Terrorism VS. Support of Bush

[KoreBolteR]

National Exit polls from 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE

Terrorism (19%): Bush: 86% Kerry: 14%
Moral Values (22%): Bush 80% Kerry: 18%
Total Votes Based On Terrorism and Bible Thumping: 41%

Total votes for Bush: 51%

So maybe 10% of you care about issues; the rest of you care about Bible Thumping and terrorism (when it doesn't affect you as much as others).

13,660 Respondents, should have been the whole 293,027,571 people, to make a fair polls, theres no point in polls tbh. ;(

 

[No Limit]

13,660 Respondents, should have been the whole 293,027,571 people, to make a fair polls, theres no point in polls tbh. ;(

Kore, no offense but please stay out of this. This is a scientific sample and is dead on. You do not need to sample an entire population to get an accurate count of what most people think.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Kore, no offense but please stay out of this. This is a scientific sample and is dead on. You do not need to sample an entire population to get an accurate count of what most people think.

of course you do.

its stereotyping the whole country to what those 13,660 Respondents believe, its just not right.

 

[GhostFox]

And yes, terror and bible thumping were the 2 most important issues in this election for Red voters which is why a lot of people claim red voters are idiots and there can be a pretty solid argument made for that.

Do you realize how ignorant and bigoted you come off? And I'm not even religious. But to totally invalidate someones views simply because they attend church is one of the most imbicilic statements I have ever heard. Can you try and reign in your extremism for two seconds and be rational here?

 

[GhostFox]

You do not need to sample an entire population to get an accurate count of what most people think.

True, but you do need a large sample group, and it does need to be demographically broken down against the national standered(geography, economically, socially, chronologically etc.)

I don't see where it states that it was. Most polls are highly inaccurate simply because it is too expensive to do them correctly.

 

[No Limit]

Do you realize how ignorant and bigoted you come off? And I'm not even religious. But to totally invalidate someones views simply because they attend church is one of the most imbicilic statements I have ever heard. Can you try and reign in your extremism for two seconds and be rational here?

I apologize for you not getting the sarcasm in my post. Let me phrase my valid point in a way that won't offend you. 41% of this population said terrorism and moral values (where gays shouldn't marry) were the most important thing in this election. Out of that 41% about 80% were Red voters. NYC and other large cities are Blue meaning these red voters were more worried about terrorism than the people that actually live with the threat each day. Now Bush got a total of 51% of the vote; meaning almost 80% of Bush voters didn't really have a valid reason for voting for Bush. They blew off the economy, they blew off taxes, they blew off Iraq, they blew off health care, and they blew off education. So moral values (aka bible thumping) and terrorism (something that doesn't affect them) were more imporant than all those issues. Do you now see my point and will you address it? This has nothing to do with what religion you are; this has everything to do with why you voted for the person you voted for.

 

[No Limit]

True, but you do need a large sample group, and it does need to be demographically broken down against the national standered(geography, economically, socially, chronologically etc.)

I don't see where it states that it was. Most polls are highly inaccurate simply because it is too expensive to do them correctly.

Then why did they predict the election results almost perfectly? These are scientific polls and everything you mentioned has been taken in to account.

 

[Absinthe]

of course you do.

its stereotyping the whole country to what those 13,660 Respondents believe, its just not right.

If we didn't use samples of the population for our research, we'd never ****ing get anywhere.

Polls, while not 100% accurate, usually give a fairly good idea of the actual results you're trying to obtain.

 

[KoreBolteR]

If we didn't use samples of the population for our research, we'd never ****ing get anywhere.

Polls, while not 100% accurate, usually give a fairly good idea of the actual results you're trying to obtain.

so your saying the end outcome of the poll will be the same as if ALL the people in the United States voted?

as long as they know what those 13,000 or so people think, they know what everyone thinks. doubtful :upstare:

 

[CptStern]

please, kore you're starting to give me a headache ..polls are accurate within a few percentage points

 

[Absinthe]

so your saying the end outcome of the poll will be the same as if ALL the people in the United States voted?

as long as they know what those 13,000 or so people think, they know what everyone thinks. doubtful :upstare:

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "Polls, while not 100% accurate, usually give a fairly good idea of the actual results you're trying to obtain."

But hey, what do I know? Polls are obviously ****ing useless. So next time you want to get a rough idea as to what a particular part of the population thinks about a certain issue, I expect you to interview them each and individually and return with qualitative results. You better be quick as well. Because by the time you've finished hunting down and polling everybody, somebody is likely to have changed their mind by that point, making your findings of your research inaccurate.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Apparently, you missed the part where I said "Polls, while not 100% accurate, usually give a fairly good idea of the actual results you're trying to obtain."

not even 10% accurate. :thumbs:

 

[Absinthe]

not even 10% accurate. :thumbs:

Kore, you obviously have a flawed idea as to what a poll is and what it's for. I suggest you stop right now, because all you're doing is entrenching yourself further into the ignorance you have of the subject matter.

