph Nader if the Green Party's movement to draft him works out.

That won't happen--Nader wanted to run again and the Greens rejected him because if the Democrats lose again and they got blamed, they knew it would be an insurmountable public relations disaster in the future. Nader, although he has an attractive platform and a good record of public service, is being kind of an ass about it. He has set up a committee to explore the possibility of him running as an independent. I've already decided to swallow my pride on this one and vote Democrat, even though the Greens or the Natural Law party would represent my views much more closely. The only Green candidate will likely be David Cobb, a lawyer/activist from Austin, Texas.

I have to ask though Bucc, why would you support Lieberman/Dean but not Kerry? I can see Lieberman, but outside him, Sharpton, and Kucinich, the main five candidates had very similar platforms.

For all the poll bashers: yes, they do mean shit. I mean sure, they aren't always right, but they are right a vast majority of the time. I don't see how Iowa is a credible example of how polls are wrong--if you look at the Zogby tracking poll, it tracked Kerry and Edwards to first and second place in the week before the election. It wasn't a surprise that Dean got third there. The poll I cited was accurate in illustrating the point I was making, which is that the race is close. It isn't a runaway Bush victory.

Also, I somehow don't think that the Associated Press is "cherry picking" their poll samples ghostsniper. It's true that you can find polls that have his approval higher than his disapproval rating, but not by much. If you look at all the major polling institutions in bulk (Gallup 2/1, Fox News 1/22, NYT 1/17, Zogby 1/15, etc) they all have his approval rating falling. That you can rig a poll is obvious, but when the major polling institutions all agree on something, I think you need to face the music.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

For all the poll bashers: yes, they do mean shit. I mean sure, they aren't always right, but they are right a vast majority of the time. I don't see how Iowa is a credible example of how polls are wrong--if you look at the Zogby tracking poll, it tracked Kerry and Edwards to first and second place in the week before the election. It wasn't a surprise that Dean got third there. The poll I cited was accurate in illustrating the point I was making, which is that the race is close. It isn't a runaway Bush victory.

Also, I somehow don't think that the Associated Press is "cherry picking" their poll samples ghostsniper. It's true that you can find polls that have his approval higher than his disapproval rating, but not by much. If you look at all the major polling institutions in bulk (Gallup 2/1, Fox News 1/22, NYT 1/17, Zogby 1/15, etc) they all have his approval rating falling. That you can rig a poll is obvious, but when the major polling institutions all agree on something, I think you need to face the music.

Sure, just like the polls taken in July of 1988 showed Michael Dukakis was 17 POINTS ahead of George H.W. Bush just 4 months before the '88 election.

I repeat, you can make a poll say anything you want it to say.  And many polling institutions are on the payroll of political parties....therefore they sometimes make things look better for their candidate so as to sway public opinion and hopefully get some extra votes in their favor.  That isn't to say that they necessarily make false polls, but they can poll an area that is more in favor of what they want....for instance, by polling an area that you know historically votes Democrat you can show that the Democrat Candidate is doing better than the Republican Candidate.  Really, this is elementary Political Science guys.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[Brain]

... many polling institutions are on the payroll of political parties...

what you're implying is wrong GS.  most poling companies are independent. they HAVE to be or else nobody would trust their results. elections are not the only use for these companies.  many organizations use them for customer feedback and for market research. it's just that parties retain their services in order to gauge how well their campaign is running.  if there is any bias from these results its as a direct result of the method of taking the poll and not on the part of the company (this is due to the impossibility of taking a truly homogeneous sampling of the american population in order to poll, due to the way demographics create a mutually exclusive trend towards sample sizing and sample randomization. in english: if i were to poll at a mall, i'd get different results than if i polled at a gas station. while the gas station poll may be more representative, the sample size will be different than at the mall. the mall results are colored however by the fact that only a limited demographic visits the mall while a much larger demographic visits the gas station)

[BTs_GhostSniper]

what you're implying is wrong GS.  most poling companies are independent. they HAVE to be or else nobody would trust their results. elections are not the only use for these companies.  many organizations use them for customer feedback and for market research. it's just that parties retain their services in order to gauge how well their campaign is running.  if there is any bias from these results its as a direct result of the method of taking the poll and not on the part of the company (this is due to the impossibility of taking a truly homogeneous sampling of the american population in order to poll, due to the way demographics create a mutually exclusive trend towards sample sizing and sample randomization. in english: if i were to poll at a mall, i'd get different results than if i polled at a gas station. while the gas station poll may be more representative, the sample size will be different than at the mall. the mall results are colored however by the fact that only a limited demographic visits the mall while a much larger demographic visits the gas station)

Sure polling companies are independent.  But if you are really so naive as to believe that political parties are not lining the pockets of those companies then you need to change your name to "Brain-Dead".  

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[Brain]

i said it right in my post gs. unless they remain completely unbiased, they are dead.  now, even if they are greedy pigs, any person with 2 brain cells or more is going to realize that it's better not to fudge the numbers and stay in business than to do so and end up out of business.  i'll say it one more time. just because a political party hires a poling company DOES NOT mean that the results are biased and unreliable.  if they were, nobody would hire that company ever again, because the numbers would be absolutely USELESS.

[tasty]

Sure polling companies are independent.  But if you are really so naive as to believe that political parties are not lining the pockets of those companies then you need to change your name to "Brain-Dead".  

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Show me evidence of political parties donating money to polling institutions. Political parties have been known to run their own polls, which obviously will have certain biases, but the large polling institutions, like Gallup and AP, remain independent. What you're implying here is nothing more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It's not "elementary political science", as my poli sci profs have continually lauded the accuracy of Gallup throughout the years. I don't know anything about your Dukakis claim, but I'd want to see evidence of that as well.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Show me evidence of political parties donating money to polling institutions. Political parties have been known to run their own polls, which obviously will have certain biases, but the large polling institutions, like Gallup and AP, remain independent. What you're implying here is nothing more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It's not "elementary political science", as my poli sci profs have continually lauded the accuracy of Gallup throughout the years. I don't know anything about your Dukakis claim, but I'd want to see evidence of that as well.

I said lining the pockets....you don't really think they are going to do it and let it be on the public record do you?

And you want evidence of the Dukakis thing in 1988!  Hell son, I fucking LIVED it.  I was totally involved in politics during the 1988 election (in fact I was on George Bush's color guard when he campaigned in Biloxi, MS, in 1988).  Most of the shit I spout on this forum is stuff that I have seen in person, lived through, or was involved in in some way.  I don't get my information from browsing around the internet for a source and then posting crap that I know little to nothing about.  If there is a topic on this forum that I leave a post about, it is because I actually know something about it in the REAL WORLD....not from what I've looked up online.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

I said lining the pockets....you don't really think they are going to do it and let it be on the public record do you?

See Bush Administration for more info on the subject.