CDRLabs.com

A CNN/Gallup poll showed the perceived winner of the 2nd debate
as Kerry by a statistically insignificant margin 47% to 45%.

However, cnn.com's poll shows a whopping 75% to 22% edge for Kerry (with the remaining 3% saying their performances were even).
There were over 500,000 votes, so it isn't that only 50 or 100 people responded.

The difference between the two polls is massive.
Is there possibly a concerted effort by one or more online groups to vote multiple times?
I read or heard somewhere that groups were reaching out to democratic voters after the 1st poll to do something to that effect.
Or are democratics voters more likely to vote in the cnn.com online polls for some odd reason?

I must say Bush came across MUCH better than in the 1st debate.
Kerry didn't let up though.

It will be an interesting election.
It will probably come down to one state again, in terms of electoral votes which are the ones that count.

It'd be interesting if Democrats were trying to rig polls like this. Surely if one side or the other thinks they're going to win comfortably (as a result of these polls) that side are more likely to stay at home come the real election, thereby damaging their own vote?

cnn.com is just a poll that anyone can enter-- and it's well known the people at democraticunderground.com (?) are flooding the online polls.

Don't take any of the online polls seriously -- either way.

Easy anwser. CNN.com polls are not scientific at all, the CNN/Gallup poll is.

Anyone who would change their vote by who "won" the debate through a poll of any sort without seeing it themselves is a dumbass and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Four more years of Bushie 2 would ruin this country; we are in bad shape now , and Bush has put a heavy burden on future generations!

aviationwiz wrote:Easy anwser. CNN.com polls are not scientific at all, the CNN/Gallup poll is.

Anyone who would change their vote by who "won" the debate through a poll of any sort without seeing it themselves is a dumbass and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Problem is any political party relies on stupid people to win elections. Sad but true.

jase wrote:It'd be interesting if Democrats were trying to rig polls like this. Surely if one side or the other thinks they're going to win comfortably (as a result of these polls) that side are more likely to stay at home come the real election, thereby damaging their own vote?

I was thinking the exact same thing; which may imply that republican voters are being smarter by staying out of the polls, giving democrats
a greater sense of security than they really ought to have.

Regarding rigging, the article I read was more about just getting as many democrats to vote in the polls as possible; for example johnkerry.com suggests participating in as many polls as possible at the major new sites (cnn, abc, cbs, msn etc. etc.)
However, my other thought was indeed that some people could be trying to vote multiple times, although I tend to doubt it.

steelly wrote:Four more years of Bushie 2 would ruin this country; we are in bad shape now , and Bush has put a heavy burden on future generations!

So if Bush wins again, will you move out of the country or pull a Alec Baldwin (who threatened to leave the country if Bush won in 2000 and didn't leave)? Whiny morons...

who cares what things say today? polls flip flop as it is. I don't think any of those debates made anyone undecied mind up.

Honestly I found the last one to be VERY boring! A lot of the same old same old.

Anyways lets put it this way

If Bush wins then big bussiness will win. They will have money to start giving those people who lost their job or people who are too stupid to keep a job to get another chance

If we get Kerry on we get someone who is going just give congress & the senate some long winded plan which is going upset a bunch of peope and come 2008 people would be complain about how he was bad at this and that

Either way, the Feds do not impact my life enough to make me think either man is going do something great for me one way or the other.

Boba_Fett wrote:

steelly wrote:Four more years of Bushie 2 would ruin this country; we are in bad shape now , and Bush has put a heavy burden on future generations!

So if Bush wins again, will you move out of the country or pull a Alec Baldwin (who threatened to leave the country if Bush won in 2000 and didn't leave)? Whiny morons...

Don't forget Ian is going to Move to Iraq if Bush wins.

If Bush wins then big bussiness will win. They will have money to start giving those people who lost their job or people who are too stupid to keep a job to get another chance

Hmmm. Sounds a little naive to me that does.

I've never particularly believed in the trickle-down effect. Companies don't "give" money to anyone, and their only loyalty is to shareholders. If they can find a way to get rid of staff *and* give less money in taxes, that's exactly what they'll do. Cut-throat competition and a bit of (light) leftie intervention by government is the only way to throw money in our direction IMHO.

MonteLDS wrote:If Bush wins then big bussiness will win. They will have money to start giving those people who lost their job or people who are too stupid to keep a job to get another chance

that is a particularly silly statement.

i agree with jase.

I was thinking the exact same thing; which may imply that republican voters are being smarter by staying out of the polls, giving democrats
a greater sense of security than they really ought to have.

Yup, it's pretty much what happened in the 1992 UK Elections, when Labour's (equivalent to Democrats) Neil Kinnock was 3-7% ahead in almost every poll, yet on the day hundreds of thousands of Conservative (Republican in effect) voters came out of the woodwork, handing the incumbent John Major victory by a fair margin, against the odds.

And so it came to be.

The country became so convinced that Kerry was going to win, that the religious Right came out in their droves, handing Bush victory (bear in mind that more voted for "liberal" Kerry than Reagan, but an absolutely huge number voted for Bush).

Very similar to UK '92, and I had a feeling it might happen....

My take on things anyway.

The country became so convinced that Kerry was going to win, that the religious Right came out in their droves, handing Bush victory (bear in mind that more voted for "liberal" Kerry than Reagan, but an absolutely huge number voted for Bush).

That's a superficial snapshot of the voiced opinions of those who either don't know the reality or can't face up to it. The reality is far uglier than any liberal Democrat will deal with because it means that they will have to cede their control the party in order for the party.

When JFF I was elected in 1960 the southern states were totally d
Democrat and voted such. Since then, there has not been a candidate from the north or east that has won: Humphrey, Mondale, McGovern, Dutaxus and now JFK II (liberals all). The south is totally now totally Republican and other former Democrat states such as Iowa, Ohio and New Mexico have shifted with the Democrat edge in others like Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota is fading. Since JFK I, all Presidents have come from the south or southern California: Johnson, Bush I and Bush II, Texas; Reagan and Nixon, So. Cal.; Clinton; Arkansas; Carter, Georgia.

Uglier yet, since JFK, all first time (excludes LBJ running as an incumbent) elected candidates have been state Governors, not Senators. Well, what is the signifance of that? Bye-bye Billary, an ultra-liberal New York Senator. If the ultra-liberals don't cede control of the party and try to run her next time bye, you haven't seen defeat yet.

So what is the only hope for a Democratic president? Choose a governor who is a moderate Democrat from a non-northern or non-northeastern state as a candidate or president. Problem is, there aren't any of those left.

Well, lads, that's just the reality of it without any twist or spin.

Slim
Who doesn't watch the yappers on CNN; he just reads from history.

oh my god I had serioulsy 8 paragraphs typed up and then it just disappeared for no reason at all. Wow, I don't feel like typing it all up again so summary:

1) FDR lost the dem entitlement to the south with in fighting about the new deal. This set up the southern vote for the party of lincoln from then on.
2) Chrisitian coalition hijacked the republican party about 20 something years ago. Since then, dems have lost 18 of their 22 southern seats.
3) In response to both losing power (senate/house) and gaining power (white house, senate/house), the dems went progressively more liberal. Eventually lost all three as a result of American no longer identifying.
4) Kerry had a campaign failure. 70% of people voting for Kerry were actually voting against Bush. Kerry never identified who he was. There were a lot of votes out there who only voted for the person they knew even if they didn't like him. Kerry was a stuffed shirt.
5) Bush took majority of voters with high school education through college grads. Kerry took majority with no high school and post grad. Not surprising considering that amounts to low income/state supported and the world of academia which is notoriously unchallenged liberal ideals.
6) Kerry took 85% of liberal voters and 55% of the independent vote. Bush took 87% of the conservative vote. Translation: more conservative voters this time around. That's a new thing. Traditionally voters are more liberal than conservative.
7) The Kerry supporters (more appropriately Bush detractors) constantly calling Bush supporters "stupid" creates a more divisive rift than Bush ever could. That will be a rift between citizens, not one between citizens and officials. It also is contrary to facts.
Democratic party needs drastic change or they will be relegated to regional and local representation. Unfortunately, they are already talking of making the same mistake they've been making. They are talking of going more liberal. This will seal the Democratic party's fate. Only votes this way that can still be gotten are Green Party and Socialist Party votes and there are not many of them to get.