<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=758 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=headline colSpan=2>New And Recycled Distortions At Final Presidential Debate
<!--END Factcheck Title--></TD></TR><TR><TD><!--BEGIN FactCheck Meta Info-->Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either.
October 14, 2004
Modified: October 14, 2004
<!--END FactCheck Meta Info--><!--BEGIN Tools-->
eMail to a friend
Printer Friendly Version
<!--END Tools--><!--BEGIN FactCheck Body-->Summary
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The debates are over and the results are clear: both candidates are incorrigible fact-twisters.[/font]
Bush said most of his tax cuts went to "low- and middle-income Americans" when independent calculations show most went to the richest 10 percent. Kerry claims Bush "cut the Pell Grants" when they've actually increased. Both men repeated misstatements made in earlier debates, and added a few new ones.
Analysis
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families.Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661.
And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said in the same breath that the top 20% of earners pay "about 80% of the taxes in America today." That's incorrect.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of "taxes in America," not just income taxes.[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: He said we cut Pell Grants. We've increased Pell Grants by a million students. That's a fact.[/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them . They're getting less money.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Department of Education figures show the number of Pell Grants awarded the year before Bush took office was 3.9 million. The number grew to 5.1 million for the most recent academic year -- an increase of 1.3 million, actually.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Spending for Pell Grants grew from just under $8 billion in the academic year that was underway when Bush took office to nearly $12.7 billion three years later, a jump of nearly 60%. That's some "cut."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It is true that during the 2000 presidential campaign Bush promised to increase the maximum size of Pell Grants to $5,100 for first-year students, a promise that remains unfulfilled. The maximum grant has risen from $3,300 at the time Bush made that promise, but only to $4,050. Under Bush's proposed 2005 budget the maximum grant would remain frozen there for most students for the third year in a row.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In April Bush proposed an increase of as much as $1,000 in the maximum award, but only for those students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school, which would allow only a small fraction of Pell Grant recipients to qualify for the maximum. So Kerry was correct when he said students are "not getting the $5,100 the president promised them."[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#fcd6c5><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]And in fact, Bush met with the caucus a few days after taking office, on Jan. 31, 2001. "This will be the beginning of, hopefully, a lot of meetings," Bush told them. "I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting." But it was more than three years before the next meeting, on Feb. 25, 2004. Bush met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti, according to a statement issued by the White House press secretary.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--END Factcheck Title--></TD></TR><TR><TD><!--BEGIN FactCheck Meta Info-->Bush claims most of his tax cuts went to low- and middle-income persons. Kerry says Pell Grants were cut. Don't believe either.
October 14, 2004
Modified: October 14, 2004
<!--END FactCheck Meta Info--><!--BEGIN Tools-->
eMail to a friend
Printer Friendly Version <!--END Tools--><!--BEGIN FactCheck Body-->Summary
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The debates are over and the results are clear: both candidates are incorrigible fact-twisters.[/font]
Bush said most of his tax cuts went to "low- and middle-income Americans" when independent calculations show most went to the richest 10 percent. Kerry claims Bush "cut the Pell Grants" when they've actually increased. Both men repeated misstatements made in earlier debates, and added a few new ones.
Analysis
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Who Got Tax Cuts?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: He talks about middle-class tax cuts. That's exactly where the tax cuts went. Most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. And now the tax code is more fair. Twenty percent of the upper-income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Tax Cuts[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Bush could hardly have been farther off base when he said most of his tax cuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans." That's just not true.[/font]
In fact, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center recently calculated that most of the tax cuts -- 53% to be exact -- went to the highest -earning 10% of US individuals and families.Those most affluent Americans got an average tax cut of $7,661.
And as for the "low- and middle-income Americans" Bush mentioned -- the bottom 60% of individuals and families got only 13.7% of the tax cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center, a far cry from "most" of the cuts as claimed by Bush.
