The Cellar - View Single Post

iamthewalrus109 · 11-02-2004, 11:18 AM

Sorry to rain on your parade Radar, but none of us have an idea who's going to win this one, so why act as if what your saying is the future. Judging by the closing statement of your post, I can see where the hopes of your estimating lies. I could never say Bush should win, but I tend to think MN, and some other surprises lie in store for the Kerry camp. To debate how the numbers are going to fall is presumptious as it is ridiculous although I made my own feeble attempt in my last post. In some cases anectdotal evidence is better, especially considering our experience with traditional polling in 2000, ie. it's unreliable in many cases, especially in close contests, and especially at trying to calculate results at the local level. My assertion of a GW win is largely based on my belief that popular elections like this are now fixed at the local level. The advent of the "battleground" state, not only stems from a divided electorate, but it stems from the knowledge by both parties that voting irregularities in the states can be manipulated. If you can influence turnout in a couple of key states, its not just about votes, but about mounting pressure through litigation and intimiation to effect the outcome and final tallying of those votes. Don't trust the polls!!!!

-Walrus

11-02-2004, 11:18 AM	#2
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	As if it's a fact Sorry to rain on your parade Radar, but none of us have an idea who's going to win this one, so why act as if what your saying is the future. Judging by the closing statement of your post, I can see where the hopes of your estimating lies. I could never say Bush should win, but I tend to think MN, and some other surprises lie in store for the Kerry camp. To debate how the numbers are going to fall is presumptious as it is ridiculous although I made my own feeble attempt in my last post. In some cases anectdotal evidence is better, especially considering our experience with traditional polling in 2000, ie. it's unreliable in many cases, especially in close contests, and especially at trying to calculate results at the local level. My assertion of a GW win is largely based on my belief that popular elections like this are now fixed at the local level. The advent of the "battleground" state, not only stems from a divided electorate, but it stems from the knowledge by both parties that voting irregularities in the states can be manipulated. If you can influence turnout in a couple of key states, its not just about votes, but about mounting pressure through litigation and intimiation to effect the outcome and final tallying of those votes. Don't trust the polls!!!! -Walrus