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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (80073)	10/23/2004 9:56:03 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793921

If Iraq had been the shoo-in that Bush hoped for, he would be a slam-dunk for re-election right now I agree totally. I think polls are very scientific. There is no doubt about it, no matter what they say about cell phones etc, Bush is ahead in scientific polling. Bush is ahead by about 2 per cent. Having said that, I think exit polls are even more scientific. They are even more accurate as they reflect people coming out of the polls. The exit polls coming out of Florida were more accurate than the actual physical count. Exit polls however do not count. Only the physical count counts. That is the way the game is played and those are the rules. That is why Bush is President. The reality however was that more people voted for Al Gore. If the War had come out half way decently, there would be no contest. Bush would easily win. However, with the way the war is going, it is astonishing that Bush is in the lead. Just goes to show you the power of incumbency.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (80073)	10/23/2004 11:00:56 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793921

I think this is hooey. I thought the Brooks column was very astute. At least it looks that way from where I sit. If Iraq had been the shoo-in that Bush hoped for, he would be a slam-dunk for re-election right now. But I think you're right about this.