Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

User: videokansas

Messages

Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.

Whoa, whoa, hold on here!

First off, your "exit polls" show Kerry winning Pennsylvania with 60%, Kerry winning Wisconsin by approximately 52.5%, Kerry winning New Hampshire by almost 60%, Bush barely winning North Carolina by about 52%, and Kerry winning Ohio by about 52.5%.

Consider this: ABSOLUTELY NO POLLS SHOWED KERRY THIS FAR AHEAD BEFORE ELECTION DAY. Most showed Pennsylvania going for Kerry by about 2-3 points, New Hampshire barely for Kerry by about 1-2 points, North Carolina going for Bush by about 7-10 points, and Ohio going for Bush by about 1-3 points. Interestingly, most pollsters had Bush winning Wisconsin by a very narrow margin, from either a tie to about 2 points.

So, you're assuming that almost every pollster was wrong before the election? Check out http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
Explain to me how the averages of these polls could be so close to the actuality, and it was ONLY the EXIT polls that were right!

Secondly, where the hell are you getting your exit polls from? Check www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004. I commend CNN, they had as far as I know every single state right. They showed few discrepancies between the actual vote and the exit polls.

Thirdly, the site you got this from lists absolutely NO sources on their website. Without sources, your argument falls apart. Who took these exit polls? Who sponsored them? What were the questions? What time were they taken? All of these things could have an impact, and this site lists nothing.

Fourth, have you considered that CNN's exit polls showed a huge "moral values" voter turnout, when the other polls (as Zogby noted) had barely shown it registering before the election? Does that tell you that maybe a LOT of conservative Christians finally decided to get their butts off the couch and vote, just like those college students were supposed to do?

Check your sources, dude. According to Gallup, over 75% of America believes in Bush as the legitimately elected president - that would logically include almost half of Kerry's supporters. Get over it. You lost. AGAIN.

Totally agreed! :-)

Ha ha, well as a Republican I guess I am biased towards my President's home state - but that's just me. I dunno, I just feel a lot more at home with a bunch of people from Texas that most of y'all would call "hicks" than with a bunch of stuck-up snobs from Boston that think they know everything, buy expensive yet ugly art, and talk really funny.

Oddly enough, most Bostonians would say the same sorts of things about Texans (snobby, hard to understand, etc.). The blue and red states still just don't get each other...no, it's that the blue states just don't get us red states! :-P

Hmm - never thought of him before. He worked with McCain on the campaign finance reform bill. One thing that I think could kill the Dems in '08 is if they treat us red staters like we're a bunch of hicks (again) and all we need for a guy to have to vote for him is a funny accent and a gun to hunt geese with. Edwards was total deadweight to the Kerry campaign - he just barely improved over Gore's standing in North Carolina 4 years ago. It's going to be interesting, but at the grassroots level it dosen't seem that there's a lot of excitement about Hillary yet.

Thanks for the heads up, I did go and check and sure enough the bill died in the Virginia State Senate.

--videokansas