Kerry edges Bush slightly in pre-convention poll

[Joker]

(CNN) -- Less than a week before the Democratic National Convention, voters remained evenly split between President Bush and presumptive Democratic challenger John Kerry.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/prez.election/index.html

[HondaMan]

Well, I don't take much value in these early polls. Besides Kerry/Edwards should be further ahead than they are because they didn't get the VP bounce they should have & Bush has been hammered the past 3 months in the liberal media, and Bush is still standing.

I agree with Dick Morris that the polls will settle into a 52/51 for Bush & 45 or so for Kerry after the Conventions.

[larchmont]

Well, I don't take much value in these early polls. Besides Kerry/Edwards should be further ahead than they are because they didn't get the VP bounce they should have & Bush has been hammered the past 3 months in the liberal media, and Bush is still standing.....
:rolleyes: Talk about "spin"! :rolleyes:

Very simple. The incumbent like ALWAYS is ahead at this stage, unless he's in big trouble.

And he's not ahead.

[HondaMan]

:rolleyes: Talk about "spin"! :rolleyes:

Very simple. The incumbent like ALWAYS is ahead at this stage, unless he's in big trouble.

And he's not ahead.

That's false from what I hear but wahtever you say Larch aka Mr. Spin. :rolleyes:

[bob shiftright]

That's false from what I hear but wahtever you say Larch aka Mr. Spin. :rolleyes:Spin it the other way: Bush is about 6 points ahead of where he was at this time in the '00 cycle.....

http://media.gallup.com/ELECTION2004/electionHistory_2000_1.gif

[larchmont]

Spin it the other way: Bush is about 6 points ahead of where he was at this time in the '00 cycle.....

http://media.gallup.com/ELECTION2004/electionHistory_2000_1.gif
C'mon, Bob! He's THE INCUMBENT now. He wasn't the incumbent then. Totally different story.

Anyway.....polls like the one in the original post don't much hit my radar screen, because they aren't "new news." The polls have been close to 50-50 for months.

What DOES hit my radar screen is meaningful extrapolations (good word). :D
Such as the Tradesports.com numbers.

Which BTW are also now showing very close to 50-50. Meaning NOT percentage of the vote, but likelihood of winning. Totally different things.

[bob shiftright]

C'mon, Bob! He's THE INCUMBENT now. He wasn't the incumbent then. Totally different story.Different? And I thought for the last 3 1/2 years you people have been arguing that he's NOT really the incumbent.....

I also thought I predicted his Tradesports numbers would be down going into the Dem convention....

Yes, it's different this time. His re-elect numbers aren't as high as the ones who won re-election by landslides, like Reagan. But they aren't nearly as bad as Jimminy Carter's or George Bush #41's, either.

So I'm not ready to sell the United States $ completely short, at least not yet. Or go long.

I watch my computer screen and I wait.

This is the chart I'd worry about if I were Bush.

Kerry too, because it's completely beyond the control of anyone in the US.

http://www.tfc-charts2.w2d.com/charts/CO94.GIF

NYMEX Crude, September Delivery

[larchmont]

....This is the chart I'd worry about if I were Bush.

Kerry too, because it's completely beyond the control of anyone in the US.

http://www.tfc-charts2.w2d.com/charts/CO94.GIF

First thing Bob ever did that didn't work. :D

I bet in real life too. :nod:

[Joker]

First thing Bob ever did that didn't work. :D
Looks like it is working now :D
If it goes down again, here is the link

http://www.tfc-charts2.w2d.com/charts/CO94.GIF

[larchmont]

Looks like it is working now :D
If it goes down again, here is the link

http://www.tfc-charts2.w2d.com/charts/CO94.GIF
Not really:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /charts/CO94.GIF on this server.

[Joker]

Not really:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /charts/CO94.GIF on this server.
This is very strange, as the link not only works for me, but so does the pic in his post (as well as where you quoted him). :donno:

[HondaMan]

I can't see it either.

[larchmont]

That link is f***in werd.

I recommend that y'all stay away from it.

I just tried it again, and it was kinda spooey. It showed up toward the edge of the screen, with part of it chopped off, but without any scroll arrows. But simultaneously, I noticed that Bob's posted version on the site now DID show up, so I figured good, I'll just close out that link (you know, by clicking the red button).