[font=Arial, Helvetica]The President came closer to the mark, but still got it wrong, when he said in the same breath that the top 20% of earners pay "about 80% of the taxes in America today." That's incorrect.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, as we reported only that morning, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the top 20% now pay 63.5% of the total federal tax burden, which includes income taxes, payroll taxes and other federal levies. It's true that the top 20% pays nearly 81% of all federal income taxes, but the president spoke more expansively of "taxes in America," not just income taxes.[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Pell Grants[/font]
[font=Verdana, Helvetica][font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: They've cut the Pell Grants . . .[/font] [/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: He said we cut Pell Grants. We've increased Pell Grants by a million students. That's a fact.[/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]But they're not getting the $5,100 the president promised them . They're getting less money.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Pell Grants[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry claimed the Bush administration had cut Pell Grants for low-income students to attend college. Bush said Pell Grants have been increased by a million students. Bush was correct.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Department of Education figures show the number of Pell Grants awarded the year before Bush took office was 3.9 million. The number grew to 5.1 million for the most recent academic year -- an increase of 1.3 million, actually.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Spending for Pell Grants grew from just under $8 billion in the academic year that was underway when Bush took office to nearly $12.7 billion three years later, a jump of nearly 60%. That's some "cut."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It is true that during the 2000 presidential campaign Bush promised to increase the maximum size of Pell Grants to $5,100 for first-year students, a promise that remains unfulfilled. The maximum grant has risen from $3,300 at the time Bush made that promise, but only to $4,050. Under Bush's proposed 2005 budget the maximum grant would remain frozen there for most students for the third year in a row.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In April Bush proposed an increase of as much as $1,000 in the maximum award, but only for those students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school, which would allow only a small fraction of Pell Grant recipients to qualify for the maximum. So Kerry was correct when he said students are "not getting the $5,100 the president promised them."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on After-School Programs[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry claimed that "500,000 kids lost after-school programs," which isn't the case. A cut was proposed but Congress rejected it. The Department of Education's 2004 budget proposal called for a nearly 40% cut in funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, or a drop of nearly $400 million from about $1 billion in 2003. According to a [/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica]report[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica] by the Afterschool Alliance, "More than 550,000 children would lose access to afterschool programs." But even assuming that projection would have turned out to be correct, it never happened because Congress kept funding at about $1 billion.[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#c5f9fc><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#fcd6c5>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Not That Concerned?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."[/font]
</TD></TR><TR><TD>[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Osama[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Bush stumbled when he denied making some remarks about Osama bin Laden that Kerry had accurately paraphrased. Bush accused Kerry of "one of those exaggerations."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]In fact, Bush said almost exactly what Kerry quoted him as saying. It was in a news conference at the White House on March 13, 2002, after US forces had overturned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan:[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Q (March 13, 2002): Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? . . .[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , Kelly, to be honest with you.[/font] . . .
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him , Kelly, to be honest with you.[/font] . . .
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.[/font]
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]Who Blocked Vaccine?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Bush: Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States (sic) citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Wrong on Flu Vaccine[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It's not true, as Bush claimed, that "we took the right action" in blocking "contaminated" influenza vaccine from entering the US.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Actually, it was the British and not the US that blocked shipment. The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, according to an Oct. 6 news release, suspended the license of Chiron Corp., the manufacturer of approximately 50% of the U.S. supply.[/font]
In fact, the Bush administration seems to have been caught by surprise when Chiron Corp. notified the US Center for Disease Control Oct. 5 that the company wouldn't be shipping the vaccine due to the British action. The US Food and Drug Administration didn't begin an investigation until five days later, according to an FDA news release .
