Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.




CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.



Interesting. I just voted there...I am an "electronic" subscriber to the
WSJ.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

Faux News will probably declare it "too close to call." :-)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.


Um, I never paid for any subscription to WSJ or it's site and I just went
and voted there.
And, just as research for this question, I was able to vote there three
times by tweaking
my computer a little. As allways - polls don't mean much, internet polls
mean almost nothing.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

At this moment, 11:45 pm EST, the MSNBC poll on the same subject has it
Kerry 71, Bush 29, with about 350,000 voting.

Again, though, I have no idea whether the site blocks repetitive voting.



Just to check, I just voted twice at MSNBC, WSJ, and CNN.

However, I do find minor validity in these polls. If the numbers were
5 ot 10% apart I'd say someone could be voting a lot to change the
numbers. But when Bush is running 30% to Kerry's 70% on all
three sites, I'd say it's somewhat accurate.

I notice Bush IS winning the AOL poll. I'm not sure
that says much for Bush.

Bush looked annoyed.


What is a good word for someone who *thinks* he's right
and has no doubt about it, but that is actually wrong? I'm
not just looking for jerk or simpelton but something that
actually conveys that concept of thinking you are right
(or in the right) when in reality you are not.


Anyway, Bush looked like he *knows* and *feels* that
he is in the right and is doing everything right and that
anyone who askes him any questions about it or says
otherwise is just wasting his time.


Kerry looked presidential.

Gary Warner wrote:
Bush looked annoyed.


What is a good word for someone who *thinks* he's right
and has no doubt about it, but that is actually wrong? I'm
not just looking for jerk or simpelton but something that
actually conveys that concept of thinking you are right
(or in the right) when in reality you are not.


Anyway, Bush looked like he *knows* and *feels* that
he is in the right and is doing everything right and that
anyone who askes him any questions about it or says
otherwise is just wasting his time.


Kerry looked presidential.





Despite my many misgivings, I thought the format worked well, and Jim
Lehrer did an excellent job framing questions, keeping control and
keeping the guys moving. Not enough views of each candidate while the
other spoke.

I really felt as if Bush's handlers had given him three 3x5 cards with
instructions to repeat the same pet phrases over and over and over and
over and over. If not, and if all that is on Bush's mind is "mexed
missages," then we really do have an inarticulate dolt in the White House.

Kerry sounded and looked professional and came across as a statesmen.
Bush came across as a guy giving his first performance at Toastmasters.






--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.


Hell....all you have to do is have multiple user profiles in
Netscape/Mozilla, and you can go back & vote once for each. Then, switch
over to IE. Different cookie is set for each user.

Realistically, I don't think the average person has that much time on their
hands, though. :-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.


Hell....all you have to do is have multiple user profiles in
Netscape/Mozilla, and you can go back & vote once for each. Then, switch
over to IE. Different cookie is set for each user.

Realistically, I don't think the average person has that much time on their
hands, though. :-)



Virtually all the "online" polls I have seen show the aame approximate
results with 60-70% indicating Kerry won the debate.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.




CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

In all fairness, Harry, we must allow for the possibility of several things:

1) The average Bush supporter couldn't figure out the TV schedule, and
missed the debate completely.

2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.

3) The average Bush supporter wanted to vote by computer afterward, but
couldn't figure out where the keyboard plugged in because it was dark, and
hard to see under the hoods of their cars.