Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Kerry now leads by 1 percent

Kerry now leads by 1 percent
Thread Tools
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 10:43 AM
 
Just a little update:

--

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry moved into a one-point lead over President Bush three days before the presidential election, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Saturday.

Kerry led Bush 47-46 percent, well within the margin of error, in the latest three-day national tracking poll. Bush and Kerry were tied at 47 percent on Friday.

The White House rivals face a frantic sprint to the finish, hunting for votes in fewer than 10 battleground states that hold the key to a win on Tuesday.

Neither candidate has been able to establish a clear advantage or break the 50 percent barrier since the tracking poll began on Oct. 7.

"Bush continues to hold on to solid support among Republicans, investors, married voters and born again Christians," pollster John Zogby said. "Kerry expands his lead among young voters, African Americans and Hispanics."

But Kerry is still getting the support of only 84 percent of black voters, short of the more than 90 percent claimed by Democrat Al Gore in 2000 and enough of a shortfall to make a difference in a few critical states in such a tight election.

The Massachusetts senator had a 48-41 percent edge among newly registered voters, an unpredictable group that could be a wild card on Tuesday depending on how many actually turn out to vote.

Only 3 percent of likely voters remain undecided. At this stage of the disputed 2000 election, Bush led Gore by four points in the daily tracking poll.

The poll of 1,209 likely voters was taken Wednesday through Friday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The rolling poll will continue through Monday.

Bush gained ground in some of the critical swing states that will decide who accumulates the 270 electoral votes needed to win, leading in six of the 10 battleground states surveyed in a series of Reuters/Zogby state tracking polls.

Bush led in Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada. Kerry led in Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The national poll showed independent candidate Ralph Nader, blamed by some Democrats for drawing enough votes from Gore to cost him the election in 2000, with 1.8 percent.

A tracking poll combines the results of three consecutive nights of polling, then drops the first night's results each time a new night is added. It allows pollsters to record shifts in voter sentiment as they happen.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 11:18 AM
 
Single polls with large margins of errors don't really tell us much. www.realclearpolitics.com has a useful average of polls. Here it is as of today:



However, there is only one poll that counts, that's the one on Tuesday. And then it only counts measured using the electoral college.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 12:14 PM
 
checking electoral-vote.com it seems Bush only needs one of the three major swing states and it's a near lock.

I'm starting to think this isn't going to be as narrow a margin as some would like to believe.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
The last 3 times a Republican president was elected - his opponent was leading him in the (major) polls by as much as 6%.

It seems that in order for a Democrat to actually win a presidential election, the (major) polls must show the Democrat leading by more than 6% in the final days before the election.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 12:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The last 3 times a Republican president was elected - his opponent was leading him in the (major) polls by as much as 6%.

It seems that in order for a Democrat to actually win a presidential election, the (major) polls must show the Democrat leading by more than 6% in the final days before the election.
Where are you getting this information? Just looking at today's electoral-vote.com entry, he gives the data for the 2000 election. Bush was leading Gore by 3-5 percentage points going into the election, but we know what the results were. Bush senior was in the lead going into the election in 1988, and so was Reagan in 1984. So... which elections are you referring to?
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 02:03 PM
 
Ah, whatever. There are precisely 51 polls which actually matter. They are being held on Tuesday. Until then, I don't find these things to be of much if any use.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
jojo gunne
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: When you get there, there you are.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
what you don't hear about polls. one in 6 people will not cooperate with the person polling. you cannot poll people with cell phones. no one knows how to poll the youth vote. buncha other stuff i forget at the moment.

so if they say they polled 1,000 peeps they may have had to call 6 or 7,000.

<edit: that should be only 1 in 6 cooperate instead of will not.>
( Last edited by jojo gunne; Oct 30, 2004 at 06:21 PM. )

LOL!!1!11!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 03:05 PM
 
Bush seems to be ahead in the polls right now, by a few percent consistently. But Kerry optimists are holding on to two issues:

1. The polls may be wrong. Polls can be wrong more than just statistically, on the margin of error, because they don't use random samples. They use models in which different groups are weighted - men & women, minority groups, party, etc. If turnout defies the models on which the polls are based, they could be wrong by more than just the margin of error. Some evidence suggests they may be.

