Planetarion Forums - Who reckons GWB will win?

Event_Horizon · 29 Oct 2004, 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

Because our own elections are completely bland and boring events, whereas the US ones are highly mediacentric festivals.
Because the US is the country with the biggest worldwide influence on a variety of areas, and it's leadership dictates up to a degree how it positions itself in regard to certain topics.
Although a fair amount of the current US foreign policy will be the same for Democrats and Republicans, that is largely due to the US having been pushed beyond the point of no return by the Republicans. A Democratic president will likely not act as unilateral in it's global affairs as Bush has done.

I realise that whichever president will be elected, the direct impact on my life will be relatively minimal. However, I do feel that both presidents would have a rather different impact on global affairs, if only due to PR skills. Regardless of actual policy, the US was a lot more liked under Clinton than under Bush, for example.

Heh, well said. I agree with you on Clinton, if it was up to me I would say stick Clinton in office for life....

Qdeathstar · 29 Oct 2004, 04:07

Quote:

The policy of either candidate has very little to do with the outcome of the election. Democrats will still vote Kerry, Republicans will still vote Bush. Those genuinely interested in politics have already made their mind up either way, and considering every single poll put them on about equal footing, they're not the deciding factor.

The ones deciding the outcome are those that care enough to vote, but otherwise don't care too much either way. Bush has a much higher media factor than Kerry, regardless of whether the attention he receives is positive or negative. Kerry is some bland senator without much of a personality, Bush is everywhere in the media, has a comedy TV show about him, got the country through 9/11, captured Saddam and is always good for a laugh when he says something stupid.

I'd be very surprised if Kerry wins

Leshy, I must say that analysis was excellent. ...

Edit: Clinton was ok.. i wouldnt mind seeing him in the office again... but, i think after he left office... he kinda lost my favor... something about 9/11 being our fault. ...

PS (ooh, look, i fixtadidid it)

Before you go whining. Oh but we did we did cause it. Thats like saying "Well, you put the guy in jail. You have to accept that he is going to kill you, and that he is just in doing it" Wha? I dun thik z0

Sunday8pm · 29 Oct 2004, 04:32

Leshy makes some good points, however he misses a few awkward facts with how the student vote is undermined with absurd registering rules.

There are a lot of students out there in america that cares about these issues and won't be in a position to vote, naturally the majority will be left leaning, by the time they can finally settle down and vote they've either become totally disattisfied with the voting system or have manouvered themselves into a brainwashing corporation which effectively bullies their employee's to vote republican for the safety of the company.

The Republicans will naturally as always have the upper hand thanks to the system which takes away people's right to vote from demographically non republican dominant area's, in the disguise of trying to ensure that the votes themselves aren't corrupted.

Tactitus · 29 Oct 2004, 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Leshy makes some good points, however he misses a few awkward facts with how the student vote is undermined with absurd registering rules.

What absurd registering rules? US Voter registration is mind-numbingly simple, much easier than when I was a student when it was merely simple. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the so-called "motor voter" act) requires states to provide mail-in voter registration free of all material encumbrances (meaning you don't have to provide any proof of residency, citizenship, age or even that you're a real person). Basically, it amounts to mailing in a postcard with your name and address on it. And with the Help America Vote Act

of 2002, states are now required to give provisional ballots to any unregistered live human who can manage to find the polling station.

Of course, many students still won't be able to cast votes for the same reason they weren't able to in the past--they can't be bothered to vote!

JonnyBGood · 29 Oct 2004, 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Of course, many students still won't be able to cast votes for the same reason they weren't able to in the past--they can't be bothered to vote!

Voting's for faggots.

QDS, seeing as you took valuable time out of your day to copy and paste the argument from the Republican party website I will take the even more valuable time (5 in the morning innit) from my day and tell you that reading the reports that were commissioned enquiring into the social welfare system in the US would be well worth your while.

PS I too support Bush in this election, fight the yellow-bellied liberals brother!

Dante Hicks · 29 Oct 2004, 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Of course, many students still won't be able to cast votes for the same reason they weren't able to in the past--they can't be bothered to vote!

I think that it's worth looking at the potential reasons people don't vote otherwise the above becomes a tautology "People don't vote because, er, they don't vote!".

Why can't certain groups be "bothered" to vote? There's various hypotheses we could look at. It could be because they are fundamentally lazy human beings. Or it could be that they're so satisfied they don't feel the need to vote as things are going so well. Or it could be they've lost faith in the political system. The reasons aren't uniform, obviously.

Either way, since the state retains powers to extract taxation from individuals (by force if necessary in some cases) then the causes of why in a election which attracts over a billion dollars of advertising which is discussed for months in newspapers, television, the internet, etc a good proportion of American's don't vote seems vital.

wu_trax · 29 Oct 2004, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

What absurd registering rules? US Voter registration is mind-numbingly simple, much easier than when I was a student when it was merely simple. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the so-called "motor voter" act) requires states to provide mail-in voter registration free of all material encumbrances (meaning you don't have to provide any proof of residency, citizenship, age or even that you're a real person). Basically, it amounts to mailing in a postcard with your name and address on it. And with the Help America Vote Act

of 2002, states are now required to give provisional ballots to any unregistered live human who can manage to find the polling station.

how do you make sure people dont vote more than once?

Sunday8pm · 29 Oct 2004, 12:16

I'm pretty sure I've heard(read) about quite a few students having a lot of problems voting because they aren't permitted to register with a campus address and they have to register with their home address(their parents residence usually) which is most likely of course many hundred miles away from their current living quarters. In turn they are only allowed to vote at the polling station there and not at the one more than likely on their doorstep.

Technicalities like that.

p.s. of course I was unaware of the 2002 act which came into place AFTER the last election which was extremely horrible and I dunno if this has fixed everything now.

Tactitus · 29 Oct 2004, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think that it's worth looking at the potential reasons people don't vote otherwise the above becomes a tautology "People don't vote because, er, they don't vote!".

Well, sure; but for years the conventional wisdom has been that people aren't voting because the process of registration and voting were too onerous. So for decades the states individually and the federal government collectively have been relaxing registration and voting procedures. And what has been the result? Even more people aren't voting!

Of course we should examine why voters aren't turning out and what can be done about it, but I think we should stop beating the voter registration horse. At best, it's only slowing the decline in voter participation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

how do you make sure people dont vote more than once?

Good question.

<insert obligatory Chicago "Vote early, vote often" joke here>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I'm pretty sure I've heard(read) about quite a few students having a lot of problems voting because they aren't permitted to register with a campus address and they have to register with their home address(their parents residence usually) which is most likely of course many hundred miles away from their current living quarters.

Most states now allow students to vote where they go to school, and in any case there's mail-in registration...

Quote:

In turn they are only allowed to vote at the polling station there and not at the one more than likely on their doorstep.

...and mail-in absentee ballots.

Quote:

Technicalities like that.

It's really not that difficult. Anyone who's in an institute of higher education ought to be able to figure out how to register and vote. If they can't, they can go to any political campaign office (there are probably several on campus) and--sensing a possible vote--they will be happy to help you.

Of course, if they put it off to the last minute they might have a problem and then they can whine about how they've been disenfranchised by The Man.

Quote:

p.s. of course I was unaware of the 2002 act which came into place AFTER the last election which was extremely horrible and I dunno if this has fixed everything now.

I don't really think it was broken and provisional ballots are going to be a real nightmare for recounts.

wu_trax · 29 Oct 2004, 20:56

next week (the 3rd?)
hopefully that whole media-attention will stop then (and hopefully they will manage to get some result by the end of the week) who votes in the middle of the week anyway?

LHC · 29 Oct 2004, 21:03

Tuesday, so it must be the second.

Tactitus · 29 Oct 2004, 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

who votes in the middle of the week anyway?

Why spoil a perfectly good weekend?

[edit]Clarification: most states prohibit the sale of alcohol while the polls are open [/edit]

Texan · 29 Oct 2004, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by wu_trax

next week (the 3rd?)
hopefully that whole media-attention will stop then (and hopefully they will manage to get some result by the end of the week) who votes in the middle of the week anyway?

I'm guessing we will have a result by the end of November -- mid-December at the latest. That means you will get to hear and read about the U.S. elections for another 4-6 weeks.

The Deomocrats supposedly have mobilized 10,000 to 15,000 lawyers to challenge votes in contested areas. I don't know how many the Republicans have standing by.

Tactitus · 29 Oct 2004, 22:02

Statistically speaking, Presidential elections are rarely close (at least electorally). If the election isn't close then there's little reason to challenge the results (and even if they are challenged it won't be front page news because it won't change the outcome). I really hope they can put this thing to bed by Wednesday. Figure a week for the winning partisans to gloat and the losing partisans to emit their wails of utter despair and hopelessness and things should be pretty much back to normal in time for week 9 of the NFL season.

1-X · 29 Oct 2004, 23:17

seems his good friend Osama showed up just in time to help out

Tactitus · 29 Oct 2004, 23:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

seems his good friend Osama showed up just in time to help out

Just another threat though (like we haven't heard one of those before).

Texan · 29 Oct 2004, 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Statistically speaking, Presidential elections are rarely close (at least electorally). If the election isn't close then there's little reason to challenge the results (and even if they are challenged it won't be front page news because it won't change the outcome). I really hope they can put this thing to bed by Wednesday. Figure a week for the winning partisans to gloat and the losing partisans to emit their wails of utter despair and hopelessness and things should be pretty much back to normal in time for week 9 of the NFL season.

I think you're an optimist.

Stew · 30 Oct 2004, 11:11

When will we hear the provisional result?
When will the 1st state deliver it's results?

pablissimo · 30 Oct 2004, 11:12

Edinburgh's 'Teviot' union is applying for a late license till 6am so that we can drink ourselves stupid under the pretext of 'watching the US election results'.

At least something good'll come of it all, then.

acropolis · 30 Oct 2004, 18:26

sigh.

i count again and again and again and i keep getting 269-269. assuming bush takes florida and wisconsin.

so i wonder if that west virginia dood is really serious.

Sandsnake · 1 Nov 2004, 00:32

Well the redskins lost. Apparently, no incumbent US president has ever won the election where the Redskins lost the last home game before the election.

Sunday8pm · 1 Nov 2004, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Well the redskins lost. Apparently, no incumbent US president has ever won the election where the Redskins lost the last home game before the election.

Better tell everyone to not bother voting then, it's decided.

Stew · 1 Nov 2004, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Better tell everyone to not bother voting then, it's decided.

I also heard something about the smaller candidate never winning but I'm not sure how true this is. Bush should just give up now then heh?

Event_Horizon · 1 Nov 2004, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew

When will we hear the provisional result?
When will the 1st state deliver it's results?

Florida will likely be one of the first, since the polls have been open in most counties for two weeks now. I would say that at about 6 or 7 pm eastern standard time we should have a good idea if it is Bush, Kerry , or if we are going to have legal debate for a couple of months...

mist · 1 Nov 2004, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Florida will likely be one of the first

and last...

pablissimo · 2 Nov 2004, 17:33

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 262 Bush 261

When the hell did that change to get so close /o\

Marilyn Manson · 2 Nov 2004, 17:51

If Bush ever registers on here, then I'll ban the **** and send gay porn to his e-mail address, the bastard.

I'm Marilyn Manson, and I approved this message. *Suggestive wink at the camera.*

Deffeh · 2 Nov 2004, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 262 Bush 261

When the hell did that change to get so close /o\

Read it : They are using Fox News Polls are they are the latest.

Chill. The world still may be safe yo.

Marilyn Manson · 2 Nov 2004, 18:15

I hope a big fat jolly black lady falls on Bush from a certain height.

You might even go so far as to suggest that I am currently arranging such an incident.

Marilyn Manson · 2 Nov 2004, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

One assume Rudi Guliani will be president next time round and then Chelsea Clinton.

Can I just say here that I would stick many a cigar up her, given half a chance. I hope you would too.

CamelToe · 2 Nov 2004, 18:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

bush'll win. i'm a pessamist

that, and americans seem largely stupid, the responses to the guardian's letter writing (ie, that it was taken at all seriously) only served to promote this view.

The responses to the Guardian's letter campaign in Ohio were comical. If you actually think Americans, especially those from the Midwest speak (and thus write) like that, maybe you're the stupid one.

Tactitus · 2 Nov 2004, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Read it : They are using Fox News Polls are they are the latest.

Virtually all the media polls in the swing states are within their margin of error, which it why the projected results are bouncing all over the map. The political parties do their own polling which is rumored to be more accurate.

I think the Republicans must be pretty confident. They sent Dick Cheney to Hawaii (?!) in the final hours of the campaign.

Ste · 2 Nov 2004, 19:18

well... Hawaii is a swing state...
albeit one with only 4 electoral votes.

Marilyn Manson · 2 Nov 2004, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

They sent Dick Cheney to Hawaii (?!) in the final hours of the campaign.

If I was the Republicans, then I'd have sent Dick Cheney to Hawaii as soon as the campaign began.

Tactitus · 2 Nov 2004, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

well... Hawaii is a swing state...
albeit one with only 4 electoral votes.

Of course it's in play (which is pretty interesting in itself, as Hawaii has only gone Republican in two blowouts--'72 and '84). But as you say, it's only 4 electoral votes. You don't normally bother with the little nuggets unless/until you've got enough of the big ones.

Plus it's like 14 hours just on the plane, there and back. That's a fairly significant time commitment in the final stretch.

Marilyn Manson · 2 Nov 2004, 21:40

Tbh, I think the main reason Cheney went there is to keep up appearences combined with a sort of half-arsed 'Well, if we can take it, then every vote counts' thinking. I heard some noise that the Democrats were losing some ground in Hawaii, but I strongly doubt that there's any chance that it will go Republican. It's simply too Democratic. If Gore could hold it in 2000, then I'm not sure what the impetus would be for it to change now.

acropolis · 2 Nov 2004, 21:52

both parties want talking points for the cable networks, so in the last couple days

bush started going to MN, Hawaii, PA, etc, and his lackeys on fox news said "Bush is now visiting mn, pa, and other gore states, showing how confident we are etc"

kerry started buying ads in arkansas and some other crappy states dems clearly weren't going to win, and his bitches were all like "our new polling shows we are becoming competitive in some new states, which is why we made media buys in ak etc"

they're both just talking points. anyway.