 

[CptStern]

not even 10% accurate. :thumbs:

:upstare: ...let's examine the accuracy of say Gallup Poll, one of the world's most respected polling sources:

here's the accuracy on past polls for presidential elections

notice that the deviation number is always a few percentage points on either side? far more than the 10% you posted ...btw where did you get that 10% figure from? do you have something to back it up, or are you arbitarily pulling a random number out of the air?

 

[No Limit]

:upstare: ...let's examine the accuracy of say Gallup Poll, one of the world's most respected polling sources:

here's the accuracy on past polls for presidential elections

notice that the deviation number is always a few percentage points on either side? far more than the 10% you posted ...btw where did you get that 10% figure from? do you have something to back it up, or are you arbitarily pulling a random number out of the air?

Come on Stern, you know he can't give you a source. Any source is clearly biased so you will just have to take his word for it; aren't you aware of the huge conspiracy that is taking place and everyone but you and me are participating in it.

 

[Sainku]

The exit polls which you used were very inaccurate during the 2004 elections. However terrorism and moral values ( not bible thumping or gay marrige ) were still the most popular issues for people who voted for bush.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-19-exit-polls-usat_x.htm

 

[KoreBolteR]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-19-exit-polls-usat_x.htm

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004/11/wildly-inaccurate-exit-poll.html

http://www.atsnn.com/story/112971.html

http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2676

ok the 10% thing was made up, but look at them and tell me what you think, im not good at looking for 'sources'.

Kore, you obviously have a flawed idea as to what a poll is and what it's for. I suggest you stop right now, because all you're doing is entrenching yourself further into the ignorance you have of the subject matter.

well if my opinion is ingnorant then let it be, but im not going to change my thoughts because the media or anybody tells me too, especially you.

 

[No Limit]

The exit polls which you used were very inaccurate during the 2004 elections. However terrorism and moral values ( not bible thumping or gay marrige ) were still the most popular issues for people who voted for bush.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-19-exit-polls-usat_x.htm

You say moral values aren't about gay marriage. I would like you to point out anything else that was talked about during the campaign that doesn't have to do with the bible and falls in to the moral values category.

 

[Sainku]

You say moral values aren't about gay marriage. I would like you to point out anything else that was talked about during the campaign that doesn't have to do with the bible and falls in to the moral values category.

Abortion off the top of my head, but this really doesnt have anything to do with the discussion. I was just pointing out that your poll was not very accurate, and that there may be more to the moral values category than gay marriage.

Edit: For spelling

 

[Absinthe]

well if my opinion is ingnorant then let it be, but im not going to change my thoughts because the media or anybody tells me too, especially you.

Kore, all you need is a healthy dose of skepticism. Look at a variety of sources, check who the authors are, etc...

What you have is bordering on paranoia. I'd be surprised if you even watched TV.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Kore, all you need is a healthy dose of skepticism. Look at a variety of sources, check who the authors are, etc...

What you have is bordering on paranoia. I'd be surprised if you even watched TV.

i am skeptic in some ways.. and sorry say i do watch TV? why would me watching TV change anything weve discussed on this forum? :hmph:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I think the "bible belt" and other religious people support Bush because we're killing Arabs and fighting Islam. Its the modern crusade. Not all of them think like that but im sure there's quite a few who do.

Okay, so you think? Well I know -- and here's the piece that you should read:

The Bible-Belt supports Bush not because we're killing people in the Middle-East or ... as according to you ... fighting Islam? The people here support Bush because most of their family members here are soldiers, ex-marines etc. So, in essence, they're not really supporting Bush because he's bush; but supporting him because its the only way to support there own children.

The South still has a hard time getting rid of the Confederate flag and racism. How do you expect them to show any compassion towards Arabs and those that believe in a different God? Religion and tolerance don't work well with eachother.

Wow. So once again, you think. Well, I know -- so heres the answer:

The South does'nt have a hard time getting rid of the Confederate Flag -- and not everyone of us down here likes to fly it, has it be flown, or likes when it is flown. Next, as a citizen of the United States I'd suggest you respect people's Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Choice. People can hang whatever flags they feel like, and wherever they feel like, whenever. People hang flags of Jordan and Palestine -- two nations known for sending suicide bombers into Israel for the purpose of killing Indo-Europeans -- but see, here's something else you should realize.

You can associate all the bad things you want with a flag -- but does it make it completely true? No, it does'nt; and not everyone agrees that when they fly a specific flag, its for a reason of unjustified murder, slavery, or war. Next, here's something a Southerner told me: There's a Confederate Battle Flag ( which is not associated with the States Rights bill -- but the armed formations serving the Confederacy ); then there's the "Confederate Flag" ( which, if you wanted to but its not nessecarly the belief of those who fly it -- with slavery ).

I don't care if people find my statement highly offensive. From what i've seen and read, its true. Why do you think there were so many hate crimes against people of Middle Eastern origin after 9/11?

Most of those were perpetrated in the North. FACT.

They also say that arab people are a "thorn" in their side. I've seen this kind of thinking first hand, and in this area at least, its a little worse than the fraction of a percent that seinfeld claimed.