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It's also not clear how much of the vaccine is actually contaminated. The British agency said it suspended Chiron's license because of "concerns of possible microbial contamination." And the FDA news release refers to "findings concerning the contamination of some lots."[/font]
<TABLE borderColor=#ffffff cellPadding=10 width="45%" align=left bgColor=#fcd6c5><TBODY><TR><TD>
[font=Verdana, Helvetica]The "Black Congressional Caucus"[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times]Kerry: This is a president who hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. This is a president who has not met with the civil rights leadership of our country.[/font]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Wrong on The Black Caucus
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry wrongly claimed Bush "hasn't met with the Black Congressional Caucus." He garbled the organization's name, for one thing. It's actually the Congressional Black Caucus, made up of 39 African-American members of the House.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]And in fact, Bush met with the caucus a few days after taking office, on Jan. 31, 2001. "This will be the beginning of, hopefully, a lot of meetings," Bush told them. "I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting." But it was more than three years before the next meeting, on Feb. 25, 2004. Bush met with members of the caucus after they paid an impromptu visit to the White House to discuss the crisis in Haiti, according to a statement issued by the White House press secretary.[/font]
Wrong on the Surplus
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Kerry claimed Bush "has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see." But the country never actually had a $5.6 trillion surplus. The projected surplus Kerry was referring to was a 10-year figure that was already made dubious by a weakening economy and a pent-up Congressional urge to spend. The largest annual surplus actually realized was $236 billion in fiscal year 2000, which ended a month before Bush was elected.
[/font]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Recycled Bunkum[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Both men recycled a number of distortions and falsehoods that we've reported on before:[/font]
- Kerry twice claimed 1.6 million jobs have been lost under Bush, which is 1 million too high.
- Bush said that in Iraq "We'll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year," which is wrong. Actually, the security forces being trained are a "mixed bag" of soldiers, border guards and even three-week "shake and bake" police officers, according to House testimony by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
- Kerry again claimed "The jobs the president is creating pay $9,000 less than the jobs that we're losing," a fanciful figure based on industry averages that don't actually compare wages of jobs lost to those of newer jobs.
- Bush claimed fear of lawsuits drives doctors to "the defensive practice of medicine that costs the federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between $60 billion and $100 billion a year," which is contrary to nearly all academic studies of the matter.
- Kerry repeated that "I have a plan to cover all Americans" for health care. Actually, his plan wouldn't cover all Americans. It would increase the percentage who have coverage from 84% currently to an estimated 92% to 95%. But several million would still be left uninsured.
- Bush again said Kerry "voted to increase taxes 98 times." But that total includes up to 16 votes on a single tax bill, and 43 votes on budget measures that set targets but don't actually legislate tax increases.
We Note Some Improvement
The candidates did show improvement on a few matters, however. Kerry didn't repeat his inflated claim that the Iraq war has cost $200 billion. Instead he stated, correctly, "America now is paying, already $120 billion, up to $200 billion before we're finished and much more probably." And Bush stopped short of talking of his support for creating the Department of Homeland Security, something he actually opposed for nearly nine months before switching to support it. This time Bush confined himself to saying "I signed the homeland security bill," which is quite accurate.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
This election is really getting on my nerves now. As for wagering on it--I just can not find the appeal, but that just me. I still say and I'll say it again. Give me an O--O an h H an i I another O--O. what do you have OHIO--as Ohio votes so goes the nation.
Anybody here from Ohio ? You must be a voter in that state.
Anybody here from Ohio ? You must be a voter in that state.
TEMPE, Ariz. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) moved into a slim one-point lead over Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) in a tight White House race, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Thursday.
Bush gained one point to 46 percent, with Kerry holding steady at 45 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, which concluded before the start of Wednesday night's crucial final debate in Tempe, Arizona.
Bush and Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, had been deadlocked at 45 percent for two days in the poll.
The close race had raised the stakes for the final debate, which gave both candidates their last chance before the Nov. 2 election to make their case directly to tens of millions of potential voters.
The White House rivals battled on a variety of domestic issues, with Bush repeatedly criticizing Kerry's "far-left" Senate voting record and Kerry saying the middle class had lost ground under the president.
The new tracking poll found 51 percent of likely voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, with only 42 percent saying it is headed in the right direction. Nearly 49 percent said it was time for someone new in the White House, while 46 percent wanted to re-elect Bush.
The poll of 1,231 likely voters was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The rolling poll will continue through Nov. 1.
