Of course, but it means even less if you don't bother to even cast a vote. Which is better? The gist of this is that some of you don't want to bother to vote unless you are voting for the winner, i.e. a vote that "counts." That's preposterous. Cast the vote of your conscience. Live with the results and work to make this nation even greater.
Of course you don't have a problem with this, you want Bush to win. If it was the opposite situation you'd have the opposite aproach. For instance, what would you have said if the state in question was Massachusetts? The Electoral College is a flawed, outdated system that needs an overhaul. A state could miss being perfectly split by one vote, yet every vote representing that state in the Electoral College is made for one candidate.
It is up to the state to decide how to distribute the votes. There are two states that will split the vote. The states can choose to divide the votes up if they want to.
Actually, it is in direct agreement with the analysis I did in December 2003 that was posted in this forum. Then, the good Doctor from Vermont was the favorite son, but the analysis had the same result. Spooky Predicts the 2004 Election
I find it curious that no matter who's in power, when there's redistricting or reapportionment (always on the grouds of fairness) it tends to favour the incumbant!
Couldn't agree more. I think the Electoral College is an anachronism that's past it's time, but we have it, and have to deal with it. The idea that it isn't worth voting in Texas, and other states that look to be a lock for either party, offends me. As a Texas Democrat, I feel strongly that the road back to power for my party, and that will happen, sooner or later, is at the ballot box and hard work on the local level. A steady increase in the % of Texans voting Democratic is going to have a snowball affect over time. And thinking that you may as well vote Green or Nadir or Libertarian... just because there is "no hope" this election cycle, doesn't look at the long-term goal of Democratic revival. A vote like that, in my opinion, truly is a waste.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5524805/ Voters want more specifics from Kerry Poll shows Democratic candidate losing ground to Bush By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane Updated: 7:59 a.m. ET July 27, 2004 (washingtonpost.com Highlights ) A majority of voters say they know little about John F. Kerry's positions on key issues and want the Democratic presidential candidate to detail specific plans for handling the economy, Iraq and the war on terrorism when he addresses the Democratic National Convention and a nationally televised audience on Thursday, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey suggests that the stakes for Kerry and the Democrats as they began their convention in Boston could not be higher. In barely a month, Kerry has lost ground to President Bush on every top voting issue in this year's election. A growing proportion of voters say Bush and not Kerry is the candidate who most closely shares their values, and four in 10 believe the Democrat is "too liberal." Bush has even narrowed the gap on which candidate better understands their problems, an area in which Kerry has led. The poll suggests that negative ads by the Bush-Cheney campaign that have been airing since early March, as well as attacks by Republican officials, have been increasingly successful in planting the image of Kerry as an unreliable leader who flip-flops on the issues -- perceptions that Democrats will work hard to reverse at their convention. Kerry's advisers down played the results of the Post-ABC poll, asserting that the senator from Massachusetts enters the convention stronger than other recent challengers to incumbent presidents. But they agreed that the four-day gathering in Boston represents a critical opportunity for Kerry to flesh out what is still a partial portrait of his candidacy and said that his chance to communicate directly with voters will pay dividends. Cheryl Utley, 43, of Lowell, Mich., would seem to be exactly the kind of voter Kerry is targeting this week. Utley, a restaurant worker, is an independent living in a battleground state. She is leaning toward Bush even though she has supported Democrats more often than she has Republicans. "I have more of a sense of where he stands on things than Kerry," she said. Utley wants Kerry and the Democratic Party to talk about domestic issues, specifically education and "what they plan on doing about health care for middle-income or lower-income people." "I have to face the fact that I will never be able to have health insurance, the way things are now. And these millionaires don't seem to address that," she said. Electorate remains divided The survey found that Kerry and Bush remain virtually deadlocked, with 48 percent of registered voters supporting Bush and 46 percent Kerry. Independent candidate Ralph Nader claims 3 percent of the hypothetical vote. Kerry held a four-point lead over Bush in mid-June and was tied with Bush in a Post survey two weeks ago. Kerry has slipped even though Bush remains unpopular with many Americans. Currently half of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president and 47 percent disapprove. Fewer than half endorse the way he is managing the economy, the situation in Iraq and health care. More broadly, a majority of Americans -- 53 percent -- say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country, a 21-point increase since Saddam Hussein's government fell to U.S. forces 15 months ago. Although the electorate remains deeply divided, the survey found one area of broad agreement: Two in three voters say this election is one of the most important of their lives. "I think it is the most important election since World War II," said Lee Gearhart, 72, a retired insurance agent in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "It looked like it was a regular election to begin with -- until Mr. Bush got us into war." The latest Post-ABC survey suggests that voters are impatient to hear from Kerry on key issues in this campaign, presenting Democrats with an opportunity to show their nominee in a favorable light. More than half -- 54 percent -- say they are unfamiliar with Kerry's positions; only one in four is similarly uncertain where Bush stands. Nearly half of all Democrats -- 46 percent -- and a majority of political independents say they are not sure what Kerry stands for. "I would like him to come right out and explain that to people, what he really believes, in a way that everyone will understand him," said Rose Spalding, 45, a Kerry supporter in Cumberland, Maine. "He needs to be really clear and concise about that and show he's really different from Bush." A specific outline At the same time, Kerry needs to show a more human face. "He needs to come down a little bit to be more of an everyday Joe," she said. In virtually every measure tested, Kerry's image has eroded in recent weeks. He has lost his double-digit advantage as the candidate viewed by voters as more honest and more understanding of their problems. The president also is now seen by voters as the candidate who better reflects their values, and he has increased his advantage as better able to keep the country safe and secure. The proportion of voters who rate Kerry as "too liberal" has increased slightly, from 36 percent in June to 40 percent. On issues, Kerry has also lost ground to Bush. By increasing margins, the president is seen as better able to deal with Iraq, the war on terrorism and taxes. On two key issues in which Kerry had an advantage as late as two weeks ago -- the economy and education -- the candidates are tied. Four issues topped the agenda when voters were asked what they most wanted Kerry to talk about in his televised speech from the convention on Thursday: the economy and jobs (20 percent), Iraq (19 percent), terrorism (15 percent), and health care (13 percent). "You pretty much know what Bush's philosophy is on everything he's doing," said Mike Miller, 57, of Russellville, Ark., who is "on the fence" but favoring Kerry. "I'd like to know about Kerry's philosophy on the economy: how he's going to get our national debt down. . . . Is the deficit even a concern of his?" "One of the main things I would like to get out of the Kerry and Edwards campaign, especially this week, is a more specific outline of what their real plans are, especially for the war in Iraq," said Morgan Cason, 19, who attends college in Evansville, Ind. Adam Chen, 45, an engineer living in San Diego is undecided but favoring Kerry. "I don't think the Republicans' policy of tax cuts is going to create more jobs. So Democrats, what are you going to do to create more jobs? They have to answer more questions there." Tim French, 52, lives in La Plata, Md. He wants to hear Kerry talk about terrorism. "I would like to see Kerry make a definitive statement on what his administration would expect to do in terms of fighting terrorism in the United States. Borders, law enforcement, intelligence: What is he going to be doing that is not being done now?" A total of 1,202 randomly selected adults were interviewed July 22-25 for the poll, including 974 self-described registered voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall results and fractionally larger for results based only on voters. Senior polling analyst Christopher Muste contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company
Convention Gives Kerry Slight Lead Over Bush (excerpt) Kerry, who emphasized his military service and began his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination by announcing he was "reporting for duty," is viewed by 52 percent of all voters as better able to serve as commander in chief, while 44 percent back Bush. And Kerry has erased the president's double-digit advantage as the candidate best able to deal with terrorism. But the survey also suggests that the Democrats were less successful in answering questions about Kerry's specific plans for handling the situation in Iraq, the terrorist threat and the lackluster economy -- issues that rank at the top of voters' agendas. A bare majority of voters -- 53 percent -- say they now have a clear idea of where Kerry stands on the issues, up from 46 percent immediately before the convention. Nearly half -- 46 percent -- continue to say they are uncertain about his positions, a vulnerability that Republicans are likely to try to exploit in the weeks leading up to the GOP convention later this month. And one in six voters say they could switch support to the other candidate, unchanged from before the convention. A total of 1,200 randomly selected adults, including 940 self-described registered voters, were interviewed Friday through Sunday. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the overall results and slightly larger for results based on registered voters. The Post-ABC News poll suggests Kerry benefited from his convention. His support among voters increased four percentage points while Bush's dropped by an equal amount, about half the historic average, according to data collected by political scientist James Campbell of the State University of New York at Buffalo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34914-2004Aug2.html By all means... bump it up.
