From: "Gary Britt" 

80 wasn't an example of undecideds breaking for the challenger nearly as
much as it was people who previously said they were decided in favor of
Carter changing their minds and going with Reagan (thank God, might have
been divine intervention).  Carter had a 10 point lead in the polls going
into the last few weeks of the election.  Their weren't 20% of the populace
as undecideds.  Reagan won by 10% points.  People realized what a piece of
crap Carter was in fact and that Reagan wasn't the war mongering dangerous
republican the democrats were claiming.

'76 is not relevant because Ford was hurt by the Nixon pardon and the
failure of most in the country to have yet figured out the evils of the
left wing biased major media outlets.

That leaves '92 as the only example of not really following precedent.  I
can only say that sometimes a good looking liar can get lots of stupid
women to vote his way.  They get them to put up with a lot of abuse in
personal relationships as well.  Clinton was such a good liar and
campaigner (and Bush One such a horrible one) that Clinton (perhaps with
the help of demonic intervention) was able to beat the odds.

Since Bush and the repubs beat history and the odds in 2002 by picking up
seats in the house and congress despite Terry McAuliffe stating the dems
would gain control of the senate and 20 to 30 seats in the house, it is
hard to imagine that history won't be followed in 2004.

I don't see any Clinton's in the 9 Clown Posse?  Do you?

Cheers,

Gary

"William F. Zachmann"  wrote
in message news:3fd7c03f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Like they did in '92?  In '76?  In '80?
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:3fd6b7c8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Every post here I've seen recently about polls is woefully inaccurate
> > because they fail to take into account what happens with the undecideds
as
> > the election actually takes place.  History has it that the undecided's
> > always break (absent some unexpected and calamitous thing happening) in
> > favor of the incumbents.  Given a popular incumbent like Bush, in the
> middle
> > of a war on terrorism, the fact that Bush is now a known entity, and the
> > fact that in the 2002 off year elections the party in power beat history
> and
> > gained seats in congress, etc.  The odds are quite high that Bush will
get
> > at least 2/3's of the undecided vote on election day.  That would give
> bush
> > a minimum 10 point lead over Hillary on election day.  A 10 point lead
as
> > presidential elections since Reagan in 1980 show, is a LANDSLIDE in
favor
> of
> > the winning candidate.
> >
> > It is for the reasons stated above that I have confidently predicted
Bush
> > will win going away and that history will be followed in this election,
> and
> > the republican party will pick up seats in the house and the senate this
> go
> > around.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a40671b45761ed298bc26{at}news.barkto.com...
> > > Out of darkness, Gary Britt says...
> > > > Fortunately all current polls show Bush beating each of the 9
> democratic
> > > > candidates and Hillary, in head to head contests (and
by pretty good
> > > > margins).  Those poll results will only improve as the election
nears.
> > > > Hillary stands a better chance of falling in love with
her husband
> than
> > she
> > > > does on ever becoming President.
> > >
> > > The one poll that I've seen showing a head-to-head between Dubya and
> > Hillary was 7
> > > points (49 to 42), not exactly a good margin, IMO.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5