The W
Views: 100943355
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.11.14 0855
The W - Current Events & Politics - Interesting voting stats from CNN
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.55
Pages: 1
(966 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (10 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 13 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.56
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








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

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.91

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.



LEARN IT, KNOW IT, LIVE IT!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.02
    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)


CRZ
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 370 days
Last activity: 364 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.53

    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.



"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2866 days
Last activity: 2708 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    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.



"You know what I'm happiest for? I'm happiest for Bill Buckner, Calvin Schiraldi, Bob Stanley, Johnny Pesky, Ted Williams, all of the Red Sox that played before us will now be remembered for the great players and great people they were instead of all the other crap."
Curt Schilling
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 370 days
Last activity: 364 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.49

Um, I mentioned Perot, along with John Anderson. Those two were fairly successful as thirds to say the least.



"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.07
    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).



Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 225 days
Last activity: 71 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
Catch The Thrill on "Pick of the Week": taped Tuesdays at Planet Magic in Denmark, WI; on the air Sundays @ 1 am on WB-14!

    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.



Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.



THE THRILL
ACW-NWA Wisconsin
Home Video Technical Director...&
A2NWO 4 Life!
(Click the big G or here to hear the Packers Fight Song in RealAudio...or try .AU, .WAV or .MIDI!)
whatever
Lap cheong








Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 26 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.22
    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...



"Lita holds a Stone Cold Steve Austin home pregnancy test. What will the Bottom Line say? Hell Yeah or Eh-EH?" - Raw Satire, 6/15/04

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3628 days
Last activity: 3578 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
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?



It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
Thread rated: 5.55
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Elizabeth Edwards diagnosed with breast cancer
Next thread: Bush wins re-election, loses cabinet?
Previous thread: This has to be a dream.
(966 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
And I should also direct you to the thread over at Reddit (reddit.com) where everyone else has already done the heavy lifting and sifting. :)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Interesting voting stats from CNNRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.114 seconds.