The 2000 presidential campaign item

Sep 23 20:17 UTC 2000

This is the campaign 2000 item-- the 2000 election will be decided during
this agora.  This is where you can talk about who you support and why,
report political gossip, potpourri .etc

The main race main contestants are Texas Governor George W. Bush and
Vice Presidet Al Gore.  Various others are also running including Ralph
Nader of the Green Party, Pat Buchanan, Harry Choate of the Libertarians
and others.

Here's a snapshot of where things stand right now on Sept. 23rd:

The presidential race is actually fifty individual state races, with a
total of 270 electoral votes needed to win the white house.  An ABC News
survey released today indicates the following:

Al Gore 231 electoral votes (states well ahead or solidly leaning to Gore)
George Bush 179 electoral votes (states well ahead or solidlyleaning Bush)

Tossups (could go either way): 128 electoral votes.  The tossup states are
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Missourri, Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire.  These states are where the
election will be decided.

Most recent statewide polls show Ohio and Florida as dead heats.  Gore is
from 3-8 points ahead in all the other states on that list, and all of
those states voted for Clinton in '92 and '96.

First debate is Oct. 3rd.  If you havent registered,do so ASAP. you can do
so online at voter.com

response 2 of 406:

Sep 23 21:03 UTC 2000

I see no more reason to doubt an ABC (or NBC or CBS) poll than I do to doubt
a Harris or Gallup poll:  All base their livelihood on their reliability.
ABC may not have as good instruments as Harris or Gallup, but that's just a
matter of deciding which is more accurate.

But these two responses remind me of much that is wrong with the current
coverage of the campaign: Much ado about who's leading, but little on why
they are leading, and even less on why one should lead over the other.

I'm expecting to vote for Gore.  There are places I disagree with him,
and agree with Bush, but overall I think a Gore administration will have
been better for us in ten or fifteen years than a Bush administration
will have been.

response 4 of 406:

Sep 23 21:16 UTC 2000

Well, yeah, but that's a reason to distrust polls in general, not ABC in
specific.

response 6 of 406:

Sep 24 02:00 UTC 2000

Actually the ABC News electoral map estimates arent based on any polling
they do themselves.  They simply collect and composite all the recent
statewide polls in the various states, polls done by respected
non-partisan groups like Harris and Gallup, and other research groups
based in various states.  CNN did a similar electoral map about a week ago
showing similar results.  

response 8 of 406:

Sep 24 13:00 UTC 2000

The problem people have with 'polls' is to the extent that they reflect
what they don't believe in...  The DNC and it 'common roaders' excell in
what are known as 'spin polls' as well as the use of what Al-the-Pal
invented - the Internet.  

Its currently "Bush to lose" - ie Bush will win if he doesn't blow it
and/or something like home heating oil being too expensive and
Al-the-Pal can get Clinton to release two days of US consumption from
the oil reserves (which does little to bring down the ppb of oil...)
Oh, wait....

I predict Gore via an 'electorial college' win but with a minority of
the popular vote similar to Clinton in 1996 and a GOP majority retained
in both the House and Senate.  All things considered not a bad
situation.

response 10 of 406:

Sep 24 13:33 UTC 2000

Listening to the energy secretary today on Meet the 'de'-Press'ed' we find
out the amount of oil released isenough for 1.5 days.  The Secretary of Energy
sidestepped every question, proving he isa consummate politician.  

In february, when we had another home heating shortage, Gore opposed release
of the Strategic reserves.  Today, he is all for it.  Unfortunately, the
secretary of the treasury, and the others oppose this use as possibly damaging
to the economy.

But who cares!  WE have an election to win!

response 12 of 406:

Sep 24 15:29 UTC 2000

Good.  What is it about Uberman that you don't like?

response 14 of 406:

Sep 24 16:57 UTC 2000

I'm considering voting for Nader.  I think I'll wait and see what the polls
say right before the election.  If it's close in Michigan, I'll vote for
Gore, but if not, I'll vote for Nader.

response 16 of 406:

Sep 24 17:16 UTC 2000

the dems are saying that releasing the oil will allow refineries to purchase
it at a lower price now vs waiting for the predicted drop (according to the
commodities market predictions) that will occur in january.

response 18 of 406:

Sep 24 19:35 UTC 2000

I'd love to see the oil reserves opened up and watch all those corporate
fat cats pee themselv.

response 20 of 406:

Sep 24 20:25 UTC 2000

        Bap? releasing oil from the strategic reserves in Last february would
have had it processed into healing oil by about mid-march which is long after
it would have been needed. and as for 1.5 days of usage? Are we talking total
usage, or just that of heating oil during the winter months?

        Meet the D-Pressed? oh, really...

response 22 of 406:

Sep 25 02:25 UTC 2000

Blanchard was predicted to win.  Voter turnout was very low.  Not voting can
presumably be treated as equivalent to voting for Nader.

response 24 of 406:

Sep 25 04:28 UTC 2000

Think, Richard.  You've heard Lieberman's statements. :)