Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ ylojceq

Fiona Reynolds said:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

LOST the PRESIDENCY
LOST the HOUSE
LOST the SENATE
LOST all Democratic APPOINTMENTS
LOST all SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
LOST Senator Tom Daschle

Democrats = Ideals of 1970's hippies = Welfare state

LOSER !!

Bush WILL take over the world!!!!!!!!!!

Look on the bright side. Bush gets to clean up the mess he made in Iraq
and has to deal with the US debt spiral.

Since Bush is having trouble dealing with less than 55 million people in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the other 6 Billion may have to wait a while.

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>,

Fiona Reynolds said:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

LOST the PRESIDENCY
LOST the HOUSE
LOST the SENATE
LOST all Democratic APPOINTMENTS
LOST all SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS
LOST Senator Tom Daschle

Democrats = Ideals of 1970's hippies = Welfare state

Republicans = Control everything and STILL [censored]!

Todd Kuzma

Fiona Reynolds said:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Quoted message said:

LOST the PRESIDENCY

Weel, no, you see, it was Bush's and the Republicans to lose. The
Democrats didn't have it in the first place.

Quoted message said:

LOST the HOUSE

Same deal there.

Quoted message said:

LOST the SENATE

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

LOST all Democratic APPOINTMENTS

Umm, no, since there is a Republican President and has been since
Hanuary 2001, there were no Democratic appointments to lose.

Quoted message said:

LOST all SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS

Same problem there, too. How that plays out remains to be seen.

Quoted message said:

LOST Senator Tom Daschle

Not so much of a loss, there, IMHO. But then I'm a liberal.

Quoted message said:

Democrats = Ideals of 1970's hippies = Welfare state

You really need to get out more. This hasn't been true since 1968.

Quoted message said:

LOSER !!

At least you're a gracious winner.

Quoted message said:

Bush WILL take over the world!!!!!!!!!!

Now there's a thought to give one nightmares.

On the bright side, the Republicans got slapped upside the head here
in Minnesota. At least some states maintained some sanity on November
2. On the national level, the Republican victories were not as
decisive as they'd like to pretend. Once again a mandate was not
achieved. Better luck next time!

On the other hand, as an Iranian gentleman I was speaking to Thursday
opined, Bush gets to clean up his own mess and will not be able to
point fingers if he fails. If he fails in Iraq, history will treat
him as a failure no matter what else he might achieve for the right
wing agenda. If he succeeds, history will be very kind to him no
matter what other failures he manages to produce (unless the Merrill
Lynch and other investment house economists' warnings about the risk
of economic collapse due to the Bush deficit and national debt, energy
costs, loss of income among the middle class and massive increase in
consumer debt and shortfall in private savings comes to pass. We can
only hope they are misreading the tea leaves).

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fiona Reynolds said:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

No it was 59%. You continue to believe the 70's craap of the Democrapps,
Kerry is a RICH snob [censored] TOO

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOST the PRESIDENCY

Weel, no, you see, it was Bush's and the Republicans to lose. The
Democrats didn't have it in the first place.

You had the chance to win, ran a race, but you LOST, because you [censored] up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOST the HOUSE

Same deal there.

True.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOST the SENATE

Agreed.

Yep, You and the Democraps are total [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOST all Democratic APPOINTMENTS

Umm, no, since there is a Republican President and has been since
Hanuary 2001, there were no Democratic appointments to lose.

Wrong, the Senate was blocked, not now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOST all SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS

Same problem there, too. How that plays out remains to be seen.

No, Demos have lost all power,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOST Senator Tom Daschle

Not so much of a loss, there, IMHO. But then I'm a liberal.

You don't know what is going on do you? he was a Demmocrap, blocking as much
as he could of republican legeslation, but the roadblock is gone!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Democrats = Ideals of 1970's hippies = Welfare state

You really need to get out more. This hasn't been true since 1968.

WRONG - All the same "features" the Demos have been pushing have been around
since the early 70's BOZO

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOSER !!

At least you're a gracious winner.

And you are history, you don't count anymore.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bush WILL take over the world!!!!!!!!!!

Now there's a thought to give one nightmares.

We already have.

