A VFR poll on the election

Let’s have our own, non-scientific, poll. It has two questions: Who are you voting for today, and who do you think is more likely to win? If you have further intuitions, such as the size of the popular and electoral vote margin, or the odds, you can add that as well. Also, if, by the time you reply to this poll, your prediction is at all influenced by reports of weather, voter turnout, and other such election-day factors, you should state what your prediction was as of Monday night.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 02, 2004 01:23 PM | Send

I’m casting a write-in ballot for Tom Tancredo, and I think Bush is favored to win, by four-to-one odds.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 2, 2004 1:24 PM

I voted for Michael Peroutka. I think he will win in a landslide. :-) Seriously, I think Bush will win a squeaker, and the Republicans will pick up seats in the Senate. Haven’t researched the House of Representatives trends.

Posted by: Clark Coleman on November 2, 2004 1:41 PM

Georgia is a red state and everywhere I drive I see mostly Bush signs. He’ll win handily here, and the Republicans will also pick up a senate seat. Next election this state is ripe for a candidate who can combine the qualities of Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, George Wallace and Julius Caesar. Anyone know such person? :-))))

Posted by: Bob Griffin on November 2, 2004 2:07 PM

I voted for Peroutka. About a week ago, I predicted a Kerry win on this Forum. I had anticipated a movement toward Kerry that doesn’t seem to have happened as the polls consistently have a Bush lead. So it seems that Bush will hang on. It’s still possible that Kerry will eke out narrow wins in the battleground states and win Electorally while losing the popular vote.

So, what do we do if Bush wins? He will immediately push more amnesty proposals, which we must prepare to fight. We hope GOP lawmakers will continue to resist these.

Bush is said to be hoping that Rehnquist retires so that he can move O’Connor to Chief Justice and put a liberal hispanic in O’Connor’s place. This would be a “twofer.” The hispanic will be put on the Court if at all possible.

If Bush does win, it hopefully won’t be a big margin, which would be bad for us. Remember, as I have predicted, that Hillary Clinton is now the front-runner to be the next President in 2008.

Posted by: David on November 2, 2004 2:19 PM

I held my nose and voted for Bush. I think he will win a majority of both the popular and electoral votes. His margin won’t be huge, but it will be bigger than most people anticipated: at least 3 points. The Bin Laden video sealed his fate.

Posted by: Adam Kolasinski on November 2, 2004 2:23 PM

I painfully voted for Bush. I figure we can at least fight him within the party. Kerry/Edwards is a disaster waiting to happen. I can forsee their reactions when a U.S. city gets nuked: “We’re holding a UN summit, be patient!”

Prediction: Kerry win. The record voter turnout is all in his favor.

Posted by: Mark on November 2, 2004 2:34 PM

I didn’t vote. I’m not registered to vote, nor can I imagine myself ever voting in the future. Nor am I registered for the Selective Service, which has been given new life under Bush.

On one hand, I hope for a Bush victory so that he and the neoceonservatives will be completely discredited when Iraq soon collapses into civil war and splits into several pieces. A Kerry victory would make this impossible, because Kerry would then be blamed for betraying the troops and messing everything up in Iraq. On the other hand, a Kerry win would be better, because then Bush would be out of power and unable to cause any more harm. I have no idea who will actually win. The one certain thing is that whoever wins will likely win by such a narrow margin that there will be no grounds to claim a “mandate” from the people as Auster pointed out. There never is one anyway because so many votes for president now are not votes for this candidate, but votes against that candidate.

Posted by: John Ring on November 2, 2004 2:45 PM

I voted for Michael Peroutka. I voted for Bush in 2000 and was prepared to support him again early this year. However, his campaigning for Arlen Specter vs. Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate primary was an unpardonable crime. Now, regardless of the outcome today, activist judges will continue to rule for years.

That said, I think Bush will win by 5% and take about 330 Electoral College votes. The only thing that will break America’s deadlock will be if one party has a truly disastrous term (e.g. Hoover, Carter), making an opposition landslide possible.

