Gore has already won!

[ruger45]

I live in Tennesee and
Gorefreetennesee
rides my bumper try not to laugh but Ive never even looked up the website www.gorefreetennesee.com

Ive talked to two people who bear his sticker
the one guy said he 'will do more for the black man'
and the other said he never see's crime in his well policed neighborhood and wants to eliminate it in the rest of the country by helping to cut down on guns in America.
The man lives in the beverly hills of Memphis
known as Germantown.
My parents also live their and see a policemen almost every half hour it seems I see them every other hour in my area and dont want to then.
I tried to reason with the man he simply brought that he has friends in (communist) china that have a wonderful life and that his son lives in Australia where they banned guns.
Turns out his son is a Lawyer
sounds like a real middle class kinda guy to me.
www.gunowners.org www.citizensofamerica.org www.ccops.org

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"

 

[citizenguardian]

It is going to be very close, and that's one reason why these models may not be reliable in this election.

Another is that the models rely heavily on economic factors as indicators of voting behavior. But the fact that Gore has not yet polled into the lead among likely voters might be taken precisely as evidence that non-economic matters are assuming an atypically large importance in the minds of the electorate. Hence, the models might not be not very good predictors of the outcome (some of the authors have thought that if Gore weren't polling into the lead by Labor Day this would be prima facie evidence the models were misforecasting). On the other hand, many of the authors of the models are assuming that present polling just shows that the polling so far is likely to be wrong-- but, if they're not going to beg the question they can mean only that polling at this time in the year has not been reliable in the past, not that the polls cannot be reliable because the models say they can't be. But how accurate has past polling at this time of the year been? Things were similarly close between Nixon-Kennedy in '60 and Reagan-Carter in '80. The former stayed close until the end (Tricky Dick was only some Chicago voter fraud away from the White House), whereas Carter-Reagan was won by Reagan in an election which wasn't all that close.

(That reminds me. Many media commentators have compared this election to '88, in which a governor and a vice-president faced off to the advantage of the VP. But why hasn't anyone talked more about '60? There a vice-president faced off against a wealthy son of a well-known patrician family in a close election. There too the patrician faced charges of being vapid (which in fairness he was). Could it be because _that_ election went differently than most commentators would like this one to go? Nah..)

So, if we look at what the polls alone tell us, we know only what we already know: it's a close election, and that the outcome could go either way. But, the polls are also to some exent a counterindicator to the models which predict a sizable Gore victory.

The media care only about airing another Gore campaign commercial, in any event, whether there is reason to think the models reliable this time around or not.