Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (4392)	11/2/2000 10:39:19 PM
From: fuzzymath	Respond to of 10042

The polls could be very wrong because one thing is very different this year compared with previous years: the number of people who are answering the pollsters' phone calls. In the past, about 60-70% of people picked up the phone and responded. This year, the estimates range from 20% to 40%. This means the pollsters have to INVENT and apply algorithms based on their interpretation of the data, to try to mold their raw data into a realistic image of how people will actually vote. The problem, of course, is they lack test data to work with. The voting preferences of this years new non-responding voters could be very different from the voting preferences of 1996 non-responding voters. I think this may explain some of the differences in polling numbers -- for example, the fact that Portrait of America has consistently given Bush a larger lead than Zogby. The algorithms they chose to work with their data may be causing this to occur. The small set of people willing to participate in polls also suggests the possibility that all the polls could be way off, and on election night we could all be very surprised by what we see. FWIW, my mathematical consolidation of 5 tracking polls has Bush ahead by 4.3% tonight, a 0.9% gain for Gore, but within the range where it's stood since before Debate #3. Data available at fuzzymath.com. kfarnham@fuzzymath.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (4392)	11/3/2000 1:07:38 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Reference For Ya'll Regarding A DUI Charge During Elections. Last year there was a Provincial election in Nova Scotia (Canada - for the geographically challenged -G- ), where it was revealed on late Friday before elections the following Monday,that the Leader( who looked like he was going to win from the incumbent ) was charged and convicted for a DUI some twenty years before. Here's what happened : Many folks,like myself, thought it might backfire on those who disclosed it just before the election.The reasoning being that people would see it as a smear tactic by a desperate campaign group and vote against such underhanded maneuvers. This proved out to be wishful thinking on our part, as his party suffered a humiliating defeat.The reason was that before running for public office, each candidate has to declare past convictions even of the slightest nature.The explanation he gave was he simply forgot about it because it was so long ago.BZZZZZZZT! People didn't buy it and he was defeated on the grounds of dishonesty.End of story. FWIW -- I think Bush is toast on this one. PS: I have neither vote nor prejudice in this matter. Just thought you might want a reference here. May the best man win. PPSS: If anyone is interested , I may be able to come up with some coverage. Regards To All.