Tuesday, November 02, 2004

The Kids Are All Right?

Early radio reports worth noting:

CBS said that voter turnout was heavy, particularly among younger voters, in a host of New York-area polling sites, including Saddle Brook, N.J., and Bridgeport, Conn.

Air America fielded calls from voters in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, suggesting heavier than normal turnout, and a prevalence of younger voters.

Rock the Vote!

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

More anecdotal evidence of heavy turnout, from swingstateproject.com:

From Hilliard, Ohio (a suburb of Columbus). I arrived at the polling location at 6:30am, the line was already backed up all down the halls and outside the building. I had to wait in line for 2 hours. One of the three electronic voting machines started making beeping noises and it took them about 5 - 10 minutes to get the beeping stopped. I have no idea what that was all about, but it worried me and others that the machine might not be working properly. However, the poll workers insisted all was well and kept using the machine. We never received a paper receipt so I hope a recount will not be necessary because there's no paper trail.

12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If a series stories released on Bloomberg this morning are any indication, I know that may be a substantial "if", the tide is moving towards a Kerry win.
Stories of record lines at the polls in Ohio that did not exist at this same time in the 2000 election, of how the "October surprises" of Bin Laden's tape and missing weapons helped Kerry more than Bush in the polls; brand new Zogby polls putting Kerry ahead in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, yet still statistically even in Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, yet even in those states Kerry is ahead a few points, a brand new ARG poll has Kerry ahead 2 points in Florida. Are we going to see that battleground state sweep for Kerry?
Now to focus back on work...

12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I now believe there is no way to prove whether there is voter fraud or not. I went to vote this morning and walked in. An old man asked my last name and then proceeded to tell me my address as a confirmation. I said "if you say so." He then pulled out a sheet of paper where my prior registered signature was and i had to sign next to it. There were 30+ other names on the page and i easily could have memorized three of four of the unsigned ones. In any event, the man said ok, didnt look at my signature or at me and told me to go to the booth. The i voted and left. I watched this same process over and over again, first with my wife and then with others.

What do i take from this experience. 1) I could have skipped the entire process and just get on line at the booth and voted without signing in. 2) Since they didnt ask my address nor for identification, I could have gone back in and used the name of someone else on the list and voted over and over again.

Pathetic and makes one wonder how anyone is to trust the results anywhere and for either candidate.

As far as I am concerned, there is no doubt that each person should be ID'd in order to vote. This is ridiculous. What a joke.

2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is now time to open your eyes. My posting opinions here have been borne out in the election. It is pretty clear a few things now:

1) Kerry clearly never connected with people as he needed to . Didnt sell himself and was just not as likeable as you would hope for a candidate. So, even in a time where people are disappointed in their president, they still like him more and believe in him more. For better or worse.

2) VP pick was terrible: inexperienced politically, couldnt carry a state and another senator. two senators and lawyers-ouch.

3) Probably the biggest reason: the democratic party has been hijacked by the left and the rest of the country cannot stand it. The high republican turnout and the large popular vote for the president says more than i can write. and it is shocking. But the democrats have gone completely away from the clinton era centrism and allow their voice to be from the leftist fringe. and the rest of america not only disagrees but views their nonsense with contempt. same goes in reverse for the republican far right but they were not nearly as vocal here. the dems need to look in a mirror.

4) Embracing groups like the 527s, Soros, and Michael Moore was a huge mistake and made them look more like rookies than professionals.

5) choosing a massachusetts liberal who never convinced america where he stood on the most important issue of the day.

6) again dems need to also look at how their platform has been hijacked by looking at the senatorial races as well.

Overall, a terrible day for the democrats. Hopefully it will be a wake up call for the centrists in the party to grab back power and get a stronger (non Hillary ) candidate in 4 years.

7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the above blogger: Pshaw!
Kerry appears to have lost the election because no poll factored in the "morality" vote, which ranked as strong a percentage in the exiting polling (I believe about 25%) as terrorism concerns.
As example, all the polls show the older stout christians, protestans, catholics etc. gave Bush the edge in Ohio because they viewed Bush as the more moral candidate, against abortion and gay marriage.
The fact that Democrats by their very nature do not take strong stands on this issues unexpectedly, unforeseen by noone, gave the vote to Bush.
This has more to do with Kerry's apparant defeat than "centralist" views, or "inability to state a position on the most important issue of the day" a claim which is bullsh--- to anyone who listened to Kerry's message, and to anyone who has seen the reports over the night and morning that the morality issue was just as large an issue.
Now, please, if only someone could explain to me what is more moral about allowing a women the right to choose after a rape or incest, or about allowing Gays to marry, than igniting a futile war that has killed more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers, and some 100,000 innocent Iraqis, mostly women and children.
In my mind, it is because of the majority of the people being uninformed on Bush's views, and having distorted views of Kerry's, that resulted in Kerry's apparant defeat. The perception that Bush was the more moral candidate as well Republican-created myth that he was better at fighting terror successfully duped the masses.
What else could explain the most mistake-ridden presidency in U.S. history being elected to a second term?

9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Newsflash. Noone loses anything because of a poll. Karl Rove and the Bush team clearly went after the republican base to get them out to vote. Kudos for a job well done. That is your moral issue right there-they didnt vote last time and now they did. But again, the simple fact is that Bush didnt focus on the middle BUT neither did Kerry. If he had grabbed the middle and the left, which was never in doubt, he wins. But he failed to do that.

You will see in coming days that the Kerry campaign admits they didnt have a clear message , no matter what leftists want to believe. Bad candidate, poorly run campaign, bad VP choice = loss.

1:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares