Bush is fast becoming more popular!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Rense.com

NY Times Poll - Voters Now Back Bush Over Gore With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff 11-16-00

After a week of high-stakes wrangling over Florida's photo-finish presidential election, more Americans would rather see George W. Bush become president than Vice President Al Gore, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. Though Gore won the nation's popular vote on Election Day 49 percent to 48 percent, his conduct in the days since has apparently prompted some of his supporters to jump ship. The 1,720 adults surveyed Friday through Sunday for the Times/CBS poll picked Bush over Gore by a margin of 44 percent to 40 percent. The Times reported that another 14 percent said they "don't know" who should be president and 3 percent said neither should go to the White House. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. Unlike other post-election surveys conducted by Newsweek and CNN/Time, New York Times/CBS pollsters used the same sample in this survey as they used in pre-elections polls, which were comprised of registered and likely voters. The New York Times/CBS poll also showed that Bush supporters remain adamant that their man won, while support among Gore backers is weakening. Ninety percent of Bush voters say the Texas governor should go to the White House while just 74 percent of Gore voters want the vice president to do the same. Eighty-six percent of Bush voters approve of their man's handling of the post-election crisis while just 73 percent of Gore voters say the same thing about their candidate. The stunning poll results first appeared in the Times' Tuesday edition, where editors camouflaged the pro-Bush news by headlining the least-newsworthy aspect of the poll's findings. Nowhere in the paper's accompanying report are the new presidential preference numbers noted. But statistical charts and graphs under the Times' yawner headline "Americans Patiently Await Election Outcome" revealed the paper's biggest discovery: the popular majority that voted for Al Gore on Election day is deserting the vice president in droves. MainPage http://www.rense.com

-- buster brown (busterbrown@aol.com), November 16, 2000

Answers

Rense.com

NY Times Poll - Voters Now Back Bush Over Gore With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff 11-16-00

After a week of high-stakes wrangling over Florida's photo-finish presidential election, more Americans would rather see George W. Bush become president than Vice President Al Gore, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found.

Though Gore won the nation's popular vote on Election Day 49 percent to 48 percent, his conduct in the days since has apparently prompted some of his supporters to jump ship. The 1,720 adults surveyed Friday through Sunday for the Times/CBS poll picked Bush over Gore by a margin of 44 percent to 40 percent.

The Times reported that another 14 percent said they "don't know" who should be president and 3 percent said neither should go to the White House. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

Unlike other post-election surveys conducted by Newsweek and CNN/Time, New York Times/CBS pollsters used the same sample in this survey as they used in pre-elections polls, which were comprised of registered and likely voters.

The New York Times/CBS poll also showed that Bush supporters remain adamant that their man won, while support among Gore backers is weakening.

Ninety percent of Bush voters say the Texas governor should go to the White House while just 74 percent of Gore voters want the vice president to do the same.

Eighty-six percent of Bush voters approve of their man's handling of the post-election crisis while just 73 percent of Gore voters say the same thing about their candidate.

The stunning poll results first appeared in the Times' Tuesday edition, where editors camouflaged the pro-Bush news by headlining the least-newsworthy aspect of the poll's findings. Nowhere in the paper's accompanying report are the new presidential preference numbers noted.

But statistical charts and graphs under the Times' yawner headline "Americans Patiently Await Election Outcome" revealed the paper's biggest discovery: the popular majority that voted for Al Gore on Election day is deserting the vice president in droves. MainPage http://www.rense.com

-- buster brown (busterbrown@aol.com), November 16, 2000.


Ah, yes, Newsmax and Rense; veritable beacons of journalistic integrity (and oh-so-impartial!).

It is that time of the month again. Sheesh.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 16, 2000.


Ah, yes! I remember it like it was just 10 days ago, how I read some polls that said Bush would pound Gore at the ballot box. No contest they said. A walkaway. A rout.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 16, 2000.

That's funny. I'm liking Gore better and better. At least he hasn't been on camera wearing a stupid bandaid. They do make clear bandaids, ya know.

-- (star@starry.night), November 16, 2000.

That was me Brian and I was wrong.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 16, 2000.