Quoted message said:

On the bright side, the Republicans got slapped upside the head here
in Minnesota. At least some states maintained some sanity on November
2. On the national level, the Republican victories were not as
decisive as they'd like to pretend. Once again a mandate was not
achieved. Better luck next time!

Nobody lives in Minnesota, anyway. Sheeps and Goats and Neanderthals

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, as an Iranian gentleman I was speaking to Thursday
opined, Bush gets to clean up his own mess and will not be able to
point fingers if he fails.

Iran will get nuked by the Israelis.

Quoted message said:

If he fails in Iraq, history will treat
him as a failure no matter what else he might achieve for the right
wing agenda. If he succeeds, history will be very kind to him no
matter what other failures he manages to produce (unless the Merrill
Lynch and other investment house economists' warnings about the risk
of economic collapse due to the Bush deficit and national debt, energy
costs, loss of income among the middle class and massive increase in
consumer debt and shortfall in private savings comes to pass. We can
only hope they are misreading the tea leaves).

All [censored], they say just the opposite, that is why Bush got elected
dummy, its the economy stupid!

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Fiona Reynolds said:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

JP

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Fiona Reynolds said:

It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.

YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Fiona Reynolds" <[email hidden]> writes:

>It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.
>
>YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

Assuming a normal distribution:
The 95% confidence level occurs at about 2 standard deviations, so
the standard deviation in this case is about 3%/2 = 1.5%. The question
then is for the probability for the true value to be more than
8%/1.5% = 5.3 standard deviations from the mean. That probability is
about 0.00002%. Of course this assumes that the distribution really
follows a normal curve very precisely.

David Kerber ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Fiona Reynolds" <[email hidden]> writes:

> It is over twit, moron, idiot, brain dead zombie.
>
> YOU and the stupid Democrats LOST

Lots of people lost, actually- about 80% of America came out on
thelosing end of the election although many of them haven't figured it
out. Heck, 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of income.

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right. There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:

Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right.

I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
to nearly the uncertainty. Two pre-election polls can correctly
measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
populations. The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
degree.

"Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
analysis, I'm sure it works.

Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.

JP

JP said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:
>
>Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
>the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
>probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
>the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right.

I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
to nearly the uncertainty. Two pre-election polls can correctly
measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
populations. The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
degree.

"Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
analysis, I'm sure it works.

Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.

I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
answers to that.

--
Tom Sherman

(JP) said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:
>
> Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
> the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
> probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
> the value predicted by the sample?

I believe it's about 1%.

That's right.

I don't think so.

I do... and so do these guys...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
nothing but the fallibility of polls.

You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
to nearly the uncertainty.

They're subject to a very significant amount of uncertainty. As
pointed out previously, the tendency for Republicans to participate in
exit polls is considerably less than Democrats. Also, the firm doing
the poll insists that the early hour polls showing Kerry ahead weren't
representative of the final polls, and should NOT have been released
as they were (by themselves) meaningless.

Quoted message said:

Two pre-election polls can correctly
measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
populations.

They measure the same populations, actually. Either ~1,000 likely
voters or ~1,000 registered voters.

Quoted message said:

The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
degree.

It does eliminate the portion of the population that doesn't vote -
but is hardly fool-proof.

Quoted message said:

"Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
analysis, I'm sure it works.

Duh. Check this assembly of poll statistics for Arizona done at about
the same time:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/az_polls.html

Do you really think the voters were wavering by +- 10%, or do you
suppose that it's just possible that the polls are indeed fallible. I
think history has proven it.

Quoted message said:

Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.

