Bush v. Kerry in Hawaii

[mcnabbmcnow]

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/23/ln/ln05p.html

I must say I am surprised, but Hawaii appears to be shifting somewhat more Republican, even if Bush doesn't win. This should have been an easy win for Kerry...

[Miulang]

It could also be that people are so sick and tired of these damned polls that they're lying about who they really plan to vote for. :)

There are at least 12% of the voting population nationally who are still undecided...they may lean toward one candidate on one day and then change their minds the next day.

The ultimate winner, I fear, will have to be decided by the House of Representatives. We should probably throw out the results and start from scratch. I think they had a fairer election in Afghanistan than we will on Nov. 2.

Miulang

[mcnabbmcnow]

It could also be that people are so sick and tired of these damned polls that they're lying about who they really plan to vote for. :)

There are at least 12% of the voting population nationally who are still undecided...they may lean toward one candidate on one day and then change their minds the next day.

The ultimate winner, I fear, will have to be decided by the House of Representatives. We should probably throw out the results and start from scratch. I think they had a fairer election in Afghanistan than we will on Nov. 2.

Miulang


You may be right. I hear there are thousands of lawyers chomping at the bit to sue someone or claim voter suppression (though no case was one in the 2000 election for this at all) Democrats have even more and are more irate, because they feel 2000 was unfair. I don't feel it was as unfair because Florida was called early by the press, an hour before the panhandle of Florida, in a differnet time zone, was done voting. The Panhandle is very Republican, the most in the state. They should not have done that and 3 independent sources said Bush lost about 10,000 votes possibly cause of this. I wonder if we will know who won by the year 2005!

[pzarquon]

Hee! I got called for this poll. Unlike the fake poll Tanonaka commissioned a while back, Ward Research is pretty much on the level.

I have to admit, I was surprised. Not so much over the fact that Bush has gained ground (no one should take any group's vote for granted), but because of the seemingly illogical contradictions in the poll results.

The majority of islanders believe Bush misled America on the rationale for invading Iraq. The majority believe invading Iraq has made America less safe. The majority believe we'll be stuck in Iraq longer than promised. And yet a chunk of those polled will still vote for Bush? Yike. That is, indeed, a sad commentary on Kerry's absolute lack of appeal.

But, taking a closer look, I think Miulang makes a good point. The overall results show a 43.3 percent/42.6 percent split, but a whopping twelve percent proclaim they are undecided. (In my own personal polling, I'm quite likely to get that answer from folks who "just don't want to get into it"). There's a higher percentage of Democrats willing to cross over to Bush than vice versa, but there's no breakdown of what the respective "by party" population was overall. I still think Democrats outnumber Republicans by a fair amount... although a decreasing amount, to be sure. Finally, this is a "war election," and we have a sitting "war president." Considering how closely Hawaii is tied to the U.S. military, I more than expect a strong divergence from the "norm" that we might usually see in polls.

I think someone better tell the folks over at the Electoral Vote Predictor (http://www.electoral-vote.com/). So far the polls they use to get Hawaii numbers (http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/hawaii.html) appear to be mainland-based.

[mcnabbmcnow]

Hee! I got called for this poll. Unlike the fake poll Tanonaka commissioned a while back, Ward Research is pretty much on the level.

I have to admit, I was surprised. Not so much over the fact that Bush has gained ground (no one should take any group's vote for granted), but because of the seemingly illogical contradictions in the poll results.


I think that the polls just really speak that people don't like Kerry. War is rarely a popular thing, but I think what the polls show is that Kerry is trusted even less than Bush. And with Hawaii having a big military presence, this election could be a little different.

[Miulang]

Also remember that one of the main reasons why Hawai'i has been able to get so many appropriations from the Defense Dept. is in no small measure due to the efforts of DEMOCRAT Dan the Man who is the 3rd highest ranking US Senator. He carries a lot of weight on Capitol Hill. See how much additional funding Hawai'i gets for its military bases after he leaves office and there's no one going to bat for those military bucks.

Miulang

[mcnabbmcnow]

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/24/news/index2.html

A second poll has come out in Hawaii more recently, and not only is Bush tied, as in the recent poll, but this poll has him with a 1 point lead. Amazing.

[Miulang]

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/24/news/index2.html

A second poll has come out in Hawaii more recently, and not only is Bush tied, as in the recent poll, but this poll has him with a 1 point lead. Amazing.
And the flip flopping in the polls ain't going to be over until the fat lady sings, has a stomach stapling operation and loses about 300 lbs! :rolleyes: What is the margin of error? + or - 4%? What you have is a dead even race at best, my friend.

Miulang

[kamlost]

It could also be that people are so sick and tired of these damned polls that they're lying about who they really plan to vote for. :)

There are at least 12% of the voting population nationally who are still undecided...they may lean toward one candidate on one day and then change their minds the next day.

The ultimate winner, I fear, will have to be decided by the House of Representatives. We should probably throw out the results and start from scratch. I think they had a fairer election in Afghanistan than we will on Nov. 2.

Miulang

Hahahh! Yah.. they should call us up. Then they'll really get the proper opinions ;)

It can't be decided by the House of Representatives.

So, how accurate are these polls? Like based on historical findings? Anyone know?

[Glen Miyashiro]

One recent development in poll error is the increasing use of cell phones. When they collect their data, pollsters only call land line numbers and don't (can't?) call cell numbers. If the cell-using public differs from the landline-using public in their political views, then the polls will have even more error than they already do.

[kamlost]

Why don't they start doing polls through the cell? SMS?? But then again, there are only a certain number of those who would actually take part in a poll. Kind of like those who would actually send in a letter to the editor. MOst others can't really be bothered.

[Linkmeister]

As far as I know, cellphones aren't in the phone book, right? So how would they get the cell numbers to poll?

[kamlost]

Databases ;)

[Sherry]

You may be right. I hear there are thousands of lawyers chomping at the bit to sue someone or claim voter suppression (though no case was one in the 2000 election for this at all) Democrats have even more and are more irate, because they feel 2000 was unfair. I don't feel it was as unfair because Florida was called early by the press, an hour before the panhandle of Florida, in a differnet time zone, was done voting. The Panhandle is very Republican, the most in the state. They should not have done that and 3 independent sources said Bush lost about 10,000 votes possibly cause of this. I wonder if we will know who won by the year 2005!

I certainly hope not. But I would not be surprised. With the races as tied as they appear neither party will give up without a fight. Politics..politics..

This should prove to be interesting.

My take is that Kerry is perceived too much as a weak leader. America cannot have a weak lead. Bush on the other hand is definetly strong, just a little rash and stubborn. Kerry promises a lot of improvements. But sometimes I worry about the man because you never know if he is going to stick to his platform. Bush sticks to his platform but he problem is his platform is not always correct.
Difficult choices ahead for all, that is certain.

Mahalo
_________

Shukriya

[j3rr3y]

I don't really consider myself as "belonging" to any party... that said, I think Bush may have more votes than expected here partly because of the large military presence. Over 73% of Military personnel support Bush. I am voting for Bush again this year, more because I feel it isn't too smart to change leaders in the midst of a war, and I think Bush will be a lot stronger on terrorism. Terrorism overrides the economy, health care, and those issues to me, because they all depend on peace, and I really think Bush will get the job done as quickly and effectively as possible.

[pzarquon]

I agree the strong military presence here is a substantial factor in these "surprising" results. I don't know if I've read anything explicitly stating so, but I'm almost certain troop deployment levels from Hawaii are about the highest they've ever been. Whether locals or locals-at-heart, we've got a lot of lives on the line... and whether you're for or against the war, you're definitely going to be paying attention and voting in higher numbers than during peace time.

I imagine this is true in any community that has strong military roots.

With the polls showing Hawaii in play, the Star-Bulletin reports that some national advertising dollars (http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/26/news/story1.html) are being tossed our way.

Actually, watching national cable stations, I have already been seeing some presidential campaign ads. Has anyone caught a Bush or Kerry ad airing alongside local programming, or in local ad slots?

I don't think we're going to become a "key swing state" anytime soon, and for that, I think, I'm grateful. If you lived in Iowa, there wouldn't be a moment of the day where you weren't bombarded with politics. On the phone, on the radio and TV... local ads, official campaign ads, and ads from every group that has a stake in the election. It sounds insane.

[Glen Miyashiro]

This article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=16&u=/afp/us_vote_hawaii) about Hawaii's sudden prominence in the presidential election made me wince:

And experts said that while most of Hawaii's population remained of Asian origin, more caucasian Americans had retired here, possibly swaying the voting demographic.
Huh? This is wrong on so many levels.

First off, it's not the incoming haole retirees that are really changing the ethnic demographic, it's the incoming working-age haoles. And they have a more lasting effect, because they raise families and (probably) stick around, unlike the retirees who generally don't.

And second, I just don't buy the standard ethnicity=politics equation any more. Ethnicity is not the critical factor in politics in Hawai'i; income level is. Rich people vote similarly, regardless of whether they're haole, Japanese, Hawaiian, or Filipino. And poor people likewise. Now that these days there is a fairly wide variation of income in most ethnic groups, this has become obvious. So basing political voting expectations on race is, in my opinion, just plain foolish.