Hemorrhoids are popular too.

-- (pain in the @ss won.t go away), November 16, 2000.

Good point, Brian. How quickly we forget. I don't know that I'll ever be able to trust poll results again. [I might reconsider if I'm ever actually INCLUDED in one.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 16, 2000.

Anita:

Polls always have problems picking the winner of a tie. If you think back (and if Brian does the same), you will remember that nearly every poll had the candidates separated by LESS than the published margin of error for that poll. And in that case, why are you so disappointed with polls? They were describing a tie as well as they could.

Yes, now and then one poll or another drew a really unrepresentative sample. This is guaranteed to happen, just like if you flip an honest coin 100 times, you are nearly sure to flip something 5 times in a row.

Now you seem to have forgotten the margin of error exceeding the margin of poll, and Brian seems to have forgotton ALL polls except perhaps one exception. How very selective you are.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 16, 2000.


Zogby is the best poll.

-- zog (zogby @ polls. rule), November 16, 2000.

Zogby has earned its stripes, twice!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 17, 2000.


Steal This Election

By Jacob Weisberg

I've been resisting the conclusion that either side is trying to steal the presidential election, if only because it sounds so intemperate. But based on the statements made by the two candidates on national television last night, it does seem to me that Al Gore is seeking an equitable outcome while George W. Bush is trying to grab the presidency of the United States with minimal regard for law, precedent, or elemental fairness.

The Bush campaign's current position is that vote counting by hand is less accurate than counting by machine, unconstitutional per se, and intrinsically unfair. Let's examine each of these claims in turn.

Accuracy

Here's what Bush said last night: "Manual counting, with individuals making subjective decisions about voter intent, introduces human error and politics into the vote counting process. Each time these voting cards are handled, the potential for errors multiplies."

Nonsense. Hand counting has long been accepted as the ultimate standard for tabulating punch-card ballots in close elections. In 1988, The New Yorker published one of those incredibly long and boring articles it used to be known for in the pre-Tina Brown days about the history of punch-card voting. It's now extremely useful. "Votomatic" machines evolved from the original IBM punch-card computers and became prevalent in the 1960s. The author of the article, Ronnie Dugger, quotes a pioneer in the field, one Ken Hazlett, on the flaw that just ate a presidential election: Punch- card readers cannot detect choices in many cases where the tiny paper rectangles known as chad are not fully detached from their cards. "Hanging chad has been with us since the invention of the Votomatic," Hazlett told Dugger.

There is, however, a cure for this systemic flaw, the 1988 article suggests. In a close election, you supplement machine tabulation with a hand count of "undervoted" ballots where no selection is mechanically detected. Counting in this way doesn't "introduce" human error, which may well already be present in the programming, set-up, or use of punch-card voting equipment. It uses human precision to correct an inevitable machine error. And when you understand a bit about the way punch-card voting works, the Bush campaign's claim about handling of ballots detaching chad evaporates. Handling a ballot does not detach a chad unless the chad is already partially detached. And the clear rule in state after state is that a partially detached chad counts as a valid vote.

It is true that standards vary from place to place about what kind of partially punched cards count as valid votes. In many states, the chad has to be punctured or detached in some way. Texas is more lenient. Under the election law Bush signed in 1997, undetached "dimpled" or "pregnant" chad are good enough. Florida election law is ambiguous on whether the indented chad should be counted, and there may be variations in interpretation even from county to county. But this range of possibilities means neither that there are no standards of counting punch-card ballots by hand nor that judgments about what votes count are purely subjective. These minor variations in a recondite corner of election are merely part of the tapestry of federalism so admired by George W. Bush. As for the specter of fraud, that would seem to be a small risk with the examination of ballots taking place under the watchful eye of representatives from the two political parties, election judges, law enforcement officials, and the national media.

Law

The Bush campaign has now gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals with its argument that state laws, such as the one Bush himself signed providing for hand recounts, violate the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, Bush's lawyers are saying that to recount some votes by hand but not others violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. What makes this claim ridiculous is that the same Bush campaign has declined to ask for a hand recount in all Florida counties. This really does invoke the proverbial definition of chutzpah--shooting your parents and then asking the court for mercy because you're an orphan.