A tracking poll combines the results of three consecutive nights of polling, then drops the first night's results each time a new night is added. It allows pollsters to record shifts in voter sentiment as they happen.
Bush gained one point to 46 percent, with Kerry holding steady at 45 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, which concluded before the start of Wednesday night's crucial final debate in Tempe, Arizona.
Bush and Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, had been deadlocked at 45 percent for two days in the poll.
The close race had raised the stakes for the final debate, which gave both candidates their last chance before the Nov. 2 election to make their case directly to tens of millions of potential voters.
The White House rivals battled on a variety of domestic issues, with Bush repeatedly criticizing Kerry's "far-left" Senate voting record and Kerry saying the middle class had lost ground under the president.
The new tracking poll found 51 percent of likely voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, with only 42 percent saying it is headed in the right direction. Nearly 49 percent said it was time for someone new in the White House, while 46 percent wanted to re-elect Bush.
The poll of 1,231 likely voters was taken Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. The rolling poll will continue through Nov. 1.
A tracking poll combines the results of three consecutive nights of polling, then drops the first night's results each time a new night is added. It allows pollsters to record shifts in voter sentiment as they happen.
Concorde, check back here later...I have been with Tradesports since they started, I think you may be off on the numbers. They have a link to calculate share value into US money lines....Journey has been watching them I think, maybe he can help.
I have some 9 a.m. meetings but will try to help you later in a few hours. Tradesports is fun, you have to be careful.
I have some 9 a.m. meetings but will try to help you later in a few hours. Tradesports is fun, you have to be careful.
Modern politics is (unfortunately) more about expectations than about reality. Consequently, Gallup ran a poll BEFORE the third debate asking who was going to win? The results: 54% expected Kerry to win, 36% expected Bush to win, 10% expected a tie.
Now for the actual results. After the debate, a Gallup poll showed Kerry to be the winner 52% to 39%, not far from expectations. A CBS poll of uncommitted voters after the debate showed that 39% thought Kerry had won and 25% thought Bush had won. An ABC News poll showed Kerry barely won, 42% to 41%. However, the ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats, so breaking even in a group skewed towards the GOP has to be considered a Kerry win....
Now for the actual results. After the debate, a Gallup poll showed Kerry to be the winner 52% to 39%, not far from expectations. A CBS poll of uncommitted voters after the debate showed that 39% thought Kerry had won and 25% thought Bush had won. An ABC News poll showed Kerry barely won, 42% to 41%. However, the ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats, so breaking even in a group skewed towards the GOP has to be considered a Kerry win....
Vol,VOLTITAN said:
BAF,
Who the hell was President 8 years while they were not only planning
9/11 but they even tried to blow up the WTC using a truck bomb? Shrink and Fishhead, I respect you guys and Fish I would love to get some serious lessons in Video Poker, but on politics we are polar opposites. Ask yourself this, if the majority of guys who served in Vietnam (combat) with Kerry don't trust him why should the American people? You spout off all these points: Tax cut for the rich...blah blah blah...how many of us here cashed our tax refund checks, ones that no way in hell we would have gotten from any democrat. If you cut taxes across the board they hell yes, even the rich get one, but have you ever thought that a rich guy may start a new business and hire some more regular people. Anyway, why is this out of the political forum anyway. I still think W will win but it will be close in some states and that could tip the electoral college toward Kerry. But if you guys are going by these internet polls... :biglaugh: put down the bong or cut back on the :drink: And what's up with the "murderer" label?
My man! Nice job, you just went deep.
Glaken,glaken said:
You may be wright. Here is what i see ...
BUSH.ARIZONA
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=1><TBODY><TR title="Politics
US Presidential Elec
Presidential Election by State - Bush
G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Arizona"><TD style="BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px" width="48%">G W Bush to win the electoral votes of Arizona</TD><TD class=pf><INPUT style="VISIBILITY: hidden" type=checkbox value=25875 name=pf></TD><TD style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-ALIGN: right">87.0</TD><TD style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">88.6</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE height=37 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=normal align=middle><TD noWrap width="10%">0-100</TD><TD noWrap width="10%">Digital</TD><TD noWrap width="16%">MoneyLine</TD><TD noWrap width="14%">Fractional</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 rules=rows width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=normal><TD width="10%">88</TD><TD width="10%">1.14</TD><TD width="16%">-730</TD><TD width="14%">2/15</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 rules=rows width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=normal><TD width="10%">89</TD><TD width="10%">1.12</TD><TD width="16%">-810</TD><TD width="14%">1/8</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Concorde, I have a quick minute...I missed the AZ part earlier..those numbers seem dead on for that state, infact for every $1000 you wager on this(thats the Buy side) you will make $119.40 at this moment.
Its almost a sure lock as here are the numbers from previous elections, and remember the McCains and Bushes are long time friends. I think if McCain would have stepped in for Chaney this would be a Republican victory easily.
Arizona goes to Bush no doubt, go climb Camel Back and play golf, you'll have nothing to worry about on this one.
Here is the link its to big to post.........http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/AZ/history.html
Its almost a sure lock as here are the numbers from previous elections, and remember the McCains and Bushes are long time friends. I think if McCain would have stepped in for Chaney this would be a Republican victory easily.
Arizona goes to Bush no doubt, go climb Camel Back and play golf, you'll have nothing to worry about on this one.
Here is the link its to big to post.........http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/AZ/history.html
I agree with you Shrink and WildBill...this is a money maker for sure...I had a quick look at the previous years back to 1980 and the only Republican Arizona loss was in 1996 when Clinton had 47%, Dole 44%, Perot 8 %.
Biggest Elephant wins were Reagan over Carter 61 to 28 % in 1980 and Reagan over Mondale 64 to 33% in 1984; next was Bush Sr. over Dukakis 60-39% in 1988.
This is only Arizona, but a great five dimer.
Now lets talk Iowa, California, and Florida?
Biggest Elephant wins were Reagan over Carter 61 to 28 % in 1980 and Reagan over Mondale 64 to 33% in 1984; next was Bush Sr. over Dukakis 60-39% in 1988.
This is only Arizona, but a great five dimer.
Now lets talk Iowa, California, and Florida?
How things have change. Before the debates Kerry was losing the election on his own and now after these 3 debates Bush with a stupid look on his face has taken himself down. Iraq is still the main thing that is going to hopefully take Bush down, what a mistake this was. Close to 1100 American soldiers lives over and no end in sight.
News from the Votemaster
Modern politics is (unfortunately) more about expectations than about reality. Consequently, Gallup ran a poll BEFORE the third debate asking who was going to win? The results: 54% expected Kerry to win, 36% expected Bush to win, 10% expected a tie.
Now for the actual results. After the debate, a Gallup poll showed Kerry to be the winner 52% to 39%, not far from expectations. A CBS poll of uncommitted voters after the debate showed that 39% thought Kerry had won and 25% thought Bush had won. An ABC News poll showed Kerry barely won, 42% to 41%. However, the ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats, so breaking even in a group skewed towards the GOP has to be considered a Kerry win. ARG didn't run a large-scale poll this time. Still, the clear conclusions: Kerry won the first and third debates; the second one was a tie. Cheney did better than his boss and won the VP debate.
A new ARG poll in Iowa makes that state a tie again, but other than that, no states changed today.
The Economist ran a national poll Oct. 11-12. It was a statistical tie, with Kerry at 47% and Bush at 45%. On the subject of Bush's job approval, 44% said he was doing a good job vs. 52% who said he wasn't. Since incumbents rarely score much above their approval rating, this has to be worrisome to Karl Rove. Of some note to people who have followed the "bulge" story, one of the questions The Economist asked was if the respondent saw the picture of Bush with the rectangular bulge. Of those who saw it, 49% said he was wired for getting help by radio. Fortunately for him, only a quarter of the respondents saw the photo. Several people from the TV world have told me that his poor performance in the first debate might have been due to the fact that it takes a lot of practice to listen and talk at the same time. The first few times you try it are said to be confusing.
Senate news: The salon.com story I referred to yesterday about Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) using a TelePrompTer during his debate with state senator Daniel Mon.. has been confirmed. The Kentucky Post reports that Bunning's campaign has admitted to using a TelePrompTer to read his opening and closing statements but says that was not cheating. Next question. Why would an incumbent U.S. senator who has given thousands of speeches on and off the floor of the Senate need a TelePrompTer? In a state as heavily Republican as Kentucky, all he would have had to do to be re-elected is to repeat three times: "I fully support President Bush and as a senator I will vote to give him whatever he requests to defeat the terrorists." My guess is (1) he has Alzheimer's disease and (2) Kentuckyans just love horse races and they are about to get one for the Senate. As soon as I can get my hands on a poll there, I will report it.
<HR>Projected Senate: 47 Democrats, 50 Republicans, 1 independent, 2 tossups
Modern politics is (unfortunately) more about expectations than about reality. Consequently, Gallup ran a poll BEFORE the third debate asking who was going to win? The results: 54% expected Kerry to win, 36% expected Bush to win, 10% expected a tie.
Now for the actual results. After the debate, a Gallup poll showed Kerry to be the winner 52% to 39%, not far from expectations. A CBS poll of uncommitted voters after the debate showed that 39% thought Kerry had won and 25% thought Bush had won. An ABC News poll showed Kerry barely won, 42% to 41%. However, the ABC poll had 38% Republicans and 30% Democrats, so breaking even in a group skewed towards the GOP has to be considered a Kerry win. ARG didn't run a large-scale poll this time. Still, the clear conclusions: Kerry won the first and third debates; the second one was a tie. Cheney did better than his boss and won the VP debate.
A new ARG poll in Iowa makes that state a tie again, but other than that, no states changed today.
The Economist ran a national poll Oct. 11-12. It was a statistical tie, with Kerry at 47% and Bush at 45%. On the subject of Bush's job approval, 44% said he was doing a good job vs. 52% who said he wasn't. Since incumbents rarely score much above their approval rating, this has to be worrisome to Karl Rove. Of some note to people who have followed the "bulge" story, one of the questions The Economist asked was if the respondent saw the picture of Bush with the rectangular bulge. Of those who saw it, 49% said he was wired for getting help by radio. Fortunately for him, only a quarter of the respondents saw the photo. Several people from the TV world have told me that his poor performance in the first debate might have been due to the fact that it takes a lot of practice to listen and talk at the same time. The first few times you try it are said to be confusing.
Senate news: The salon.com story I referred to yesterday about Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) using a TelePrompTer during his debate with state senator Daniel Mon.. has been confirmed. The Kentucky Post reports that Bunning's campaign has admitted to using a TelePrompTer to read his opening and closing statements but says that was not cheating. Next question. Why would an incumbent U.S. senator who has given thousands of speeches on and off the floor of the Senate need a TelePrompTer? In a state as heavily Republican as Kentucky, all he would have had to do to be re-elected is to repeat three times: "I fully support President Bush and as a senator I will vote to give him whatever he requests to defeat the terrorists." My guess is (1) he has Alzheimer's disease and (2) Kentuckyans just love horse races and they are about to get one for the Senate. As soon as I can get my hands on a poll there, I will report it.
<HR>Projected Senate: 47 Democrats, 50 Republicans, 1 independent, 2 tossups
Even if you guys think Kerry won 2 of the three or all three, both of which are debatable as he threw way too many generic bullets like I would do better and dumb bs like that. Anyway, the bottom line is if you think you are a Kerry supporter you ought to take a deep look at yourself and see if your beliefs are truly those of his and his record of being the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN CONGRESS!!!! It doesn't or at least shouldn't matter who is the more articulate guy in spinning their policies, it is what their policies actually are. Kerry is blowing a bunch of crap that doesn't come close to matching his voting record. At least you know what you are going to get out of Bush to a certain extent and our security will always come first as it should.