A Republican pollster recently said that minority vote is being underestimated because it hasn't been adjusted for new census figures. With unadjusted minority representation, Bush and Kerry are tied at 47. When the proper adjustments are made, Kerry is leading 50-45. Here's the link - it's in "Battleground Ballot."

In addition, the buzz is that Democratic groups have been doing a much better job this year in registering new voters. Here's one example:
In Ohio, nearly three-quarters of a million people registered to vote this year, bringing the state's total registration to over 7.8 million, a record. In Iowa, Florida and Pennsylvania as well, registration drives - largely by Democratic groups - have swelled voter rolls to new levels, raising the likelihood that more people will vote this year than since the high-turnout year of 1992, experts said.

The new voters' potential to decide the election has become graphically evident in the streets, on the airwaves and in courtrooms of this state, where Democrats have marched with placards proclaiming "every vote counts," and Republicans have been determinedly challenging thousands of new registrations as fraudulent.
But who knows, maybe Republican turnout will be higher than expected. But my gut tells me that Democratic voters are much more energized than Republicans this year.

2. The incumbent rule. Bush has to go into this race winning by more than just 48-47, even assuming the polls are exactly right. That's because when there's an incumbent, undecideds tend to eventually vote in greater numbers for the challenger. The theory is that if you're undecided at this point, it's probably because you don't like the incumbent but are unsure of the challenger. So an incumbent under 50% is likely lose.

For an example of an electoral map based on the incumbent rule, look here. It's had Kerry at around 300 electoral votes fairly consistently, even though the polls on which it's based have Bush ahead by a little.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 03:16 PM
 
Originally posted by jojo gunne:
what you don't hear about polls. one in 6 people will not cooperate with the person polling.
I have heard it is more like 1 in 6 will cooperate, with 5 out of 6 either screening the call or refusing. Most people don't have the time or the patience.

Basically, polls question the sad and lonely and those who are available during the day. That doesn't mean they aren't necessarily predictive. But it does give me pause.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 03:55 PM
 
Thinking about the polls a little more, my guess is that the election won't be close. It's actually more likely that the polls are systematically biased against one candidate rather than being off by a simple margin of error issue. If that's the case, and the polls are underestimating one candidate by even a few percent, enough big states are close that it will be a blow out one way or another.

Think if Bush is being underestimated by just 5%. He will win not only Ohio and Florida, but also PA, Michigan, Minn,, Iowa, Wisc., NH, Hawaii, and even NJ. That puts him around 350 by my count, which is close to landslide territory. That's an extremely red map.

But it could go the other way too, and if Kerry is being underestimate by a few %, he's going to win both Florida and Ohio, Colorado, and a few others. That doesn't put him up as high as a Bush win would be, but it puts him in the low 300s.

And I think one of those two scenarios is more likely than a 2000 repeat.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 03:59 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Thinking about the polls a little more, my guess is that the election won't be close. It's actually more likely that the polls are systematically biased against one candidate rather than being off by a simple margin of error issue. If that's the case, and the polls are underestimating one candidate by even a few percent, enough big states are close that it will be a blow out one way or another.

Think if Bush is being underestimated by just 5%. He will win not only Ohio and Florida, but also PA, Michigan, Minn,, Iowa, Wisc., NH, Hawaii, and even NJ. That puts him around 350 by my count, which is close to landslide territory. That's an extremely red map.

But it could go the other way too, and if Kerry is being underestimate by a few %, he's going to win both Florida and Ohio, Colorado, and a few others. That doesn't put him up as high as a Bush win would be, but it puts him in the low 300s.

And I think one of those two scenarios is more likely than a 2000 repeat.
I agree entirely. I think that a lot of the reason is that the media generally has a self-interested stake in a close horserace. It keeps us tuned in to them, which is their number one collective interest.

