Unrelated Stories
February 19, 2004 11:09 PM Subscribe
Our top story tonight: John Edwards and John Kerry both beat Bush in polls and in "totally unrelated news" the search for Osama Bin Laden intensifies
and in "other totally unrelated news" the new Election Assistance Commission assured the states that they would expedite the distribution of $2.3 billion dollars in federal funds for
new voting booth equipment
I hope the new voting booth equipment doesn't include touch screen voting by diebold.
posted by mathowie at 11:39 PM on February 19, 2004
posted by mathowie at 11:39 PM on February 19, 2004
What I've been curious about, and unable to find out (mostly because I haven't tried that hard), is if the voting in the American primaries is being recorded with Diebold or one of the other, er, less-than-optimally dependable electronic voting systems.
We ought to have a pool on how many total votes are cast in the general election come November. (What's the population of the US - 300,000,000 or so? I got dibs on 400,000,000 to 450,000,000 votes cast. Just for Republicans!)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:49 PM on February 19, 2004
We ought to have a pool on how many total votes are cast in the general election come November. (What's the population of the US - 300,000,000 or so? I got dibs on 400,000,000 to 450,000,000 votes cast. Just for Republicans!)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:49 PM on February 19, 2004
We ought to have a pool on how many total votes are cast in the general election come November. (What's the population of the US - 300,000,000 or so? I got dibs on 400,000,000 to 450,000,000 votes cast. Just for Republicans!)
You'd have something to be suspicious of if more than about 120,000 turned out to vote I'd say - the 2000 turnout was 105,000 which was very high (for the US) at 51% of voting-age persons.
I am interested in this bit in the first article:
The poll of 1,006 adults, including 898 registered voters and 568 likely voters, was taken Feb. 16-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, larger for subgroups such as registered or likely voters.
Okay, so uh, what did the people who were actually going to vote say? And at a 56%, the people who claim to be likely voters is a little optimistic isn't it - I'm sure a good 4-8% of them will be washing their hair when it counts.
posted by sycophant at 12:08 AM on February 20, 2004
You'd have something to be suspicious of if more than about 120,000 turned out to vote I'd say - the 2000 turnout was 105,000 which was very high (for the US) at 51% of voting-age persons.
I am interested in this bit in the first article:
The poll of 1,006 adults, including 898 registered voters and 568 likely voters, was taken Feb. 16-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, larger for subgroups such as registered or likely voters.
Okay, so uh, what did the people who were actually going to vote say? And at a 56%, the people who claim to be likely voters is a little optimistic isn't it - I'm sure a good 4-8% of them will be washing their hair when it counts.
posted by sycophant at 12:08 AM on February 20, 2004
No voting machine left behind. I could think of a few hundred thousand better uses for that kind of money, many of which don't involve me.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:23 AM on February 20, 2004
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:23 AM on February 20, 2004
Our top story tonight: John Edwards and John Kerry both beat Bush in polls
So is this the offical kick off of PollFilter 2004 ?
*cues powerful televison news music*
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:31 AM on February 20, 2004
So is this the offical kick off of PollFilter 2004 ?
*cues powerful televison news music*
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:31 AM on February 20, 2004
Well there goes the "Bush is unbeatable" schtick the GOP has been pushing for so long.
We've had yellow dogs and blue dogs and now there's the dead dog, the one lying in the street that can still beat Bush.
posted by nofundy at 4:38 AM on February 20, 2004
We've had yellow dogs and blue dogs and now there's the dead dog, the one lying in the street that can still beat Bush.
posted by nofundy at 4:38 AM on February 20, 2004
What ever happened to the whole "Mark an X beside the person you wish to vote for" pen on paper system? It has a nice paper trail record, makes it pretty clear as to wether the ballot has been spoiled, doesn't need any new fangled electronics...
posted by Pink Fuzzy Bunny at 5:46 AM on February 20, 2004
posted by Pink Fuzzy Bunny at 5:46 AM on February 20, 2004
The Dem candidates took over the news broadcasts and thus got mucho publicity...Bushman will soon go up against One of those and then the field will be a bit more even. As Bush used to say leaving Texas bars: don't co0unt me out yet. It takes a few more.
posted by Postroad at 6:04 AM on February 20, 2004
posted by Postroad at 6:04 AM on February 20, 2004
Washington Post/ABC News poll Feb. 10-11:
Questions about Bush's use of prewar intelligence, in addition to feeding doubts about his honesty, have sent his performance rating plummeting. Fifty percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing, the lowest level of his presidency in Post-ABC polling and down 8 percentage points from January. The survey found that, for the first time since the war ended, less than half of Americans -- 48 percent -- believe the war was worth fighting, down 8 points from last month. Fifty percent said the war was not worth it.
And don't forget that Richard Clarke, the man Bush, on 8/06/01, told to stop bothering him with the Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda briefings, has Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened coming out on March 29th.
Also:
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
East
Net Approve: 50%
Net Disapprove: 48%
South
Net Approve: 54%
Net Disapprove: 43%
Midwest
Net Approve: 47%
Net Disapprove: 51%
West
Net Approve: 48%
Net Disapprove: 51%
National
Net Approve: 51%
Net Disapprove: 48%
Both the West and Midwest were Bush country in 2000. But with the jobless recovery, the Midwest's disapproval of Bush's handling of the economy is now 55%. The theme of the powerful background music there is Don't It Make Your Red States Blue?
And from Billmon:
It's significant to note Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg's conclusion, in his new book The Two Americas, that the number of voters who say they have no religious preference and rarely, if ever, go to church (29% of the electorate) now exceeds the number who say they attend weekly (25%, down from 33% in 1984.)
Then there is the whole National Guard story, which is not going away. The last dog has yet to bark there. But don't forget the President did get an honorable discharge--just like John Allan Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh! That really counts for something!
posted by y2karl at 6:28 AM on February 20, 2004
Questions about Bush's use of prewar intelligence, in addition to feeding doubts about his honesty, have sent his performance rating plummeting. Fifty percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing, the lowest level of his presidency in Post-ABC polling and down 8 percentage points from January. The survey found that, for the first time since the war ended, less than half of Americans -- 48 percent -- believe the war was worth fighting, down 8 points from last month. Fifty percent said the war was not worth it.
And don't forget that Richard Clarke, the man Bush, on 8/06/01, told to stop bothering him with the Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda briefings, has Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened coming out on March 29th.
Also:
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
East
Net Approve: 50%
Net Disapprove: 48%
South
Net Approve: 54%
Net Disapprove: 43%
Midwest
Net Approve: 47%
Net Disapprove: 51%
West
Net Approve: 48%
Net Disapprove: 51%
National
Net Approve: 51%
Net Disapprove: 48%
Both the West and Midwest were Bush country in 2000. But with the jobless recovery, the Midwest's disapproval of Bush's handling of the economy is now 55%. The theme of the powerful background music there is Don't It Make Your Red States Blue?
And from Billmon:
It's significant to note Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg's conclusion, in his new book The Two Americas, that the number of voters who say they have no religious preference and rarely, if ever, go to church (29% of the electorate) now exceeds the number who say they attend weekly (25%, down from 33% in 1984.)
Then there is the whole National Guard story, which is not going away. The last dog has yet to bark there. But don't forget the President did get an honorable discharge--just like John Allan Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh! That really counts for something!
posted by y2karl at 6:28 AM on February 20, 2004
What ever happened to the whole "Mark an X beside the person you wish to vote for" pen on paper system? It has a nice paper trail record, makes it pretty clear as to wether the ballot has been spoiled, doesn't need any new fangled electronics...
As someone who was an observer at the first manual recount in the 2000 FL recount, I can tell you that too many people manage to screw this up. There's the stray mark -- was that a stray mark, or did they really mean to vote for Buchanan and Gore? There's the write-in box -- if someone votes for Gore and then writes-in Lieberman in the write in space, is that an overvote? And the technicalities -- many Democratic ballots marked using pencil, when technically pen was supposed to be used. What about lack of postmarks on the military ballots? Etc., etc...
posted by jennak at 6:44 AM on February 20, 2004
As someone who was an observer at the first manual recount in the 2000 FL recount, I can tell you that too many people manage to screw this up. There's the stray mark -- was that a stray mark, or did they really mean to vote for Buchanan and Gore? There's the write-in box -- if someone votes for Gore and then writes-in Lieberman in the write in space, is that an overvote? And the technicalities -- many Democratic ballots marked using pencil, when technically pen was supposed to be used. What about lack of postmarks on the military ballots? Etc., etc...
posted by jennak at 6:44 AM on February 20, 2004
For those of you who put faith in polls months before any actual election, I have these two words: Howard Dean.
I want Bush to lose real bad too, but I am not going to pay any attention to tracking polls nine months out.
posted by briank at 7:16 AM on February 20, 2004
I want Bush to lose real bad too, but I am not going to pay any attention to tracking polls nine months out.
posted by briank at 7:16 AM on February 20, 2004
What ever happened to the whole "Mark an X beside the person you wish to vote for" pen on paper system? It has a nice paper trail record, makes it pretty clear as to wether the ballot has been spoiled, doesn't need any new fangled electronics...
Actually, that is the new voting booth equipment, but Halliburton said they couldn't do it for less than $2.3 billion.
posted by biffa at 7:44 AM on February 20, 2004
Actually, that is the new voting booth equipment, but Halliburton said they couldn't do it for less than $2.3 billion.
posted by biffa at 7:44 AM on February 20, 2004
What ever happened to the whole "Mark an X beside the person you wish to vote for" pen on paper system?
