The Song Fight Bulletin Board

<a href="http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp" target="resource window">Redskins Prediction Method</a>

Well then, this should settle things.

Go Packers!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/10/22/1741/0082#readmore

http://inprogress.typepad.com/republicanswitchers/

"Yes, Kerry is liberal. But what's to fear from a liberal president? That he would run big deficits? That he would increase federal spending? That he would expand the power of the federal government over individuals' lives? Nothing Kerry could do could top what President Bush has already done in those realms." --the Des Moines Register, endorsing Kerry

mkilly wrote: Well, if the Green Zone isn't safe, anymore,

So we've been on yellow alert for like 3 years, but the guys in the green zone get it? I think Bush is colorblind.

mkilly wrote: "Yes, Kerry is liberal. But what's to fear from a liberal president? ..." --the Des Moines Register, endorsing Kerry

Plenty, depending on your stand on certain issues. I doubt Kerry will do much to legalise gay marriage, but I'm sure that's a big issue for some people. If you're opposed to stem-cell research or abortion, you have lots to fear if Kerry gets in. And why do you think he went goose hunting? To try to convince gun nuts that they have nothing to fear from him. You'll note that Bush didn't go hunting -- he didn't need to, he's a conservative.

Of course, there's plenty to fear with Bush too -- I don't think I need to go into that. I mean, there's plenty for everyone to fear with him.

But I poop on the Des Moines Register for coming out and endorsing a candidate. Unbiased journalism my ass.

c hack wrote:But I poop on the Des Moines Register for coming out and endorsing a candidate. Unbiased journalism my ass.

Uh... what the hell? Almost any newspaper you can name endorses candidates for mayoral, gubernatorial, school board, and presidential elections. Endorsing a candidate isn't journalism and it isn't inherently biased. The notion that an unbiased report on two candidates of opposite parties would have to find them equal is absurd. An endorsement from a newspaper's editorial board doesn't mean the paper's journalism is biased one way or the other. Jesus, The Idaho Statesman endorsed Kerry after endorsing Bush four years ago. Idaho's 60%+ Republican. Their "endorsement" of Kerry was lukewarm at best, based entirely on discontent with Bush and his record. Many conservatives are aghast that Bush has entirely deserted most conservative values (discretionary spending is up 16% over four years) and will oppose Kerry from day one, almost undoubtedly, but can't endorse Bush.

Editors have opinions about things. They write their opinions in their newspapers, and publish letters from both sides, sensible and nonsensical both.

list of Kerry endorsements

endorsement tally

mkilly wrote: Editors have opinions about things. They write their opinions in their newspapers, and publish letters from both sides, sensible and nonsensical both.

Yeah, in the editorials. And in the letters column.

I'm not talking about how things are, but about how I want them. I'd like to see newspapers being as unbiased as possible, everywhere (except the editorials, letters column, and comics). If I want biased journalism, I've got the internet

Hoblit wrote:<a href="http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp" target="resource window">Redskins Prediction Method</a>

Well then, this should settle things.

Go Packers!

Green Bay: 28
Washington: 14

c hack wrote: If I want biased journalism, I've got the internet

You've also got Fox.

Just a note from all Australians - you're welcome to keep Rupert Murdoch for as long as you want him. We really don't want him back. Keep his son too, please.

john m wrote:

Hoblit wrote:<a href="http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp" target="resource window">Redskins Prediction Method</a>

Well then, this should settle things.

Go Packers!

Green Bay: 28
Washington: 14

<font size="1"> Senator John Kerry has recieved at least 1 vote from a guy in Tampa, Florida</font>

king_arthur wrote:

"strangers in the night..."

Possible vote, despite his party affiliation. He came to speak at our community college last week and I got to run the soundboard. Actually, he was originally scheduled to speak the day before the Presidential debate in Tempe, and the plan was to have W show up as an surprise guest, but they couldn't get the security together enough (W did speak at the school last September, but in a more defensible building...).

McCain is very well respected 'round these parts; I think maybe he's hoping to be Arizona's next well-loved elder statesman / failed presidential candidate (in the Barry Goldwater style). Hey, anybody who can go on the Daily Show and come off well is okay by me...

Charles (Art is my middle name!)

the thing about McCain is that it always looks soooooo painful for him whenever he's forced into a photo-op with W. it's obvious he has very little real respect for the guy and is just buying his time until it's his time. i'm a hard core democrat/liberal/lefty and i respect the guy alot. i might even have voted for him.

i would've voted for him last time if he'd made it to the finals... as it was, i didn't vote because i didn't particularly like or have a preference for either of the candidates. my political leanings are slightly to the left normally, but if dubya was out of the picture, i would likely consider voting for mccain over kerry. *shrug* i'd have to give it a bunch of thought, anyway. as it is, it's a no-brainer who i'm voting for (or rather, who i'm NOT voting for)

Clinton > Gore > Kerry > (rest of Democratic nominees in 2004) > McCain > (rest of Republican nominees in 2000) > Bush

well, that's probably not right... Kucinich and Edwards both probably would've been crappy presidents, as would've Alan Keyes, probably, and I don't know about Howard Dean or Wesley Clark.

imo

well while i'm on the subject of hindsight, had he made it through the democratic primaries, i totally would have voted for clark. of the nominees, his stand matched my own on more issues than anybody else.

it's too bad i'm registered as "non-partisan" which means i'm not eligible to vote in the primary elections.

tviyh wrote:well while i'm on the subject of hindsight, had he made it through the democratic primaries, i totally would have voted for clark. of the nominees, his stand matched my own on more issues than anybody else.

hell yeah. i really liked that guy. he seemed to actually care more than the others, you know, in an "i actually want to help america" kind of way.

"If all the states in which the data lean discernibly to either candidate vote as the polls suggest, the election will come down to Florida and Ohio. If Bush takes both, he wins. If Kerry takes either, he wins. We assess the probability in each state independently, and we assume that neither state's turnout affects the other's. Since the odds in each of the two states are approximately 50-50, with a tiny edge to Bush, the combined probability of Kerry winning the election is about 70 to 75 percent."

According to the 'who's going to win' poll Kerry now looks like being the next president. This is the way it should be.
Having watched a lot of pundits over the last few weeks, and being fed a huge amount of polemical 'data' I am seriously hoping you guys have the common sense to elect Kerry.
Otherwise we are all fucked.
What happens in America today affects the whole planet.

Kamakura, J$, other Poms:

Just out of interest, when are you lot having your next election - and what is the likely outcome for your boy, Tony?

i'm not making this up. but kerry won the election in my dream last night. the election process wasn't in my dream, but i saw a newspaper declaring him the winner. are my dreams more than just random weird crap happening? we shall see...

KERRY DEFEATS TRUMAN

Off to the polls....

You all have a fun day in America today... good luck with your process...

well, if Bush wins, it won't be MY fault.