Still Undecided?
 

I saw a news item today to the effect that there is still a sizable number of undecided voter's for Tuesday's upcoming election. What's up with that? They've been subjected to months of campaign ads, endless newspaper and magazine articles, countless radio and TV shows and commentaries, God knows how many discussions on the Internet and it's only 5 days away and they STILL don't know? What? Are they hoping Hillary Clinton will enter the race at the last moment and save us all? :eyebrow:

Eenie, Meenie, Miney, Moe.

They're waiting for a real scandal, like Bush flipping the bird or having some photoshopped soldiers in an ad, or Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter.

I really hate the media. Of all the things to pick up and run with, the photoshopped ad is what catches their fancy? That's worth a humorous aside, at most, but they have campaign officials on to promise to reedit the ad. I mean, I'm glad something's finally sticking, but this?

:rant:

Kerry.

The guy from Zogby International, the polling place, called it pretty confidently for Kerry on the Daily Show tonight. He said that the majority of undecided voters usually break from the incumbent and are, essentially, waiting to make sure John Kerry doesn't have anything groundbreakingly wrong with him or isn't a dangerous minority. Sounds kinda similar to what went on in 2000, with Gore essentially being a third Clinton term, and the election being tight, a lot of the undecided voters went Bush and made it just close enough that the election could be decided by other means.

It's also worth noting that the Zogby guy said that if the election were simply between Bush and Not-Bush, Not-Bush would win in a landslide. You people don't like your President, and are essentially just worried about whether you think Kerry is gonna be worse.

One of the more interesting things, though, is that he said that, no matter what happens, with last-year's scandal, new paperless voting machines, all the ripping up of registrations this year and all the other assorted bullshit, odds are good that the winner's authority will take a while to be recognized. Personally, I still haven't recognized Bush's authority from the last election (though he did get a majority of the vote: he got 5, and Gore only got 4), so this doesn't change much for me, but it'll be interesting to see how the country reacts to yet another tight race under even more fishy conditions. That is, of course, if GW lets the election happen. PATRIOT says he can delay the election if there is a "threat". For as long as he wants.

Edit: This is quite fitting. Apparently, 1/3 of the voters *already* call bullshit.

It's not that difficult to anticipate. All the speeches and rhetoric and mudslinging is being consumed and digested by the public as they try to sort out for themselves what's what. Push all that through the sphincter that is our current election standards and on Nov. 3 what have you got? Really...

If you haven't been able to decide who to vote for by now, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I can understand if people were undecided in 2000...after all, the choices were so great! But we've known who the candidates would be for several months and there's more than enough information out there on these guys (all of them) to make an educated decision. The debates should have settled things once and for all, if you couldn't make up your mind before then.

Alph that's weird because Zogby told Novak on Monday that Bush would win.
I saw the Daily Show interview and I think he was being coy, but here you have the nation's premier pollster...

Wasn't Zogby the one that had Ohio ahead for Bush by some ridiculous figure early in the week, while everyone else had it close?

Yeah, I'm done with polls. I'm gonna stick with my own predictions...my main one is that Kerry is going to get 300 electoral votes.

It is both a great thing and a tragic thing that education in any form is not a prerequisite for voting in this country. The biggest blithering idiot's vote counts exactly the same as the most savvy political analyst's vote.

Scientists refer to this as "chaos theory".

No kidding. I hate to say this because it smacks of elitism, but sometimes I think voter's should have to pass some sort of simple quiz to be allowed into the polls. Stuff like:

1) Please locate the continent of North America on a world map.

2) Who was the first president of the United States?
a) George Bush Sr.
b) George Washington
c) George Bush Jr.
d) King George III

3) Which side won the Civil War?
a) The Confederate States
b) The Iran Contra's
c) The Northern States
d) North Vietnam

4) What is the supreme court?
a) A Motown group featuring Diana Ross
b) The highest judicial court in the US
c) The place where they hold the Wimbleton tennis match

5) What was the civil rights movement?
a) An attempt by teachers to make students learn better manners
b) An attempt by civil service workers to get paid more for doing even less
than they already did before.
c) A movement mostly led by black Americans to ensure that people of all
ethnic backgrounds and race were given equal rights as guaranteed by
the constitution.

You'd have to answer all 5 questions correctly before being allowed into the polls. That would probably weed out a good 50% of the voters! :D

They just like to be courted! Attention-whores! :D

I'm still waiting for the Washington Redskins game this weekend. I saw some commentary that indicates that if they win, the incumbent wins, and if they lose the incumbent loses.

I read about that on LD. Here's how I see it...Brett Favre is hurting physically and mentally. The Washington NFL team just sucks. Packers by 10 points.

The skins sometimes rise to the occasion, surprising everyone, even in suck ass seasons.

Washington by 3.

Remember that game last year right after his dad died? Change the circumstances some and repeat.

Sorry to drag this back to the topic, but I'd be willing to be one of the reasons there are so many so-called "undecided" voters is because people don't want to talk to pollsters.

It's the same reason that there are way fewer signs out this election than normal (at least in my area)--both sides feel very strongly about things, and admitting who you're for could expose you to at best a glare and at worst a keyed car or lawn vandalism. Saying "I'm undecided" is a quick way to get someone out of your face.

Yabbut at least one of the polls (Survey USA?) is completely phone-automated - as in, press 1 for Bush, 2 for Kerry, 3 for Nader, 4 for Undecided.

Which is also going to lead to some bias that they think they can factor out.

I was push polled by a teachers union I was once affiliated with. The options were minimal and naturally Mike wasn't one of them. I suppose I could count as an undecided between Kerry and Badnarik. I really don't see myself voting for someone who voted for the war or the Patriot Act though. Saw F-911 last night. The most effective parts were the scenes of Iraqis living life before the war, the civilian casualties, the American amputees, and the dead GIs mother. :(

Sen. Robert Byrd was on Fresh Air not too long ago. When Terry Gross asked him about the Patriot Act, he basically said that he regretted supporting it, saying that Congress felt pressure to do something right away in the wake of 9/11, and voila.

Not all of the act is bad, but it definitely needs to be fixed...and I think Kerry--along with the Dems and true conservatives--will fix it.

I think that Kerry is a good candidate, but let's break it down to the simplest of questions: Do you want 4 more years of Bush? Can Kerry do any worse than Bush?

Standard political idiocy: Something must be done. This is something. Therefore this must be done.

???

So an historical analogy would be voting for the Communists to keep the Nazis out of power?

They didn't even bother reading it. It was something, something had to be voted on, so they voted for it.

Ooops thought you meant us not Congress.

That's what I thought, too.

I don't know if I'd go that far with the analogy, man. :) But here's another simple question: Do you want the legislative and executive branches of government to remain joined at the hip?

HM, you're right...it was incredibly stupid of our Congress to do such a thing. At least some of them are willing to admit it was stupid now.

Hmmm... I suppose you could look at it that way. :D You have to remember, though, that Hitler siezed power in the early 30's before the communists really got their bad rep. Who knows what a German democratically elected communist government would have been like? Without Hitler, Germany might have become an early version of Sweden today.

Mickey Kaus wonders whether voters would be embarrassed to admit to a Kerry vote to a live pollster. Mystery Pollster says

I think the newly registered voters are going to make the polsters look bad.

"seized" is kinda strong isn't it? He used the tools available just like next week when Bush and Kerry are in several state courts around the country.

Waitwaitwait...so if you're rooting for Badnarik, what do you do? Do you hit undecided even though you HAVE decided? That don't smell right.

Badnarik is polling around, what? One percent maybe? Granted, I think he should be included in any polling...hell, he should have been part of the debates. But other than Radar, who really gives a fuck in the end? :)

I'm voting for Osami, myself. Now, THERE'S a leader for you. Him and his scuzzy litle group of fanatics waltz right into the heart of the most powerful country in the world, kill 5,000 people, and Osami lives to tell the tale and make fun of our president just days before our national election. Either Bin Laden is extremely intelligent and crafty or Bush is an inept, bungling, fool. Whoops! Don't answer that one, Ms. or Mr. American Voter! Geez! :mad:

I was close...28-14, Packers. Dubya's fate is officially sealed. :)

The conservative The Economist endorsed Kerry over Bush. Their cover reads "The incompetent or the incoherent?" The picture next to "incompetent"? - obvious.

The New Yorker which never endorses a candidate, this time, endorses Kerry. Too many who do have facts - who do not listen to Rush Limbaugh lies and Fox News spin - are endorsing Kerry. However that is not the opinion of so many on the street.

Unfortunately his incompetence is not enough for many Americans. Estimated is that only 50 or 60% of eligible Americans will vote - still a mild turnout - meaning that extremists votes will have far more influence. Extremists tend to vote at near 100% levels and tend to vote as told. George Jr's closed campaign rally's target these voters betting their dependable votes will be sufficient for reelection.

It should be a slam dunk for Kerry since even torture was authorized at the highest levels of the George Jr administration - finding lawyers to rationalize acts that violate human rights. Performing torture because prisoners did not provide the necessary information. Most all prisoners in both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraid were not guilty and were not associated with al Qaeda or insurgency. No wonder the prisoners were not talking. No wonder so many fictional stories from tortured prisoners resulting in elevated alert levels and no attacks. This administration only hears what they wanted to hear - which is necessary to be incompetent. Authorized torture at the highest levels of George Jr administration is cited by The Economist as "The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come."

How often do Rush Limbaugh and Fox News condemn all that torture? The conservative Wall Street Journal does. But then some conservative news organizations report the news. Others (Rush Limbaugh and Fox News) simply report spin as Pravda did in communist USSR. Therefore many will still vote for George Jr. A vote for George Jr is an endorsement of torture - and other policies that violate fundamental American values.

Quite. And if the American people vote Bush in, the rest of the world will continue to see them as adamant supporters of war, millitance and injustice. A vote for Kerry shows us you want change, that you do actually care how America is seen by the rest of the world - who are hoping for the fundamental change needed to allow them to be your allies.

Just had to get my two British pennies in on election day. ;)

Well, Catwoman, thanks for speaking for the "rest of the world"--Now, pay this much attention to your own elections and maybe all you Brits will find yourselves in a happier place too, mmm? Oh, and as for the American people wishing to portray themselves as war-mongers and supporters of injustice and oppression of "the people", I think we're all for that. I mean, there's nothing we like better than to have Europeans spit in our collective face and scream "baby killer!" at us. Just ask anyone. We love it! Gee, I hope you can read the sarcasm here as I know that can be a problem in cyberworld.

:lol::thumbsup:

Blair may be a lieing, spineless, gutless, directionless and teflon coated but I'd prefer him over shrub any day, the bigger problem here is the opposition makes the cure look worse than the disease. I'm with Hunter S Thompson, bush truly is nothing short of a global disaster.

We're all very aware of how you see yourselves over there. If you give such a damn go do something about it where you can. It's so easy to play Monday morning quarterback, isn't it? And by the way, I voted for Kerry--doesn't that make all you Brits feel all warm and cozy? I'm tired of your snot-nosed Brit comments. We are a nation of very different peoples, just like all of you. I wouldn't DREAM of sticking my "two cents" in where your country is concerned. Get over yourselves already. :mad2:

To be fair, the majority of Americans who voted thought that Shrub was a bad idea on Saturday, well before the game began. It took the Republican majority on the Supreme Court to get him into the game. I wouldn't call that Monday morning quarterbacking.

I was in Europe in June and had a compelling desire to apologize to everyone I saw for the actions of our idiot President. He has insulted so many of our allies (and non-allies) that I don't blame you guys for being a little ticked off. I didn't vote for the guy....don't blame me!!! :o

If it makes you feel better, you can pretend I said what jaguar said, and I live within 8 miles of the Capitol.

Not to mention that I find Tony Blair to be strangely attractive. I don't understand it, either. :blush:

One of my female friends thinks Bush is hot. And she's a flaming liberal. Being a guy, I certainly don't get it.

Oh, just SOD OFF! All of you!

Now...must get ready to minister to the sick and psychotic.
:blush:---I am VERY stressed. Forgive.

but, still.

Brianna, if US Economic policy didn't threaten global economic stability, if US Foreign policy didn't increase the chances of my home (London) being attacked my lunatics or global stability and security in general then I wouldn't give two shits about the US election but as it stands there is noone on earth who will not be affected by the outcome of this election, both directly and indirectly. In light of that I damn well will stick in my two pence and short of breaking the law do what I can to make sure that such a destructive force as bush is removed from power.

big kiss, jag. I thought you were your own global economy.

now I think of it, I do own some US debt so consider me a shareholder ;)

No problem, sarcasm understood. Now go back and read my post and tell me where I said that you WANT to be seen as war-mongers etc. Can't find it? Oh. What I said was:

"if the American people vote Bush in, the rest of the world will continue to see them as adamant supporters of war, millitance and injustice"

Of course that's not how you want to be seen. But that's how you will be seen. Sorry, you don't have a choice.

The majority of people on this board talk a lot of sense. You, Brianna, spout unnecessary retaliatory shite

emotional, pointless posts

and try and claw your way back into favour by flirting

Doing your bit for the 'typical woman' stereotype eh?