English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007 Philly Mayor won by Democrat Michael Nutter 82% to 17%
but Philly Neighbouring Counties (Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery and Chester) all won by GOP.

Why the City of Philadelphia proves the POLLs right but not those counties?? why?

2007-11-09 06:32:31 · 25 answers · asked by Samm 6 in Politics & Government Politics

74% means that 3 out of 4 Americans are now Pro-Democrat. right? or simply the POLL Sampling is Biased?!

What if the polls were taken in those counties???

2007-11-09 06:34:02 · update #1

Liberals love POLLs but we cons have FACT.

2007-11-09 06:37:18 · update #2

Don C: spin?? I have the election results. How about you?

www.kyw1060.com

2007-11-09 06:38:49 · update #3

stay here and read those answers from Liberals and you will know what I meant about "Liberals love POLLs."

2007-11-09 06:41:18 · update #4

25 answers

Well, traditionally, big cities like Philadelphia, tend to vote democratic while the less populated regions tend to vote republican.

As to your other claims about libs liking polls and cons liking fact, you are entitled to your opinion but I do not find those generalizations particularly useful.

2007-11-09 06:51:03 · answer #1 · answered by John V 5 · 4 1

kind of a long shot here, dontcha think?

If you're from the area, you know exactly why Michael Nutter won. It had nothing to do with party politics or polls. I don't think he even once mentioned his opponent or the Philadelphia republicans in any kind of smearing way.

On top of that, Bucks, Montgo, Delco and Chester Counties are all high-end suburbs. Of course they'll go republican.

Outside of that...I'm a republican. There is no way in the world that you can look me in the eye and say that Bush is doing a good job...or any republican for that matter. Not one of them has accomplished what they've set out to do. The only time anything ever happens in congress is when enough people call and write their representatives to the point where the future of their position is in jeopardy if they don't comply with the publics' request. Nobody, D's or R's, is worthy of serving another term.

2007-11-09 06:50:45 · answer #2 · answered by jdm 6 · 1 1

More people live in Urban areas... and Urban areas are almost always Democrat-controlled.

If we actually voted a straight vote... one vote per person, the democrats would win EVERY election...

That's also why 3rd parties don't fare well. Because the Republicans are comprised of people who belong to all sorts of ideologies and have come together in rural areas to gang up on (or defend themselves against) the majority dems in their major cities.

Think about just how many people live in New York and California...

Think about how many people live in Chicago as opposed to the rest of Illinois.
That is why the votes are tabulated in regions, so that the metropolitan areas aren't voting for the entire state.

It's not very fair if you are a democrat - but it is more than fair if you are a small town Republican with deep pockets.

Sometimes it works the opposite way - like when Hillsboro County elected Rhonda Storms (out in the rural sticks) and she ended up holding a religious war against Gay people in downtown Tampa...
There are serious problems when you let a country person take control over a major city that they know nothing about (and vice versa).

I think we can all agree that someone who got a C- at Yale and built his home in Waco, Texas does not represent every American... (but then a black man who got straight A's in Harvard might not either...)

2007-11-09 06:43:24 · answer #3 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 3 0

Well, did the original poll say 74% of Americans were "pro democrat" or "anti-Bush?" This could make huge difference. Plus, you cannot take a poll that represents an entire country and apply it to a small subsector of the geography (Philly and neighboring counties). Statistically, that is not a valid use of the data.

2007-11-09 06:39:51 · answer #4 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 5 2

Philly is a big city, and it has all the big city problems. Bad neighborhoods, deteriorating schools, crime, traffic, drugs, you name it. The neighboring counties are comfortable, suburban, even somewhat opulent. Completely different demographic.

In many states, gerrymandering has sliced cities up into pie wedges, each wedge attached to a suburban community. This dilutes the liberal urban vote. But MOST cities tend to be liberal.

BTW, that 74% figure is not 'pro-Democratic'. People are disgusted with Bush and want a change. But I think it's important to recognize that people are disgusted with him for different reasons. I am a liberal and I think invading Iraq was wrong from the start. But those who were originally in favor of the invasion (and there were a lot of them!) feel that Bush has failed. They would still be all for it if he'd succeeded.

2007-11-09 06:40:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

The city is largely democratic and anti-war. What so hard to figure about that?


What poll are you referring? Even the Republicans run their own polls.
But reputable polls try hard to poll all areas of the country and all social strata. Reputable polls cannot be biased or noone will no longer listen

People do not have a problem with Republicans. They have a problem with the president & his war. They are tired of hearing its about to turn around.

2007-11-09 06:45:48 · answer #6 · answered by p v 4 · 2 1

I don't live there (I'm a Texan) but my guess would be demographics. The city of Philadelphia has a very high percentage of African Americans who vote mostly democratic. The suburbs are mostly white and more affluent who vote more republican. Local elections often work out this way and that's why many city elections are not the same time as the presidential election.

2007-11-09 06:41:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

i've got finished lots of study in this, I do have self belief that at one factor there have been WMDs. no longer nukes yet bio and chemical. perhaps he destroyed them till now the conflict (perhaps years till now?) in hopes to steer away from an invasion. It does no longer suprise me if Bush exaggerated alot, yet i'm reluctant to connect the "bush lied human beings died camp". Cheney, Bush, and others have money to learn from the defense force commercial complicated and oil industries. i'm a republican turning liberian so i'm against the conflict as a results of fact i do no longer think of we've any buisness over there, plus we can't discover the money for it. i think of Bush is an fool especially as a results of fact he has spent money like water. we are going bankrupt and he's the form a million reason good now (and congress sucks). so because it relatively is my opinion besides. i do no longer think of those moslems will ever settle for our democracy.

2016-10-15 22:18:51 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That would be the "Hilly & Billy" poll, right? I can see the liberal spin logic at work there: "43% of Americans are pro-democrat and 31% of Americans are anti-Bush, which makes 74% for democrats and against Bush."

2007-11-09 06:54:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

The Bush Administration has betrayed Republican values. They have betrayed the fiscal conservative, the belief in small government, the moral majority, family values (families are torn asunder with the war re-deployment and events such as Katrina), and betrayed security moms (terrorism on the rise because of Bush policies). The GOP needs to dump the garbage and back impeachment in order to save the party. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdC5Id7bq3o
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdC5Id7bq3o and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qANoubIYQ2E

2007-11-10 13:11:36 · answer #10 · answered by Susan S 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers