• ATTENTION New Members: Please take a few moments to introduce yourself, show your commitment to harm reduction, and chat with the community in the "New Member Introduction" subforum. This will help unlock access to additional forum features and privileges.

Zogby Calls Landslide Victory for Kerry...

Millard

Elite
Staff member
10+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
... but only in the Electoral results (which is all that matters in our antiquated democratic elections):

Kerry 311 to Bush 213 electoral votes

But predicts Bush wins the popular vote!


http://www.zogby.com/


I don't know what business any pollster has making final predictions at this point. But oh well, it's the first pollster to call it.

Take it with a huge chunk of salt - remember 2000 election pollsters didn't know anything
 
Alphamale23 said:
its 10:30 and its 193 bush and 112 Kerry, not good (IMO of course)

10:48 It's not that bad, Bush had those states in 2000 also. The only new thing so far could be New-Hampshire, and it's going where you want it(for now).
 
vampirique said:
10:48 It's not that bad, Bush had those states in 2000 also. The only new thing so far could be New-Hampshire, and it's going where you want it(for now).

So far there have been no swing states called, which means nothing is new~Sensational
 
10:58 EST and Bush looks like he has 4-5 pt lead in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico. Kerry looks like he has a nice lead in Pennsylvania and Iowa.
 
12:50 its all over men. bush is gonna win ohio....and thats all she wrote. oh well im just glad that 115-120 million Americans got out to vote.
 
Redneck

Alphamale23 said:
12:50 its all over men. bush is gonna win ohio....and thats all she wrote. oh well im just glad that 115-120 million Americans got out to vote.


Oh well,,, four more for the antichrist :D
 
8:30 am on wednesday...Bush has taken OH, NV....and later today he will take Iowa and NM.

Kerry needs to man up and concede in ohio and nationally!!! 136,000 votes is too much to overcome with the provisional ballots. Kerry would have to win about 80-90% of them.

Bush is killing him in the popular vote, and OH isn't even close (not like Fl was in '00). I don't think the country would stand for a lawsuit right now. Their are no grounds to dragged this out.
 
Kayz said:
8:30 am on wednesday...Bush has taken OH, NV....and later today he will take Iowa and NM.

Kerry needs to man up and concede in ohio and nationally!!! 136,000 votes is too much to overcome with the provisional ballots. Kerry would have to win about 80-90% of them.

Bush is killing him in the popular vote, and OH isn't even close (not like Fl was in '00). I don't think the country would stand for a lawsuit right now. Their are no grounds to dragged this out.
Some comments...

The Electoral College is an antiquated voting system. IF we want to spread democracy around the world by being an example of a progressive democracy in action where the voter's intent is reflected, we need to get rid of the electoral college.

A voting system with a plurality of the vote is better although not the best. Clearly, Bush has the most votes. There is no doubt about that as far as I can tell.

This is the first time in the past 4 presidential elections that ANY candidate has received a MAJORITY of the vote.

Last election, voters weren't sure who Bush was and what he would do. Now everyone knows very well. And the voters came out to the polls and they voted for Bush.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with Bush, this election was a strong validation of his policies. The Republicans who have aligned themselves with Bush dominated the Senate races and had a huge pickup in seats.

You will either feel much, much safer today.

Or you will be gravely concerned about the future.

This is the two different realities of the Democrats and Republicans that I expect will become more polarized.
 
Without the electoral college, all you have to do is win the five most populated states and you could win the popular vote.

The framers knew what they were doing!
 
jbiggs said:
Without the electoral college, all you have to do is win the five most populated states and you could win the popular vote.

The framers knew what they were doing!
Amen to that JB..........11
 
jbiggs said:
Without the electoral college, all you have to do is win the five most populated states and you could win the popular vote.

The framers knew what they were doing!
But I never said the plurarity system was the best. It is not. There are several alternative voting systems. It is not an either/or choice between electoral system and plurarity system.

The electoral system is one of the worst.
 
administrator said:
But I never said the plurarity system was the best. It is not. There are several alternative voting systems. It is not an either/or choice between electoral system and plurarity system.

The electoral system is one of the worst.

There are others, true, but many of the others have been rampit with fraud.

I agree we need to find a system that doesn't leave us guessing!
 
jbiggs said:
Without the electoral college, all you have to do is win the five most populated states and you could win the popular vote.

The framers knew what they were doing!

...not even the 5 most popular states, but the 5 most populated cities: LA, NYC, Chicago, Seattle....etc.
 
Top