Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.