Posted by: Joseph on November 2, 2004 3:20 PM

We split the vote in the family, one for Bush, one for Tancredo. I think Bush wins…..welcome to MexiAmerica !

Posted by: j.hagan on November 2, 2004 3:22 PM

I reluctantly and painfully voted for Bush. Bush will win by a slight margin. The GOP will retain control of the House, but will lose control of the Senate.

Posted by: Eugene Girin on November 2, 2004 3:23 PM

I voted for Bush but I think Kerry will win. Which I am actually ok with because (a) no one, not even Democrats, actually likes the guy so he will be unpopular; (b) he won’t have the leverage to get anything really harmful passed; (c) he will be such a catastrophe that the Republicans will win big in ‘06 and ‘08; (d) I’m sick of making excuses for the fact that Bush can’t handle himself competently in public speaking situations.

If Kerry wins, Democrats, Europeans, and Islamofascists will have a manic celebration for a couple days and then reality will dawn for the Democrats. The reality that for the first time in years, they will be responsible for actually coming up with a plan for addressing the nation’s problems. This is a party whose fundamental ideas (higher taxes, more government programs, hand US power over to international organizations) are highly unpopular with the mass of US citizens. The ONLY reason they have a chance to win is because of dislike of Bush, not because people believe in their worldview. And their leader will be a guy who already has higher negatives than positives in the popularity department and who has spent his entire career blowing whichever way the political winds were blowing. And in addition has a horror of a wife. Four years of him and people will, run, not walk, for the polls to vote in someone else.

Posted by: MarkJ on November 2, 2004 3:41 PM

I voted for Bush and expect a Kerry win.

The reason is that I put nothing past the fanatical Democrats who are backed by powerful financial leftists and the ministry of propaganda, the American mainstream media.

Their army is the hardcore liberal brigades and the multicultural hardliners of the general population front. They want nothing more than to seize power for Kerry who will reward their hard work by further liberalizing the country. A 35 year old coup détat that has come full circle. Tonight is their chance to assume power.

The fact that as of now, three key states are in the running for Kerry, Ohio, Pennsylvania and possibly Florida, is confirming my belief that something is seriously wrong with American society.

I think the science cannot possible hope to consider the “demagoguery” factor in this election and the Kerry supporters are willing to cross any line to defeat the hated Bush in their obsession to win.

Posted by: andrew2 on November 2, 2004 3:47 PM

Here in NH it seems like almost every Bush sign was torn down last night and replaced with Kerry\Edwards signs. Even up here in Central NH. Seems the union-thugs from Massachusetts drove up here last night by the hundreds to do this ! We should build a wall up here on the Mass border I tell ya:)

Posted by: j.hagan on November 2, 2004 4:01 PM

If Bush had a more commanding lead in Virginia, I’d have voted for Peroutka (whose bumper sticker is on my car), but www.electoral-vote.com shows Virginia as a “Barely Bush” state (meaning that Bush’s lead is <5%), so I held my nose and voted for him. I fear that Kerry will win, though. I think that just as I switched to Bush at the last minute out of fear of Kerry, a lot of people who are being reported in the polls as Nader voters are going to switch at the last minute and vote for Kerry out of fear of Bush.

Posted by: Seamus on November 2, 2004 4:01 PM

I voted for Bush this morning. Two weeks ago, I predicted a Kerry win. Although I’m not as confident in my prediction as I was one week ago, I’m sticking with it. Sadly, I think andrew2’s dark assessment is pretty accurate. Regardless of the outcome of the election, we must fight harder to slow down and maybe even stop the leftist juggernaut.

Posted by: Rocco DiPippo on November 2, 2004 4:13 PM

Not a good sign when U.S. stocks reverse course suddenly in response to news that Kerry is leading in key swing states.

Posted by: andrew2 on November 2, 2004 4:59 PM

I cast my vote for Michael Anthony Peroutka. And for good measure, I sent out a check to Mr. Lawrence Auster to help him maintain the best right wing blog. I urge all the regulars to vote with their wallets to keep this blog in cyberspace.

