Possible election postponement

[cevik]

*shrug* When you factor in the margin of error on that CNN poll, Bush is in a dead heat with Kerry. To think that he's going to pull even a 10% swing before November is a stretch.

Never base your assesment off of one poll, Kerry looks to be taking a nice lead, and the DNC hasn't happened yet nor have the Americans been booed at the Olympic Games in Greece, Bush will take a hit in the polls from both events.

Most of these polls happened before the Veep pick:

NBC (MoE 5.0%) Kerry 54% Bush 43%
Newsweek (MoE 5.0%) Kerry 51% Bush 45%
Time (MoE 3.5%) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
ARG (MoE 3.5%) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
CBS (MoE 5.0%) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
Zogby (MoE 3.1%) Kerry 46% Bush 44%

As I said, most are before the Edwards pick.  If you were seeing a dead even race, some of those polls would be on the Bush side of the coin, but instead all of them are breaking for Kerry.  Before the veep pick and before the DNC we're already seeing a couple of point lead for Kerry.  Historically, those who identify themselves as "undecided" break extremely heavily in favor of the challenger in a challenger/incumbant race.  It's not too far out in left field to think that Kerry will have a 10 point lead in the last week of the race when the undecides decide to evict Bush.

For historical reference, the Carter/Reagan election polled almost identical to this election.  The race was a statistical dead heat until the very end, when Reagan pulled off a 9 point win in the polls, and that race had a third party candidate that pulled 6 points, this race will have no such third party candidate (Nader who is so far only on one state ballot, will be lucky to pull in 2 points at the poll and I'd bet he ends up lower since he's running around 80%+ unfavorables right now)..

[daveNYC]

The only poll on that list that isn't a statistical tie is NBC's.

[Anonymous]

Awww, isn't Arc cute?  Sorry, Arc.  You lost all credibility, what was it now... about 3 years ago?  My how time flies.

Certainly if Al Qaeda attacks in late Oct, it may well happen more anti-Bush voters will actually vote in Nov.  The key to winning elections now is simply stirring enough voters to actually take time out of their day to vote for you.  Another attack on American soil, after all the time, money, and goodwill Bush and co have flushed down the toilet by following the neocon agenda of GIT IRAQ has done little to nothing to secure America from future attacks.  If Kerry would come forward with a clear plan on how to better deal with terrorism, he'd score major points against an administration seen as very weak in finding ways to combat terrorism.

The preparations seem to be looking to find a way to delay elections, in the event of an attack along the lines of the one that may have altered the recent election in Spain, whereas the conservatives here are talking about attacks on the day of elections.  Two different beasts, wouldn't you say?  Obviously, if an attack occurs in Florida on voting day, the voting would need to be rescheduled.  I don't think there's any need to reschedule the election if an attack occurs three or seven days before the election.  Doing so, in my opinion, favors the conservatives, as they now can control the timing of the election.

Having read up on the history of Karl Rove, I put nothing past this man.

[ArtificialKid]

The sky shockingly remains unfallen:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040713/D83PU9TO1.html

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

[cevik]

The only poll on that list that isn't a statistical tie is NBS's.

But if they were true ties we'd see about half of them break for Bush the other half for Kerry, instead we see all of them "tied" on the Kerry side of things, it's pretty indicative of a 2-3 point Kerry lead at this time (i.e. a lead but it's within the MoE of all the polls so it looks like a tie.  This is almost exactly how polling looks when there is a lead within the MoE of the polls).  It may be "too close to call" right now, but predicting that the tides will turn into around a 10 point lead for Kerry in the final weeks of the election (if we stay on the current course) isn't much of a stretch at all.  Especially when you consider the undecideds will most likely break for the challenger.

Like I said, assuming my vicodin and alcohol addiction hasn't finally killed me by November, I'll bump this thread and you can either tell me how horribly wrong, or how insidiously right I am.

[daveNYC]

The only poll on that list that isn't a statistical tie is NBS's.

