![]() |
2008-09-24
, 13:35
|
|
Posts: 3,096 |
Thanked: 1,525 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Michigan, USA
|
#82
|
In fairness, C doesn't apply here because it was not meant as a prediction of election results, but as a measure of the itT crowd, including those who were ineligible to vote. Would it be wrong to try to predict the election outcome with this? Well, only about a half-dozen different ways! That doesn't invalidate it for it's purpose though...
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 13:46
|
|
Posts: 354 |
Thanked: 93 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ New York
|
#83
|
I agree with you about the two party system, however I think these candidates are not close on many issues. And if McCain would stop repeating Obama's slogans people would be much less confused about actual issues. I know nobody wants to talk about issues, they want to talk about lipstick and other non-issues.
McCains plans for healthcare will cover about 5million new people out of 45 million, Obama's plan covers about 37million out of the 45million people without health insurance.
I am not saying that either one is better than the other but there are DEFINITE differences between the candidates. These are not Moe or Moe. More like Curley or Shemp.
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 13:57
|
|
Posts: 354 |
Thanked: 93 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ New York
|
#84
|
The Swift Boat ads, however inaccurate they were, had a significant impact on John Kerrey's electability.
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 15:05
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#85
|
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 15:33
|
|
Posts: 3,096 |
Thanked: 1,525 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Michigan, USA
|
#86
|
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 15:54
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#87
|
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 16:09
|
Posts: 5,795 |
Thanked: 3,151 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Agoura Hills Calif
|
#88
|
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 20:04
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#89
|
And that was a good thing, just as the ads with Dukakis in that tank were effective (and a good thing).
![]() |
2008-09-24
, 20:24
|
Posts: 631 |
Thanked: 1,123 times |
Joined on Sep 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#90
|
In a poll, it doesn't work that way; there are secondary ways to game with polls, I know, like trying to persuade your opponent that to sit on a "lead", but they're much less prevalent.
The primary outcome is seeing your candidate do better in the polls, so you're most likely going to vote for your candidate. Especially on the ones that ask your vote for each of a series of possible pairings, so in each case it's a pure two-candidate race, and there's no issue with "do I help my real candidate or my practical candidate?".
Maybe I'm a one-trick pony here with my election methods, but I don't see polls as being that big a problem. Are they unreliable? Yes. (Some are decent, but assume they're unreliable unless you know the methodology, the whole questions used, etc. Then, if they're clean, assume they're semi-reliable.) But they're nothing locking us into a 2-party system. It's the voting system, the whole voting system, and nothing but the voting system.
World's first inductively-charged N900!