Here's what Ruy Teixeira says about the two polls just posted in this thread... ________________ The final poll to consider is the ABC News/Washington Post (WP) poll, which, at least in terms of timing, is the best-positioned to measure the convention bounce. Their pre-convention poll was on July 22–25, the period exactly preceding the convention, and their post-convention poll was July 30–August 1, the period exactly after the convention. Perhaps coincidentally, it’s also the only the poll that finds much evidence of a trial heat bounce. Before the convention, Bush led Kerry in this poll, 49 percent to 48 percent (an unusually pro-Bush result, though they were the only poll in the field at the time); after the convention, Kerry leads Bush, 52 percent to 45 percent. That’s a four-point bounce in terms of support level for Kerry and an eight-point bounce in terms of margin. This bounce is modest by historical standards but is certainly more substantial than that suggested by other polls, particularly the rather peculiar Gallup poll. And note especially the failure of the Gallup poll to detect a Kerry lead at all: the WP poll has Kerry ahead by seven points and CBS News by six points on the exact same survey dates; the Newsweek poll has earlier survey dates and has Kerry ahead by eight points. The Gallup poll is truly an outlier among these major polls. The WP poll also shows a lot of bounce for Kerry on a variety of important issues and characteristics. His favorables go up from 48 percent/39 percent pre-convention to 51 percent/32 percent post-convention. His advantage on the economy goes from –1 to +11; on Iraq, from –12 to +2; on education, from +1 to +13; on the campaign against terrorism, from –18 to –3; on health care, from +3 to +19; and on taxes, from –6 to +6. On candidate characteristics, he also posts strong gains: on honest and trustworthy, he goes from –6 to +6; on understands the problems of people like you, from +4 to +14; on strong leader, from –19 to –6; on making the country safer and more secure, from –16 to –3; on shares your values, from –6 to +6; and on having a vision for the future, he bests Bush by thirteen points. Kerry also is now considered more of an optimist; pre-convention, he was considered an optimist by 55 percent and a pessimist by 34 percent; now he is rated an optimist by 65 percent and a pessimist by 22 percent. That’s actually a better rating than Bush now gets on this question. And here’s a particularly impressive result: by 52 percent to 44 percent, voters select Kerry over Bush as the one better qualified to be commander in chief of the U.S. military. So, arguably, Kerry got a substantial bounce where he needed it most, but that improved image did not—perhaps could not—pay immediate and large dividends in terms of trial heat measures. After all, given that (a) Kerry was already doing well in trial heats for a challenger; (b) he’d already “spent” some of his bounce early by selecting Edwards as his running mate before the convention; and (c) this is already a highly polarized race with relatively few undecided voters, there was little room for Kerry to go up quickly in the trial heats. But the substantial gains on image and issues he made as a result of the convention put him in a good position to continue to build his lead over Bush as we move into the fall campaign. http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/
Will weighs in, I'm waiting for Jorge's edited version: Warning to Bush backers: this thread should not be used as a gloatational device.
Pennsylvania SurveyUSA (PDF). 7/31-8/2. MoE 3.7%. (6/10 results) President Kerry 53 (47) Bush 41 (46) Tennessee SurveyUSA (PDF). 7/31-8/2. MoE 4.2%. (6/22 results) President Bush 48 (51) Kerry 46 (41) Washington SurveyUSA (PDF). 7/31-8/2. MoE 4.2%. (6/4 results) President Kerry 51 (49) Bush 43 (44)
I live in NY, and if I wanted to vote for Bush, my vote would, for all practical purposes, be useless. NY is going to Kerry's column, the percentage lead is insurmountable for Bush (at the moment it's polling 51%-29% with the rest undecided or Nader supporters), so I don't see in what way you can consider my hypothetical vote for Bush to "count" when none of NY's 31 electoral votes will go to him. The electoral system is in effect disenfranchising 29% of NY's voting population--millions and millions of people. Someone else said in another post, "To hell with a couple of big states getting their way over the rest of the nation"--which is also failing to understand the issue. The electoral college makes it more likely, not less likely, for a couple of big states to determine an election. Theoretically, a candidate needs only to eke out 51%-49% wins in big states like NY, CA, FL, etc, and can lose in landslides in the majority of other, smaller states and still win in electoral votes. To think that a popular vote would lead to "a couple of big states getting their way" is to forget that the big states are not monolithic, their voters are not unanimous blocs--the electoral college ends up shutting out the votes of many millions of individuals in those big states. Do we want the candidates to campaign equally hard in all the states? Then why would we want the electoral college which makes it nearly pointless for Bush to campaign in NY or Kerry to campaign in Alabama? Do we want higher voter turnout? Then why would we want the electoral college which basically sends the message to millions of NY Bush supporters that "you might as well stay home"? In truth, I'm a Kerry supporter, but I won't even bother to vote come November because I'm certain he'll carry NY. Don't you believe there are many Bush supporters in NY who won't bother to head to the voting booths either for the same reason? Now imagine we had an election based on the popular vote--then for damn sure I'll be voting, and so will millions more around the nation whose votes, under the current system, don't really count.
Nice post, ttboy. That's how a Democrat currently feels in Texas, but this Democrat's going to vote. Someday, the tide will turn. It always does.
