I post this in response to a video my buddy sent me;

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9NSVUu8nk

With all the fraud alerts regarding the touchscreen voting machines in WV, this staffer decided to show how they can get 'off'. So basically you push Obama and it thinks you selected Nader across the screen, etc. So he calibrates it...then it gets off again in the same video, 5 seconds later. Comical.

Anyways, what do you think would happen if all the polls show Obama with leads going into election night, yet there is a massive Bradley effect and McCain wins. Think of this with the 2000 Florida fiasco and Obamas race. What would happen?

*Edit* I have a belief it's a software issue shown in the video (along with the initial calibration issue). I want to hear others first though.

That's why both parties have signed up literally thousands of lawyers.

Let's just hope for a clear result whatever happens, and no more post-election wrangling.

I, personally, will be immensely disappointed, but if it is a legal, above-board win, I will accept it and move on.

However, if it becomes a fiasco like 2000, and the process is marred by that caliber of problems, I will be like many Americans and demand that the flaws be corrected and a revote enacted. A result tainted by manipulation of the system and disenfranchisement of voters is no result at all; at that point, we might as well be some oversized banana-republic somewhere.

This applies to both sides; if Obama's win is tainted in the same way, I'd want a resolution. It's not legitimate until it's earned. Yet another reason Bush was never respected by the general populace.

It's gonna be a disaster.

Its ok. I have suffiicent supplies of popcorn and rum to enjoy the shennanigans. It will be FUN!

That's the spirit!

I think it would damage race relations somewhat, as no matter how innocent the mistakes might have been (lousy programmer does not a Right Wing Fanatic make) there will always be reasonable doubt, given the US' sadly less than sterling record in terms of equal rights, regardless of how fringe it is becoming now.

However, to my knowledge, Obama and McCain seem to have kept off the race issue, and I tip my hat to them for maintaining some semblance of decency.

Honestly, I don't think Obama would challenge it like Gore did in 2000. I think he'd push for reforming the voting process and machines. Maybe he could get an earmark for that!

If youbelieve that I have abridge to sell you. Both sides have approximately 500,000,000 vampires on standby to parachute in.

The polls were showing Kerry ahead 4 years ago and he lost. The polls also vary widely, showing anything from a 3-10 point lead depending on who is being counted.

The last two presidential elections were so close that small problems that came up for some voters were magnified. There is always some user who just can't figure out what to do.

In response to the problem, I heard on NPR this morning that most US voters will be casting paper ballots this election. This won't help much since many people also don't fill these out correctly. In the past, some voters marked their selection with lipstick prints on the candidate, drawings, personal messages and other confusing marks.

Well, that and having your brother conveniently destroy the polling slips before another recount can be ordered is very helpful.....

Like the old victory points 40k system, there should be a margin of victory. When it's as close as the last two elections it should be considered a draw.

To break the tie, we should have a tag-team wrestling match between all 4 participants to decide who'll be president!

utan wrote:The polls were showing Kerry ahead 4 years ago and he lost. The polls also vary widely, showing anything from a 3-10 point lead depending on who is being counted.

The last two presidential elections were so close that small problems that came up for some voters were magnified. There is always some user who just can't figure out what to do.

In response to the problem, I heard on NPR this morning that most US voters will be casting paper ballots this election. This won't help much since many people also don't fill these out correctly. In the past, some voters marked their selection with lipstick prints on the candidate, drawings, personal messages and other confusing marks.

Kerry was tied or behind in almost all major polls at this point in the election;

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/gallup.poll/index.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_EC.html

Obamas lead in the polls is significant for this period in the election, as normally late October tightens (Dogma could speak to this as I believe he's a polisci major/minor?).


Back to the topic, I don't believe I can truly understand the pride the African-American community has in Obama. I think it would become incredibly tense post-election if Obama loses (with polls showing solid leads). I don't say this in a negative light of the African-American community (Like some might) but I believe that the pride would readily translate to rage.

utan wrote:Like the old victory points 40k system, there should be a margin of victory. When it's as close as the last two elections it should be considered a draw.

To break the tie, we should have a tag-team wrestling match between all 4 participants to decide who'll be president!

Wrestling? PAH!

