The Polling Warehouse

[numediaman]

I thought it would be nice to have a place where all the latest polls could be posted.

There are a number of web sites that have good polling data. One I came across was this one: http://www.pollingreport.com/

There are others, of course. If you come across one, post it here.

First poll: Bush job approval ratings. Here are some of the latest polls I found.

CBS News
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/24 . . . . . 41 . . . . . 52
5/10 . . . . . 44 . . . . . 49

Washington Post / ABC
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/23 . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . 50
4/18 . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . 47

CNN / USA Today (Gallop)
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/21-23 . . . 47 . . . . . . 49
5/7-9 . . . . 46 . . . . . . .51

Newsweek
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/13-14 . . . . 42 . . . . . 52
4/8-9 . . . . . . 49 . . . . .45

Fox News
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/18-19 . . . . 48 . . . . . 43
5/4-5 . . . . . 49 . . . . . . 43

CNN / Time (Harris)
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/12-13 . . . . 46 . . . . . . 49
4/8 . . . . . . 49 . . . . . . 47

Zobgy International
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/10-13 . . 42 . . . . . . . 58
4/8 . . . . . 47. . . . . . . . 52

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Bush . . . Approve . . . Disapprove
5/3-9 . . . . . 44 . . . . . . 48
4/21-25 . . . 48 . . . . . . 43

All Polls . . Approve . . Disapprove
. . . . . . . . .44.6 . . . . . .48.9

[Neserk]

:D

[kuyu]

numediaman, great idea for a thread. Interesting numbers. Weird how the conservative polls have bush ahead, and the liberal ones have him behind???

Anyway, this election will definately prove to be one for the ages. i might not vote, just because I've come to the realization that presidents aren't that important to our lives as indivduals. Instead, I'm going to really focus on my local elections, which have a much more direct effect on my life. We have a bunch of nazi's running this town, and they've got to go.

If Bush wins: I'll go to work, get paid, spend money, buy oil, sleep, hang out with friends and family.
If Kerry wins: I'll go to work, get paid, spend money, buy oil, sleep, hang out with friends and family.

[blackfox]

Anyway, this election will definately prove to be one for the ages. i might not vote, just because I've come to the realization that presidents aren't that important to our lives as indivduals. Instead, I'm going to really focus on my local elections, which have a much more direct effect on my life. We have a bunch of nazi's running this town, and they've got to go.

I would reconsider voting come November, as choice of President may very well affect you in a small amount of time in regards to taxes, employment, interpretation of law, civil-liberties, and the environment. Of course congressional make-up makes a difference also, but judges and head of departments are usually appointed by an administration.
You are right to concentrate on local politics, though...my point is try to do both...

[numediaman]

Here is a more interesting poll. I found this in a stack of old newspapers. This one is from the July 9, 1973 edition of the Miami Herald.


Asked of Congressmen on July 6, 1973:

Do you believe that President Nixon knew in advance of the plans for the Watergate break-in?

House Republicans
Yes: 3.4%
No: 94.9%

House Democrats
Yes: 48.2%
No: 40%

Senate Republicans
Yes:4.8%
No: 95.2%

Senate Democrats
Yes: 37.5%
No: 50%


Do you believe that President Nixon was personally involved in the Watergate coverup?

House Republicans
Yes: 17.2%
No: 70.7%

House Democrats
Yes: 88.2%
No: 9.1%

Senate Republicans
Yes: 9.5%
No: 90.5%

Senate Democrats
Yes: 100%
No: 0%


Gotta give the Republicans create, they sure know how to circle the wagons.

Edit: A story on the front page states: "A nationwide rollback in prices for gasoline and other petroleum products is being considered as part of the government's Phase 4 anti-inflation program, administration sources said Sunday. The rollback would mena a drop in the price of gasoline at service stations in many parts of the country."

[numediaman]

I loved those early polls that showed that so-and-so was leading nationally, even before a primary had been conducted. They are always, always bogus.

For example: in January, The Field Poll ran a poll between Bush and prospective nominee John Kerry. The poll reported that prospective voters preferred Bush 48% to 39% (with 13% undecided). Right, like California was going to be in play.

The Field Poll's newest results in California:

May 2004
Kerry 51%
Bush 39%
Nader 4%

without Nadar
Kerry 55%
Bush 40%

[blackfox]

...Right, like California was going to be in play.

Well, although I think you are probably correct, I do think there is a better chance of California going republican than in recent memory...I guess we shall see...

Also I wanted to post a nifty pie-chart poll, but can't figure out how to add attachments...a little help?

[numediaman]

Everyone knows the election is June 28th, right?

Here is the latest polls from three different sources.

Poll:

Environics - May 25
Liberal Party 38%
Conservative Party 29%
New Democratic Party 21%
Bloc Québécois 11%

Ipsos-Reid - May 21
Liberal Party 35%
Conservative Party 26%
New Democratic Party 18%
Bloc Québécois 12%
Green Party 5%

Compas - May 22
Liberal Party 39%
Conservative Party 31%
New Democratic Party 17%
Bloc Québécois 11%

Everyone keeps up with Canadian politics I hope. Now here's a quiz, who is Prime Minister? (Don't look it up, it's Paul Martin.)

[Sayhey]

numedia,

I thought Paul Martin's party was the Liberal Party, not the Liberty Party - did it change and no one told me?

[diamond geezer]

numediaman, great idea for a thread. Interesting numbers. Weird how the conservative polls have bush ahead, and the liberal ones have him behind???

Anyway, this election will definately prove to be one for the ages. i might not vote, just because I've come to the realization that presidents aren't that important to our lives as indivduals. Instead, I'm going to really focus on my local elections, which have a much more direct effect on my life. We have a bunch of nazi's running this town, and they've got to go.

If Bush wins: I'll go to work, get paid, spend money, buy oil, sleep, hang out with friends and family.
If Kerry wins: I'll go to work, get paid, spend money, buy oil, sleep, hang out with friends and family.

Perhaps you should consider voting on how the President effects people other than yourself.

Issues like foreign policy, education, environment etc.

How long does it take to cast your vote? 1 hour?

Consider the effect of your decision on the rest of the world

[numediaman]

numedia,

I thought Paul Martin's party was the Liberal Party, not the Liberty Party - did it change and no one told me?

It's a new political party -- guess they are doing pretty good!

Yikes. That's why copy-paste is not always a good idea.

Well, at least it was you, Sayhey. If Slyhunter was correcting my typos I might be tempted to shoot myself. (Of course, I don't own a gun, so that would be hard.)

[Neserk]

I might be tempted to shoot myself. (Of course, I don't own a gun, so that would be hard.)

Another good reason not to own a gun :D

[Sayhey]

It's a new political party -- guess they are doing pretty good!

Yikes. That's why copy-paste is not always a good idea.

Well, at least it was you, Sayhey. If Slyhunter was correcting my typos I might be tempted to shoot myself. (Of course, I don't own a gun, so that would be hard.)

Not a problem and stay away from those guns! Chicago needs as many San Franciscans as it can get. Thanks for the post - I'm just glad to know the NDP is doing so well.