You speak for Kentucky. You do not speak for North Carolina.

still find it odd that a lot of so-called Christians vote for Bush and for the war, even when the ten commandments say not to kill, and Jesus taught forgiveness.

I still find it odd that people who are Muslim and follow aformentioned prophets, find it easy to declare Global Jihad against Israel and suicide bomb into Bus fulls of innocent civilians. If you want to hold it against Christianity, then you better hold it against all religion.

The crusades are still a sensitive issue for many arabs, and may be one of the reasons for their hatred of westerners.

You do know that Global Jihad means the elimination of the men, women, and children to those who you declared it on?

Kore, no offense but please stay out of this. This is a scientific sample and is dead on.

LOL, No Limit, please -- they should've polled everyone. Your just calling this a scientific sample thats dead-on because you've got a point to hold up.

I apologize for you not getting the sarcasm in my post.

For every bit of Sarcasm, there's every bit of truth.

usually give a fairly good idea of the actual results you're trying to obtain.

ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE BIASED.

 

[No Limit]

Abortion off the top of my head, but this really doesnt have anything to do with the discussion. I was just pointing out that your poll was not very accurate, and that there may be more to the moral values category than gay marriage.

Edit: For spelling

Abortion is one but that again pretty much falls back in to the bible category. However, you guys are only taking out my sarcasm too attack but refuse to address the actual point.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Abortion is one but that again pretty much falls back in to the bible category. However, you guys are only taking out my sarcasm too attack but refuse to address the actual point.

How can we address the point when you were being sarcastic?

 

[No Limit]

LOL, No Limit, please -- they should've polled everyone. Your just calling this a scientific sample thats dead-on because you've got a point to hold up.

This is exactly how you deal with conservatives. I give you a source for my information. This source proves I have a valid point so you can't refute it. So what do you do? You attack the source; in this case you say it isn't accurate (in other cases you would say it's too liberal). If these aren't accurate why did they predict the presidential vote with only a 3% error rate and this has been the case since they started exit polls? Please, find another way to argue; exit polls are dead on accurate.

 

[No Limit]

How can we address the point when you were being sarcastic?

I see what stern meant when he said all logic leaves the thread. I was using sarcasm to add effect to the post (by saying moral values are the same as bible thumping). The entire post still has a valid (not sarcastic) point.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

This is exactly how you deal with cons<SNIP!>

Spare me the rant, No Limit. You've nothing more to base your query on, besides a superstition. *Thats just if we move the poll out of the way ...

 

[Absinthe]

ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE BIASED.

You = Hopeless.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I see what stern meant when he said all logic leaves the thread.

Oh, waaaahh! Dont like someone else's opinion, then dont listen!

 

[No Limit]

Spare me the rant, No Limit. You've nothing more to base your query on, besides a superstition. *Thats just if we move the poll out of the way ...

You are amazing, I asked you a direct question about why these polls predicted the president with only a 3% error rate. Your reply? ThatI should spare the rant. Conservatives, you gotta love em.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You = Hopeless.

You=Off-Topic.

 

[Tr0n]

You guys are acting like children again. :|

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Conservatives, you gotta love em.

You asked me many questions, then you also answered them for me. I dont know what you are, but I sure as hell am not learning to appreciate a love for you.

Sorry dood.

 

[No Limit]

You guys are acting like children again. :|

oh please, what do you want me to say to him that would sound more mature to you?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

How about not "steaming full speed ahead", just because someone disagrees with your point. I mean, that would be way more mature then playing this game with me.

How about this; you ask me a question, and then you dont answer it? Sound fair?

 

[Tr0n]

oh please, what do you want me to say to him that would sound more mature to you?

I SAID YOU GUYS!

Not just 1!

ALL OF YOU.

Don't ****in start. :|

 

[No Limit]

You asked me many questions, then you also answered them for me. I dont know what you are, but I sure as hell am not learning to appreciate a love for you.

Sorry dood.

your entire disagreement with me is based on "these polls are not accurate". I tell you that they predicted the election by 3% and have always done that. You don't give me a reply. You see how there is no logic in this thread left after you came in? I will leave it at that as I know you won't address my point.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No Limit, what do I have to prove to you that you already have'nt proven to yourself?

I mean, are you going to ask me a question ...

You see how there is no logic in this thread left after you came in? I will leave it at that as I know you won't address my point.

THAT YOU DONT ****ING ANSWER YOURSELF?

Fine, lets say, you did'nt answer your most recently quoted question. You know what my answer would be? Report Post. Flamebait man, Flamebait.

 

[No Limit]

I SAID YOU GUYS!

Not just 1!

ALL OF YOU.

Don't ****in start. :|

I'm not starting anything with you, I am telling you that there nothing I can say to him that would sound more mature as something more mature would use logic and he won't understand that. Your comment included me, I replied, simple as that. Your post is just adding on to this as I would have been finished already. I have nothing against you, simply let a mod deal with warnings; when they come from you (or any member) it only causes problems.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

am telling you that there nothing I can say to him that would sound more mature as something more mature would use logic and he won't understand that.

I already understand the logic of testing my patience -- ... [taps foot]. Question?