Have you never seen Star Trek? I reckon a Spock V Kirk style fight with blatantly impractical weapons should be the decider.

I believe there was a thread about this...something about Palin, shortly before being the new President, announcing "sorry boys, never bring a knife to a gunfight." From her NRA pic it looks like she favors an over/under 12 gauge. Take the Pres nominees down and then smack Biden like a girly boy. Yep, its hail to the Presidentess time...

Oh wait did someone mention Kirk?

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Kerry was tied or behind in almost all major polls at this point in the election;

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/gallup.poll/index.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_EC.html

Obamas lead in the polls is significant for this period in the election, as normally late October tightens (Dogma could speak to this as I believe he's a polisci major/minor?).

Yea, in general the later race tightens as fewer and fewer people claim to be undecided, with the break generally being to the losing candidate. It is thought that this phenomenon of the underdog sympathizer is directly correlated to the competitive drive of the individual casting the vote. Basically, people who see their candidate as losing are reticent to offer public support, for fear that it will cast a poor light on their judgment. Of course, there are environmental factors inherent to this. A Democrat in a profoundly Republican county would seemingly be hesitant to offer his views for fear of having them questioned/accosted. Certainly the inverse is equally applicable; Republicans are unlikely to openly profess support in what is perceived as a hostile environment. I expect, that this year, the effect will be much more evenly distributed. If only because of racial issues. Kind of an inverse Bradley Affect where Obama sympathizers in Red counties conceal their views for fear of being labeled with any number of unfortunate terminological idioms. In essence, this election's undecided voters remained as such because of a fear of labels, not a fear of backing a losing horse.

All that said, the one consistent truth about this election is that the polls are far more uncertain than in recent past. The Democrat ground game, and the race card, are throwing things through a loop. The Kerry election was pretty well decided before the ballots ever came in. The roughly 50% split between him and Bush giving a decided edge to the more reliable Republican voting blocks. A similar thing could be said this year, were the margin not so huge. Moreover, anyone who has ever been on a college campus in the past 4 years can tell you that there is a palpable sense of discontent, bordering on rage, that simply wasn't a factor in the Kerry decision. People will push their peers to the polls in a way which did not happen 4 years ago.

Yes yes yes.

But everyone knows that wimmins are just as incapable of shooting straight as they are of parking a car properly on the first, second, third and fourth attempts.

Sexist? Moi?

And on a more serious and on topic note...

Do you think people are wary of McCain because he's not in the best of health? After all, if he ceases to be during the Presidency, Palin takes over. And seeing as concerns have been raised about her experience, could the mere worry be putting peeps off from voting at all? (I think it's a bit of a leap in logic to assume they'd switch to Obama)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes yes yes.

But everyone knows that wimmins are just as incapable of shooting straight as they are of parking a car properly on the first, second, third and fourth attempts.

Sexist? Moi?

Thats why its a shotgun. Aiming is not required

No one has pointed out the obvious. Polls can be wildly wrong for a great number of reasons and just becuase they look one way doesn't mean reality is something different all together. 2,494 people asked every day who they are voting for could still be a total toss when 80 million people actually go out and vote.

Now now.

I've seen True Lies, and anyone else who has seen it will know what happens when a pretty lady attempts to fire a gun of any description. They drop it, it bounces down the stairs, still firing, neatly taking out the bad guys without injuring her or her husband.

Of course, if you are trying to say that not only Movies, but Arnie might be telling Porkie Pies, I'm just going to have to not believe you.

Ahtman wrote:No one has pointed out the obvious. Polls can be wildly wrong for a great number of reasons and just becuase they look one way doesn't mean reality is something different all together. 2,494 people asked every day who they are voting for could still be a total toss when 80 million people actually go out and vote.

No one's pointed it out because professional polling involves getting a statistically significant sample. That's not to say they're infallible, but it should be almost impossible for them to be *wildly* wrong in the way you're thinking.

My gut says that any Bradley effect will be counterbalanced by the Dem's vastly superior organization and the underreporting of younger votes in the major polls. And really, you have to look at the electoral situation and ignore the popular vote.

Pollster (www.pollster.com) has Obama at 272 (win) just based on solid blues -- those states where Obama's up eight points or more points at the polls. Adding leaning blues put him over 300. McCain has to win basically every single tossup state, AND flip one of the solid blues to his side...in less than seven days. The Dems have played the electoral game better than the GOP this time around.