[kuyu]

Perhaps you should consider voting on how the President effects people other than yourself.

Issues like foreign policy, education, environment etc.

How long does it take to cast your vote? 1 hour?

Consider the effect of your decision on the rest of the world

Everyone that I know is better off financially than they've ever been. My parents are making more money than ever (one in manufacturing!!!), and all my friends are employeed and earning decent wages.

Foreign policy doesn't really concern me. All my friends from other nations are very nice people, and we don't have a policy. Policies are for the politicians, not the citizens.
Education: I'll be done with school in under two years, and the no child left behind seems to be BOTH their plans.
Environment: Next year there will be at least two hybrid SUV's, one hybrid full size truck, and a litany of new hybrid cars. Private industry will step up to help the environment as consumers require it.

So, I see your point, but I still might not vote for president. It's just one button on a machine, so if I push one, it'll probably say Bush (last time I pushed Gore). I'm not a huge 'neocon', but as a economics and finance major, I see the left playing on the publics ignorance (financially speaking) on a daily basis. IMHO, that's just bad politics.

[mactastic]

...I see the left playing on the publics ignorance (financially speaking) on a daily basis. IMHO, that's just bad politics.

You've heard that the average gain from Bush's tax cuts is something like $1,100/per person right? And you don't find that to be playing on the public's ignorance (financially speaking)?

[numediaman]

Poll: Bush lead over Kerry in Kentucky slips but still strong (Bush 52%, Kerry 40%)

Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Kentuckians' opinions of President Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq fell in a new poll, which also shows his lead over U.S. Sen. John Kerry in the presidential race, while narrowing, is still strong.

The Bluegrass Poll, conducted by The Courier-Journal and published Saturday, recorded a significant decline in opinions about the president on matters involving Iraq.

In February, Kentuckians endorsed Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, with 58 percent approving and 40 percent disapproving. But the latest poll was a statistical dead heat, with 50 percent approving and 46 percent disapproving.

The questions about Bush's performance surveyed 811 Kentucky adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

I think Bush is safe in Kentucky. Kuyu, go ahead and vote for Bush. Just don't move to Ohio, OK?

[kuyu]

You've heard that the average gain from Bush's tax cuts is something like $1,100/per person right? And you don't find that to be playing on the public's ignorance (financially speaking)?

??? I don't get your point. Do you mean that a tax cut is a ploy to convince the financially ignorant to vote for Bush? Or do you mean that giving $1,100 to average Joe is a bad thing?

Clarification: conservatives gave us roth IRA's, which is arguably the best thing the government ever did for the common person. Also, those new HSA's that con's squeezed into the medicare/caid program are awesome. Plus, a G to all of us is great, it keeps that economy stirred. Each fully funded roth IRA costs the government a hair over a million in income tax dollars. More for us, less for them. After all, America is a people, not a government.

The poor of this country don't know about this stuff (or at least don't use it). If they did, they'd cease to be poor and statistically speaking, would be far more likely to vote conservative. So, where's the incentive for liberal politicians to ever improve the financial standing of a major cornerstone of their constituency? There isn't one. Rich democrats are better off if the poor stay poor and they stay in power.

Nume, Bush will definately take this state. He landslided it in 2000. Made my vote pointless. Where are you finding all these polls? Are they all on one sight? thx.

[zimv20]

??? I don't get your point. Do you mean that a tax cut is a ploy to convince the financially ignorant to vote for Bush? Or do you mean that giving $1,100 to average Joe is a bad thing?
a bunch of working class guys are sitting in a bar. bill gates walks in. one guy throws up his hands and says, "yippeee!"

he's asked, "what are you so excited about?" he replies, "the average net worth of everyone in this bar just went up by a billion dollars!"

[skunk]

a bunch of working class guys are sitting in a bar. bill gates walks in. one guy throws up his hands and says, "yippeee!"

he's asked, "what are you so excited about?" he replies, "the average net worth of everyone in this bar just went up by a billion dollars!"
Nice explanation! :D

[kuyu]

a bunch of working class guys are sitting in a bar. bill gates walks in. one guy throws up his hands and says, "yippeee!"

he's asked, "what are you so excited about?" he replies, "the average net worth of everyone in this bar just went up by a billion dollars!"

Great one. I agree that many rich individuals got tax breaks that are astronomical to people like me. However, I work 25 hours a week and go to school full time. After 7 years of this (roughly 50-60 hours a week and six figures of debt) I'll be in that earnings bracket. After all my sacrifice and hard work, I get to give ~45% of my income to Uncle Sam.

Marginal Fed rate ~30%, state 6%, social security 6.2%, city 2.5%, medicare/caid 2%. Yippee, my actual worth got cut in half!!! So if I get a $1000/year raise, I'll get home with about $500. That's going to suck. :eek:

[zimv20]

Marginal Fed rate ~30%
are you applying the proper formula or are you looking at the highest bracket in which you land?

[jelloshotsrule]

Policies are for the politicians, not the citizens.
Education: I'll be done with school in under two years, and the no child left behind seems to be BOTH their plans.

tell that to the "citizens" of iraq.... or at least their families if they are now dead.


education: it's one thing to both plan to have the no child left behind in place. it's entirely another to actually FUND it.... which bush hasn't done.

why? iraq takeover is expensive.

[pseudobrit]

Everyone that I know is better off financially than they've ever been. My parents are making more money than ever (one in manufacturing!!!), and all my friends are employeed and earning decent wages.

That's odd. I lost my manufacturing job last year and took a job earning a fraction of those wages for several months until I could find a job paying enough to live on.

Most people I know are worse for the wear financially and I'm suffering a great deal under debt incurred while un- and under-employed

I guess my sample size cancels out yours and we have to go to the cold, hard data, which means my story is more indicitive of The Big Picture than your happy one.

[pseudobrit]

Great one. I agree that many rich individuals got tax breaks that are astronomical to people like me. However, I work 25 hours a week and go to school full time. After 7 years of this (roughly 50-60 hours a week and six figures of debt) I'll be in that earnings bracket. After all my sacrifice and hard work, I get to give ~45% of my income to Uncle Sam.

Marginal Fed rate ~30%, state 6%, social security 6.2%, city 2.5%, medicare/caid 2%. Yippee, my actual worth got cut in half!!! So if I get a $1000/year raise, I'll get home with about $500. That's going to suck. :eek:

Guess what? You're going to pay about 50% of your income in taxes no matter what.

You think you're being punished for making more because your federal rates go up, but as your federal income taxes go up a percentage, your income goes up also, and therefore flat taxes, fees and regressive taxes (sales tax) go down as a percentage.

For example, I paid over 60% tax on my disposable income when my gross income was less than $20,000 a few years back.

[numediaman]

Two responses to Kuyu:

I just googled to get the Kentucky poll. Other stuff sometimes comes from PollingReports, then I match it up with the polls that may be missing.

Concerning the $1000 you received from the Federal government. The grand might be nice, but because of it you now owe $24,480.16. Yep, that's right.

By throwing the budget into deficit, the Congress and the Bush administration gave every tax payer a huge new credit card bill. For news on the deficit, including everyone's share of it, go to U.S. National Debt Clock (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

[numediaman]

A poll concerning an impossibility:

Poll: Kerry-McCain would easily beat Bush-Cheney

May 28, 2004 *|* WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hypothetical pairing of Democrat John Kerry and Republican Sen. John McCain holds a double-digit lead over the Republican ticket of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, a new poll finds.

Kerry-McCain has a 14-point advantage over Bush-Cheney among registered voters, 53 percent to 39 percent, in the latest CBS News poll. The results were released Thursday.

The lead is nearly double the edge Kerry alone enjoys over Bush.

McCain set off speculation in April when he said he would consider an offer from Kerry, a Senate colleague and fellow Vietnam veteran, to be his running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.

But McCain has said several times since then that he supports Bush's re-election and does not want to be anyone's vice president, although he continues to be talked about as a possible choice for Kerry.

A random sample of 1,113 adults was interviewed by telephone for the CBS News poll, which was conducted May 20-23. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, larger for subgroups.

[Sayhey]

My concern over this rumor is that if Kerry waits too long to announce his running mate, heaven forbid he waits until the convention, the groundswell of speculation about McCain will undermine any other choice. If he really has a McCain pledge to run with him in his back pocket, then fine, otherwise he needs to make his choice known at least a week to two weeks before the convention.

[kuyu]

are you applying the proper formula or are you looking at the highest bracket in which you land?

Good question zim. While the actual formula for computing federal income taxes is based on a stairsteping method where the first $$$ are taxed at X% and the next $$$ are taxed at another, I didn't use that.

My reason is simple. The taxes paid on the first ten thousand dollars of income are irrelevant if I'm not in that bracket anymore. What's important is the "Marginal tax Rate". MTR is the tax I would pay on the next dollar I earn. So, this is the tax rate we pay attention to. IOW, only the marginal tax rate is relevant to decesions regarding investments, savings, and capital budgeting decisions, as the tax on first income is a sunk cost.

[mactastic]

??? I don't get your point. Do you mean that a tax cut is a ploy to convince the financially ignorant to vote for Bush? Or do you mean that giving $1,100 to average Joe is a bad thing?

No, I'm saying that you accuse one side of intellectual dishonesty without looking at what the other side does. Sure the average tax return was $1,100. But look at the standard deviation, or better yet the median return. Are those numbers even close? No. The $1,100 average figure is designed to fool those who don't understand statistics. You said you only see the left playing on the public's ignorance (financially speaking). Do the tax return numbers strike you as doing the same thing, or is it somehow different for you when conservatives do it?

BTW, average Joe did NOT get $1,100.

[IJ Reilly]

I message I get from this article is that most of the country will be more or less ignored in the upcoming campaign in favor of the small pool of undecided voters in swing states.

Campaigns Boiling Down to a Dwindling Swing Vote

As few as 2 million undecided voters in pivotal states could decide the presidency.

Many political analysts say as few as 2 million voters could make the difference in this election — those in the 17 or so most closely contested states who are struggling over whom to back.

"There's a very small pool of voters out there who are up for grabs, and the amount being spent on this election is higher than we've ever spent before," said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute in Hamden, Conn.
...
Here in the graceful suburbs that radiate out from St. Louis, where the trees are in full spring leaf and the 90-90 days of summer heat and humidity lie ahead, it took scores of interviews to find a handful of undecided voters more than five months before the election.

There will always be those such as Cheryl Colonnello, a pregnant pediatric resident who lives in University City, works 80 hours a week, has a toddler, a husband and a dog and barely has time to brush her hair, let alone pay attention to the candidates.

But political experts believe many of the undecided voters are of a different breed. Generally centrist and turned off by what they regard as strident partisanship, they are thinking about the election and "wrestling with their choice," said Tim Hibbitts, an independent pollster in Portland, Ore.
...
Most of the men and women interviewed here were rock solid — albeit not always happy — with the candidate they planned to vote for in November. And many marveled about how anyone could still not know who to pick for president, given the differences between Kerry and Bush.
...
Abbie Carlin, 51, who says she has never voted for a Democrat, can't bring herself to vote for the Republican this year. On opening day of the Clayton farmers market, she shopped for organic produce and rued the violence in Iraq.

Persuaded that deposed dictator Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction that could be turned against the United States, Carlin said, she initially believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Then she was appalled, she said, when Bush declared the war was over, only to see U.S. casualties escalate amid no discoveries of Iraqi nuclear weapons. Now, she says she feels betrayed — by the war, by the way the administration has handled its aftermath, by the Iraqi prisoner scandal. "A huge, horrible mess" is how she described it.
...
"An undecided person in California or New York or South Carolina or Texas doesn't really matter," Ayres said, because Kerry is heavily favored to carry the first two states while Bush is the strong favorite in the latter pair. The only undecideds expected to matter are those in the swing states, "which means maybe 2 or 3 million people," Ayres said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-swings29may29,1,161138.story

[mactastic]

Well at least since I'm in a state that's not in play (as much as the GOP would like to think it is) I don't have to listen to the endless barrage of commercials.

[IJ Reilly]

Well at least since I'm in a state that's not in play (as much as the GOP would like to think it is) I don't have to listen to the endless barrage of commercials.

I suppose this would have to be called the bright side, but it does once again call into question an electoral system that counts states instead of votes. The election is a long way off, but as a California voter I'm already feeling disenfranchised.

[mactastic]

The election is a long way off, but as a California voter I'm already feeling disenfranchised.

Yeah, it sucks in some ways too. Our votes here are taken for granted while all the love goes to the battleground states. Of course part of that is the commercials, but there have been more than a couple legislative items that have benefited those states particularly. Sure would be nice if they had to work for EVERY vote, not just a few million of them in strategic places.

[IJ Reilly]

Not just taken for granted, but as unequal. Short of some sort of political earthquake (which could happen, but is a long-shot), California is going for Kerry, possibly quite heavily. But under our electoral system it doesn't matter whether he wins the state by one vote or two million. That's how Al Gore could get more votes for president than anyone since Ronald Reagan, and still lose.

[takao]

Not just taken for granted, but as unequal. Short of some sort of political earthquake (which could happen, but is a long-shot), California is going for Kerry, possibly quite heavily. But under our electoral system it doesn't matter whether he wins the state by one vote or two million. That's how Al Gore could get more votes for president than anyone since Ronald Reagan, and still lose.

:confused: you mean they don't count all votes together and calculate it in the end ?

you mean in a situation like this:
state 1 = A got 500.000 votes, B got 400.000 votes
state 2 = A got 600.000, B got 500.000
state 3 = A got 200.000 B got 700.000
candidate A would have won because he won in more states than the opponent even if he had 300.000 votes less ? or did i mixed that up ?

[skunk]

:confused: you mean they don't count all votes together and calculate it in the end ?

you mean in a situation like this:
state 1 = A got 500.000 votes, B got 400.000 votes
state 2 = A got 600.000, B got 500.000
state 3 = A got 200.000 B got 700.000
candidate A would have won because he won in more states than the opponent even if he had 300.000 votes less ? or did i mixed that up ?
That's how it happens here, too. It's called the "first past the post" system.

