[LoganCharles]

http://www.time.com/time/press_relea...692562,00.html

[Wiskedjak]

I don't know what you consider a landslide, but in what is essentially a two horse race, 52% isn't really a landslide ... expecially when the margin of error is +/- 3%

Out of curiousity, if Time expects 52% to vote for Bush, 41% to vote for Kerry and 3% to vote for Nader, who does Time expect the remaining 4% to vote for?

[OldManMac]

We still have two months; a lot can happen in that time period. As an example, the American people may awake from their national amnesia.

Published on Friday, September 3, 2004 by the Boston Globe


A Plea for National Amnesia


by Derrick Z. Jackson


JUST WHEN you thought it was only Democrats who promised everything to everybody, President George W. Bush made his own promises and hoped Americans would have amnesia. After Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and a host of others did the dirty work in tearing apart John Kerry in the first three nights of the Republican National Convention, Bush accepted his party's nomination for a second term by promising to bring back compassionate conservatism. He promised to resurrect education, health care, and prescriptions for senior citizens.

And once again, a party whose face is overwhelmingly white trotted out a black minister for the opening prayer, a black gospel singer, a black business classmate of Bush, and Mel Martinez, the former secretary of housing who is running for the US Senate out of Florida. "Nothing will turn us back," Bush said about those social issues.

But as in his first three and a half years as president, this was only a lead in, a tease to the heart of his speech: that only he and not John Kerry has the guts to prosecute the global war on terror and to invade Iraq, even if there were no weapons of mass destruction.

"We have fought the terrorists across the earth not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake," he said.

That may have been true for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it was not true for Iraq.

It was only the beginning of his national plea for amnesia. He said nothing will turn us back even though he turned his back on his own pet plan for education, No Child Left Behind, leaving it so chronically underfunded many school boards are screaming for either funding or its elimination.

He said nothing will turn us back even though his thirst for invading Iraq -- while maintaining tax cuts he said again last night that he wants to make permanent -- figured prominently in the fiscal crisis that has forced severe cutbacks in schools and other services.

Bush, after nearly three years of being the grim commander in chief, tried his hand at Reagan, sunny-side-up politics. But in his speech, he offered not a cent of sunrise for his social programs.

"We are on a path to the future, and we are not turning back," Bush said. In saying that, he asked Americans to give him four more years but to turn their backs on the history of the first four.

[LoganCharles]

There are always going to be undecideds. By now you have to assume those will either not vote at all or go with the flow. The flow is definately going in Bush's direction.

[CreepingDeth]

[Insert random excerpt of a op'ed piece.]

Boston Globe? Ew.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
There are always going to be undecideds. By now you have to assume those will either not vote at all or go with the flow. The flow is definately going in Bush's direction.

With an 11% spread and a 3% margin of error, I wouldn't really call it a "flow". More like a "light breeze"

[Wiskedjak]

<55% - narrow victory
55%-65% - solid victory
>65% - landslide

[LoganCharles]

A ten digit lead is pretty significant considering the two were basically tied all of two weeks ago.

Your spin is useless.

Truth is I'm willing to bet over the next few weeks we'll see it widen to 15%. Unless Kerry has something up his sleeve he's over even before the debates.

[CreepingDeth]

Let's go down the checklist for Kerry:
1. He is a Veteran
2. He's not Bush
3. He's not Bush
4. His last name doesn't have four letters
5. His name does not involve plants
6. He's not Bush

What's he going to do?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
A ten digit lead is pretty significant considering the two were basically tied all of two weeks ago.

Your spin is useless.

Truth is I'm willing to bet over the next few weeks we'll see it widen to 15%. Unless Kerry has something up his sleeve he's over even before the debates.

No spin. I'm not saying that Bush doesn't have a lead over Kerry, just that I don't think an 11% margin with a 3% margin of error (which could bring Bush's lead down to 5%) qualifies as a potential landslide.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Let's go down the checklist for Kerry:
1. He is a Veteran
2. He's not Bush
3. He's not Bush
4. His last name doesn't have four letters
5. His name does not involve plants
6. He's not Bush

What's he going to do?

Exactly. He's had a pretty easy ride so far. Supposedly he's good with the final stretch. We'll see. My gut on the guy is that he doesn't have the mettle to be president.

Also where is Edwards? They've basically have reduced him to some soundbites. Kerry should of stuck with Gephardt as a running mate.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by LoganCharles:
Kerry should of stuck with Gephardt as a running mate.

McCain was Kerry's first choice, and we know which side he is on now.

[Zimphire]

AHahah Double Digit leading.

Kerry's boat (Or would that be yacht) is sinking I am afraid.

And Wisk, time to face reality man. Double digit leading IS a big deal.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
<55% - narrow victory
55%-65% - solid victory
>65% - landslide

Landslides are measured by the electoral college, not the popular vote. For example, the two biggest landslides in recent years were 1984 and 1972. In 1984, the electoral college went to Reagan by 525 to 13, the popular vote was 58.8% to 40.6%. Source In 1972 the electoral college when to Nixon 520 to 18, the popular vote was 60.7 to 37.5%.

Compare that to Clinton's solid victory in 1992. In 1992 the electoral college went to Clinton by 370 to 168, and the popular vote by 43.3% to 37.7% and 19% to Perot.

So your percentages are off by a good 10%, and you are measuring them by the wrong yardstick. Unfortunately, you can't really predict how the actual yardstick will come out until election day because it depends on the outcome of 51 individual races. So we will just have to wait and see.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Landslides are measured by the electoral college, not the popular vote. For example, the two biggest landslides in recent years were 1984 and 1972. In 1984, the electoral college went to Reagan by 525 to 13, the popular vote was 58.8% to 40.6%. Source In 1972 the electoral college when to Nixon 520 to 18, the popular vote was 60.7 to 37.5%.