But the Bush claim isn't just a reach. It actually cuts against at least one federal precedent that suggests not recounting punch-card ballots by hand in a close election violates the 14th Amendment. The Dugger article recounts a 1987 federal lawsuit brought by a black candidate for president of the St. Louis Board of Alderman who lost by .25 percent of the vote. The basis of his claim was evidence that the Votomatic machines used in the election were two to four times less likely to count black votes than white votes. In that case, a federal judge ruled that punch-card voting machines denied blacks an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. The remedy he ordered was a hand recount.

Bush's only plausible legal claim is a far more technical one: that Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who originally claimed she had no power to accept recounts more than a week after the election, properly exercised the discretion that a court ruled she does have in choosing to not count the late votes. Trying to stop the county recounts and then rejecting those counts for lateness was another bit of chutzpah, which is part of the reason that I doubt Harris' made-to- order standard will survive scrutiny in the Florida courts. But here the Bush side has a prayer of lucking out.

Fairness

Counting hanging chad ballots is legal, conventional, and necessary from the point of view of fairness. Hanging chad votes are supposed to count. To ignore them in a case where they could be decisive would be an enormous injustice. If fair elections mean anything, they mean counting all valid votes. I'm not sure why the Gore side hasn't done a better job making this simple point. Perhaps part of the reason is that, as Kausfiles notes, a statewide hand recount stands a good chance of coming out in Bush's favor. The Gore folks were hoping to get away with a shortcut of their own by arguing only for the narrower recount in their best counties. But belatedly, at least, Gore has recognized that the only fair outcome to the dispute would be a statewide hand recount. In his statement last night, Gore said he was prepared to abide by the result of a hand recount in all Florida counties and would "agree not to take any legal action to challenge the result" if Bush would agree likewise.

But Bush won't agree to Gore's offer, even though he would still stand a good chance of winning. Why? Because he'd rather take the better odds of victory that he might get from insisting on a technicality arbitrarily enforced by a party hack. He thinks he's taking less of a risk, but I'd argue he's taking more of one. If Bush wins by ruling what would have been valid, decisive votes out of order, much of the country will regard his presidency as illegitimate, and rightly so.

-- Who's stealing the election? (the@gop.is), November 17, 2000.


"The basis of his claim was evidence that the Votomatic machines used in the election were two to four times less likely to count black votes than white votes."

Need more info here. Nobody wants racist machines doing the counting.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 17, 2000.


Flint:

My memory is OVERALL bad, not SELECTIVELY bad. Two of the most popular polls used on THIS forum before the election were Rasmussen and Battleground. As I recall, they called Bush with a 9% lead. The highest margin of error I'd seen in ANY poll was +-5%. There were CERTAINLY hundreds of polls from which to chose, but the "I was right about Y2k and I'm right about this" guy, as well as "Ain't Gonna Happen" preferred Rasmussen to the others. I think David pointed out Rasmussen's previous successes, and someone on EZBOARD swore by Battleground, so it pretty much amounted to shopping around for the poll that gave one the result they preferred, IMO.

If I were to use my sample of one person who voted for Gore [myself], I'd suggest that the feeling amongst Gore supporters is that it doesn't matter WHO wins the White House this election. I would bet that two matters will be passed by the next administration, and these matters revolve around the next election, poll closing times, and media agreements not to present exit poll information until after polls close in all states. As for the rest of the planned changes, I think the next president will be as successful as Rutherford B. Hayes.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 17, 2000.


Who would you vote for Flint or Anita?

Flint explaines himself.

Anita explaines herself agine.

-- Flint wins (whocares@abc.com), November 17, 2000.


New ABC News/Washington Post poll--56% say hand counts should be included in the final tally--but.....

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0045QT

-- (also@see.this), November 17, 2000.



Here's more on what the Congress may do before and after the new administration. I saw the Representative from Louisiana on T.V., and he suggested the legislation mentioned within.

What's Congress Gonna Do?

Regarding that vote, I'd vote for Flint. He's a much better politician.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 17, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