Also: really close elections of the 2000 variety are just damned rare historically. 1800 and then 2000 (odd round numbers!), but that makes 2000 being followed by 2004 unlikely.

Then again, how many hurricanes in a row did Florida just get?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:07 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Single polls with large margins of errors don't really tell us much.
I love graphs with really small increments; makes 3% look like a HUGE number.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:10 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree entirely. I think that a lot of the reason is that the media generally has a self-interested stake in a close horserace. It keeps us tuned in to them, which is their number one collective interest.
I also agree with this idea. My personal prediction is that there will be a comfortable Kerry victory, if not a landslide. I base this on the fact that I see so many Democrats (and others) getting motivated about this election, and there are so many new voters (who tend to skew Democratic). If you add Bush's current numbers with the fact that undecideds tend to go for the challenger more than the incumbent, I would say that things are looking favorable for a Kerry victory. Of course, it is hard to tell for sure how much all of this will translate to actual results on election day, but I bet that one of the big post-election stories will be about how the polls made the election seem closer than it was.

Or I could be wrong...
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:20 PM
 
All I can say is that I'll be happy once it's finally over, regardless of who wins. The US Presidential election campaign is sooooo long and dominates our news almost as much as yours (especially so since at least 50% of our TV channels are American)
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:30 PM
 
Another thing about polls is that they always talk about "margin of error." But we have so many polls that margin of error really means nothing. Repetition trumps margin of error every time, and virtually every poll is showing basically the same thing - that Bush is ahead by a couple of points, around 48 to 46. There are one or two that show Kerry ahead by a point, and one or two that show Bush leading by 6 or 7, but they're pretty consistent otherwise.

The question is whether the methodology they're using - and it's not true random sampling - accurately captures who goes and votes.
     
Nicko  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:45 PM
 
Bush, Kerry Hold Tie in Electoral College

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) are virtually tied in the Electoral College (news - web sites) count, fighting over eight to 10 states so close and unpredictable that anything is possible Tuesday night.

After months campaigning and a half-billion dollars spent on attack ads, Bush and Kerry are still at the whim of unexpected events such as Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s sudden emergence on Friday, a videotape appearance that sent both candidates scrambling to pledge victory in the fight against terrorism.

"Under normal circumstances, undecided voters break against the incumbent this late in an election. However, these are not normal circumstances. This is a time of war," said Michigan pollster Steve Mitchell.

"The question then becomes, will this be different than most years? Will swing voters decide they don't want to change horses in midstream?" he said.

The answer comes in two days � or more, if there is a repeat of the 2000 recount � for a Republican incumbent and his Democratic challenger who are marshaling two vastly different and unproven get-out-the-vote operations in the battleground states, principally Florida and in the Midwest.

Polls suggest the nation is evenly divided or leaning toward Bush, but the popular vote does not determine who wins the presidency. The White House goes to whoever earns 270 state electoral votes, a majority of the 538 available.

According to an Associated Press analysis, 26 states are solidly behind Bush or lean his way for 222 electoral votes. Kerry has 16 states plus the District of Columbia secured or leaning his direction for 211 electoral votes.

It is down to this: Bush needs to scrape together at least 48 of the remaining 105 electoral votes to keep his job. Kerry needs 59 to move into the White House.

The remaining 105 electoral votes are in the eight most competitive states: Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico.

Two other states fall just outside the toss-up category � Michigan and New Hampshire, both of which tilt slightly toward Kerry. An additional six to 12 states, including the slow-voting Democratic bastion of Hawaii, could come into play if neither Bush nor Kerry wins a clear majority of the popular vote.

It would take a modest burst of momentum, a swing of 3 or 4 percentage points, to produce a lopsided Electoral College victory for either Bush or Kerry.

The president narrowly took three of the toss-up states in 2000, when he lost the popular count to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) but won the Electoral College with 271 votes. He claimed Ohio and Nevada on Election Day, and sweated out a 36-day recount before a Supreme Court ruling awarded him Florida and the White House.