Compare that to Clinton's solid victory in 1992. In 1992 the electoral college went to Clinton by 370 to 168, and the popular vote by 43.3% to 37.7% and 19% to Perot.

So your percentages are off by a good 10%, and you are measuring them by the wrong yardstick. Unfortunately, you can't really predict how the actual yardstick will come out until election day because it depends on the outcome of 51 individual races. So we will just have to wait and see.

Ok. Fair enough. I'm afraid I still don't quite appreciate the electoral college system.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Ok. Fair enough. I'm afraid I still don't quite appreciate the electoral college system.

Don't you live in a parliamentary democracy? It's the same model. We elect electors who in turn elect the president. It's the same mechanism as used in the Westminster model. The people elect members of parliament who in turn elect the Prime Minister. In the Westminster model, what constitutes a landslide (or a majority) is how many seats you win in Parliament. It has nothing directly to do with the size of the popular vote.

The only differences are that the Electoral College only votes on one thing - the president and vice president. And that all the electors from a state usually vote together for whichever candidate won the most votes in that state. So you can think of a state as a group of constituencies that all vote together for Prime Minister. Just like the Westminster model, the Electoral College is a first past the post system. Whichever ticket gets the most votes in a state, gets the entire state's votes in the Electoral College. Whichever candidate gets a majority in the Electoral College becomes president.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Don't you live in a parliamentary democracy? It's the same model. We elect electors who in turn elect the president. It's the same mechanism as used in the Westminster model. The people elect members of parliament who in turn elect the Prime Minister. In the Westminster model, what constitutes a landslide (or a majority) is how many seats you win in Parliament. It has nothing directly to do with the size of the popular vote.

The only differences are that the Electoral College only votes on one thing - the president and vice president. And that all the electors from a state usually vote together for whichever candidate won the most votes in that state. Just like the Westminster model, the Electoral College is a first past the post system. Whichever ticket gets the most votes in a state, gets the entire states votes in the Electoral College.

No it is not exactly the same thing. This might apply for the UK, because they are backassed when it comes to parliamentary democracy (they are still at build number 1H39 ) while in other more civilized countries the parliamentarism (representative democracy) works like this: Every eligible voter is has exactly the same say behind his vote as the next. The rest is pretty much analogous I suppose if I put my liberal hat on.

Take for instance Spain. 40.2 million people. Each voter will put his weight on the final outcome of the elections. If 35% of individual voters in Spain vote PSOE then they will receive 35% of the MPs. Very simple and really a fundamental in representative democracy. One vote one say. One part.

The UK has some twisted rules that remind one of the electoral college system in the US. But hey, who wants to use the UK as a role model these days?

Looking at the US system (nb! that the US is essentially for all intents and purposes a country just as indivisible as the next country):

California has 55 electoral votes and a population of 35.5 million. First off that means behind every electoral vote from Cali stand 0.65 million people. Second that means the state of California has 10.2% of the electoral votes but 12.2% of the US population.

Kansas 6 has electoral votes and a population of 2.7 million. Behind each electoral vote from Kansas stand 0.45 million people. That is 200 000 fewer than in California. So the Californian individual has less impact on the whole than the Kansas individual. Also the state of Kansas has 0.9% of the US population but 1.1% of the electoral votes.

You can compare every small state to a big state in the US and get similar results. THAT is the difference. That is what discerns between a mature and effective democracy and well the US democracy. Quite simply every single US citizen should vote for an equal part of the 538 electoral votes. Or since the electoral college only votes on this one thing you might as well dispense with it and let the majority of US citizens (or the biggest part if everyone falls under 50%) choose their president. How about that! Radical.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No it is not exactly the same thing. This might apply for the UK, because they are backassed when it comes to parliamentary democracy

I wasn't arguing, I was explaining. The Electoral College is based on the Westminster model. Anyone who understands the Westminster model (such as a Canadian) can understand how the Electoral College works by simple analogy.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wasn't arguing, I was explaining. The Electoral College is based on the Westminster model. Anyone who understands the Westminster model (such as a Canadian) can understand how the Electoral College works by simple analogy.

Fair enough

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wasn't arguing, I was explaining. The Electoral College is based on the Westminster model. Anyone who understands the Westminster model (such as a Canadian) can understand how the Electoral College works by simple analogy.

Yes. That helped a great deal. Thanks.

Back to the poll numbers, didn't Kerry's numbers go up during the Democrat convention?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Yes. That helped a great deal. Thanks.

Back to the poll numbers, didn't Kerry's numbers go up during the Democrat convention?

They went up, but not to the extent that Bush's has. There was no double digit numbers being thrown around.

[CreepingDeth]

Newsweek

NEW YORK, Sept. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Immediately following the Republican
National Convention in New York, the latest Newsweek Poll shows that, in a
two-way presidential trial heat, the Bush/Cheney ticket would win over a
Kerry/Edwards ticket by 54 percent vs. 43 percent among registered voters. In
a three-way trial heat, including Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader, the
Bush/Cheney ticket would still win 52 percent to 41 percent for Kerry/Edwards
and 3 percent for Nader/Camejo among registered voters. That represents a
13-point margin bounce for Bush/Cheney since an August 5-10 poll conducted by
Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Pew Research
Center.

Newsweek, too. Don't believe it's that high, considering everything is on Bush now. But still, interesting.