[Neserk]

That's how Al Gore could get more votes for president than anyone since Ronald Reagan, and still lose.

Yes, but he didn't actually lose. Don't forget the Florida debacle.

[IJ Reilly]

For presidential elections, the US is saddled with an unfortunate system known as the Electoral College. Briefly, each state is allocated "electors" equal to the number of representatives that state has in the House, plus two (representing their senatorial delegation). The electors vote for president after the general election balloting. All of the electors in any given state are supposed to vote for the candidate who received a majority (or plurality) of popular votes in that state. This is usually just a formality.

The net effect of the electoral system is that (1) voter's votes in less populous states count more than in more populated states, and (2) only states "in play" receive much attention from the candidates, because it only matters if they win the state, not by how much. Finally, this system makes it possible for a candidate to win in the Electoral College even though they lost the popular vote. This has occurred several times in US history; the 2000 election was just he most recent example.

[Sayhey]

:confused: you mean they don't count all votes together and calculate it in the end ?

you mean in a situation like this:
state 1 = A got 500.000 votes, B got 400.000 votes
state 2 = A got 600.000, B got 500.000
state 3 = A got 200.000 B got 700.000
candidate A would have won because he won in more states than the opponent even if he had 300.000 votes less ? or did i mixed that up ?

Not quite. It is not the number of states that determines the winner, but the number votes cast by the state's electors - not the votes of the average voters - that determines the winner. Each state has a number of electors that is based on Congressional representation. Each state has two Senators and at least one Congressperson, so each state has at least three votes (electors) for President. For this purpose, and this purpose alone, the District of Columbia is considered a state. The range in number of electoral votes is from 3 (Wyoming, South Dakota, etc.) to 55 (California.)

There are 538 total electoral votes, so 270 votes are needed to elect a President. How each state decides how the votes are allocated is left up to the states, but in general the candidate with the most votes cast by ordinary voters gets all of the electoral votes from that state. So if Candidate A wins California by one popular vote he or she gets all of the electoral votes. The exceptions to this are the states of Nebraska and Maine in which the candidate who wins the congressional districts within the state get that districts electoral vote.

This system is totally arcane in its structure and it can lead to a candidate who does not get the most votes by the citizens of the country being elected. The 2000 election was not the only time this has happened. Sorry, for the long winded explanation, but to most people this system makes no sense.

edit: IJ, you beat me to it with a shorter and better explanation.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, but he didn't actually lose. Don't forget the Florida debacle.

Believe me, I haven't forgotten Florida. I just don't think we need to go there for this discussion.

[skunk]

I just don't think we need to go there for this discussion.
I hear the weather's good though....

[Neserk]

I hear the weather's good though....
Nah, its is miserably humid. CA's weather is much better.

[Neserk]

Believe me, I haven't forgotten Florida. I just don't think we need to go there for this discussion.

Okey Dokey :D

[takao]

Sorry, for the long winded explanation, but to most people this system makes no sense.


thx for explanation...that explains why there are only 2 big parties in the american system...

and yeah it makes absolutely no sense to me ...why not counting simply all ordinary votes together and then decide ?

[skunk]

thx for explanation...that explains why there are only 2 big parties in the american system...
Same in the UK.

and yeah it makes absolutely no sense to me ...why not counting simply all ordinary votes together and then decide ?
Not enough room for wheeling and dealing that way. Far too simple.

[Sayhey]

thx for explanation...that explains why there are only 2 big parties in the american system...

and yeah it makes absolutely no sense to me ...why not counting simply all ordinary votes together and then decide ?

That too needs a long explanation. In short, it was system that advantaged the slave-holding states in the early days of the republic and now advantages conservative parties and rural interests. It is very difficult to change the Constitution (two-thirds votes by both Houses of Congress and ratification by 38 State Legislatures) and the conservative forces in this country won't allow it.

[zimv20]

Good question zim. While the actual formula for computing federal income taxes is based on a stairsteping method where the first $$$ are taxed at X% and the next $$$ are taxed at another, I didn't use that.

My reason is simple. The taxes paid on the first ten thousand dollars of income are irrelevant if I'm not in that bracket anymore.
your first X dollars are calculated at the lower rate, regardless of how much above that you make. that's the nature of the graduated rate. i've done an analysis in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=758612#post758612), i'll copy/paste some of that here...


for singles, the fed income rate on the first $7150 is 10%. w/ a standard deduction of $4850, the tax becomes .10*(7150-4850) = $230 = 3.22%

what's poverty level now, $15k? (for arguments sake, let's say so)

tax rate on 7151-29050 is 15%.

so in the case of a single person making $15k, what's their effective federal income tax rate?

$15000 - 4850 = $10150
tax on first $7150 (10%) = $715
tax on remaining $3000 (15%) = $450

total fed income tax = $1165 = 7.76%


a family of four making $50k, filing jointly. here are the rates:
10% $1 - 14,300
15% 14,301 - 58,100
25% 58,101 - 117,250
standard deduction: $9500
each child: $3050
total deductions: $15,600

taxable income = $50k-15.6k = $34,400

$14,300 @ 10% = $1430
$20,100 @15% = $3015

total fed income tax = $4445 = 8.89%


a single person making $1,000,000.

rates:
10% $1 - 7,150
15% 7,151 - 29,050
25% 29,051 - 70,350
28% 70,351 - 146,750
33% 146,751 - 319,100
35% Over 319,100

standard deduction: $4850

taxable income = $1m-4850 = $995,150

$7150 @ 10% = $715
$21899 @15% = $3284.85
$41299 @25% = $10324.75
$76399 @28% = $21391.72
$172,349 @33% = $56875.17
$676,049 @35% = $236617.15

total fed income tax = $328,493.64 = 33%

of course, this lucky person has other things working in his/her favor, such as the FICA tax maxing out under $80k, plus there's probably a host of deductions. and -- they friggin' made a million bucks (well, some $670k) in one year.

[kuyu]

Like the other American posters here, I find the electoral college system to by a bit strange. On the one hand, a guy can get elected even though he received a minority of the popular vote. On the other, the distribution of the "votes" attempts to "level the playing field".

In either case, it's a screwed up system that doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the people. However, it does make it necessary for politicians to visit states besides New York, California and New England (these are the most populated). I guess it gives the 15 people in Montana some say.

Winning the most states doesn't matter, because each is weighted. For instance, Bush won 29 states to Gore's 19. However, Gore received more votes by a few hundred thousand . The states Gore won had a much higher concentration of people in them.

Here are some strange stats that I found.
http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/20951.html

Interesting Statistics: Gore vs. Bush (Scary!)

Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million

Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000

States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29

Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won
by Gore: 13.2
Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won
by Bush: 2.1

Professor Joseph Olson
Hamline University School of Law

[numediaman]

Is that how the election works? I thought it was the first candidate to raise $200 million wins. Guess we'll see.

[blackfox]

Survey of 500 Likely Voters April 25, 2004

Oregon: Kerry 46% Bush 45%

Oregon 2004

Presidential Ballot
Bush 45%
Kerry 46%
Other 6%
Not Sure 4%
RasmussenReports.com
April 26, 2004--Four years ago, Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in Oregon by about 7,000 votes out of more than 1.5 million. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey in Oregon finds that things are just as close today.

John Kerry currently has 46% of the vote in Oregon while George W. Bush has 45%. That single point between them is well within the survey's 4.5 percentage point margin of sampling error.

Adding Ralph Nader to the list has little net impact. With Nader included, both Bush and Kerry attract 43% of the vote while Nader polls at 8%. Without Nader named as an option, 6% of Oregon voters opted for "some other candidate."

Ralph Nader is not included by name in the national Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll. We believe it is inappropriate to include Nader unless he attains ballot status in a substantial number of states.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Oregon voters see Bush as politically conservative while 26% see the President as a political moderate.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of Oregon voters see Kerry as politically liberal, while 41% say moderate.

Regardless of who they will vote for, 49% of Oregon voters think Bush will be re-elected while 32% think Kerry will win.
Sign up for our free Weekly Update

Bush is viewed favorably by 50% of Oregon voters. Kerry is viewed favorably by 48%.

Looks like my state is going to be a wild one, once again...with our huge 7 electoral votes...I find the second-to-last sentence pretty interesting...

As far as Washington (State), another squeaker in 2000, things look a little more cut-and-dry:
What candidate would you vote for in the 2004 U.S. presidential election?

John Kerry (D)


52.5%

George W. Bush (R)


44.4%

Ralph Nader (I)


1.3%

Source: Zogby International / The Wall Street Journal Online
Wahington has 11 electoral votes...giving a west-coast sweep 72 electoral votes (I believe)

[Sayhey]

Looks like my state is going to be a wild one, once again...with our huge 7 electoral votes...I find the second-to-last sentence pretty interesting...

As far as Washington (State), another squeaker in 2000, things look a little more cut-and-dry:

Wahington has 11 electoral votes...giving a west-coast sweep 72 electoral votes (I believe)

Those are seven electoral votes that may be very important for Kerry in November. If the election is tight, there aren't many scenarios that have a Kerry win without Oregon.

[IJ Reilly]

Like the other American posters here, I find the electoral college system to by a bit strange. On the one hand, a guy can get elected even though he received a minority of the popular vote. On the other, the distribution of the "votes" attempts to "level the playing field".

In either case, it's a screwed up system that doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the people. However, it does make it necessary for politicians to visit states besides New York, California and New England (these are the most populated). I guess it gives the 15 people in Montana some say.

Winning the most states doesn't matter, because each is weighted. For instance, Bush won 29 states to Gore's 19. However, Gore received more votes by a few hundred thousand . The states Gore won had a much higher concentration of people in them.

Winning electoral votes, not states, is what matters. I don't see how this system "levels the playing field," when it inherently favors individual voters in smaller states over larger states. The electoral system is an artifact of the Founder's lack of confidence in direct democracy, and their concerns that a president could be elected with a small plurality.

[kuyu]

Winning electoral votes, not states, is what matters. I don't see how this system "levels the playing field," when it inherently favors individual voters in smaller states over larger states. The electoral system is an artifact of the Founder's lack of confidence in direct democracy, and their concerns that a president could be elected with a small plurality.

I agree with you, I only meant to say that the EC gives the few in the smaller states some political exposure. Thus, the EC gives candidates a reason to visit the smaller less populated states, or "levels the playing field". I mean that in the sense that the EC tries to involve us 'ignorant country folk' in the process. We have views and ideas here that differ from people in NYC, LA, Houston, etc. It helps us out, while hindering people in populated states. Hardly a perfect system.

I am by no means a fan of the EC. I tried to mention the pro's and con's for our friends in other counrties, that's all. I don't have a decisive answer to the election problem, as I see every option possesses some shortcomings. But, we'll probably keep the EC for heritage if for no other reason.

[IJ Reilly]

We'll keep the electoral system because it's in the Constitution, and it would be impossible to remove it, if only because it gives disproportionate representation to voters in a sufficient number of states that it would never been amended out. The only other thing I'd like to make clear here is that voters vote, not states.

[numediaman]

Lee poll shows state still favors President Bush

By ALLISON FARRELL Missoulian State Bureau

HELENA - Montana voters' support for President Bush's war policy has dropped slightly over the past six months, but the Republican president still holds a large lead in his bid for re-election in the state, a new Lee Newspapers poll shows.

If the election were held today, 53 percent of Montana voters said they would vote for Bush, while 33 percent said they'd cast their vote for presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

While 8 percent reported that they were undecided, independent candidate Ralph Nader garnered support from 6 percent of those polled.

Four years ago, Bush defeated Vice President Al Gore in Montana by a 58 percent to 33 percent margin, with Nader getting 6 percent and others 2 percent.


Well, there goes 3 electoral votes to Bush. Bush only 267 more to be re-elected.

[Sayhey]

I agree with you, I only meant to say that the EC gives the few in the smaller states some political exposure. Thus, the EC gives candidates a reason to visit the smaller less populated states, or "levels the playing field". I mean that in the sense that the EC tries to involve us 'ignorant country folk' in the process. We have views and ideas here that differ from people in NYC, LA, Houston, etc. It helps us out, while hindering people in populated states. Hardly a perfect system.


There are many other ways to make sure campaigns pay attention to rural states. For instance, we could make it a condition for receiving federal matching funds that candidates campaign in each state. The real reason for keeping the EC is that it benefits the conservatives politically by magnifying their influence in politics.

There is no moral reason that my vote in California should count less than a vote in Wyoming. The only way this outrage gets changed is by a popular grass-roots campaign that demands that a change takes place. I would have hoped that the 2000 debacle would have sparked such a development, but it did not. We have shown that we will accept a President that did not receive the most votes of the people and we have accepted a lessening of Democracy by doing so.

[IJ Reilly]

There is no moral reason that my vote in California should count less than a vote in Wyoming. The only way this outrage gets changed is by a popular grass-roots campaign that demands that a change takes place. I would have hoped that the 2000 debacle would have sparked such a development, but it did not. We have shown that we will accept a President that did not receive the most votes of the people and we have accepted a lessening of Democracy by doing so.

I agree with your first premise, but less so with the last. First the agreement: I came to the same conclusion about electoral reform. If it wasn't demanded as a result of the 2000 election, then it wasn't going to happen at all. As for accepting a president who wasn't elected by even a plurality of voters, I suppose I take solace in knowing that the country didn't come apart at the seams as a result; that the system is sufficiently robust that even the level of shenanigans we endured in 2000 did not precipitate a Constitutional crisis. It's cold comfort, I know, but I suppose I'll take it over no comfort at all.

[Sayhey]

I agree with your first premise, but less so with the last. First the agreement: I came to the same conclusion about electoral reform. If it wasn't demanded as a result of the 2000 election, then it wasn't going to happen at all. As for accepting a president who wasn't elected by even a plurality of voters, I suppose I take solace in knowing that the country didn't come apart at the seams as a result; that the system is sufficiently robust that even the level of shenanigans we endured in 2000 did not precipitate a Constitutional crisis. It's cold comfort, I know, but I suppose I'll take it over no comfort at all.