Gore won Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico, the latter three by fewer than 10,000 votes.

Among the toss-ups, the most important states are Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, with 68 electoral votes combined. Victory in any two of the three by either man would propel him toward victory.

With a bigger electoral base, Bush could lose two of the three and still make up for it with gains in the Upper Midwest. He's also hedging his bets with an 11th-hour push in Kerry-leaning states such as Michigan and Hawaii.

Each of the toss-up states presents different challenges for the two candidates.

Pennsylvania is Kerry's best state of the eight toss-ups.



"If I were a betting person, I would probably say that Kerry's ability to do well in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh suburbs will allow him to carry the state," said Jerome Maddox, political science assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Among the three Upper Midwest states, private polling for both campaigns shows Kerry with a small but steady lead in Minnesota. In Wisconsin, Kerry has had trouble with his political base, primarily blacks. Iowa figures to be the toughest Gore-won state for Kerry to retain.

Once-reliably Democratic, voters in the small towns and farthest suburbs of the Upper Midwest are leaving their party for the GOP. The three states along the Mississippi River combine for 27 electoral votes, the same as Florida's.

New Mexico, where Gore eked out a 366-vote victory, seems just as close now.

Among the three toss-up states that went GOP in 2000, Nevada may stick with Bush despite his support of a hated nuclear waste dump and the influx of Democrat-leaning Hispanics. But it offers just five electoral votes.

Both campaigns claim a slim lead in Florida, but public polls suggest Bush may have an edge. His brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, enjoys high approval ratings. Democrats argue the immigration of non-Cuban Hispanics will put Kerry over the top, and a surge of early voting adds an element of unpredictability.

Ohio is tough for Bush. The state has lost 232,100 jobs since the president took office, and organized labor and other groups aligned with Kerry have mounted a paid turn-out-the-vote drive to compete with Bush's volunteer-driven effort.

In Ohio and elsewhere, Republicans fret privately over signs that Democratic turnout will be larger than they had expected.

Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie says not to worry. "The worst place to be on Election Day is between a Republican voter and a voting booth," he said. Even so, the GOP has pledged to place thousands of supporters in selected precincts to be prepared to challenge voters they deem questionable.

In every state, voting blocs are showing signs of unpredictability.

Bush may increase his small share of black and Jewish votes, boosting his chances in Michigan, Florida and others. Young and Hispanic voters, who tend to slip below the radar of pollsters, could give Kerry winning margins in GOP-leaning states such as Colorado and Nevada.

"We're in uncharted territory," said Paul Beck, professor of political science and dean of the college of social and behavioral sciences at Ohio State University.

Hmmmmm TOO close to call it seems...
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
I predict Bush will win, but not very comfortably.
There are problems with the polls, but it just gives you an idea of what will happen. Besides, this is in the margin of error.

Oh, and Russel, is it safe to assume your sig is sarcastic?
     
Isaac
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: near detroit, nearer ann arbor
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:47 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
...
Think if Bush is being underestimated by just 5%. He will win not only ..., Michigan, ...
now this is something I would be willing to bet on if I had paypals... Bush won't win Michigan... Detroit pretty much carrys the state in elections...

"Capitalism is man exploits man, in communism it's the other way around" -- some guy...
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 04:52 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Oh, and Russel, is it safe to assume your sig is sarcastic?
Click the link.

[edit] Doesn't it strike as you really, really, really weird, and kind of un-American, that Republicans attending Bush rallies are taking oaths to the president.
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:00 PM
 
on a side note, I am surprised at how much attention the 3rd party candidates have received this go around. Maybe four yrs of Bush and 4 yrs of Kerry is what this country needs to bring it to it's senses and reform the 2 party election process.

Eh, one can only dream.
     
Nicko  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:01 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Click the link.