You never really know, but it would be bizarre and shocking if McCain won at this point.

The voting irregularities with machines and such could mesh "interestingly" with McCain's victory guarantee that he made the other day... if you're a paranoid nutjob who can't distinguish political hyperbole from fact.

What odds are the bookies offering over there anyway ?

.... I assume it is legal to place a flutter on the election yes ?

Er, only in certain states I do believe.

Ask someone in Las Vegas; that's your best chance.

Sod Vegas, I've got a Ladbrokes just down the road. Might bung £5 on Obama to win.

Is gambling still illegal in parts of the states then ? Of all sorts ?

EDIT : Mr. MDG : you won't win much then

..still for £5

Obama wins between 290-309 9-1

aint sounding bad at all.

dogma wrote:
Yea, in general the later race tightens as fewer and fewer people claim to be undecided, with the break generally being to the losing candidate. It is thought that this phenomenon of the underdog sympathizer is directly correlated to the competitive drive of the individual casting the vote. Basically, people who see their candidate as losing are reticent to offer public support, for fear that it will cast a poor light on their judgment. Of course, there are environmental factors inherent to this. A Democrat in a profoundly Republican county would seemingly be hesitant to offer his views for fear of having them questioned/accosted. Certainly the inverse is equally applicable; Republicans are unlikely to openly profess support in what is perceived as a hostile environment. I expect, that this year, the effect will be much more evenly distributed. If only because of racial issues. Kind of an inverse Bradley Affect where Obama sympathizers in Red counties conceal their views for fear of being labeled with any number of unfortunate terminological idioms. In essence, this election's undecided voters remained as such because of a fear of labels, not a fear of backing a losing horse.

All that said, the one consistent truth about this election is that the polls are far more uncertain than in recent past. The Democrat ground game, and the race card, are throwing things through a loop. The Kerry election was pretty well decided before the ballots ever came in. The roughly 50% split between him and Bush giving a decided edge to the more reliable Republican voting blocks. A similar thing could be said this year, were the margin not so huge. Moreover, anyone who has ever been on a college campus in the past 4 years can tell you that there is a palpable sense of discontent, bordering on rage, that simply wasn't a factor in the Kerry decision. People will push their peers to the polls in a way which did not happen 4 years ago.

Yeah, somewhat what I thought and thanks for the info. My view on the election is this; There are no undecided voters at this point (Or a very small percentage of the listed 'undecided' are truly that). How could anyone possibly be undecided at this time? I think the undecided are A) Those whom are waiting for an excuse to vote for McCain and B) Those whom don't want to be public about voting for McCain. There may be a small inverse Bradley but I thinks it small.

This doesn't make me nervous however, as if I understand the polls correctly...they miss the newly registered voters this year (Which has been rather intimidating for Republicans). The newly registered should be more than enough to cancel any of the Bradley effect hiding in undecideds. Thoughts?

Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

reds8n wrote: Is gambling still illegal in parts of the states then ? Of all sorts ?

It varies from state-to-state, with some wonky laws regulating it in some of the ones that do. Most only go as far as lotteries (like here in TN, where we got one in the last few years as a means to further subsidize higher education), with only a few allowing full-blown casinos and such.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

Generally, the population of a sample is determined before hand (50, 100, etc.), and randomly selected from the contact information the polling group has. The odd numbers come about when they can't contact someone on the list; they can't spontaneously replace that person, so they're left as a null result. The results aren't determined until after the whole process is completed, so they can't just cut off when they get a "likely" result.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

Well, certainly the manner in which the poll is conducted is important. Demographics, party breakdown and sample size are the first three things I generally look for at polls (If they even provide that information anymore!). You can get accurate results (By accurate, I mean as accurate as margin of error allows) with proper polling.

The question I have regarding polls, which I've Googled mixed reviews is; How big of a deal is landline/cell phone usage trends to those polls? Does this figure into the youth vote (as younger people tend to have cell phones in place of landlines)?

As for online polls, I don't pay any attention to them. I've personally witnessed 4Chan drive a online Fox Poll post-debate from heavy Palin to heavy Biden.

AgeOfEgos wrote:This doesn't make me nervous however, as if I understand the polls correctly...they miss the newly registered voters this year (Which has been rather intimidating for Republicans).

That's my understanding too.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

The major polling organizations are pretty professional outfits. I think some of you guys need to do a little research. They operate quite a bit differently than your average Internet poll. Again, not saying they're infallible...just that they do their work as scientifically as they can.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Yeah, somewhat what I thought and thanks for the info. My view on the election is this; There are no undecided voters at this point (Or a very small percentage of the listed 'undecided' are truly that). How could anyone possibly be undecided at this time?

There is also some significant research being done about how the poll itself skews results. Basically, because many people lump pollsters and the media into the propaganda category, there is a tendency to respond to any solicitation with simple rejection. Because sample size is one of the main determiners of accuracy, and it costs money to increase sample size, many polls have taken to treating a refusal to respond as 'undecided' so they can avoid escalating costs. It is uncertain how many, or for that matter which, organizations do this. But a good way to spot it is the confluence of a large, relative to other polls, 'undecided' column and disproportionate support for the nominally leading candidate. The latest Pew poll is a good example.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
This doesn't make me nervous however, as if I understand the polls correctly...they miss the newly registered voters this year (Which has been rather intimidating for Republicans). The newly registered should be more than enough to cancel any of the Bradley effect hiding in undecideds. Thoughts?

Some of them do, some of them don't. I general, they tend to under represent the youth/new voter. This is partially due to difficulty in sampling, but also due to the fact that they are historically unlikely to vote. The best group, in my opinion, at countering this has been Gallup.

gorgon wrote:
The major polling organizations are pretty professional outfits. I think some of you guys need to do a little research. They operate quite a bit differently than your average Internet poll. Again, not saying they're infallible...just that they do their work as scientifically as they can.

It is pretty impressive. The mathematical research which goes into their algorithmic sample weighting is well beyond my abilities.

There's tons of good info on how to conduct polls well.

Even so the best pollsters sometimes get a bad result.

Polls in which the sample is self-selecting (e.g. web sites) are usually worthless.

Most of the major polls are fairly reliable. If the difference between candidates was near the sampling error, I would say that McCain could still pull out a victory. Based on everything that I've seen, I think it'll be Obama in a significant victory. I wouldn't say Reagan vs. Mondale type landslide, but I could see Obama pulling about 330 electoral votes.

And while both parties have a metric buttload of lawyers on hand, I still don't think the election results will get challenged. If there was some obvious problem (some votes were not counted, or lost, or certain voting places closed early, eyewitnesses see ballot boxes thrown in the river, etc.), I'm sure it would be challenged. But I think everyone remembers 2000, and I think if there doesn't appear to be any blatant and/or intentional wrongdoing, I don't think it'd get challenged in court.

I don't understand how there can be so many problems from a machine. It isn't like you are playing slots at a casino. Every time I press the n key on my computer, it says n.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So what the bejesus is so wrong with these voting machines?

I wasn't saying polls aren't useful, but they also don't represent reality. There are so many variables and unknowns. Look at Obama and New Hampshire in the primary. It was a solid win going in according to the polls and he lost.

Railguns wrote:I don't understand how there can be so many problems from a machine. It isn't like you are playing slots at a casino. Every time I press the n key on my computer, it says n.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So what the bejesus is so wrong with these voting machines?

Because with the enormous numbers involved even with the typically low voter turn out in the past there is always error. There could be problems even if there was nothing wrong with the machine, but some sort of software glitch compromised the integrity of the machine. Even if afterward the machine produced consistent results, there would always be that doubt.

The point for me is that any individual vote becomes meaningless due to the size of the numbers involved, therefore it is fruitless and frustrating to vote at all. I know I won't be going out next Tuesday in order to waste valuable minutes of my life participating in something that is pointless.

Grignard wrote:The point for me is that any individual vote becomes meaningless due to the size of the numbers involved, therefore it is fruitless and frustrating to vote at all. I know I won't be going out next Tuesday in order to waste valuable minutes of my life participating in something that is pointless.

You do know that there is more then just a presidential election going on right? Many of which your vote has a major impact. Might want to look into that.

Railguns wrote:I don't understand how there can be so many problems from a machine. It isn't like you are playing slots at a casino. Every time I press the n key on my computer, it says n.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So what the bejesus is so wrong with these voting machines?

Try pressing the N key on a Japanese computer.

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:The point for me is that any individual vote becomes meaningless due to the size of the numbers involved, therefore it is fruitless and frustrating to vote at all. I know I won't be going out next Tuesday in order to waste valuable minutes of my life participating in something that is pointless.

You do know that there is more then just a presidential election going on right? Many of which your vote has a major impact. Might want to look into that.

I don't keep up with politics, so I actually do not know what all is going on right now. I do know my state and local government having their elections, both for national representatives and local government, both of which I think probably matter, as far as voting is concerned, more than the presidential election, which in my view is simply a subsidized opinion poll. I still can't find myself that motivated to vote. I mean, to vote for one party or another effectively shoehorns your opinions into a "conservative" or "liberal" brand, of which you may not share all of its viewpoints.

Even a small local election is going to have thousands of voters. I generally feel that if you really care, which I don't, then lobbying is more effective than adding another point to the tally.

Bush won Florida and became POTUS due to 537 votes. I think your vote matters.

@Reds8n - I like the 9-1 odds on a 290-309 spread.

What bookies was that from, and are there better odds to be had?

9-1 seem pretty long for what sounds like a pretty likely electoral college result but it would be worth putting a tenner on it...

ladbrookes

Given the OP's scenario, I'd expect a subset of these ideas to gain some traction in the short-term. I don't expect much to change before the 2012 election though.

1. easier and near universal voter registration. Selective Service doesn't seem to have much of a problem getting eligible men to register nor do they seem to have much trouble finding those that aren't registered. Of course, federal educational funding for students requires this and I wouldn't extend that to voter registration (IOW one can't get federally-guaranteed loans without voter registration). This would also make the claims of voter registration fraud and presumably, actual voter fraud concerns less of an issue.
2. getting rid of touch screen voting machines in the US. Optical scanning and paper balloting should suffice.
3. move election day. The first Tuesday after the second MOnday in November was chosen long ago to allow farmers to vote. That is an archaic rule that doesn't apply today. Move it to a different day. I'm also for making it a federal holiday so nobody has a work excuse to avoid voting.
4. Have the National Election Pool, Voter News Service or whatever name the press consortium will have hold off on announcing any results until 10PM on the west coast. If you can find it, read the 1992 book "votescam" for background. Given item 2 above, early announcements probably wouldn't be viable anyway.
5. increase funding for voting stations and resources. In the US most voting services are done at the local level. Budgetary concerns often lead to a shortage of voting resources. They're also predicated on less than 50% of eligible voters actually voting.
6. provide an opt-out option for being contacted by political groups or political polls. Similar to the US national do not call list, but without the political exception currently in place.

Those are all good ideas.

Two things I've got to say are, firstly the polls are entirely unofficial and may well be genuinely wrong and should not be used as a excuse for electoral reform unless there is very good evidence of serious fraud.

Secondly, UK experience is that opposition parties are keen on electoral reform until they get into power with a good majority, when suddenly it turns out that the existing system is very good.

Excluding boundary changes, the UK has had two pieces of electoral reform under the Labour government.

The first was a change in the way that postal votes are allocated, registered and checked. This has been a disastrous failure (as was predicted before it was brought in) that has had to massively increased fraud which has been documented in several criminal trials.

The second was the idea of e-voting to increase turnout. This has been canned as there was no evidence it would work, and is expensive and potentially full of security holes. So a good result there, for once.

The Diebold machines are known to be very lacking in proper security.

The UK still relies on the tested and reliable system of a paper ballot form, filled in with a pencil, and counted by teams of volunteers.

As you probably know Kilkrazy, the US is run by a one-party system with a twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum figurehead. Neither side is keen on making third parties a viable alternative. The presidential debates are one of the more visible examples. Congressional district boundaries are another.

Short of a violent uprising, I don't see much changing in the US in terms of voting. The roots are deep, and with elements of the US Third Infantry division possibly being used "to help with civil unrest and crowd control", I doubt Washington has much to fear.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:As you probably know Kilkrazy, the US is run by a one-party system with a twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum figurehead. Neither side is keen on making third parties a viable alternative. The presidential debates are one of the more visible examples. Congressional district boundaries are another.

Well, that really all depends on how the fallout of this election cycle plays out for the GOP. If the ultra-right can secure its hold over the party I could see a real push from the Democrats to open up the electoral process. And, once it makes it into the light as a legitimate issue, I think it will be a very tough thing for any politician, with sense, to oppose.

How much electoral reform can be done within the framework of the constitution as it stands?

Hell, most of the process these days isn't a constitutional structure. The entire party primary process is an invention of the policial parties themselves. Campaign finance laws are designed entirely to affect how the parties leverage their financial power and connections. They decide who we get to vote for. As far as electoral reform can go, they can basically do what they want and tack it on to what the Constitution actually provides for.

Kilkrazy wrote:How much electoral reform can be done within the framework of the constitution as it stands?

It is up to the states to determine how they want to allocate their votes through their electors. About the only thing that can be done is publicize the issue on a state by state basis, hopefully building a convincing case for each state to tie their electors to a district. The the only issue with this, and I doubt it would matter given the level of urbanization in the US, is that it markedly favors denser population centers. Basically, it is easier to get the message out when you have 1000 people in 5 square miles than when you have the same number of people in 1000 square miles. Thus, what would happen is that you would see the two major parties forced into playing to the urban voter. While more sparsely populated regions would be breeding grounds for 3rd party candidates.

If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Well, certainly the manner in which the poll is conducted is important. Demographics, party breakdown and sample size are the first three things I generally look for at polls (If they even provide that information anymore!). You can get accurate results (By accurate, I mean as accurate as margin of error allows) with proper polling.

The question I have regarding polls, which I've Googled mixed reviews is; How big of a deal is landline/cell phone usage trends to those polls? Does this figure into the youth vote (as younger people tend to have cell phones in place of landlines)?

Fivethirtyeight has an article on cell phones you can look up if you're interested. Basically the results were as you'd expect, when cell phones were included in their polling methodolgy the numbers swung to Obama by an extra couple of points. I believe most of the bigger national polls use cell phones now.

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Becuase the best response, for democracies sake, is to riot if you don't like an election. Maybe a coup'd etat would be in order. You know, just to prove how much we like democracy.

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Better make sure your health insurance is up to date. The South ain't LA or Chicago. We know how to deal with riots.

Ahtman wrote:

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Becuase the best response, for democracies sake, is to riot if you don't like an election. Maybe a coup'd etat would be in order. You know, just to prove how much we like democracy.

Yep, and the best response is always to mock people. :S

Please.

I am embarrassed for you.

I'm embarrassed for all of us

Happy Feast of Samhain Day!!!

My grove's having ours tomorrow. But thanks!

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Becuase the best response, for democracies sake, is to riot if you don't like an election. Maybe a coup'd etat would be in order. You know, just to prove how much we like democracy.

Yep, and the best response is always to mock people. :S

Please.

I am embarrassed for you.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I personally think threat of riot because an election doesn't have the outcome you want to be erratic and irresponsible in the extreme. If you think it is ok to riot in the streets if Obama loses please let us know why.

Good point Ahtman. threatening to riot because you lose an election is the antithesis of democracy, its positively French...

Frazzled wrote:Good point Ahtman. threatening to riot because you lose an election is the antithesis of democracy, its positively French...

Did you just come here to make a joke at the expense of the dirty French?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Find a need and fill it?

Look, when you've periodically given the French a few Chinese Burns over the years for lack of anyone else to bully, then you get to make sarky comments about them.

But the US hasn't. So there. Nyeh!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Look, when you've periodically given the French a few Chinese Burns over the years for lack of anyone else to bully, then you get to make sarky comments about them.

But the US hasn't. So there. Nyeh!

Does FREEDOM FRIES COUNT FOR NOTHING?!?!

No.

But having a Hundred Year War against them, and wiping out their nobility does. (Agincourt anyone? COME ON THE PEASENTS!)

Hey, the French wiped out their own nobility.

We got there first I'm afraid. Between that and the Battle where they killed their Genoese Crossbowmen for nicking off (didn't bring Pavises, getting slaughtered by Longbows, decided they'd had enough) there wasn't a lot left. Allowed England to dominate for quite a while, as the eldest sons were all dead!

Railguns wrote:Hey, the French wiped out their own nobility.

Besides the French nicked the idea of revolutions and getting rid of kings from our English Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy

All right all right, just remember the French invented Freech wine and French women Enough said.

They also helped us in the Revolutionary War, though everyone seems to forget that bit.

What have the French ever given us? Oh yeah, critical military support to win our independence. And that terrible status in New York that we hate so much. Oh wait.

Ragnar I'm shocked you didn't recognize the awesome cultural contribution of French wine and women. Nothing else needs to be said.

But then again we had to shoot it out with them in Quasi War in 1798. So thats 2-0 vs. Brits, 1-0 vs. France. Looks like the French are beating you Grotsnik.

EDIT: I'm going to have to give myself a warning for trolling pretty soon I think...

Ah, but I asked rhetorically what they’ve GIVEN us. Not what we pay for. Though they are pretty awesome.

Cheese.

and French bread. Freshly baked French bread is awesome. Stale French breaad can be used as a clkub in case the Germans cross the frontier (again).

Foie gras.

French kissing.

..letters ?


... They have that slang stateside right ?

The French and the US like to poke fun at eachother as much as the British and the US do. It's nothing personal, except for a few "special" people.

We named a lot of stuff after the French because of the Revolutionary War and one of our favorite heroes, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette.

In the end we joke but the only people everyone truly dislikes are French-Canadians.

Even they play good hockey though eh?

Ahtman wrote:In the end we joke but the only people everyone truly dislikes are French-Canadians.

Shut. Your. Mouth.

#66, "Le Magnifique" = best ever.

Ahtman wrote:
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I personally think threat of riot because an election doesn't have the outcome you want to be erratic and irresponsible in the extreme. If you think it is ok to riot in the streets if Obama loses please let us know why.

I don't, that isn't the point. The point is that mockery is deleterious to discourse. And I have never seen a post from you that begins with anything but condescension.

Hey I'm part French, and finally learning French. Can't wait to actually visit the place. I hear they take a special liking to Louisianians.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Becuase the best response, for democracies sake, is to riot if you don't like an election. Maybe a coup'd etat would be in order. You know, just to prove how much we like democracy.

Yep, and the best response is always to mock people. :S

Please.

I am embarrassed for you.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I personally think threat of riot because an election doesn't have the outcome you want to be erratic and irresponsible in the extreme. If you think it is ok to riot in the streets if Obama loses please let us know why.

I wasn't threatening to riot I was just letting you know that if he loses it will occur and I will be getting some free stuff out of it.

There is no distinction. Both are reprehensible.

Reprehensible it may be (and it is), but I predict riots that make those after the Rodney King verdict look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic, in the event of a McCain victory. Obama is either ahead or way ahead in every major poll. If he loses, it will appear that the election was fixed.

dogma wrote:I don't, that isn't the point. The point is that mockery is deleterious to discourse. And I have never seen a post from you that begins with anything but condescension.

If you cherry pick and only see what you want to then of course it is going to seem that way. This isn't SERIOUS BUSINESS board either, it is an OT board on from a miniature games website. We get a little silly sometimes. We aren't defending a dissertation. It just isn't that serious, and I think you know that but just have decided in your mind that you don't like me and so are going to see everything in a negative way. Your loss if you think you can judge and know someone based on a few selected posts online that you choose to take a certain way.

I'm not judging you. Despite the fact that I think you're a lawyer, I'm sure you're a perfectly amiable dude. I'm not always fond of the phrase you use as a request for clarification, and that's what I meant to point out. Admittedly the 'embarrassed' remark was unnecessary, so I apologize for that.

Ahtman wrote:No one has pointed out the obvious. Polls can be wildly wrong for a great number of reasons and just becuase they look one way doesn't mean reality is something different all together. 2,494 people asked every day who they are voting for could still be a total toss when 80 million people actually go out and vote.

How many people polled aren't registered or eligible to vote is also a big issue.

reds8n wrote:..letters ?


... They have that slang stateside right ?

I'm guessing you won't find many people who weren't alive during WWII who know that one, in the US anyhow.