IJ, I can understand that you take comfort in the rule of law in the 2000 election crises. I would not have wanted to see Bush denied the Presidency by extra-legal means. However, I don't think that we followed legal procedure means that democracy was not harmed. There is a presumption that we have a representative democracy and what happened in 2000 shows that it is not always so.

My concern is that there is an obvious need for democratic reforms, including the elimination of the Electoral College, and other than superficial moves like McCain-Feingold there is little if no movement toward it. In fact, with the huge sums of money being spent in this election cycle we are moving away from democratic control of our government.

I guess what I'm saying is that, although I believe that this election is a ABB case, what we really have to be about is bringing about structural reforms that fundamentally change the way we do politics. I would point to the Progressive movement of 100 years ago as an example of what could be done. Assuming we do get Bush out in November, it is time to push a movement to bring about those kinds of changes. That won't come from the leadership of either of the two main parties, although it could be forced to the top of the agenda in spite of them. By that I don't mean necessarily through the creation of a new party.

I guess I'm just angry that I see my country slipping away from most of us to a degree I never thought I'd see. I've been involved in politics long enough to know things rarely change over night, but some fundamental changes of direction must happen soon. Enough of my soapbox speeches.

[IJ Reilly]

If anything was harmed -- or put to rest, more like -- it was the general public's mistaken impression that they actually elect the president. I'm not sure if I'd call that discovery good or bad for the cause of democracy and good government, because it's true. Unfortunate, but true.

Amending the Constitution to remove the electoral system is well neigh impossible, I think. I'd be satisfied with a more standardized method of balloting. But to be honest, I don't suppose that will happen, either.

[numediaman]

CHICAGO TRIBUNE/WGN-TV POLL

State voter support for Bush dives

By Rick Pearson
Tribune political reporter

May 30, 2004

For the first time in his presidency, a majority of Illinois voters now hold an unfavorable opinion of President Bush and also disapprove of his performance in the White House, particularly his handling of the occupation of Iraq and an economy that many believe continues to lag, a new Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows.

Yet, even though the survey shows presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry continuing to hold a solid lead over Bush in Illinois, the Massachusetts senator's support appears to have leveled out despite the continued decline in the Republican president's ratings on key issues.

Still, the poll of 600 likely registered voters, conducted May 21-24, shows Kerry with a commanding 16 percentage-point lead over Bush in a head-to-head November matchup--54 percent to 38 percent. And even if independent Ralph Nader were to qualify for the Illinois ballot, Kerry maintains a 16 percentage-point lead over Bush--53 percent to 37 percent. Nader receives only 4 percent.

The poll showed 52 percent of Illinois voters now say they have an unfavorable opinion of Bush compared with only 37 percent who look upon him favorably. In addition, 55 percent say they disapprove of the way he is handling the presidency.

While Illinois has trended Democratic and Bush lost the state by a dozen percentage points in the 2000 presidential contest, a similar poll taken just five months ago showed 51 percent of Illinois voters held a favorable attitude toward Bush while 40 percent disapproved. Back then, 49 percent of Illinois voters approved of the job Bush was doing as president while 42 percent did not.

Since that time, however, Bush has been buffeted by a string of bad news including increasing violence in Iraq that has led to more American military deaths; continued questions about the quality of intelligence used to underpin his argument for invading the country; and allegations of abuse against Iraqi prisoners detained by U.S. soldiers.


It must pain the Tribune Company to have to report that their man is losing so badly in Illinois. The Trib has loved this administration for their pro-media consolidation policies. They would not be very happy to see someone in the WH that is against media monopolies.

[numediaman]

The last two polls in Ohio are diametrically opposed:

Bush leads Kerry in new Ohio presidential poll

CLEVELAND (AP) — President Bush leads Democratic rival John Kerry in the key swing state of Ohio in a three-way matchup that includes independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, a new poll shows.

Republican Bush was at 47%, followed by Kerry at 41% and Nader at 3% among registered voters surveyed by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research for The Plain Dealer. Results were released late Saturday.

Nine percent of voters were undecided.

Bush's lead came although about half in the poll expressed disapproval of his handling of the economy, found to be the No. 1 issue among Ohio voters. The state is one of several in the region to lose manufacturing jobs under Bush, while Kerry has made the jobs issue central to his White House campaign.

These latest results come two weeks after an American Research Group poll of 600 likely voters found Kerry had edged ahead of Bush in the state, 49% to 42%, with Nader at 2%.

[numediaman]

From the Rasmussen Report:

Ohio: Bush 46% Kerry 44%
June 2, 2004--In Ohio, the latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds President George W. Bush with 46% of the vote to 44% for Senator John F. Kerry. In Election 2000, Bush won Ohio by a margin of 50% to 46% over Al Gore.


Georgia: Bush 51% Kerry 39%
June 3, 2004--In Georgia, the latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds President George W. Bush leading Senator John F. Kerry 51% to 39%.


Illinois: Kerry 54% Bush 38%
June 3, 2004--In Illinois, the latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds Senator John F. Kerry leading President George W. Bush 54% to 38%.


California: Kerry 49% Bush 41%
June 2, 2004--In California, the latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds Senator John F. Kerry with an 8-point lead over President George W. Bush, 49% to 41%. In Election 2000, Bush lost California to Al Gore by 11 points.


Texas: Bush 55% Kerry 38%
June 2, 2004--No surprises in President Bush's home state of Texas.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Texas voters finds President George W. Bush leading Senator John F. Kerry 55% to 38%. That lead is very similar to the actual results of Election 2000 when Bush won his home state 59% to 38%.

Sixty percent (60%) of Texans Approve of the way Bush is performing his job as President. Just 39% disapprove.


New York: Kerry 57% Bush 34%
June 2, 2004--George W. Bush will be in New York to accept his party's nomination, but he won't be counting on the state's Electoral Votes this November.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of New York voters finds Senator John F. Kerry leading President George W. 57% to 34%. The poll's 23-point spread is close to the 25 percentage point victory for Al Gore over Bush in Election 2000.

Disclosure: I think the Rasmussen Report is the least reliable polling service out there. I have been following these guys for at least two months and I swear they make up their numbers. Nonetheless, here are the numbers for your enjoyment.

[numediaman]

Wow, Bush even loses the tax issue -- that's pretty hard to do for a Republican.

[IJ Reilly]

Wow, Bush even loses the tax issue -- that's pretty hard to do for a Republican.

It takes real effort.

Frankly, I'm surprised he's still doing relatively well on the "war on terrorism" question. We'll have to see if he slips after Kerry starts making his policy on terrorism more clear (assuming the press covers the speeches, of course).

[zimv20]

i cannot imagine what factors people are considering when responding to 'moral values'

[numediaman]

Latest numbers:

The Gallup Poll.