[edit] Doesn't it strike as you really, really, really weird, and kind of un-American, that Republicans attending Bush rallies are taking oaths to the president.
Na, not at all, But I think a few things are missing... perhaps some well fitting uniforms, striking emblem, and well coordinated one armed salutes. It could catch on!
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
No no, not at all, But I think a few things are missing... perhaps some well fitting uniforms, striking emblem, and well coordinated one armed salutes. It could catch on!
oh god, here we go again...
     
Nicko  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:08 PM
 
Originally posted by greenamp:
oh god, here we go again...

Hehe

:edit: LOL I just almost trolled my own thread.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:12 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
Another thing about polls is that they always talk about "margin of error."
So that's it. I always thought they were talking about Marge N. Overa, the 19th Century mathematician and sexual adventuress.
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:13 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
So that's it. I always thought they were talking about Marge N. Overa, the 19th Century mathematician and sexual adventuress.
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by greenamp:
oh god, here we go again...
I think a 18 hour bannination is called for everytime someone compares a party/politician/person to Hitler, the Hitler Youth, Himmler, and any and all other related items. It's getting old, buddy. Only someone with a moral foundation of sand could make such a comparison to anyone.

For Bush to win, he needs to keep the Rocky Mtn and Midwest states, and needs to pick up 3 of the following States to get somewhere: Michigan, FLorida, Pennsylavania, or Ohio. I think PA is off the table at the moment, but maybe NJ or Hawaii could be put into play. For Kerry to win, he has to cause some unrest in the West and keep his core states. Also, two of the four mentioned states are also mandatory. But a couple smaller states like Iowa, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Colorado and Wisconson could be the deciding factor here. I'd hate to be 6 hours behind waiting for the results. That'd be painful. And for the love of God, if a state is in two time zones, don't call it until both sides are done voting. It seems like common sense, but evidently not for the chicken soup networks.
The Weekly Standard has their predictions in. But more interestingly, look at the dark horse categories.

And one more thing: even if Bush loses, it still has the Republicans in control. We will still have the House and Senate, and according to you guys, the Supreme Court (debatable). A Kerry victory would really piss of the right's base, much like Clinton's first two years. A Kerry victory doesn't look good for the Clintons', either.

As far as local politics, Specter, unfortunately, is still going to win easy. Specter is a Rino republican, a wolf in sheep's clothing. There is no difference between his and Hoeffel. Sigh. If only Pet won the primaries�
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:27 PM
 
twerent me!
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:35 PM
 
Here's the RCP average: Polls
     
Isaac
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: near detroit, nearer ann arbor
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:37 PM
 
BRussell, is there more to the oath then what is in your sig?... that oath is too america, it uses bush as that tool, but it's a far cry from the oaths hitler required of his generals which were to Hitler, not Germany...

"Capitalism is man exploits man, in communism it's the other way around" -- some guy...
     
Isaac
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: near detroit, nearer ann arbor
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:40 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Here's the RCP average: Polls
are those weighted averages?

"Capitalism is man exploits man, in communism it's the other way around" -- some guy...
     
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 05:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Isaac:
BRussell, is there more to the oath then what is in your sig?... that oath is too america, it uses bush as that tool, but it's a far cry from the oaths hitler required of his generals which were to Hitler, not Germany...
Even the Libertarian-Socialist isn't screwed up enough to say ******** like the Hitler Comparisons. You deserve a gold star�or maybe some pencil shavings.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 06:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Isaac:
BRussell, is there more to the oath then what is in your sig?... that oath is too america, it uses bush as that tool, but it's a far cry from the oaths hitler required of his generals which were to Hitler, not Germany...
It explains it in the link in the sig. I think that's all there was. And you're right, it's not like Nazi Germany.
     
jojo gunne
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: When you get there, there you are.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2004, 06:19 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have heard it is more like 1 in 6 will cooperate, with 5 out of 6 either screening the call or refusing. Most people don't have the time or the patience.

Basically, polls question the sad and lonely and those who are available during the day. That doesn't mean they aren't necessarily predictive. But it does give me pause.
yeah, i got that wrong. it should be only about 1 in 6 cooperate.

thanx for the correction.

LOL!!1!11!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,