Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Harper's cabinet | Main | Bob Barr vs. Ralph Nader »

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Ignore the polls!

Karl Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal: Don't let the polls affect your vote.

Don't let the polls affect your vote?

Karl Rove means: Vote for McCain!

But why couldn't he mean: Vote your conscience!

Should I not let the polls affect my vote at all? Or should I let the polls affect my vote only a little (only enough to ignore all the third party choices)?

I wonder if people can make a good argument to distinguish letting polls affect your vote a little, versus not letting them affect you at all. Because if people would heed the advice of ignoring polls altogether, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and Ralph Nader would each get between 10 to 20 per cent of the vote. And the two-party monopoly in the U.S. would be crushed.

(And that would be a good thing).

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on October 30, 2008 in U.S. politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535cb6789970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ignore the polls!:

Comments

Rove is preparing the ground for a McCain win - that only the stupid will believe.
Infantile commentators like Rove and O'Reilly will then be all over the networks shouting "we told you so! Polls are always wrong!"
Considering the voting frauds that handed the White House to Mr Bush. It is even money that Mr McCain becomes the next un-elected President of, the once proud, United States of America.
Study Mr McCain's "right" to high office.
www.sxolsout.110mb.com/mission.html

Posted by: Rits | 2008-10-30 3:35:42 PM


Rits,
I'm not so sure about McCain winning anything right now...
After all, look at all the media attantion and corporate support being dumped on the socialist Obama. Somebody. somewhere, really wants to put a drive on "socializing America". And the best vehicle for that is Obama. And if the US dollar is going to collapse (through hyperinflation) it will likely happen while one of these guys is in power. So...which one will it be to bring in the new currency and all the new changes and security that will come with it?

Posted by: JC | 2008-10-30 5:27:40 PM


What Peter is saying is that if all those frustrated libertarians who would rather not see Obama accelerate the rot just voted according to their conscience, and conservatives would stay home, Bob Barr might get 2.8% or 3.8% instead of 2.3% showing the world that America is on the road to a renewed liberty under Obama.

Be careful what you wish for!

Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-10-30 5:54:55 PM


JC:

The US dollar is already collapsing.

For technical reasons ie hedge fund holders having to cover their position, the US dollar has been described by people in the know as being ‘on steroids.'

The Canadian dollar went up 3.5 cents vs the US dollar on Wednesday and another 0.54 cents today.

That has more to do with the weakness of the US dollar than the strength of the Canadian dollar.

There was about $1.8 billion in hedge funds and about $1 billion has been wrung out of them already.

One of the technical reasons the stock market took such a s**tkicking was that hedge funds had to cover their positions and sold their good stocks to do so.

Now, we're seeing bargains in the stock market.

Since the genius politicians in the US have stuck the taxpayer with more than a billion in bailouts, the total debt of more than $11 trillion places a burden that's hard enough.

Add the promises from Barack the Wealth Spreader's promises and the US dollar is going to fall off the cliff next week.

Gold and oil are safe shelters.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-30 7:56:09 PM


Rits, I am not for against Bush, but do not understand how it was a fraud that he won. The majority of electoral college votes determines the winner, and sometimes that is with less than the majority of popular votes.

In Canada, imagine a scenario where there are two parties. Party A wins 155 riding by one vote, and loses 153 ridings by a few thousand votes each. That would mean that the opposition would have the majority of popular vote. This is no more a fraud than Bush winning the presidency.

Rits, you might want to get over this one. It was not a fraud, no matter what you or I may think of it.

Posted by: TM | 2008-10-30 9:52:45 PM


Add the promises from Barack the Wealth Spreader's promises and the US dollar is going to fall off the cliff next week.

Gold and oil are safe shelters.

Posted by: set you free | 30-Oct-08 7:56:09 PM

Sounds about right Set...

Posted by: JC | 2008-11-02 9:45:41 AM


Rits, you might want to get over this one. It was not a fraud, no matter what you or I may think of it.

Posted by: TM | 30-Oct-08 9:52:45 PM


I think he's referring to the electronic voting machines themselves flipping and caging votes.
Its been proven that it is "do-able".

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_CEO_resigns_after_reports_of_1212.html

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040907-4164.html

There is a ton more on the subject...

Posted by: JC | 2008-11-02 9:49:51 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.