[Linkmeister]

. . .I am voting for Bush again this year, more because I feel it isn't too smart to change leaders in the midst of a war, and I think Bush will be a lot stronger on terrorism. Terrorism overrides the economy, health care, and those issues to me, because they all depend on peace, and I really think Bush will get the job done as quickly and effectively as possible.

Regarding change in the middle of a war, here's a quote:

“I hate it when they say you shouldn’t change horses in mid-stream. The horse can’t swim and it’s in way over its head and that horse shouldn’t have crossed the stream in the first place, and there’s a good democratic mule right there.
So change that horse.
Change it.”


–James Taylor at the final Vote for Change concert last Monday night.

Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, I thought that was well put.

[j3rr3y]

well if you want to use that analogy, I would rather have a huge elephant than a mule if i was crossing a deep stream ;)

[admin]

Let's keep this thread specific to the presidential race as it unfolds here in the islands. I've lost count of how many threads there are in the American Asylum (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6) to discuss national politics and the Bush v. Kerry race overall.

[Linkmeister]

Well, the big hitters are gonna be here. KITV tells us that Cheney will be here for an 11:00pm rally Sunday night at the Convention Center, and that it will be his fifth state of the day. Even though I despise him, I gotta say that's impressive for a man with a stent in his heart valves.

On the Democratic side, we've got Al Gore (you remember, the guy who won the popular vote in 2000?) arriving Friday for a 6:00-8:00pm rally at Farrington HS. Vanessa Kerry will also be there, and she may stick around for some Saturday rallies as well.

And the Presidential candidate himself (JFK) will be doing one-on-one interviews with local TV reporters via satellite. It's unclear if that's five minutes for a reporter from each station, or a pool, or what.

[Kalihiboy]

Well, the big hitters are gonna be here. KITV tells us that Cheney will be here for an 11:00pm rally Sunday night at the Convention Center, and that it will be his fifth state of the day. Even though I despise him, I gotta say that's impressive for a man with a stent in his heart valves. Well I think it is appropriate Cheney here on Halloween, that will be quite a late night or day for him and everyone else too.

On the Democratic side, we've got Al Gore (you remember, the guy who won the popular vote in 2000?) arriving Friday for a 6:00-8:00pm rally at Farrington HS. Vanessa Kerry will also be there, and she may stick around for some Saturday rallies as well.
Sure wish Edwards could come but I understand flying from the east or midwest where they are at now primarily takes in just flight time round trip a full day of campaigning wiped out by just sitting on the airplane.

I'll give credit for Bush-Cheney for fighting for Hawaii after the state has been so ignored by everyone for years.

KalihiBoy

[pzarquon]

I'll give credit for Bush-Cheney for fighting for Hawaii after the state has been so ignored by everyone for years.Yeah, we were ignored by all sides equally. The DNC took us for granted, the RNC figured, "Why bother?" Now both sides want to be our best friend.

It's the RNC with the biggest opportunity given the latest numbers here, so it's an aggressive move to bring number-two Cheney all the way out. Then again, I guess he'll be on a whirlwind tour (hitting only one event), so we're just another hole to punch on a pretty crowded card. On the Democratic side, there's Al Gore and Alexandra Kerry, who aren't on the ticket but are expected to "energize the base."

Whatever side you're on, all this sudden attention is both exciting and a little sad. It's nice to matter, even a little, but it just highlights just how neglected we've been up 'til now.

Having mainland ads flooding the airwaves, crammed in alongside the already heavy local campaigning, is interesting. To think the folks in Iowa and Florida have it ten times worse than we do. I'm personally tickled to see MoveOn PAC advertising, since for once my puny little contribution to a distant cause is affecting something locally. And the fact that the DNC specifically assembled an ad directed squarely at Hawaii? As Burl Burlingame says (http://www.pacifichistory.net/CHECK6FILE/CHECK6.HTML), "We're special again."

[BKHale2007]

From David Briscoe's Associated Press article on Cheney:

In response to a question, Lingle said it was more important for Bush to win the presidency than for Hawaii to be represented by Republicans in Congress...."With four days left, it's more important for the president to get re-elected," Lingle said.

Are we to assume she couldn't care less about Gabbard, Tanonaka, and Cavasso winning?

[Linkmeister]

From David Briscoe's Associated Press article on Cheney:

In response to a question, Lingle said it was more important for Bush to win the presidency than for Hawaii to be represented by Republicans in Congress...."With four days left, it's more important for the president to get re-elected," Lingle said.

Are we to assume she couldn't care less about Gabbard, Tanonaka, and Cavasso winning?