He didn't beat 1000 to 1 odds - check out the pre-election polls in
the states and try (as much as Michael Moore will suggest you don't)
to ignore the fact that you're operating under a partial, and flawed
assumption.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/fl_polls.html FL,
Bush +0.6%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/oh_polls.html OH,
Bush +2.1%

Both represent the average of the last polling done in both states
before the election. Funny that the actual results look pretty much
the same, huh? Must have been a Karl Rove conspiracy. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| JP wrote:
|
| > Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
| >
| >>David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>In article <[email hidden]>,
| >>>[email hidden] says...
| >
| >
| >>>>Here's a question for someone with a statistics background:
| >>>>
| >>>>Given a sample that predicts the behavior of a population within 3% of
| >>>>the true value with a 95% degree of confidence, what is the
| >>>>probability that the true value will in fact turn out to be 8% from
| >>>>the value predicted by the sample?
| >>>
| >>>I believe it's about 1%.
| >>
| >>That's right.
| >
| >
| > I don't think so.
| >
| >
| >>There were individual polls, taken the same day, same
| >>state, both with 3% margins of error that were 8% apart - proving
| >>nothing but the fallibility of polls.
| >
| >
| > You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
| > polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
| > actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
| > are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
| > are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
| > to nearly the uncertainty. Two pre-election polls can correctly
| > measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
| > predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
| > populations. The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
| > pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
| > not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
| > degree.
| >
| > "Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
| > ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
| > analysis, I'm sure it works.
| >
| > Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
| > than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
| > as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.
|
| I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
| answers to that.
|
| --
| Tom Sherman
|

"...I believe Diebold CEO and Republican Walden O'Dell might have some
answers to that...."
Tom Sherman

Tom's right.

On this one, I have to go along with the
'corporate-America-stole-the-election', black helicopter theorists' version
of events. After all, if they did not have prior knowledge of the results,
How could Mars Candy have had all those 'w' candies ready for market
immediately after the election?
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/w.html

It was the red ones that gave it away.
ED3

Could we just get back to a consideration of why people don't exercise
their right to vote. For what was supposedly a very important
election, a large fraction of the population did not participate,
meaning that the President was elected by less than half those
eligible to vote. (Please correct me if I am mistating things here).

Why don't people vote? Some reasons might be:

1. They don't believe who wins makes a difference, i.e. that there is
nothing to choose between the candidates or that the person/party in
power has very little influence on their lives.
2. They would vote but don't feel either of the main candidates
adequately represents their views.

I'm sure there are many other reasons. Has this ever been studied?

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
(www.wellspokenwheels.com)

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Could we just get back to a consideration of why people don't exercise
their right to vote. For what was supposedly a very important
election, a large fraction of the population did not participate,
meaning that the President was elected by less than half those
eligible to vote. (Please correct me if I am mistating things here).

Why don't people vote? Some reasons might be:

1. They don't believe who wins makes a difference, i.e. that there is
nothing to choose between the candidates or that the person/party in
power has very little influence on their lives.
2. They would vote but don't feel either of the main candidates
adequately represents their views.

I'm sure there are many other reasons. Has this ever been studied?

How about because the state they live in is solidly in one party's camp,
so that candidate will get all the electoral votes anyway, no matter
which way they vote? That's a bit how I feel as a Bush voter in Rhode
Island, which has gone with the democratic candidate for many elections
in a row. If the state changed its laws on the distribution of
electoral votes so that they were distributed among the candidates
according to the percentage of the popular vote they received, people
might feel that their vote has more of an influence on the final
outcome.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Nigel Grinter said:

Could we just get back to a consideration of why people don't exercise
their right to vote.

How 'bout YOU get back to something related to - BICYCLES.

Quoted message said:

WTF does this have to with
rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.tech?!!?!

Hello?!?!?!?!

--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com
Integrity is obvious.
The lack of it is common.
*****************************

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think so.

I do... and so do these guys...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html

Those are pre-election polls. I'm talking about exit polls.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're confusing exit polls and pre-election polls. The pre-election
polls are subject to errors in assumptions (whether someone will
actually vote, what percentages of people represented by the sample
are actually present in the sampled population, etc.); the exit polls
are polls of people leaving the polling place, so they are not subject
to nearly the uncertainty.

They're subject to a very significant amount of uncertainty.

No they're not. They're subject to a very precise amount of
uncertainty that is easily quantified. It's +- 3% 95% of the time. It
would be +-8% at 5+ SD, which is an extraordinarily improbable event,
for all pratical purposes impossible.

Quoted message said:

As
pointed out previously, the tendency for Republicans to participate in
exit polls is considerably less than Democrats.

That is pure speculation.

Quoted message said:

Also, the firm doing
the poll insists that the early hour polls showing Kerry ahead weren't
representative of the final polls, and should NOT have been released
as they were (by themselves) meaningless.

I'm talking about the late polls (prior to adjustment to reflect the
actual election results. Forget the early polls. They're not the
issue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Two pre-election polls can correctly
measure their populations within a 3% MOE but give very different
predictions because in reality they are measuring very different
populations.

They measure the same populations, actually. Either ~1,000 likely
voters or ~1,000 registered voters.

Actually, they don't. When one has a makeup of 35%R-31%D registered
voters and another has a makeup of 31%R-35%D registered voters, you
cannot say that they are drawn from the same population.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is not with the polls, it is with the
pollsters assuming that they are measuring something that they are
not. Exit polls are not subject to pollsters' errors to such a great
degree.

It does eliminate the portion of the population that doesn't vote -
but is hardly fool-proof.

It also eliminates the portion of the population that was undecided.
It is subject to sampling error, and as I said above, we know what
sampling error is and its probability.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Fallibility of polls" has got to be one of the stupedest things I've
ever heard, but for people who don't have any desire for reality-based
analysis, I'm sure it works.

Duh. Check this assembly of poll statistics for Arizona done at about
the same time:

You really don't understand this stuff, do you?

Quoted message said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/az_polls.html

Do you really think the voters were wavering by +- 10%, or do you
suppose that it's just possible that the polls are indeed fallible. I
think history has proven it.

Pre-election polls are subject to all sorts of extraneous variables.
Exit polls are not. You grab people coming out of the precincts and
ask them who they voted for. Period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Me, I'd like to see someone explain how Bush conveniently beat worse
than 1000-one odds in both Ohio and Florida to win "re-election", even
as Karen Hughes was telling him he had lost.

He didn't beat 1000 to 1 odds - check out the pre-election polls in
the states and try (as much as Michael Moore will suggest you don't)
to ignore the fact that you're operating under a partial, and flawed
assumption.

Actually, the odds against him beating the exit polls in both Ohio and
FL were much greater than 1000-one. Why do you persist in talking
about pre-election polls when the subject is exit polls? Hiding
something?

Quoted message said:

Both represent the average of the last polling done in both states
before the election. Funny that the actual results look pretty much
the same, huh? Must have been a Karl Rove conspiracy. Heh.

There were polls showing Kerry ahead in both but they don't matter
either. A majority of the people walking out of the polling places
after they voted told the pollsters that they had gone for Kerry.
Period.

So I'm still waiting for an explanation of the exit polls instead of
this irrelevant nonsense about the pre-election polls.

JP

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

There were polls showing Kerry ahead in both but they don't matter
either. A majority of the people walking out of the polling places
after they voted told the pollsters that they had gone for Kerry.
Period.

True, but it is known that early voters tend to be weighed toward
Democrats, and Democrats tend to be more willing to answer the exit
pollsters' questions, and if a person refuses to answer the exit
pollster's question, that person's data will not be included in the
results. That is not speculation, but an observed fact. *Why* that
happens is still unknown and subject to speculation, but it has been
noticed for several election cycles, according to a story on ABC news
last week.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

There were polls showing Kerry ahead in both but they don't matter
either. A majority of the people walking out of the polling places
after they voted told the pollsters that they had gone for Kerry.
Period.

True, but it is known that early voters tend to be weighed toward
Democrats, and Democrats tend to be more willing to answer the exit
pollsters' questions, and if a person refuses to answer the exit
pollster's question, that person's data will not be included in the
results. That is not speculation, but an observed fact. *Why* that
happens is still unknown and subject to speculation, but it has been
noticed for several election cycles, according to a story on ABC news
last week.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Chuck Anderson said:

Nigel Grinter said:

Could we just get back to a consideration of why people don't exercise
their right to vote.

How 'bout YOU get back to something related to - BICYCLES.

Quoted message said:

WTF does this have to with
rec.bicycles.racing,rec.bicycles.rides,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.tech?!!?!

Hello?!?!?!?!

With the Republicans set on eliminating overtime, many people will have
less time for cycling and less money to spend on bicycles and accessories.

--
Tom Sherman