Polls this early don't mean a thing. But I hope the new economic policy announced by GWB will wake the public up. Of course, GWB can cry out "God Bless America" and bomb another country; the conservatives are likely to rally behind him then.
The polls have been perfect predictors. The exit polls weren't that great, and that may be what you're talking about with Kerry being underestimated - the NH exit polls showed the race a lot closer than it turned out. But exit polls are different. They just have people catch voters coming out of the voting places, and they haven't got it down to a science like they have with the telephone surveys. The regular telephone polls nailed it within a couple points for each candidate in NH. And Iowa is different because people don't really vote, they switch around until they reach a threshold and then they can vote. So the polls for Iowa can't really be counted. But I'd bet if you looked at the polls for today they'd be within a few points of the actual votes.
I wasn't speaking about the exit polls. It's pretty hard not to mess up the "likely" voters when they have just come out of the polling place.
From what I have been reading though they just haven't been very accurate this round. I'm speaking on the Democratic primary side. We obviously haven't had a general election yet.
Believe it or not: we're both mistaken. I didn't realize how close it was, but Bush spent as much as Dean last year. According to this article (AP), Bush spent $33.6 million to Dean's $32.5 million. The significant differences being that Bush has about $99 million left in the bank to Dean's $8.5 million; and Bush spent that much running unopposed in his primary. So, last year Bush spent more, but it looks like Dean is quickly losing the rest of the 41 million dollars he raised.
I wasn't speaking about the exit polls. It's pretty hard not to mess up the "likely" voters when they have just come out of the polling place.
From what I have been reading though they just haven't been very accurate this round. I'm speaking on the Democratic primary side. We obviously haven't had a general election yet.
Oh yeah.
But if you find a good site with a bunch of polls like this one and then compare them to the actual numbers (also shown on that site) it's clear the polls are right on.
The polls are sometimes lower in general than the votes because they include undecideds. BTW the word 'undecideds' almost crashed the spell checker.
SDW, the poll means Bush will lose to Kerry at this point in the race, Again, at this point, there's more than just a good chance to beat Bush: Kerry is actually projected to. That, of course, will change over the duration of the campaign...
How about that? I actually agree with you about something. Polls are basically a snapshot of the electorate. Right now Bush is down and Kerry is up. Not surprising is it? Who's done better recently? Has anything gone wrong for Kerry in the last 2 to 3 weeks? Bush, however, has been having a very rocky time of it lately. Voila! This is reflected in the latest polls.
How about that? I actually agree with you about something. Polls are basically a snapshot of the electorate. Right now Bush is down and Kerry is up. Not surprising is it? Who's done better recently? Has anything gone wrong for Kerry in the last 2 to 3 weeks? Bush, however, has been having a very rocky time of it lately. Voila! This is reflected in the latest polls.
Given Bush's history in office I expect this will be a trend that will continue.
Well, as an ABB (anybody but Bush) kinda guy one can only hope we see these kind of numbers come November. I don't know much about Kerry or any of the others but I will pay more attention now that the field is thinning out. Seems Kerry with Edwards as VP would be the best ticket.
Of course, Bush's buddy Osama will probably save his butt by knocking off more of us Yanks before election day. He needs to repay Bush for the help invading Iraq gave al Qaeda's terrorist recruiting drive.
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND SAYS BUSH ADMINSTRATION BUDGET PLAN DENIES LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Washington, D.C. - The Children's Defense Fund today said the Bush Administration's proposed budget cuts in Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Section 8 housing program could mean as many as 150,000 families with children will be denied vouchers. The Administration's budget also effectively block grants the Section 8 program, which could lead to some of the poorest families losing assistance and other families having to spend a greater portion of their income for rent.
The proposed cuts and changes will disproportionately affect children. Fifty-nine percent of the 2 million households that receive Section 8 rental vouchers are families with children, making Section 8 the main source of housing assistance for low-income children.
SDW, the poll means Bush will lose to Kerry at this point in the race, Again, at this point, there's more than just a good chance to beat Bush: Kerry is actually projected to. That, of course, will change over the duration of the campaign. What's interesting is that Bush has already spent upwards of 30 million dollars running unopposed in the Republican primary. I think that's already more than what any individual Democrat has spent... Although, I think it's true that Bush's campaign has yet to really hit its stride. They have 170 million left to spend, after all.
That is completely ridiculous. History does not agree with you at all. In July 1988, GHWB was down SEVENTEEN points to Dukakis. Yet, Bush took 39 states in the general election and won handily. Reagan was down to Mondale at this point in 1984 as well.
The point is that the polls are simply not reliable in any way right now...as history has shown. Perhaps Bush is vulnerable, and on that basis I accept the thread's premise. For you to think Bush has a "good chance" at losing is just absurd and wishful.
