DIY Polling Shows Bush, Kerry Will Win 112
cheese_wallet writes "7-eleven has a poll conducted by the choice of cup their customers pick for their coffee. They can pick a Kerry cup, a Bush cup, or a Third Party/No Opinion cup (interesting combo). Although it is considered completely unscientific, it polls millions of people and gets past the cell phone barrier. You can see the current stats." And reader Noryungi writes "This is very tongue-in-cheek... Harry's Bar, in Paris (France) has been conducting straw polls for the past 80 years, and has been wrong only once, in 1976. So... who is the winner, according to Harry's Bar poll, for the 2004 US election? Kerry. And not by small numbers either, Kerry wins 56% to 44% in the latest Straw Vote, which is a larger margin than all the other US-based pollsters."
Re:Electoral college (Score:3, Informative)
I do know that there are, nationwide, more registered Democrats than Republicans (39% to 35%, IIRC). I also know that registered Democrats are more likely to cross party lines and vote for Republicans. For example, 11% of Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, while 8% of Republicans voted for Gore.
Source [cnn.com]
Re:Electoral college (Score:2, Informative)
Well there are two factors fighting against each other. Democrats are less likely to vote then republicans, but undecideds usually break 2-1 for the challenger.
However everyone aknowledges that democratic turnout will be higher then usual this election. How much higher is up for debate. This is why polls are all over the place in terms of "likely voters" vs. "Registered Voters"
Halloween Webcam shows Hulk, then Bush, then Kerry (Score:3, Informative)
HULK: 9,684 BUSH: 9,472 KERRY: 8,937
This is despite at least one "Kerry-Bot" that tried to stuff the ballot with hundreds of electronic votes [komar.org] (I guess it would be hard to stuff the 7/11 cup vote!) - needless to say, those votes were discounted and that IP address was banned.
Re:Unfortunately ... (Score:4, Informative)
"A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency." -nytimes.com
In other words, just what the Iraqis said. The explosives went missing after the 9th, after US troops arrived- the first US troops arrived at Al Qaqaa on the 3rd. The video- which shows boxes and barrels of high explosives in a sealed bunker- was taken on the 18th.
Assuming (against all evidence) the expplosives really had gone missing earlier, it would be surprising if the Bush administration couldn't prove it: the reconnaissance should be good enough to pick up the 40 or so large trucks it would take to move a stash like that. It also ignores the fact that even if they had moved them, the Bush administration still should have secured those explosives wherever they ended up, and should not have stood by to let Iraqis loot weapons depots. The Bush administration's primary problem is that it simply denies reality and accountability. The sad thing is that so many Americans are perfectly happy with this situation.