Well, I've had a robo-call from her exhorting me to vote for Jerry Coffee in my state house district, so she seems to want more Republicans in the legislature here. ;)

[Glen Miyashiro]

Here's another national-media whopper about Hawai'i and the presidential campaigns:


With the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, Hawaii has none of the economic problems that many states on the mainland have. (MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6362281/))
Say what? Tell that to my friends who are searching for jobs that will earn them a decent living. :mad:

[Linkmeister]

Although unattributed, I think that comes from the local Republican committee. I heard the chairman saying that the MoveOn ad which cited Hawai'i job losses was wrong (he should check the source at the bottom of the screen before he whines...I've been impressed that each "page" of MoveOn's ads has a source listed).

[kamlost]

Weekly Standard (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/850jbrmr.asp)

Why Bush May Win Hawaii

IT'S THE ISSUE that just won't stay in the closet. Republican politicians run skittishly from talking about same-sex marriage. The polls from Hawaii indicate they should be highlighting it.

Hawaii elects Republicans about as often as the Red Sox win the World Series. Only twice since statehood has a Republican president carried Hawaii (Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984). Yet the latest polls show Bush leading Kerry by a percentage point. National and state Democrats are in a tizzy. How can this be? The unknown factor may be Republican Mike Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii's second congressional district.


Interesting. I think Lingle should rethink that she couldn't care less if Republicans got into the house.

[Miulang]

Did anyone who is supporting Bush make it into the rally at the Convention Center today with Dick Cheney? If so, can you let the rest of us know how tough it was for you to get those credentials (what you had to attest to, sign, etc)? I've been hearing reports from all over the place that you have to swear loyalty to George Bush and have to sign a piece of paper saying that you swear your loyalty. Can anyone confirm this, please.

At some other Republican rallies, "moles" have had to lie their way in to get a ticket, whereas they never encountered any problems getting into the Democratic rallies.

Just curious.

Miulang

[pzarquon]

The rally "loyalty oaths" are no joke. (Ian Lind confirmed yesterday that you needed to sign one to get tickets.) If it's a private event, that's one thing, but if the public is ostensibly invited, or if taxpayer funds are used to handle logistics, the requirement to sign something to affirm one's allegiance (and promise to hold one's tongue) is positively apalling... as is the use of the supposedly nonpartisan Secret Service to enforce (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/politics/stories/10/21secret.html) the 'supporters only' zone.

Various anti-Bush groups are converging on the Convention Center tonight to make their views heard, even if they won't be heard inside. At least the fact that Cheney's bow isn't until nearly midnight will probably adversely affect his live audience as well.

Then again, timing wise, it's pure genius -- it might be too late for the public (pro or con), but not too late for the front pages of Monday's newspapers.

[Linkmeister]

"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."

That's from http://www.slate.com/id/2108852/

"One Nation Under Bush" in Slate earlier this week.

Charming, isn't it?

[pzarquon]

Early results (absentee and early voting) fresh out of the State Capitol shows Hawaii leaning Kerry 54 percent to Bush's 43 percent. Considering the gap the state normally shows, certainly nothing for Dems to get excited about. We'll see how returns for today look in a few hours.

[pzarquon]

Final tally? 231,691 for Kerry (54%), 194,184 for Bush (45%). At this point, a mere consolation prize for the battered island Democrats.

One local tidbit I found interesting - a reversal of the national trend wherein urban areas favored Kerry and rural areas favored Bush. Notes the Advertiser (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Nov/02/br/br26p.html): "State voting patterns showed that Kerry and Bush were much closer on O'ahu than on the Neighbor Islands, where Kerry surged." I would've expected the opposite, but I guess the "military factor" factored very heavily in the Honolulu population core.

[mel]

I would not consider island Democrats battered. Sure, they lost the big enchilada, but locally the Democrat party held on to power at all the expected places and increased their presence in the State House which will make things very difficult in the coming year for the Republicans and those with a minority viewpoint.

[pzarquon]

A fun footnote: Dick Cheney, in setting the stage at this moment for George W. Bush's victory speech, mentioned Hawaii ("the aloha state") in his opening statement.

[j3rr3y]

Well, I am really happy about Bush's victory... I was hoping they would carry Hawaii, but hey, at least it was a clear victory. It seems most Americans felt, as I did, that terrorism was a really big issue. I thought Americans put terrorism ahead of issues like gay marriage... but according to the 11 states that had a constitutional ammendment on the ballot, it is still a very important issue to Americans. Gay marriage was struck down in all 11 states, and I think it was Ohio that banned civil unions as well. I really think this helped Bush, because he seems to be a lot stronger on this issue.