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND SAYS BUSH ADMINSTRATION BUDGET PLAN DENIES LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Washington, D.C. - The Children's Defense Fund today said the Bush Administration's proposed budget cuts in Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Section 8 housing program could mean as many as 150,000 families with children will be denied vouchers. The Administration's budget also effectively block grants the Section 8 program, which could lead to some of the poorest families losing assistance and other families having to spend a greater portion of their income for rent.
The proposed cuts and changes will disproportionately affect children. Fifty-nine percent of the 2 million households that receive Section 8 rental vouchers are families with children, making Section 8 the main source of housing assistance for low-income children.
Are our children MORE secure now?
As someone who deals with rentals I can tell you quite readily that section 8 ought to be abolished. If it were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't force these children to be homeless, it would force them to move to less expensive housing.
Yeah let them live in crappier neighborhoods and crappier apartments... what do you care?
But we should send people to mars.
Actually I don't because my ads say quite explicitly no section 8.
What you should admit though is that this doesn't harm anyone. This program allows poor people to live in richer neighborhoods. I don't see why we ought to be funding that. If I want to live in a better neighborhood, I had better earn more. Insuring you have a roof over your head is a compassion discussion. Insuring you have a roof over your head on a certain street or zip code isn't.
Insuring you have a roof over your head is a compassion discussion. Insuring you have a roof over your head on a certain street or zip code isn't.
I agree with this one. Ensuring individuals the possibility to move out of bad neighbourhoods will only replace some inhabitants with other. But what about working for making "bad" neighbourhoods better, so those living there will have a better quality of life?
What will it help if you took a few selected families out of the neighbourhood? The same amount of people would still live there. Actually what could happen is that more money are available for rent but now distributed differently, so those who are poor but can´t get to this money are in a even worse situation when it comes to housing. Two problems usual arise with programs like this: 1) Way too often its not those in greatest needs that benefit from them. Its those who know the system and know how to benefit from it and thats not the most needing ones. 2) Its an attempt to cure the symptoms. The real problem is still there (bad neighbourhoods) and the attention is taken aay from the real problems.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
The polls have been perfect predictors. The exit polls weren't that great, and that may be what you're talking about with Kerry being underestimated - the NH exit polls showed the race a lot closer than it turned out. But exit polls are different. They just have people catch voters coming out of the voting places, and they haven't got it down to a science like they have with the telephone surveys. The regular telephone polls nailed it within a couple points for each candidate in NH. And Iowa is different because people don't really vote, they switch around until they reach a threshold and then they can vote. So the polls for Iowa can't really be counted. But I'd bet if you looked at the polls for today they'd be within a few points of the actual votes.
I wasn't speaking about the exit polls. It's pretty hard not to mess up the "likely" voters when they have just come out of the polling place.
From what I have been reading though they just haven't been very accurate this round. I'm speaking on the Democratic primary side. We obviously haven't had a general election yet.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Dean tossed 40 million dollars away, remember?
Believe it or not: we're both mistaken. I didn't realize how close it was, but Bush spent as much as Dean last year. According to this article (AP), Bush spent $33.6 million to Dean's $32.5 million. The significant differences being that Bush has about $99 million left in the bank to Dean's $8.5 million; and Bush spent that much running unopposed in his primary. So, last year Bush spent more, but it looks like Dean is quickly losing the rest of the 41 million dollars he raised.
Originally posted by trumptman
I wasn't speaking about the exit polls. It's pretty hard not to mess up the "likely" voters when they have just come out of the polling place.
From what I have been reading though they just haven't been very accurate this round. I'm speaking on the Democratic primary side. We obviously haven't had a general election yet.
Oh yeah.
But if you find a good site with a bunch of polls like this one and then compare them to the actual numbers (also shown on that site) it's clear the polls are right on.
The polls are sometimes lower in general than the votes because they include undecideds. BTW the word 'undecideds' almost crashed the spell checker.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
SDW, the poll means Bush will lose to Kerry at this point in the race, Again, at this point, there's more than just a good chance to beat Bush: Kerry is actually projected to. That, of course, will change over the duration of the campaign...
How about that? I actually agree with you about something. Polls are basically a snapshot of the electorate. Right now Bush is down and Kerry is up. Not surprising is it? Who's done better recently? Has anything gone wrong for Kerry in the last 2 to 3 weeks? Bush, however, has been having a very rocky time of it lately. Voila! This is reflected in the latest polls.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
How about that? I actually agree with you about something. Polls are basically a snapshot of the electorate. Right now Bush is down and Kerry is up. Not surprising is it? Who's done better recently? Has anything gone wrong for Kerry in the last 2 to 3 weeks? Bush, however, has been having a very rocky time of it lately. Voila! This is reflected in the latest polls.
