|
Edited on Sun Oct-31-04 10:53 AM by Moonbeam_Starlight
and he has these pollsters on right now. The guy for the Wall Street Journal isn't even trying to HIDE his bias for bush. WTF? Russert just thought he'd pull out his clever little white board like he did in 2000 and he put bush at 269 EV and Kerry at 280 EV. Then he said bush wins Iowa and Hawaii and that's 11 EVs so he added 11 to bush and subtracted 11 from Kerry and they were tied at 269 a piece. Does that sound right? Sounds like it would mean * would win. But I don't think * is going to take Iowa or Hawaii.
Anyway that gave him an excuse to bring up the concept of it going to the house of representatives and the bush Wall Street Journal guy piped up with "which they would give it to bush" and the guy on the far end (seems to be more balanced, can't think of his name--on edit: Peter Hart, the ONLY one who brought up the 50% incumbent rule and the fact that higher turnout historically benefits the challenger) said "unless the Dems win more seats" and Wall Street Journal guy immediately blurted out "WHICH THEY WON'T."
My. Did anyone catch that they are wondering if voter turnout will equal 130 MILLION or more this year???? I know in Dallas County, we had 195,000 people early vote in 2000 and this year the total was over 300,000. WOW.
What's the point of all this anyway? We're going to find out in two days. And how do you add 11 to 269 and subtract 11 to 280 and get both sums to be 269? Does Russert need to go back to first grade arithmetic or what?
Ok I'm done watching the Sunday morning prognosticating. I was happier just enjoying my amaretto coffee and cereal in peace and quiet.
On edit, I meant to add, Bob Kerrey was on earlier and did a wonderful, BANG-UP job of arguing for Kerry. Then Rudy was on and I could only stomach about five seconds of him. An idiot totally out of touch with reality, what else is new?
|