Posted by: Timegrid on November 2, 2004 5:16 PM

Andrew2 and I agree exactly. No need to repeat. Voted Bush. Expect Kerry win. Rove and illegal immigration/border security hurting Bush.

Posted by: Bud Bromley on November 2, 2004 5:39 PM

Like many here, I held my nose and voted for Bush, even though Illinois is a solidly Kerry state that Bush has little chance of carrying. Peroutka was not even on the ballot here. Because Tancredo has stated he did not wish to be used as a write in vote, I elected to respect his wishes.

Madison County (across the river from St. Louis, MO) is a notorious shark’s nest of trial lawyers - who’ve managed to chase some 170 physicians out of the state. To give readers an idea of just how pathetic the Republican party is in the state, my ballot looked in places like something from the Soviet Union: Democrat after Democrat running unopposed.

The Illinois Republican party is headed by Judy Baar Topinka, a corrupt RINO who marched in Chicago’s Gay Pride parade right alongside MoveOn and the whole panoply of leftists. While I find much admirable in Alan Keyes, the RINOs who run things here agreed to put him on the ticket in the wake of Jack Ryan’s self-immolation for two reasons: 1) To deny the solid Tancredo-style conservtive who win second place in the primary, Jim Oberweis, a spot on the ticket; and 2) Shove a knife in Keyes’ back by placing him on the ballot and promptly withdrawing all support - effectively ending his political prospects.

Obama, who has a huge lead, is a hard-core Marxist and Soros sock-puppet who even voted against outlawing the killing of infants who survive an abortion attempt. With Obama, a moderate tone and photogenic appearance cover up an agenda of unmitigated evil. Oh that a floating hand would appear in the midst of his celebration tonight and scawl four words on the wall for him and his depraved followers: “Mene, Mene Tekel, Uparsin.” May their fate rival that of King Belshazzar, his toadies and concubines.

Posted by: Carl on November 2, 2004 5:40 PM

There is a curious pattern emerging from this poll. Of the approximately 19 votes cast so far, six said they voted for Bush but expect Kerry to win, while three voted for Bush and expect Bush to win. Meanwhile, of the people who say they’re voting for either Peroutka or Tancredo, virtually all say they expect Bush to win. So, two-thirds of Bush voters expect Kerry to win, and almost all non-Bush voters expect Bush to win.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 2, 2004 6:13 PM

I’m posting after Zogby’s final numbers have come out, but I’ve said this for days now (there’s a comment on Randall Parker’s blog saying this): Kerry up by 3-5 more states than he needs. The big turnout is a killer for any incumbent. Nobody stands in line to keep the current government in, only to throw the bums out.

Posted by: Derek Copold on November 2, 2004 6:15 PM

I voted Peroutka.
I predict and have predicted another virtual tie. I don’t know who will eventually win and don’t even have a basis to guess.

Posted by: Michael Jose on November 2, 2004 6:29 PM

Mr. Auster,

I believe I can explain this parciuliar result. Those who are voting for Kerry but expect Bush to win and vice versa are all employing a psychological defence mechanism. If they keep their expectations low, they won’t be as shocked and dissapointed when the results are called.

The Peroutka or Tancredo crowd are a different case their desperation causes them to cast their vote for principle only The almost universal belief in a Bush win is a result of latent dread of a Kerry presidency, a man of no principle.

Posted by: andrew2 on November 2, 2004 6:35 PM

I hated to but I voted for Bush. If I had to bet, I would bet Kerry will win because of the big turnout and the widespread voting by illegal aliens that is expected. I will not be surprised though if the pollsters are badly wrong one way or the other.

I agree with the commentator that if Kerry wins, he will be a one term, ineffective president.

Posted by: Paul Henri on November 2, 2004 7:12 PM

I know I am a late entry, and I apologize to Mr. Auster for not responding sooner (I have not been feeling well and still am not, probably because of the election fears).

As mentioned in my posts many months ago, I was going to write in Tancredo. Then recently, he came out in an interview and seemed to indicate he didn’t want people to do that. That left me in a real “no man’s land”!

I knew this would not be a popular decision at VFR or among my musician conservative close friends here—though merrily welcomed by my left-wing family—but I am voting for Kerry. I held my nose and voted for Bush in 2000 and he scr__ed us, big-time—4 years of recession in my state that has not yet bounced back and the continued open borders. But the main reason I can’t vote for him? Illegal immigration—“the Invasion”, as Glenn Spencer rightly calls it. I did consider Michael Peroutka, but that wouldn’t help defeat Bush. I think our only hope as trad. conservatives—and as a nation—is to show the GOP that people like Bush and other RINOs like McCain, Ridge, Asa Hutchinson et al do not represent us. IN my opinion, they are more of an “enemy” to us than the hated Democrats. My only regret is that I don’t live in Ohio or Wisconsin, where my vote would hurt Bush the most.

Posted by: David Levin on November 2, 2004 7:18 PM

If Kerry wins……the Republican Party might just find the courage to flush the Bush family out of the its system once and for all. That 43 is in this close of an election with a Massachusetts liberal is laughable on its face !

Posted by: j.hagan on November 2, 2004 7:20 PM

I expect Kerry to win—by how much, I have no way of knowing—but it looks like a lot of court fights ahead.

Posted by: David Levin on November 2, 2004 7:20 PM

Kerry won Vermont I guess he’s got Maine.

Posted by: andrew2 on November 2, 2004 7:27 PM

I voted Tom Tancredo for President, Tom McClintock for Vice President. At the end of the night, if they bother to record my vote at all, I’m sure they’ll be asking, “Who’s this Tancredo guy?”.

I couldn’t vote Peroutka because he used an anti-gay slur in his very acceptance speech. A week ago I wasn’t going to vote at all what with all the expected vote fraud and Republicans doing nothing about it. But I needed to participate if only to send a small signal.

I’ve been expecting Bush to lose since April when Falujah blew up. I expect he will lose tonight, but it might be within the margin of fraud. If he had made border control a top issue, I believe he would be winning all 50 states.

Posted by: Scott in PA on November 2, 2004 7:40 PM

I too voted for Peroutka. For nearly two years I have been predicting that Bush would NOT be re-elected. As was noted previously, with the high turnout today it looks as though chances for a Kerry victory increase. Benefits of a Kerry win? On immigration, as well as a host of other issues, Republicans may actually oppose policies similar to those proposed by Bush, which they felt compelled to support. For 2008, Hillary is diminished and possibly eliminated, unless there is a total Kerry screw-up. For the Republican Party, the Bush name will become the equivalent of mud, what with two one-term Presidents. This will take Jeb out of consideration. The downside? Everything else, except maybe the war, which will be a big question mark.

Posted by: Dan R. on November 2, 2004 8:32 PM

Scott in PA

I’m pleasantly surprised by your vote for McClintock, since you are over there in PA. Is this our honorable McClintock from California?

Agree with you on the border control issue, as do Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham.

Posted by: Bud on November 2, 2004 8:57 PM

I will be voting for Peroutka. I live the Peoples Republic of California so I will be voting against Boxer and Eschoo. In the state assembly/senate seats, I have choices of democrats, republicans who favor “a womens right to choose” and “equality” (read pro-homosexual), so I will be voting for the libertarian candidates.

My prediction is Bush by 2%-4% in the popular vote. I largely discount all the pseudoscientific polls over the last week since many of them are far more “pseudo” than scientific and are presented largely to influence opinion rather than measure it.

In any case, God help us…

Posted by: Patrick Feller on November 2, 2004 9:22 PM

Peroutka: I was informed this evening that Peroutka appeared on C-Span recently and declared that we need the Hispanics for the sake of the economy. If this is true, he is more flakier than I thought he was. I will try to run a Web search.

Posted by: Paul Henri on November 2, 2004 9:51 PM

My friend attended all night election coverage at the Amerika Haus in Munich. They held a mock election. He reports that of 700 votes cast only 70 were for Bush.

Posted by: andrew2 on November 3, 2004 4:55 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):