The W
Views: 97706129
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.7.07 1217
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Interesting voting stats from CNN Register and log in to post!
(515 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (10 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 2119/6217
EXP: 32195988
For next: 271539

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 3.11.04 1740.51
Reposted on: 3.11.11 1745.01
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Some are obvious, rich white non union men voted for Bush. However the only demographic that seemed to vote Nader was non white males.

Promote this thread!
OndaGrande
Kolbasz
Level: 46

Posts: 152/474
EXP: 661082
For next: 50697

Since: 1.5.03
From: California, Home of THE LAKERS!

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 46 min.
#2 Posted on 3.11.04 1952.54
Reposted on: 3.11.11 1954.52
Although I'm not CNN's biggest fan, I applaud them for factoring Nader in. All the other networks completely ignored him during their coverage. During the campaign a few at least gave him a spot on a talk show but that was it. C-Span at least gave him an hour of coverage to get his message out.

I think if he had been given a real chance to present his issues he could have gotten closer to 5-15% of the vote.

Even though California probably threw it out, I still wrote him in, more out of protest to the polarization of the political process than any thing. I broke down my agreement with the candidates as such. Nader 75%, Badnarik 70%, Bush 50%, Kerry 25%. So I voted with my conscience and so my voice could be heard, even if it was drowned out.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 5302/16101
EXP: 138743244
For next: 2292542

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 29 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 3.11.04 2227.17
Reposted on: 3.11.11 2227.57
    Originally posted by OndaGrande
    Although I'm not CNN's biggest fan, I applaud them for factoring Nader in. All the other networks completely ignored him during their coverage.
As they should. CNN reporting that Nader got "1%" of the vote - he got closer to 0.34% - really makes me wonder who's got such a hardon for him over there to round up his number so generously.

    I think if he had been given a real chance to present his issues he could have gotten closer to 5-15% of the vote.
What's so special about Nader? Let's give Badnarik that "real chance!" Let's give a "real chance" to Peroutka! I'm sure the Greens would appreciate their man Cobb getting that "real chance!" Still, give ANY of them any appreciable amount of time and you're STILL not going to see ANY of them get even 2%. That's just how things are.

(edited by CRZ on 3.11.04 2234)
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1118/2182
EXP: 6920092
For next: 268544

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 245 days
Last activity: 239 days
#4 Posted on 3.11.04 2247.50
Reposted on: 3.11.11 2251.06
    Originally posted by OndaGrande
    I think if he had been given a real chance to present his issues he could have gotten closer to 5-15% of the vote.


Let's hope not. Unfortunately, someone who was once relevent and helpful to American citizens has become a joke. His "Congrats" attempted call to Kerry, hopefully, will seal the crackpot up.

I'm not a fan of "third parties", but it will take a real load of money and hard times to get anyone up even to the levels the Libertarians used to get, let alone the Perot and Anderson numbers.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1368/1528
EXP: 4045621
For next: 145527

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2741 days
Last activity: 2584 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 4.11.04 0015.57
Reposted on: 4.11.11 0020.56
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by OndaGrande
      I think if he had been given a real chance to present his issues he could have gotten closer to 5-15% of the vote.


    Let's hope not. Unfortunately, someone who was once relevent and helpful to American citizens has become a joke. His "Congrats" attempted call to Kerry, hopefully, will seal the crackpot up.

    I'm not a fan of "third parties", but it will take a real load of money and hard times to get anyone up even to the levels the Libertarians used to get, let alone the Perot and Anderson numbers.


What about Perot, though? That was an odd moment in American politics, and, in the end, a flash in the pan. But nothing says it can't happen again, perhaps years from now, in a calmer time.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1120/2182
EXP: 6920092
For next: 268544

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 245 days
Last activity: 239 days
#6 Posted on 4.11.04 0104.43
Reposted on: 4.11.11 0106.26
Um, I mentioned Perot, along with John Anderson. Those two were fairly successful as thirds to say the least.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 974/3336
EXP: 13014025
For next: 77328

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 4.11.04 0540.05
Reposted on: 4.11.11 0544.21
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Still, give ANY of them any appreciable amount of time and you're STILL not going to see ANY of them get even 2%.


In fact, Chris, it seems like the relative relevance of third parties is really reduced this time. They only got like 1.1% of the vote all together (in the Presidential race). It still seems to me that until run-offs become the rule of the land (like they are in Louisiana), then it would be better to try and change one of the two major parties from within rather than to blow out your ego on an unwinable and uninfluancing position in a third party (of whatever type).

The only major thirds in the last many years have been people who have major personal star power (perot, wallace).
The Thrill
Banger
Level: 99

Posts: 1448/2781
EXP: 9821066
For next: 178969

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 100 days
Last activity: 85 days
#8 Posted on 4.11.04 0737.14
Reposted on: 4.11.11 0739.29
    Originally posted by OndaGrande
    All the other networks completely ignored him during their coverage.


Well, ABC did take his, uh, "concession" speech live during the primetime coverage. He didn't make a whole lot of sense during that live hit, however, in my eyes.
whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 483/1735
EXP: 4873187
For next: 119683

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on 4.11.04 0825.19
Reposted on: 4.11.11 0829.01
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by CRZ
      Still, give ANY of them any appreciable amount of time and you're STILL not going to see ANY of them get even 2%.


    In fact, Chris, it seems like the relative relevance of third parties is really reduced this time. They only got like 1.1% of the vote all together (in the Presidential race).

I do believe that the low third party vote this year was for so many people who felt so strongly pro- and anti- Bush that they didn't dare vote third party since their side needed every vote they could get. Plus, Nader did get 2.74% in 2000. Still too small a percentage to do any good, but nonetheless...
SirBubNorm
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 161/219
EXP: 219514
For next: 9668

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3503 days
Last activity: 3453 days
#10 Posted on 4.11.04 1039.24
Reposted on: 4.11.11 1039.49
I feel dumb. I had actually stopped by this page this morning, however I dismissed these since they are based on "exit polls". Am I incorrect that they are using the same exit polls that were so obviously off on election night?
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Elizabeth Edwards diagnosed with breast cancer
Next thread: Bush wins re-election, loses cabinet?
Previous thread: This has to be a dream.
(515 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Interesting voting stats from CNNRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.162 seconds.