"If Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: John Kerry, the Democrat, or George W. Bush, the Republican?" If undecided: "As of today, do you lean more toward John Kerry, the Democrat, or Bush, the Republican?" Names rotated

6/3-6/04
George W. Bush - 44%
John Kerry - 50%

5/21-23/04
George W. Bush - 47%
John Kerry - 49%


Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll conducted TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence.

"If the 2004 election for United States president were held today and the following were candidates, for whom would you vote? Would you say Democrat John Kerry or Republican George W. Bush?" Names rotated

6/1-6/04
George W. Bush - 45%
John Kerry - 44%
Not Sure - 12%

5/12-18/04
George W. Bush - 42%
John Kerry - 43%
Not Sure - 16%

[IJ Reilly]

Los Angeles Times Poll

Voters Shift in Favor of Kerry

Unhappiness with Bush and the nation's path exceeds doubt about the senator, a survey shows. But in swing states the balance is more tenuous.

By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

June 10, 2004

WASHINGTON — Widespread unease over the country's direction and doubts about President Bush's policies on Iraq and the economy helped propel Sen. John F. Kerry to a solid lead among voters nationwide, according to a new Times poll.

Yet in a measure of the race's tenuous balance, Times polling in three of the most fiercely contested states found that Bush had a clear advantage over Kerry in Missouri and is even with the presumed Democratic rival in Ohio and Wisconsin.

The surveys suggest that attitudes may be coalescing for a contest that pivots on the classic electoral question at times of discontent: Will voters see more risk in stability or change?

More than one-third of those questioned in the nationwide poll said they didn't know enough about Kerry to decide whether he would be a better president than Bush. And when asked which candidate was more likely to flip-flop on issues, almost twice as many named Kerry than Bush.

Yet Kerry led Bush by 51% to 44% nationally in a two-way matchup, and by 48% to 42% in a three-way race, with independent Ralph Nader drawing 4%.
...

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll10jun10,1,1874410.story

[numediaman]

Great post IJ.

Here is latest New Hampshire numbers:

American Research Group. MoE 4%. (4/1 results).
Kerry 46 (43)
Bush 46 (48)
Nader 2 (3)
Undecided 6 (6)

The crazy thing about this race is just how close so many states are. Kerry is right there in Ohio -- but Bush is tied in Wisconsin. Bush has just as much a chance to win the close states that Gore won in 2000, and Kerry has just as much a chance to win the close states Bush won in 2000.

[mactastic]

So it looks like even if Bush does win, once again he will squeek into office with less votes than the Democrat. Great system we have here, when the candidate who gets the most votes is not the one elected. Of course the GOP would never want to give up the system that gives voters in 'red' states more power than those in 'blue' states....

[Sayhey]

All of these numbers are great for Kerry. What must be born in mind is that for many their views of Kerry are not yet formed. That traditionally happens for the challenger as he emerges from the convention and participates in the debates as an equal with the incumbent. These numbers reflect a serious erosion of support for Bush and a consolidation of the view that the direction he is taking us is wrong. While Bush may get some bump from the Reagan funeral (not yet, but a lot is riding on his funeral oration), it is likely to be temporary. The real pro-Kerry numbers will begin to solidify a week or so after his convention speech.

Of course, every Kerry supporter must also be aware of the power of an incumbent President to set the agenda of events (beware the October surprise) in the the run-up to November. With this crowd in power, I think we can count on whatever manipulation they think they can get away with.

[IJ Reilly]

So it looks like even if Bush does win, once again he will squeek into office with less votes than the Democrat.

Now, that's a truly frightening prospect. Not just a Bush second term (though that's scary enough on its own merits), but his making it again without a popular plurality. Personally, I think that's about as likely as lightening striking twice, but it could happen -- and if it does, I suspect the political trapdoors open and the country could be in for serious turmoil. Let's just hope and pray we don't see this scenario unfold.

[zimv20]

Now, that's a truly frightening prospect. Not just a Bush second term (though that's scary enough on its own merits), but his making it again without a popular plurality. Personally, I think that's about as likely as lightening striking twice, but it could happen
i'm sure bush would interpret it as a divine mandate. and, as i said before, he'll nuke something.

[mactastic]

Found this little tidbit (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top12jun15,1,985704.story) regarding Iraqi's feelings toward us.

A poll of Iraqis commissioned by the U.S.-governing authority has provided the Bush administration a stark picture of anti-American sentiment -- more than half of Iraqis believe they would be safer if U.S. troops simply left.

The poll, commissioned by the Coalition Provisional Authority last month but not released to the American public, also found radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is surging in popularity, 92 percent of Iraqis consider the United States an occupying force and more than half believe all Americans behave like those portrayed in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos.

The poll, conducted by Iraqis in face-to-face interviews in six cities with people representative of the country's various factions, conflict with the generally upbeat assessments the administration continues to give Americans. Just last week, President Bush predicted future generations of Iraqis "will come to America and say, thank goodness America stood the line and was strong and did not falter in the face of the violence of a few."

The current generation seems eager for Americans to leave, the poll found.

The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 percent, down from 47 percent in November, while coalition forces had just 10 percent support. Nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighborhoods.

And 55 percent of Iraqis reported to the pollsters they would feel safer if U.S. troops immediately left, nearly double the 28 percent who felt that way in January. Forty-one percent said Americans should leave immediately, and 45 percent said they preferred for U.S. forces to leave as soon as a permanent Iraqi govermnment is installed.


Wonder why the conservative media isn't reporting this story?

[numediaman]

Wonder why the conservative media isn't reporting this story?

Here are a couple of the original slides from the report.

The pie chart is extremely hard to read. It states that 82% of Iraqis view us as occupiers -- 2% as liberators.

(Because these are GIFs, some browsers will show them with black backgrounds. Just click on the link to see a larger, better version.)

[numediaman]

The Philadelphia Daily News today endorsed John Kerry for President. I don't remember an endorsement this early -- but they explain their reasons.

KERRY FOR PREZ: WHY HIM, WHY NOW
AND HOW TO PUT HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE

LAST WEEK, the nation looked to the past with the death of President Ronald Reagan.

This week, the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, suspended out of respect to the deceased 40th president, start fresh.

In that spirit, this newspaper, the first in the nation, endorses John Kerry for president. Unlike the current White House occupant, Kerry can lead America to a brighter, better future. He has shown the personal courage, compassion, intellect and skill to lead this country in a time of war abroad and economic troubles at home. He is a serious man for a serious time.

Why make this endorsement now, when the election is months away?

Because this race promises to be close and Pennsylvania is one of 18 swing states that can go to either candidate. For Kerry supporters to prevail they must do more than just vote, they must bring a ringer into this contest: the more than a million people in the region who did not vote in the last presidential election. We believe these non-voters - who will have to be mobilized over the next few months - are the key to victory.

On the next page, we outline a strategy to make sure Pennsylvania lands in the Kerry win column. We will further make the case for Kerry in future editorials . . .

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/8933725.htm?1c

The Philly DN is a Knight-Ridder paper. They tend to be less conservative than Gannett and Murdoch papers (actually, practically everyone is less conservative than Murdoch).