No good. You couldn't do that; every time I closed it, it came right back, again and again.

So I quit Explorer. But that didn't work so well either. The screen and the cursor were acting strangely. When I tried re-log onto this site, same thing. So I quit a few times, and then it became almost normal.

But it's not normal. As I'm typing this, I keep getting these little "squares" appearing in the middle of what I'm writing, for no reason, and I have to keep deleting them.

Maybe it's just something about that link being poorly compatible with my Mac.
But maybe it's poisoned.

Not Bob's fault, of course -- it happens.

But I say, STAY AWAY from it.


And.....if anyone has advice how I can fix things up over here??
Anybody know what those "squares" mean? (I've gotten them briefly before too, in similar situations, and before long they just went away.)

BTW my whole keyboard is working a bit erratically now; sometimes some of the keys decide not to work at all. Mostly OK now.

Larchmont, who's a little worried about what that link did.

[Joker]

So I quit Explorer.
Maybe it's just something about that link being poorly compatible with my Mac.

It's not your Mac Larch, it's your browser.
Are you using OS X on your Mac?
If so, you should be using the Safari browser (no pop ups).
Safari is by far the BEST, not to mention the fastest browser I have ever used ;)

Safari
http://www.apple.com/safari/

[larchmont]

It's not your Mac Larch, it's your browser.
Are you using OS X on your Mac?
If so, you should be using the Safari browser (no pop ups).
Safari is by far the BEST, not to mention the fastest browser I have ever used ;)

Safari
http://www.apple.com/safari/
Thanks -- anyway, seems OK now.
E-mail was screwed up for a while too, but now seems OK.

And of course I have no idea what I'm using. :D

Larchmont, who is strangely comfortable with being totally ignorant about some things.

[Joker]

Did I also mention that like WMP, Safari is also free?
BTW, you can click on the apple in the top left (about this Mac) to see what OS you are using. If it's not OS X, I'd drop everything I was doing right now and get it ;)

[larchmont]

Did I also mention that like WMP, Safari is also free?
BTW, you can click on the apple in the top left (about this Mac) to see what OS you are using. If it's not OS X, I'd drop everything I was doing right now and get it ;)
Hmmmm.

If I click on that apple, here's exactly what the first 2 lines look like (including the ...):


About This Mac
Get Mac OS X Software...


Larchmont, who appreciates these little tutorials.

[Joker]

If I click on that apple, here's exactly what the first 2 lines look like (including the ...):
About This Mac
Get Mac OS X Software...
When you click on "About This Mac", what OS comes up?
Joker - who is using Version 10.3.4

[Joker]

I can't say enough good things about Panther Larch! Check it out!!
http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/

[larchmont]

When you click on "About This Mac", what OS comes up?
Joker - who is using Version 10.3.4
OS X, 10.2.3 here.

[HondaMan]

Back on topic guys (Apple wieners)! :rolleyes:

AP: Kerry Trails Bush in Electoral Votes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040724/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_road_to270_4)

[Joker]

Kerry Leads Bush in Pa. and Ore.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=18&u=/ap/20040724/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_polls

[larchmont]

Back on topic guys (Apple wieners)! :rolleyes:

AP: Kerry Trails Bush in Electoral Votes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040724/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_road_to270_4)
Thanks, HondaMan, I love seeing this kind of data.

(Yes, really!)

Keep it coming whenever you find it.

Actually, though, if you look closely at the story, you see a slightly different story.

I'm sure that already HondaMan is planning to use the word "spin" in his next post. :D

First of all, an awful lot of electoral votes aren't getting included in those tallies because of all the states that are too close to call.

Here are the numbers that they give:

Bush 217
Kerry 193

That leaves 128 electoral votes that are in play.

About those 128, the article lists states that are leaning to Kerry, leaning to Bush, or "toss-ups." And the way it breaks down from there, you can see that Kerry's position is actually much stronger than is suggested by the 217-193 tally.

(1) Bush's total includes 73 "leaning" electoral votes (as opposed to solid electoral votes), while Kerry's includes only 25. Remember, these are included in the above totals. Thus, Bush's total includes a lot more soft/shaky electoral votes than Kerry's total.

(2) And about those "toss-ups," the article mentions two states, Pennsylvania and Oregon (as per Joker's post), that are implied to be tilting toward Kerry -- "Two other tossups, Pennsylvania and Oregon, could soon move to Kerry's column."

(In case you're wondering, none of the toss-up states are indicated as close to being in Bush's column.)

How many electoral votes would that be? An extra 28 for Kerry. (Yes, I looked it up.)

Which would make it:

Kerry 221
Bush 217

.....with Bush's total still including a lot more soft/shaky ground than Kerry's total.

Thank you very much. :D

[HondaMan]

Your welcome Larch and you are more or less correct! :rolling_e

[HondaMan]

Interesting link:
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html (click link for more)

Current Tally - 07/19/04

2000 Adjustment: Bush -0.7%

EV's: Bush 211, Kerry 327

Pct: Bush 46.7%, Kerry 51.5%

This site keeps a running projection for the 2004 US Presidential Election. Using the most recent polling data, state-by-state voting totals from 2000 will be updated to project a 2004 outcome. Click here for an explanation of the formula I use to make these projections.

[larchmont]

And you're not freaking out?

[larchmont]

On FOX News, of all places (the "Beltway Boys," Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes,) they just showed a tally of how many electoral votes each guy would have according to who's ahead in each state right now:

Kerry 301
Bush 237

They also showed the results for a few key swing states, and compared them to how they went in 2000.
The main thing that seemed to stand out, besides Kerry's overall lead, was that he's doing anywhere from 1 point to several points better in all of these states than Gore did in 2000.

Obviously, if that holds up (admittedly a huge if), that would be way more than he would need.

[HondaMan]

And you're not freaking out?

Not yet...like I said before I don't put much value in these early polls. Besides I think Mondale had a huge lead in the polls back in the day but then he got a pants down spanking on election day (I'm looking for repeat of those results)! :)

[larchmont]

Not yet...like I said before I don't put much value in these early polls. Besides I think Mondale had a huge lead in the polls back in the day but then he got a pants down spanking on election day (I'm looking for repeat of those results)! :)
Don't know for sure, but I'd be shocked if that was the case, or even anything close to that. I remember that election very well, and it seemed absolutely clear all the way through that Mondale didn't have a prayer, in terms of both the polls and the ongoing aura of the time. It was kinda like a football game where the better team jumps out to a 35-0 lead in the first minute of the game, and it's downhill from there.

I do remember that there was a tiny ray of hope for Dems after the first debate, where Reagan was sort of sleepwalking and Mondale was on his game. But even then, Mondale still wasn't really getting anywhere.

[HondaMan]

Don't know for sure, but I'd be shocked if that was the case, or even anything close to that. I remember that election very well, and it seemed absolutely clear all the way through that Mondale didn't have a prayer, in terms of both the polls and the ongoing aura of the time. It was kinda like a football game where the better team jumps out to a 35-0 lead in the first minute of the game, and it's downhill from there.

I do remember that there was a tiny ray of hope for Dems after the first debate, where Reagan was sort of sleepwalking and Mondale was on his game. But even then, Mondale still wasn't really getting anywhere.

True and it was a little different ball game back then but Mondale was in the lead in the polls, and got killed when it was all said & done. Also, I'm sure Kerry will make it a close game this time around.

[larchmont]

True and it was a little different ball game back then but Mondale was in the lead in the polls, and got killed when it was all said & done. Also, I'm sure Kerry will make it a close game this time around.
Not to be asking you to do any work, but..... :D

OCICBW but I really doubt that's true about Mondale ever being ahead in the polls. If you can find any reference (by googling or anything else), that would be interesting.

But I'm still saying it ain't so.

[HondaMan]

Not to be asking you to do any work, but..... :D

OCICBW but I really doubt that's true about Mondale ever being ahead in the polls. If you can find any reference (by googling or anything else), that would be interesting.

But I'm still saying it ain't so.

I can't find it via Google, but I thought I heard that once upon a time. :donno:

[pocketkiller]

they never called me for their poll. I don't believe poll numbers. Here in california, they had arnold for governor at something like 40%, and bustamante and 35%.

Arnold ended up winning with 55% and bustamante only had 25%

[Joker]

they never called me for their poll.
Nor I..
Joker - who has always wondered who they poll :donno:

[HondaMan]

Nor I..
Joker - who has always wondered who they poll :donno:

Ditto! Those pollsters never call me either! :mad: