Totally off-topic poll

[PvK]

Originally posted by Tris:
...like I said - my choice is heard on Primetime news. Show me another, more effective way to represent my dissatisfaction with the system.

He did. Cast a ballot, but only vote for things you actually support, or against things you don't. If you don't like any of the choices, don't vote for any of them, but do cast the ballot.

That way you actively show disapproval. Most of the people who don't vote are probably doing so because they don't care for whatever reason, and there's no way to tell the difference between an outraged person who doesn't show up as a protest, or someone who's just too lazy or clueless or apathetic.

PvK

[november]

Looks like your theory is right. But of course there�s places in the US where the current 21% for Bush in your poll would be a scandal, say most college campuses. I would guess that the results, for faculty and students, would be less than 10% for Bush.

I�m an independent but I�m voting for Bush unless he screws up the war by politicizing it. The closest thing the Dems have to a hardliner on the war is Hilary.

I was a yellow-dog democrat until the Bill show, and the way it�s looking I may never vote for a dem again.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinkthank:
We, meaning US citizens about whom this poll is and the group a member of which I proudly be.

2, meaning those two only who receive official national funding (1$ per tax return, remember), and meaning those two with more than even slightly nominal membership in a house of representation.

Well actually any party that fronts a candidate gets that money. And thats only about a dozen out of the many many partys. So far they rarely try to put anyone up for presidency. Mostly they are active at city, county, state levels. But it has happened fairly often (nader, perot, buchanan)

---

Er - First, tinkthank - it's not $1 per tax return. At most it's 99.99 cents, because I for one check the box that says that no, one dollar from my taxes isn't to go to help one of two whores get into office.

Second : Nader didn't get any money. For a party to get any of that money, they have to have received at least 5% of the popular vote the previous election. So - Nader, who co-opted the Greens, didn't get the money. Buchanan, who raped, er, co-opted Perot's party, may have - I don't remember if they got 5% in 96.

Also - Bush didn't, and won't, be getting any of that money. Reason being that it winds up being "matching funds" for what the candidate spends, as long as they follow certain rules about their funding, ads, etc. Boy Bush turned down the money in 2000 so he wouldn't have any limitations - his oil, lumber, and other industrial patrons have already poured enough money into his pot that he doesn't need matching funds.

I take back what I said, about Cthulhu. If you're tired of picking the lesser of two evils - vote Bush.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by november:
I was a yellow-dog democrat until the Bill show, and the way it?s looking I may never vote for a dem again.

Y'know, I'm curious. Just what is it that Bill Clinton did that was so wrong? He screwed a woman. And he lied about it. Just like most married people would lie. He didn't ignore the constitution. He didn't get us into a screwed up war and screw it up 100 ways to Sunday.

He didn't fire only those people who told the public the truth. Whereas Bush fired Clarke, who said that Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. He fired Gen Shalashki(spelling is wrong), who said we'd need more than the handful of troops in Iraq that Rumsfeld and co insisted. He fired Lindsey, who told the truth about the likely cost of the war - that no, Iraq _wasn't_ going to fund its own reconstruction.

Clinton didn't lock people up without due process. His administration didn't make not-so-veiled threats that "people ought to be careful what they say", ignoring the 1st amendment. He didn't overrule and disregard his own scientific panels, as Bush has.

Mind you - I'm an atheist when it comes to politics, I didn't vote for Gore, and until Baby Bush, I wasn't a fan of Clinton. But again - what did Clinton do that turned you off the Democratic party?

Myself - I think both parties are "swive-me-mate" trollops; a few possible exceptions, such as McCain, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and a few other mavericks who buck their own party when they think the people are getting shafted by something their party wants.

[november]

*looks over both shoulders�is this OT?*

Don�t feel like rehashing all this. I thought his pool was interesting. I was a little surprised at the result.

[Stormbinder]

dp

[ May 10, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by november:
*looks over both shoulders—is this OT?*

Don’t feel like rehashing all this. I thought his pool was interesting. I was a little surprised at the result.

Thanks. Yes, my theory seemed to be correct, we are way past the margin of statistical error here.


Now that we have gathered enough statistical data, and know the results (21% for Bush, 79% for Kerry), who will be the first brave soul to try to explain it? I remind you that at this moment the country is spilt 49% vs 49%. So why intenet in general, and our forum in particualar, is so radically different?


I have my own thoughts about it, but I would like to hear other people opinions first.

[ May 10, 2004, 23:14: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Norfleet]

Well, if you figure that becoming a member of the Internet community has a barrier to entry, that no matter how dumb a member of the Internet community may seem, the fact that it's a selected group with a barrier to entry(must able to operate a computer), means that the group must still be of above average intelligence(and that's just sad!).

Now, given that people on the Internet have access to more information, for better or for worse, I think it's reasonable to expect that most of us are reasonbly well-versed in Bush's atrocities. Most of us are probably sure he ain't the sharpest pencil in the drawer.

What does this mean, then? Well, it means we're less inclined to vote for him....although some of us may take the view of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

Plus you removed all of the independent voters. It would have been MORE interesting to see what the percentage of people who would vote independent as a result of this as compared to the national average.

[Zapmeister]

Well, if you figure that becoming a member of the Internet community has a barrier to entry...

But the poll didn't sample the wider Internet community, it sampled Dominions players. And I think it would be too simplistic (and arrogant) to say that Dominions players are too intelligent to vote for Bush.

More likely, there is something about the persona that is attracted to Dominions that is also attracted to the more moderate politics that the Democratic party is supposed to represent.

Alternatively (speaking as an uninformed Australian onlooker here) it is possible the Dominions players are, for some reason, more likely to accept the media portrayal of Bush, and whoever's advising him, as idiots.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Alternatively (speaking as an uninformed Australian onlooker here) it is possible the Dominions players are, for some reason, more likely to accept the media portrayal of Bush, and whoever's advising him, as idiots.

Actually, the US news media has by and large portrayed him favorably; possibly because 90% of the newspapers are now owned by large conglomerate corporations whose primary interest isn't presenting a fair and unbiased representation of the news. Two of the only large independently owned papers aren't nearly as favorable towards him : The New York Times is anti-Bush, while the Washington Post is more unbiased.

Also - it isn't the internet community, or the dominions 2 community. I don't drive, so I ride the buses - an awful lot of non-internet type people are pretty unhappy with Bush. Ditto the military (I'm former military, and up until 2 months ago had been working with the military for the 14 years since I became a civilian).

Near as I can tell, the question is : Who the @#$@ are these polls talking to? Registered members of their local Chambers of Commerce? Members of the "Pioneer Club" (people who've raised 10,000 or more for Bush)? Oilmen? Who?