Knight-Ridder has been in the journalism dog house for a number of years for the drastic cost cutting espoused by his CEO Tony Ridder. But the Knight-Ridder crew have done a very job covering the Iraq war and were among the first chains to start to question Bush's actions in Iraq.

Don't look for this to be a trend among K-R papers, as every paper in the chain will make its own endorsement. K-R owns important papers in Miami, San Jose and Detroit (as well as other cities).

[mactastic]

Are you saying the San Luis Obispo Tribune isn't an important paper? :p

[Sayhey]

This is interesting.

Bush lead slips from past
Poll shows a tighter race if Kerry picks Edwards

By AMY GARDNER, Staff Writer

If North Carolina elected a president today, President Bush would win -- but not nearly by the margin this Republican-friendly state handed him four years ago, according to a new statewide poll.

In the poll, 47 percent of likely voters chose Bush, a Republican, while 42 percent selected Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat.

The divide would narrow further if Kerry selects Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, according to the survey, conducted June 13-16 for a partnership of The News & Observer, WRAL-TV and WUNC radio.

"Kerry doesn't have to win North Carolina to win the presidency. Everybody knows that. Bush knows that," said Del Ali of Research 2000, the Maryland polling firm that conducted the survey. "But by taking Edwards on the ticket, it really does force Bush to spend time in an area that, frankly, he can't afford to spend time in."


newobserver (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1358875p-7482121c.html)

While Bush still leads, the tightening of the race in North Carolina is very dangerous for Bush. Put simply, he doesn't stand a chance if he can't count on states like this. Even if it stays in this range, does it mean Bush has to start putting money into this state.

[takao]

i found this nice poll today on the homepage of an austrian news paper:
it was a poll about the "austrian attitude towards the USA"
http://derstandard.at/?id=1705291
(in german)
i will try translate the numbers:
http://images.derstandard.at/20040623/skep.jpg
how has your opionion/attitude towards/about the USA changed
light blue - stayed the same
dark blue - improved
red - decreased/got worse

from the article:
78% of all question persons followed the news about prison abuse closly
55% of all talked with relatives about the prison abuse scandal

27% believe these abuses were single cases ("few bad apples")
37% said that "turtore is somehow typical for americans and their behaviour against their enemies" (ouch)
56% of all questioned persons answered that those abuses are war crimes and should be punished
11% had the opposite opinion (the rest had no opinion)
31% see the american way of life/the USA somehow as an "idol" (transation is not fitting correct) 2003 the number was 37%
57% see no idol at all in the USA (2003: 53%)

i know perhaps that doesn't fit really in that thread but i don't want to start a seperate thread about it

[Voltron]

So is what I just heard on tv true, that Bush now has a 7% lead over Kerry? That polling place doesn't seem to cover that particular poll?http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/smoking.gif

Found it http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html But I understand it is just Fox poll that he won by 7% *shrug*

[Sayhey]

SurveyUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html) has a couple of new polls out for some battleground states and they are very interesting.

Missouri - 7/9

Bush - 48%
Kerry - 46%
other/undecided - 6%
(MOE - 3.6%, 755 likely voters)

Virginia - 7/9

Bush - 50%
Kerry - 45%
other/undecided - 5%
(MOE - 3.8%, 686 likely voters)

Both were conducted after the Edwards nomination and maybe reflect a temporary bounce, but it puts two states that Bush must win into the competitive category. Missouri is a toss up and Virginia is almost unimaginable as a loss for Bush - or at least it has been.

A little older Michigan poll (conducted 6/28 - 6/30) shows Kerry with a 10 pts lead before Edwards is added to the ticket in a state most think he will help bring independents to the Democrats. All in all, good news for Kerry/Edwards.

[Don't panic]

SurveyUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html) has a couple of new polls out for some battleground states and they are very interesting.
...

All in all, good news for Kerry/Edwards.

i don't know, in the same poll California is up for grabs (46 -45).
If kerry doesn't win CA, it's all over.

[Sayhey]

i don't know, in the same poll California is up for grabs (46 -45).
If kerry doesn't win CA, it's all over.

That's a poll from May. You maybe right that SurveyUSA might have some problems with its polls, no one else has ever had California close, but I thought I'd throw these new ones in the pot.

[Flex]

How come suddenly everyone is ignoring AP's poll? And yes I checked the date = July 8th.

WASHINGTON - President Bush has opened a slight lead over John Kerry while regaining the confidence of some voters on the economy and other domestic issues, according to an Associated Press poll with a silver lining for Democrats.

The addition of Sen. John Edwards to Kerry's ticket appears to have helped the Democrat in the South and among low-income voters - a result the Massachusetts senator had hoped for when he selected the North Carolina populist over more seasoned politicians.

"I'm more impressed with Kerry now that he chose Edwards," said Republican voter Robin Smith, 45, a teacher from Summerville, S.C. "I look at Kerry and I don't trust him, but he's got Edwards, who's more middle-of-the-road, a strong speaker, more able to reach the common man."

The AP-Ipsos poll found Bush leading Kerry just outside the margin of error, with the president's support at 49 percent, Kerry at 45 percent and independent candidate Ralph Nader at 3 percent. The Bush-Kerry matchup was tied a month ago, when Nader had 6 percent.

The three-day survey began Monday, the day before Kerry tapped Edwards as his running mate, and asked registered voters about the newly minted ticket on Tuesday and Wednesday. Half supported the Republican tandem of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney while 46 percent backed the Kerry-Edwards ticket, just within the question's margin of error.

Voters said they were feeling better about the economy and no worse about Iraq, a sign that Bush may be regaining his political footing just as Democrats make a high-profile push toward their nominating convention in late July.

"I want Bush in there, because the other guy is like sending a boy to do a man's job," said Glenn Foldessy, 45, of Streetsboro, Ohio, outside Cleveland. Foldessy, who usually votes Republican, said Edwards made the Democratic ticket stronger, but not strong enough.

"We have somebody now who's established and has things on track and if we destabilize this government during the war on terror, that's playing right into the hands of the terrorists," he said.

Troubling signs for the incumbent remain, however, from the number of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track (56 percent) to his anemic, but improving, job approval numbers. Bush's overall approval rating hit 50 percent for the first time since January, according to the poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

A month ago, the poll showed a hypothetical Kerry-Edwards ticket at 47 percent and Bush-Cheney at 44 percent, essentially a tie.

Since June, Kerry has increased his percentage of strong supporters, a sign that he has rallied his base. He also slightly strengthened his support in the South and among voters with incomes from $25,000 to $50,000, the AP-Ipsos poll found.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37248-2004Jul8?language=printer

[Sayhey]

I posted this link in another thread and it should go here as well. This site has the latest national polls. It includes the AP poll Sly/Flex/Voltron was talking about and about 15 others. I think 12 or 13 have Kerry ahead and 3 have Bush ahead (you can always count on Fox's polling to put Bush ahead.) Of course these are nationwide horse race figures and the polls of real interest are in the individual states. Unfortunately, those are not available from this site (at least without paying for them.)

Polling Report (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm)