Electoral-Vote.com update

jtusa

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2004
4,188
0
71
That poll site flip flops back and forth as much as Kerry does. I wouldn't rely on it too heavily.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
repeat this: "Polls suck and do not mean anything until November 2nd."


Repeat this: I know that. You know that. But to ignore overall trends is Bush-like.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
repeat this: "Polls suck and do not mean anything until November 2nd."


Repeat this: I know that. You know that. But to ignore overall trends is Bush-like.

It's not a trend. It just depends on which polls are done that day and by whom.

CsG
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
repeat this: "Polls suck and do not mean anything until November 2nd."


Repeat this: I know that. You know that. But to ignore overall trends is Bush-like.

It's not a trend. It just depends on which polls are done that day and by whom.

CsG
Actually those are trends. Kerry generally polled well when he secured the nomination (for all intensive purposes) and the other candidates were taking turns beating on Bush. Kerry took his lumps when the Swifties, Bush Leaguers, and liberal media went to town on him with some pliers and a blowtorch. By the time the Repugs convention was over Bush was riding the wave while Kerryphiles went into scramble mode.

Debates aside . . . the general news cycle has not been flattering to the Bush agenda. Kerry is piggybacking a lot of that press.

Electoral-vote.com basically shows that the group on the fence (10-15%) . . . really is on the fence. "Weak" support is probably somewhat informative but "barely" is probably meaningless. Under those criteria Kerry has 213 and Bush has 210 . . . while the rest will likely be up for grabs. Kerry supporters shouldn't order any champagne but Bush supporters have reasons to worry.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: yankeesfan
repeat this: "Polls suck and do not mean anything until November 2nd."


Repeat this: I know that. You know that. But to ignore overall trends is Bush-like.

It's not a trend. It just depends on which polls are done that day and by whom.

CsG
Actually those are trends. Kerry generally polled well when he secured the nomination (for all intensive purposes) and the other candidates were taking turns beating on Bush. Kerry took his lumps when the Swifties, Bush Leaguers, and liberal media went to town on him with some pliers and a blowtorch. By the time the Repugs convention was over Bush was riding the wave while Kerryphiles went into scramble mode.

Debates aside . . . the general news cycle has not been flattering to the Bush agenda. Kerry is piggybacking a lot of that press.

Electoral-vote.com basically shows that the group on the fence (10-15%) . . . really is on the fence. "Weak" support is probably somewhat informative but "barely" is probably meaningless. Under those criteria Kerry has 213 and Bush has 210 . . . while the rest will likely be up for grabs. Kerry supporters shouldn't order any champagne but Bush supporters have reasons to worry.

No, it doesn't show "trends" at all. It shows where things are with that combination of the newest polls. It entirely depends on who is doing the polling and when they do it.

CsG
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
I give it no credit since it shows California is 51% Kerry, 43% Bush... I find that hard to believe.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
wouldn't it be screwed if Kerry got the majority vote by a land slide, but Bush won via electroal?

I wonder what would happen?

I'd laugh my ass off if it happend the other way around tho.