At least without optical scanning, it doesn't scale well to American elections with lots of offices. With optical scanning, it's very common -- except that what seems to be the most common has you completing an arrow (-----_____----->) instead of marking an X.
In a Canadian election, you'd have, what -- an MP, an MPP, and a couple of local government offices, and maybe one or two ballot propositions?
An average American election might have votes for President and VP, US House, US Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, state secretary of state, state attorney general, state agriculture secretary / commissioner, state insurance commissioners, state comptroller / treasurer / both, state House, state Senate, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, county commission, county DA, county sherriff, a county judge, a county judge, a county judge, a county judge, a county judge, mayor, city council, maybe city DA, city chief of police, school board, and between five and thirty ballot propositions.
Handcounting all of those offices, with representatives from the various candidates, interest groups, and parties on different sides, would be a nightmare. Which isn't to say that there's no problem there, but the problem has more to do with electing too many offices than with being stupid about voting schemes.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:00 AM on February 20, 2004
At least without optical scanning, it doesn't scale well to American elections with lots of offices. With optical scanning, it's very common -- except that what seems to be the most common has you completing an arrow (-----_____----->) instead of marking an X.
In a Canadian election, you'd have, what -- an MP, an MPP, and a couple of local government offices, and maybe one or two ballot propositions?
An average American election might have votes for President and VP, US House, US Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, state secretary of state, state attorney general, state agriculture secretary / commissioner, state insurance commissioners, state comptroller / treasurer / both, state House, state Senate, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, a state judge, county commission, county DA, county sherriff, a county judge, a county judge, a county judge, a county judge, a county judge, mayor, city council, maybe city DA, city chief of police, school board, and between five and thirty ballot propositions.
Handcounting all of those offices, with representatives from the various candidates, interest groups, and parties on different sides, would be a nightmare. Which isn't to say that there's no problem there, but the problem has more to do with electing too many offices than with being stupid about voting schemes.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:00 AM on February 20, 2004
note: "voting schemes"
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 8:55 AM on February 20, 2004
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 8:55 AM on February 20, 2004
"Voting scheme" is the well-established term of art for any method of voting, ya dink. Now come here for your noogie.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:19 AM on February 20, 2004
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:19 AM on February 20, 2004
Well there goes the "Bush is unbeatable" schtick the GOP has been pushing for so long.
Funny, you really don't know what you are talking about. The GOP hasn't been peddling that "Bush is unbeatable," in fact they have been saying over and over that this is going to be an extremely close race. And more so, GOP Pollsters have been predicting for more than a year now, that when the Democratic party finally unifies around one candidate, said candidate will be above Bush in polls at first.
While the news media is acting like this is the shock of the ages, it has been predicted for a very long time.
Why is Kerry (and Edwards) above Bush is the polls? Two things: One, as Postroad mentioned, the two Dems have had most of the media's attention for a couple of months, and very positive attention at that. Two, neither Kerry or Edwards have been defined to the American public. It is like that polling question where Bush wins against "Unnamed Democrat"... There is no baggage, nothing negative about the candidate. That will change as people begin to know Kerry.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:59 AM on February 20, 2004
Funny, you really don't know what you are talking about. The GOP hasn't been peddling that "Bush is unbeatable," in fact they have been saying over and over that this is going to be an extremely close race. And more so, GOP Pollsters have been predicting for more than a year now, that when the Democratic party finally unifies around one candidate, said candidate will be above Bush in polls at first.
While the news media is acting like this is the shock of the ages, it has been predicted for a very long time.
Why is Kerry (and Edwards) above Bush is the polls? Two things: One, as Postroad mentioned, the two Dems have had most of the media's attention for a couple of months, and very positive attention at that. Two, neither Kerry or Edwards have been defined to the American public. It is like that polling question where Bush wins against "Unnamed Democrat"... There is no baggage, nothing negative about the candidate. That will change as people begin to know Kerry.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:59 AM on February 20, 2004
It will change even more when people finally get to know the Texas Souffle.
posted by y2karl at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2004
posted by y2karl at 2:59 PM on February 20, 2004
Karl, for all your hopes and dreams, the Air National Guard tussle has always been a non-story, that is beyond going no where fast. It is dead.
Bush, love him or hate him, has been President for nearly four years, and people know how he is going to act as President, and as Commander in Chief. The election this fall will be a referendum on Bush's last four years, not what he was doing in 1973.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:25 AM on February 21, 2004
Bush, love him or hate him, has been President for nearly four years, and people know how he is going to act as President, and as Commander in Chief. The election this fall will be a referendum on Bush's last four years, not what he was doing in 1973.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:25 AM on February 21, 2004
« Older play that mean licorish stick. | Return of COINTELPRO? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
::sigh::
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 11:35 PM on February 19, 2004