The W
Views: 110245377
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
13.2.09 1529
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Interesting voting stats from CNN Register and log in to post!
(707 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (10 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 146

Posts: 2119/6705
EXP: 38357639
For next: 155747

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 42 min.
#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
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 152/498
EXP: 759527
For next: 6682

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

Since last post: 84 days
Last activity: 31 days
#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: 219

Posts: 5302/16771
EXP: 156299641
For next: 1635973

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 20 hours
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: 92

Posts: 1118/2220
EXP: 7525883
For next: 231084

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 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: 78

Posts: 1368/1528
EXP: 4288412
For next: 93833

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 3308 days
Last activity: 3151 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: 92

Posts: 1120/2220
EXP: 7525883
For next: 231084

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 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
Scrapple
Level: 112

Posts: 974/3572
EXP: 15289259
For next: 48994

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 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: 101

Posts: 1448/2781
EXP: 10423638
For next: 294074

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 667 days
Last activity: 23 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
Bierwurst
Level: 84

Posts: 483/1796
EXP: 5443128
For next: 218848

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 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: 34

Posts: 161/219
EXP: 232688
For next: 20966

Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 4071 days
Last activity: 4020 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.
(707 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
©2001-2015 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.231 seconds.