But if they were true ties we'd see about half of them break for Bush the other half for Kerry, instead we see all of them "tied" on the Kerry side of things, it's pretty indicative of a 2-3 point Kerry lead at this time (i.e. a lead but it's within the MoE of all the polls so it looks like a tie.

I don't know enough about statistics to say one way or another.  I think there might be some crunching you can do with multiple samples, but it would be complicated by the fact that the polls probably weren't conducted in identical manners.  Meh.

The sky shockingly remains unfallen:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040713/D83PU9TO1.html

Quote:
Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

Wow, the administration comes out with a statement saying that they aren't planning on delaying the elections.  That's worth almost as much as Cevik's and Soulflame's tin hatting.

Edit: Stupid, stupid BBCode.

[cevik]

I don't know enough about statistics to say one way or another.  I think there might be some crunching you can do with multiple samples, but it would be complicated by the fact that the polls probably weren't conducted in identical manners.  Meh.

True enough, I'm just making a predicition, an (un)educated guess.  But we only have to wait 4 short months to see how things pan out, so I've made my guess now we'll see what happens.

[WayAbvPar]

It's a purely partisan opposition anyway. If they didn't create a contingency plan, the left would eat Bush alive if something were to happen....probably claiming that he had something done (or at least intentionally left us vulnerable) so he could steal the election amid all the chaos and confusion.

So only the left holds the president responsible for the security of the country? That is interesting.

I would expect any president (and his administration) to prepare for the worst in this situation. However,I don't think that nebulous warnings from Tom Ridge are an integral part of any plan. Instead, they cover the administration's ass in the event that something does occur ("See? We TOLD you something might happen!", much like a TV weather man), with the added bonus of keeping the populace afraid (insert Goering quote here =P ).

Nader who is so far only on one state ballot, will be lucky to pull in 2 points at the poll and I'd bet he ends up lower since he's running around 80%+ unfavorables right now

I am still hoping that Nader is just rattling his sabre this time, and that he will pull out before the election. Someone as educated as he MUST realize that his candidacy in 2000 set back his environmental agenda by 20 years- I don't think Bush lost too many votes to Nader (unless they were the confused octagenarian variety that helped Pat Buchanan in Florida). Gore may not be have been the ideal Green platform candidate, but I think it is reasonable to say that he would have kept most of Clinton's environmental policies in place, instead of rolling many of them back as Bush has.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Awww, isn't Arc cute?  Sorry, Arc.  You lost all credibility, what was it now... about 3 years ago?  My how time flies.

As a substitute for addressing my little dose of reality, this was lacking. If you're going to duck the data and go for the middle school, at least do it with style and stop recycling the slings you been slinging around for three years now.

So that you can try again: The reasoning behind this motion is that if planes explode up your local polling HQ, you have a chance to actually CAST A VOTE AT SOME POINT in this election. The alternative is to not get to vote because the building where all your voting machines are got blowed up.

PPS:

The preparations seem to be ...

Translation: "I'm making this up."

---
edit: your reply wasn't 99% retard. It was 99% not addressing my post at all

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, Arc.  Does using your own tactics against you strike you as juvenile?

[DarkDryad]

with only people like Dark Vengance and Dark Dryad voting for him (i.e. only the Kool Aid drinkers).

Actually Im voting for neither of them asshat.

[Dark Vengeance]

So only the left holds the president responsible for the security of the country? That is interesting.

It seems to be only the left that is going Chicken Little over the suggestion that we create a contingency plan in the event of a terrorist attack on or around election day.

I would expect any president (and his administration) to prepare for the worst in this situation.

This separates you from some other folks within the thread.

However,I don't think that nebulous warnings from Tom Ridge are an integral part of any plan. Instead, they cover the administration's ass in the event that something does occur ("See? We TOLD you something might happen!", much like a TV weather man), with the added bonus of keeping the populace afraid (insert Goering quote here =P ).

I guess suggesting the Bush administration has some insidious desire to keep people afraid works, if you view George and Laura like this:



Personally, I thought the intent was to make people aware of potential threats, so they would notice and report unusual activity, so (golly gee) we might avert an attack and save lives.

Still not entirely sure what the threat level has to do with the notion of rescheduling elections in the event of a terrorist attack.

Bring the noise.
Cheers................

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I'm sorry, Arc.  Does using your own tactics against you strike you as juvenile?

My tactics are to toss out a mild snarky comment, and then dump my twisted version of the facts at you. Your tactics are to tell me my opinions are teh stupid and then walk away.

Tellin me I are teh stupid is fair game - I did it first. But I want the subsequent paragraphs where you say, "oh yeah I guess that makes sense."

[daveNYC]

I wish Laura was that hot.

[WayAbvPar]

Personally, I thought the intent was to make people aware of potential threats, so they would notice and report unusual activity, so (golly gee) we might avert an attack and save lives.

Unfortunately, they haven't given the public ANY INFORMATION about potential threats, other than the fact that they exist. In order for the public to be of any real assistance, credible information needs to be disseminated (in fact, I could argue that telling people in positions to be of assistance is as or more effective than a public broadcast. Directed information is paid more attention, in my experience) . Otherwise, you get Chicken Littles all over the place pointing at brown people in fear.

Here's the point- since 9/11, citizens of the 'civilized' world (and Americans in particular) are aware that potential threats from terrorists exist, and that they should conduct themselves with that knowledge in the back of their minds. When I hear "there is evidence that there is a possible terrorist attack being planned", my first instinct isn't "Oh no! I should be vigilant!", it is "No shit, Sherlock."

[Anonymous]

Yes, but it's more fun to stir the pot, and see what develops.

Sadly, not many took the bait.  Pity, I'm a touch bored at work (router is down, can't access the other office.)

Developing contingency plans is sensible.  Blame the media for casting it in such a negative light.

Also, it's fun to overreact to anything the Bushies do.  Expect the worst of them, and even then, they will sometimes manage to surprise you.

[HaemishM]

They're basically saying something along the lines of, "So long as a terrorist threat exists, we cannot have elections."

No geldy, they are saying "if shit blows up we need plans to deal with it.

Nice fearmongering though.

Actually, here's the whole crux of this story.

The Bush administration is making backup plans in case shit blows up and we need to postpone or otherwise delay the election. THIS IS GOOD. All good electoral governments should have these plans in place.

However, the Bush administration has made it a point of media coverage that they are indeed planning for the possibility of election day attacks, and what will need to be done in that instance. In other words, they are accomplishing the goal of showing they are indeed "on top of things" in the terror war, while also subtly insuinuating that "teh turrorists" might be attacking us during the election. Not only do they stir up a little fear, unrest and despair without being overt about it, but they also bring out all the tinfoil hat wearing left-leaning motherfuckers who immediately spout off about how "THE FASCISTS IS DELAYING ELECTIONS TO STAY IN POWAR OMFG!! BUSH IS NAZI! YAH GOERRING EVEN!!1!2!!!"

Thus, making the louder and stupider elements of the left look publicly ridiculous.

Genius.

[geldonyetich]

The [Electoral College] can't "override" the popular vote when the popular vote didn't have priority in the first place.

Here is a good resource to read up on.

I'm sorry but I'm just sick and tired of morons who slept through government class spouting off about things they don't understand.

Thanks, I always appreciate resources.  I recall they taught this to me back in middle school... not that day to day living gave me much reason to remember it.

Anyhow, the principle I'm referring to is more along the lines of "it's failure to reflect the national popular will." (pg 13).

It is, in the very essay you provided for me, listed is a reasonable (translated: not moronic) form of dissatisfaction to hold about the electoral college.

But, I will admit that given how close the last popular vote is, it could have gone either way and they'd have disappointed half the country.

Ah well, I'll just hide behind the popular Capital Hill defense:

"If you're not confused, you're not well informed."

Confused as I am, I'm apparently one of the more informed voters here.   Yes indeed, also various farm fowl flies from my orifices.

Thus, making the louder and stupider elements of the left look publicly ridiculous.

Genius.

Feh, like the disorganized Democratic effort really needs to look more ridiculous.

Regardless, from what I'm hearing, not many people are particularly enjoying Bush Jr's administration.     I'd be surprised if Bush Jr. pulls even nearly the popular vote this time around even if he decides to issue another unnecessary tax refund/nation-wide bribe with that money we don't have anymore he's been spending.

But I like to think I'm open minded.   I could be wrong about how badly Bush Jr is doing and that's just the sentiment in my neck of the woods, however.   I'm still obligated by my current observations to vote his ass out of office though.  Such is the gravity of this that I'd actually go so far as to think his administration is taking measures to delay it.

THE FASCISTS IS DELAYING ELECTIONS TO STAY IN POWAR OMFG!! BUSH IS NAZI! YAH GOERRING EVEN!!1!2!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to this essay I've been assigned to read encouraging taking a dialectic perspective of a situation in order to dispel falsely held premises about an idea.   Savor that irony, if you will.

[Edited in order to tone down major political incited conniptions into more manageable small ones]

[DarkDryad]

to issue another unnecessary tax refund/nation-wide bribe with that money

No offense but havent you been unemployed for quite a while? My point is while you may not need that money it has helped many people out. I can say thet even though I have a decent amount of cash on hand due to some prudent investments wy wifes health has been seriously draining that reserveand small as it was that extra cash helped pay off some medical bills.

It may not have been nessisary for YOU but others it helped greatly.

[geldonyetich]

I'm afraid that perspective is what made it such an effective bribe.

I wish I could say that Bush Jr's administration was issuing that tax refund out of the kindness of his heart.   However, if that were the case, he probably wouldn't have taken steps to spend money that was intended by the previous administration for social security, medicare, ect, and other programs that helped people.

What I'm saying is that yes, I recognize that it may appear shortsighted of me to not appreciate the situation in which an individual who desperately needed this windfall.    However, it just seems to me that it'd be a far greater crime is to not to recognize that this windfall was not intended to help anyone in particular other than just drum up support.   The resulting national debt from this and other forms of Bush Jr administrations' mismanagement of money has resulted in a far worse situation for certain disadvantaged groups such as the elderly or those needing federal medicare than they were originally in.

The perspective that anti-Bush supporters are adopting is that that the windfall was just one of the many moves his administration has performed in order to provide a smokescreen while they cut the taxes heavily in favor of the rich.   This line of reasoning, should it hold up, would prove that if your voting Bush Jr. on the grounds that he was nice enough to provide you a windfall when you needed it most: you've been duped.    You've been bribed into ignoring you've been backstabbed and by voting there you've actually requested that the same corrupt administration be reinstated.    In other words, you may not have had to pay those hospital bills in the first place if Bush Jr.'s administration wasn't pulling crap like tax rebates and tax cuts to the rich.

But the requirement for that anti-Bush argument is that the money spent which resulted in a federal debt that Bush Jr. generated which (we know from many Clinton speeches) was previously intended for medicare and social security was generated from mismanagement of funds as opposed to good reasons.  

Supporting "mismanagement of funds", I heard that massive tax cuts that favor the rich have occured, and that Bush Jr. has taken us from a big federal surplus to a big federal debt.

Supporting "the debt had to occur it wasn't Bush Jr's fault" I need only look at the 9/11 disaster, the resulting worldwide manhunt in Pakistan, and the (debatably unneccessary) war effort in Iraq.  

(I'm not sure if that effort would result in several hundred million, no sorry billion, oh wait I meant TRILLION dollars of debt.  However, what do I know about how they spend money in the white house?  From what I understand the costs of toilet seats are astronomical.)

Then of course there's the question of if federal Medicare was a pipe dream to begin with and if the baby boomers will really need social security when they hit old age.

But, correct me if any of this is wrong, like most mortal men I'm just passing along my own interpretation of second hand information here.

[daveNYC]

It may not have been nessisary for YOU but others it helped greatly.

My sympathies on your wife's health.  I will take issue with how much the tax cuts helped people though.  My refund this year was about $400 more than last year.  That's nice money, but nothing to write home about.

I obviously need to move up in the tax brackets so I can get the most out of the Republican controlled congress.

[Logain]

Thanks, I always appreciate resources.  I recall they taught this to me back in middle school... not that day to day living gave me much reason to remember it.

Anyhow, the principle I'm referring to is more along the lines of "it's failure to reflect the national popular will." (pg 13).

It is, in the very essay you provided for me, listed is a reasonable (translated: not moronic) form of dissatisfaction to hold about the electoral college.

I agree that the Electoral College isn't the ideal way to handle our national elections and that a better way most likely could be found.

I certainly don't have a problem with dissatisfaction. That's every citizen's right and democratic duty. The only thing I do have a problem with is the implication that Bush was somehow handed the election unfairly through underhanded means where, in reality, it worked out exactly the way it was constitutionally intended to.

[DarkDryad]

Well the solution isnt to not give tax breaks it to not spend like a crack whore when giving them. This is something the shrub has yet to learn. Tax cuts in and of themselves do exacly what he was trying to do but you cant spend money you dont have. Thats kinda like basic economics and stuff.

[ArtificialKid]

I agree that the Electoral College isn't the ideal way to handle our national elections and that a better way most likely could be found.

I'd like to point out that at the time it was a good solution to a daunting problem, namely, how to establish something akin to a democracy in a geographically large area with rudimentary communications and a largely illiterate populace.  We're not talking a city-state here where everyone goes down to the town square to hash things out.

[Lum]

You know, I would have chalked up talk of "OMG BUSH IS CANCELLING TEH ELECTION TO STAY IN POWZ0RZ!!1!" as alarmist hoohah.

Then the administration sent up the Patriot 2 trial balloon. (Explanation)

Yeah. Some low level fascist flunky thinking "hey, what if they go for this?" - all too believeable.

[daveNYC]

Any person who engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power would qualify as an "agent of a foreign power," regardless of whether those activities are federal crimes.

My favorite.

[Alluvian]

Any person who engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power would qualify as an "agent of a foreign power," regardless of whether those activities are federal crimes.

My favorite.

A lot of things are illegal while not being 'federal crimes' you know.

And to Haemish:

Thus, making the louder and stupider elements of the left look publicly ridiculous.

I agree here, but isn't anyone else annoyed that the 'louder and stupider elements of the left' appear to be the news media on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc...  The only ones who aren't are FOX and other ridiculously right wing trash.  As trashy as FOX is, I currently find all the others listed just as trashy on the opposite side.

[daveNYC]

That's the best part, that section doesn't even mention legality of the activities.

[SirBruce]

I agree that the Electoral College isn't the ideal way to handle our national elections and that a better way most likely could be found.

I'd like to point out that at the time it was a good solution to a daunting problem, namely, how to establish something akin to a democracy in a geographically large area with rudimentary communications and a largely illiterate populace.  We're not talking a city-state here where everyone goes down to the town square to hash things out.

It was a good solution for the 18th century, but hardly appropriate in the 21st.

Bruce

[Dark Vengeance]

I'm afraid that perspective is what made it such an effective bribe.

This was not a "bribe", it was part of an economic stimulus package. You may recall that the economy was turning to shit, in terms of consumer spending, unemployment, corporate spending, etc. The dotcoms imploded, and the election fiasco left a lot of folks holding their breath as it pertained to spending. Yknow, if you paid attention to that sort of thing.

So what do you do to spur a poor economy? You put more money into the hands of the people. We had a huge projected federal surplus, one that the government was eager to spend, even under Clinton. Bush basically came in and said "this money belongs to the people, not us".....and so he proposed to give a portion of it back in the form of a check, based on the amount of taxes paid (which is only fair...you don't send $500 to someone who has only paid $100 in taxes). Believe it or not, most of those checks got spent. It did help to provide a boost to the consumer economy.

He also kicked in some tax cuts. The left in particular likes to point to the highest income brackets and point out that they get the most relief. They also pay the most in taxes by a wide margin....remember that we use a GRADUATED income tax. Not only do the rich pay more money, they pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes.

Yknow what the rich also do? They invest. That's right, they put money into starting up new businesses, or providing capital for existing companies. That spurs the corporate economy, and can help to provide new jobs.

A very large chunk of our spending has been due to the need to bolster our national security, post 9/11. Many, including myself, would argue that this is not an area where we can say "sorry, can't afford it".

And this is where folks say "Iraq, Iraq, we didn't need to go into Iraq"....but based on the information that was available, supporting the war appeared to be the correct thing to do. But don't take it from me, let's see what John Kerry had to say on the subject:

"I don't regret my vote," Kerry told CBS's "60 Minutes" program. "And I believe based on the information we had it was the correct vote."

Source article.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[daveNYC]

Yknow what the rich also do? They invest. That's right, they put money into starting up new businesses, or providing capital for existing companies. That spurs the corporate economy, and can help to provide new jobs.

Classic supply side/trickle down economics, but I don't believe that rich people's spending is what drives the economy.  Spending on consumer goods by low and middle income individuals is a more important force in our modern economy.

[Dark Vengeance]

That's the best part, that section doesn't even mention legality of the activities.

But wouldn't "clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power" imply that the individual is providing intel to a foreign government, or at least is acting with the intent to do so?

For example of what they are talking about, studying the architecture of the empire state building is not big deal....studying the architecture of the ESB and prviding the data to Syria (for a random example), well, that is a problem.

Or am I just misunderstanding that one? Did I miss the clause where the government gets to drive tanks over your first-born for political dissent or something?

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Dark Vengeance]

Classic supply side/trickle down economics, but I don't believe that rich people's spending is what drives the economy.  Spending on consumer goods by low and middle income individuals is a more important force in our modern economy.

Where do you think those people get their income? It's not what the rich SPEND, it's what they INVEST that makes the biggest economic impact. Those investments provide working capital for companies to grow and develop. It costs money to make money. Unless the owner insists on doing all the work himself/herself, they will need employees, and those employees will need to be paid.

For a very simple example of the cycle:
Entrepreneurs with working capital -> New businesses -> New Jobs -> lower unemployment -> money going into the hands of employees -> consumer spending -> money going to businesses -> money going to investors and employees -> consumer spending and investment....

Besides, the tax rebates went to people of various income levels. I got about $400, and I spent it. Seems to me that the package realized that both sides are major factors to spurring the economy.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Sky]

There's a difference between alarmist over-reactions and being aware that your current administration has been proven many times over to be willing to go to illegal lengths to further their goals. Not some crackpot website, but real, hard facts.

An alarmist overreaction would be moving into the hills and building a bunker for the end times surely to come. Posting concerns on a website is normal, but hey. Mock away. I didn't realize we were to be put to scrutiny for concern over real issues, I guess that falls into the "it's cool to mock" category. Damn that's one huge category, apparently.

Hey, some nice talk on voodoo economics, but I won't mock ;)

[daveNYC]

Where do you think those people get their income? It's not what the rich SPEND, it's what they INVEST that makes the biggest economic impact.

I think you overestimate the amount of money the rich (nebulous group that it is) invest in some sort of new business.  Mutual funds drive the stock market, banks provide small business loans, 'the rich' do not go around lending their money to people with business plans.

Venture capitalists might, however they shot their wad in the 90s and no amount of a tax cut is going to get them back in the game anytime soon.

Concerning Patriot II:  I dislike any law that says what you're doing is wrong, depending on who you are.  For the record, I also don't like 'hate crimes' laws for very similar reasons.