Given Bush's history in office I expect this will be a trend that will continue.
Of course, Bush's buddy Osama will probably save his butt by knocking off more of us Yanks before election day. He needs to repay Bush for the help invading Iraq gave al Qaeda's terrorist recruiting drive.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/release040203.php
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND SAYS BUSH ADMINSTRATION BUDGET PLAN DENIES LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Washington, D.C. - The Children's Defense Fund today said the Bush Administration's proposed budget cuts in Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Section 8 housing program could mean as many as 150,000 families with children will be denied vouchers. The Administration's budget also effectively block grants the Section 8 program, which could lead to some of the poorest families losing assistance and other families having to spend a greater portion of their income for rent.
The proposed cuts and changes will disproportionately affect children. Fifty-nine percent of the 2 million households that receive Section 8 rental vouchers are families with children, making Section 8 the main source of housing assistance for low-income children.
Are our children MORE secure now?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
SDW, the poll means Bush will lose to Kerry at this point in the race, Again, at this point, there's more than just a good chance to beat Bush: Kerry is actually projected to. That, of course, will change over the duration of the campaign. What's interesting is that Bush has already spent upwards of 30 million dollars running unopposed in the Republican primary. I think that's already more than what any individual Democrat has spent... Although, I think it's true that Bush's campaign has yet to really hit its stride. They have 170 million left to spend, after all.
That is completely ridiculous. History does not agree with you at all. In July 1988, GHWB was down SEVENTEEN points to Dukakis. Yet, Bush took 39 states in the general election and won handily. Reagan was down to Mondale at this point in 1984 as well.
The point is that the polls are simply not reliable in any way right now...as history has shown. Perhaps Bush is vulnerable, and on that basis I accept the thread's premise. For you to think Bush has a "good chance" at losing is just absurd and wishful.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ahhh nothing like a passionate conservative.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/release040203.php
CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND SAYS BUSH ADMINSTRATION BUDGET PLAN DENIES LOW-INCOME FAMILIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Washington, D.C. - The Children's Defense Fund today said the Bush Administration's proposed budget cuts in Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Section 8 housing program could mean as many as 150,000 families with children will be denied vouchers. The Administration's budget also effectively block grants the Section 8 program, which could lead to some of the poorest families losing assistance and other families having to spend a greater portion of their income for rent.
The proposed cuts and changes will disproportionately affect children. Fifty-nine percent of the 2 million households that receive Section 8 rental vouchers are families with children, making Section 8 the main source of housing assistance for low-income children.
Are our children MORE secure now?
As someone who deals with rentals I can tell you quite readily that section 8 ought to be abolished. If it were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't force these children to be homeless, it would force them to move to less expensive housing.
Nick
you still get paid don't you?
Yeah let them live in crappier neighborhoods and crappier apartments... what do you care?
But we should send people to mars.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ah the compassion...
you still get paid don't you?
Yeah let them live in crappier neighborhoods and crappier apartments... what do you care?
But we should send people to mars.
Actually I don't because my ads say quite explicitly no section 8.
What you should admit though is that this doesn't harm anyone. This program allows poor people to live in richer neighborhoods. I don't see why we ought to be funding that. If I want to live in a better neighborhood, I had better earn more. Insuring you have a roof over your head is a compassion discussion. Insuring you have a roof over your head on a certain street or zip code isn't.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Insuring you have a roof over your head is a compassion discussion. Insuring you have a roof over your head on a certain street or zip code isn't.
I agree with this one. Ensuring individuals the possibility to move out of bad neighbourhoods will only replace some inhabitants with other. But what about working for making "bad" neighbourhoods better, so those living there will have a better quality of life?
And I don't see Bush doing anything to improve the situation.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Why not both?
What will it help if you took a few selected families out of the neighbourhood? The same amount of people would still live there. Actually what could happen is that more money are available for rent but now distributed differently, so those who are poor but can´t get to this money are in a even worse situation when it comes to housing. Two problems usual arise with programs like this: 1) Way too often its not those in greatest needs that benefit from them. Its those who know the system and know how to benefit from it and thats not the most needing ones. 2) Its an attempt to cure the symptoms. The real problem is still there (bad neighbourhoods) and the attention is taken aay from the real problems.
If other efforts we being implemented I can see the need to move the fund to a new program...but that's not what this is.
We send billions to Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure... and cut the measly funding for section 8.
I dont care what the motivation is... if they meet the requirements and the kids are better off... then it's good.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
We send billions to Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure... and cut the measly funding for section 8.
So you need the money more than the iraqis?
I'm saying if we fund Iraq's reconstruction we better be taking care of our cities at home too.