Exit polls: Yushchenko will win by a wide margin

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-26 06:29pm

Yahoo wrote:Exit polls give Yushchenko the Ukrainian presidency by a large margin

Sun Dec 26, 2:34 PM ET

JUDITH INGRAM

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) - Three exit polls projected Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko the winner by a commanding margin over Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych in Sunday's fiercely fought presidential rematch.

A glum-looking Yanukovych told reporters, "If we fail, we will form a strong opposition." He did not concede defeat, saying "I am ready to lead the state" and hinted that he would challenge the results in court. The first official results are not expected until Monday morning.

The exit polls tracked an unprecedented third-round presidential election, which was watched by an army of Canadian and other foreign observers stationed at polls to prevent the kind of fraud that sparked weeks of protests in the streets of Kyiv, the capital, and sent a flurry of recriminations flying between Russia and the West after last month's court-annulled run-off.

The state-funded Ukrainian Institute of Social Research and Social Monitoring Center showed Yushchenko winning with 58.1 per cent of the vote and Yanukovych garnering 38.4 per cent. The margin of error was two percentage points.

The western-funded Razumkov Centre of Political Studies and Kyiv International Institute of Sociology showed Yushchenko winning with 56.5 per cent and Yanukovych collecting 41.3 per cent of the vote, with no margin of error given.

A third exit poll, by Frank Luntz, a pollster for the U.S. Republican party, and Douglas Schoen, of the Washington-based market research company Penn, Schoen & Berland, showed Yushchenko winning with 56 to Yanukovych's 41 per cent, Schoen said. The margin of error was two percentage points.

The contest was a momentous political event for Ukraine, a country of 48 million people torn between an eastward-expanding European Union (news - web sites) and NATO (news - web sites), and an increasingly assertive Russia, its former imperial and Soviet-era master.

Yushchenko, a former Central Bank chief and prime minister, hopes to take Ukraine closer to the West and to push through economic and political reforms. The Kremlin-backed Yanukovych emphasized tightening the Slavic country's ties with Russia as a means of maintaining stability.

Yushchenko has promised to uproot the corruption which saw the former Soviet republic's wealth concentrated in the hands of about a dozen businessmen. Yanukovych has promised to continue work to boost Ukraine's economy - which enjoys the fastest growth rate in Europe - and pledged an increase in wages and pensions.

Serhiy Shetchkov, 53, a Kyiev voter, said he had cast his ballot for Yushchenko - "of course."

"He is an economist and that's what the country needs right now," he said after slipping his ballot into a transparent box at Kyiv's Music Conservatory. "I'm not as interested in all this talk about the European Union versus Russia. I'm interested in someone who can raise the standard of living, raise pensions, create more jobs."

The political crisis has highlighted the rift between Ukraine's Russian-speaking, heavily industrial east and cosmopolitan Kyiv and the west, where Ukrainian nationalism runs deep. Yanukovych backers fear discrimination from the Ukrainian-speaking west, and some eastern regions briefly threatened to seek autonomy if Yushchenko were to win the presidency.

"I am voting for independence (of eastern Ukraine), an end to feeding those lazy westerners! My vote goes to Yanukovych," said Hrihoriy Reshetnyak, a 44-year-old miner who cast his ballot in the prime minister's eastern stronghold, Donetsk.

Yushchenko, whose face remains badly scarred from dioxin poisoning he blamed on Ukrainian authorities, built momentum for the Supreme Court-ordered third vote with round-the-clock protest by supporters, echoing the spirit of the anti-communist revolutions that swept other East European countries in 1989-90.

"What we did during the last 30 days was a tribute to our ancestors," Yushchenko told reporters after voting in Kyiv's trade union building. "I know they are looking at us from heaven and they are applauding."

His backers launched the demonstrations after Yanukovych was named the winner of the fraud-marred Nov. 21 presidential run-off. The Supreme Court later annulled the results and ordered Sunday's repeat vote, which is being monitored by more than 12,000 international observers.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2004-12-26 07:47pm

Cheers.

Excuse me while I push those John Kerry recollections out of my head.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-12-26 08:37pm

Hooray! Maybe this will encourage the United States and other western nations to challenge Russia itself over undemocratic practices.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2004-12-27 08:41am

I hope Yushchenko will live up to the high expectations he and others have set for him.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-27 08:45am

More like he'll sell Ukraine down the toilet.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-27 08:54am

Vympel wrote:More like he'll sell Ukraine down the toilet.

No, you're not bitter at all.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-12-27 08:54am

Because we /all/ know how shining Yanukovich has been. Come off it.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-12-27 08:56am

Even if you disagree with his policies you have to take your hat off to the man. He was fucking poisoned and looked like the moon after a bad asteroid-day and still persevered to win.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-27 09:52am

White Haven wrote:Because we /all/ know how shining Yanukovich has been. Come off it.

That's interesting, what do you know about Yanukovich vs Yushchenko, exactly? It seems all it takes nowadays for someone to support a person is for the media to label him a "liberal" and leave it at that. What sets off my Vympel-Bullshit-Detection-Metre the most is a unanimous breathless media reportage of precisely the kind we have seen here.

Even if you disagree with his policies you have to take your hat off to the man. He was fucking poisoned and looked like the moon after a bad asteroid-day and still persevered to win.

Or he's just a pisspot and used what he brought upon himself to smear his political opponent. Since the investigation into his alleged "poisoning" is nowhere near even begun, for that matter, I'll take any alleged conclusiosn from his private Austrian clinic which has furnished no evidence of their claims to the relevant authorities with a massive grain of salt, thank you, especially judging from the stuff I posted in another thread a few days ago, including the resignation of a doctor at that clinic who treated him and who disagreed with their diagnosis.

This guy stinks, mark my words, and I'll be watching Ukraine closely for the next few years.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-27 10:13am

Vympel wrote:More like he'll sell Ukraine down the toilet.

I'm going to wait and see what he will do. Yanukovich was already in Putin's pocket, which means that as long as he isn't the one manning the helm, it's all good. Anything and everything that lessens Russian influence in the area without screwing over the people of Ukraine is a good thing.

Edi

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-12-27 11:11am

I've heard some stories from American expats in Ukraine that chill the blood about the, uh, enthusiasm of pro-Yanukovich supporters, and anyone who is the personally annointed heir of Kuchma is probably not the best choice for a developing republic.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-27 11:12am

Edi wrote: I'm going to wait and see what he will do. Yanukovich was already in Putin's pocket, which means that as long as he isn't the one manning the helm, it's all good.

In Putin's pocket? He had Russia's support, since he drew his support for the Russian speaking East- that's hardly "Putin's pocket". In case you hadn't noticed, Ukraine and Russia have hardly had a rosy relationship since the fall of the USSR.

Anything and everything that lessens Russian influence in the area without screwing over the people of Ukraine is a good thing.

Edi

Never gonna happen. Ukraine is so far in Russia's sphere of influence they'll never extract it fully- it's too dependent on Russian resources (as Europe increasingly will be, so don't expect Ukraine to get any "help" from there)- and there's massive portion of the population that is pro-Russian and will always be pro-Russian. I see the West's continual interference in this region as nothing but causing trouble down the line as Russia gets stronger, and only serves to strengthen the kinds of authoritarian leaders and groups in Russia that the West doesn't want in power.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-12-27 12:09pm

Vympel wrote:More like he'll sell Ukraine down the toilet.

Yeah, a gold plated toilet of happiness and joy that contains good things for all ukrainians!

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-12-27 12:17pm

Vympel wrote:Never gonna happen. Ukraine is so far in Russia's sphere of influence they'll never extract it fully- it's too dependent on Russian resources (as Europe increasingly will be, so don't expect Ukraine to get any "help" from there)- and there's massive portion of the population that is pro-Russian and will always be pro-Russian. I see the West's continual interference in this region as nothing but causing trouble down the line as Russia gets stronger, and only serves to strengthen the kinds of authoritarian leaders and groups in Russia that the West doesn't want in power.

What will europe become dependant for russia on?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-27 02:06pm

What will europe become dependant for russia on?

Oil.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-12-27 02:15pm

Vympel wrote:More like he'll sell Ukraine down the toilet.

you mean like the time when he was prime minister, right? Oh, wait, when he was prime minister, there was a 5 percent growth in the GDP and an 11.7 percent increase in industrial output for 2000, and a $2.3 billion decrease in foreign debt.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-12-27 02:21pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
What will europe become dependant for russia on?
Oil.

Why? Is the middle east gonna dry up before Russia?
I think this is rather a short sighted idea, oil will not be the precious fuel in the future that it is today, we will eventually replace it, in a few decades give or take, lowering consumption(and demand) drastically.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-27 02:30pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote:
What will europe become dependant for russia on?
Oil.
Why? Is the middle east gonna dry up before Russia?
I think this is rather a short sighted idea, oil will not be the precious fuel in the future that it is today, we will eventually replace it, in a few decades give or take, lowering consumption(and demand) drastically.

A friend of my father's who happens to be a long time executive in Fortum says you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, HDS. According to him, oil is going to become a lot more precious than it is right now and that Europe is going to have to fight tooth and nail to get enough of it from Russia, because the Chinese are very interested in Russian oil and that many of the new pipleines are built to the Pacific ports and to China instead of over the Urals and into the Baltic and Europe.

Edi

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-12-27 02:52pm

Does your fathers esteemed friend give any reasons for that or is he just one of those guys who likes to say how others don't know what the fuck they are talking about and then tell them how things are going to be and just let his esteemed position at Fortum speak for itself wihtout providing any further rationale for his position?

Has this expert forseen the development of technologies in the fields of energy generation and transportation several decades into the future and can therefore say with certainty that we won't make any further changes here, I mean alternative fuels will never replace gasoline, nuclear fusion will never become reality, more nuclear fission plants will never be built to replace most oil plants.

Oil will remain the number one fuel for several decades, If I'm still alive in 2050 I must remember this prognosis and compare and contrast.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-12-27 04:13pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:Does your fathers esteemed friend give any reasons for that or is he just one of those guys who likes to say how others don't know what the fuck they are talking about and then tell them how things are going to be and just let his esteemed position at Fortum speak for itself wihtout providing any further rationale for his position?

The guy was the head of the Loviisa nuke plant for 20 years and has extensive experience and knowledge about the energy market and available means of power generation and a very good idea of what's being developed. It's not as if I showed him your post and he said that, but the content of what I discussed with him and my dad a few months back when he visited my parents and I happened by refutes your initial claim quite soundly. He does not expect his position to speak for itself, especially since he takes great delight in picking apart ignorant arguments and smacking them down.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Has this expert forseen the development of technologies in the fields of energy generation and transportation several decades into the future and can therefore say with certainty that we won't make any further changes here, I mean alternative fuels will never replace gasoline, nuclear fusion will never become reality, more nuclear fission plants will never be built to replace most oil plants.

Alternative fuels are never going to replace gasoline to the extent that the current consumption society could survive by just switching to them. Demand is simply too great and all of the things currently in experimentation and/or limited implementation stage are insufficient if such huge systems were supposed to run on them. More nuke plants will reduce some of the need for oil in powerplants, but it is not going to be nearly enough.

Hydrogen fuel cells are no more cost efficient than oil at this point and are not likely to become efficient enough that they will make enough difference, because producing them requires an amount of energy that cannot be reduced.

Bio-fuels, like waste vegetable oil converted to fuel? Not possible to produce enough to replace oil, but can be used in limited scale implementations alongside common gasoline powered transportation.

Tidal forces and wind energy? Feasible on a regional basis, but not everywhere. Tidal power plants are currently a rather experimental device, but a relatively promising one.

Solar powered transportation? Might be an option, but again production on the kind of scale we're talking about is very difficult to get running, and won't be useful in many of the regions that would most desperately need it (like Europe north of the Alps, for example)

His Divine Shadow wrote:Oil will remain the number one fuel for several decades, If I'm still alive in 2050 I must remember this prognosis and compare and contrast.

Yes, it will, and what is going to happen when it and natural gas start running out (which might happen that quickly and will happen not long after
in any case) is that oil and gasoline will suddenly become assets that will be available on an only-as-needed basis and will be used primarily to keep industries running, vital transportation going, and militaries and such government elements supplied, and normal peons like you and me will just be shit out of luck and get access very sparingly if at all, and at a very steep price.

The thing is, the wole world is currently rigged to run on oil and other non-renewable fossil fuel sources that are the most efficient and easy to use sources of energy, and changing that infra is not possible to do quickly and to some extent at all, because alternatives are either not efficient enough, too limited in amount or both. Small scale implementations can be done, but trying to run everything on these sources is impossible because the requirements are so hideously large, and thus when the limited resources become scarce, they will rise in price and there will be all sorts of ugly side effects to that. There WILL be great social change out of necessity. Society like our current one is a passing phenomenon, just how long it lasts is yet to be determined, but the end is not out of sight.

What happens when we can't supply enough energy to run things as they are run now? One result will be that Europe will become a ghost of its former self, because supporting the kind of urban populations as it now has will be impossible. Same for much of North America and parts of Russia and China. What other effects there will be is hard to say.

That was the gist of that conversation, which lasted for a good hour and a half, and frankly, I had a hard time seeing any flaws in Mr. Helske's arguments, as I'm not exactly unfamiliar with the subject.

Edi

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-12-27 04:49pm

Edi wrote:Hydrogen fuel cells are no more cost efficient than oil at this point and are not likely to become efficient enough that they will make enough difference, because producing them requires an amount of energy that cannot be reduced.

Bio-fuels, like waste vegetable oil converted to fuel? Not possible to produce enough to replace oil, but can be used in limited scale implementations alongside common gasoline powered transportation.

Tidal forces and wind energy? Feasible on a regional basis, but not everywhere. Tidal power plants are currently a rather experimental device, but a relatively promising one.

Solar powered transportation? Might be an option, but again production on the kind of scale we're talking about is very difficult to get running, and won't be useful in many of the regions that would most desperately need it (like Europe north of the Alps, for example)

I've never really cared about those alternatives(possibly fuel cells), I was talking about nuclear power as an alternative to oil, build lots and lots of nuclear powerplants so we can have lots of cheap electricity, which can then be used to create hydrogen from water which can used as fuel in H-ICE engines.

That is an internal combustion engine using hydrogen, ordinary engines can be converted and several companies are developing new engines/cars from scratch for that, you can with the right injection type get 20% better combustion than gasoline.

Seems to me it boils down to electricity, if you got that you can supply such vehicles with fuel at a reasonable price.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-27 09:04pm

Oil and Natural Gas, actually. Russia is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-12-27 09:11pm

fgalkin wrote: you mean like the time when he was prime minister, right? Oh, wait, when he was prime minister, there was a 5 percent growth in the GDP and an 11.7 percent increase in industrial output for 2000, and a $2.3 billion decrease in foreign debt.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

And as head of the central bank prior to that, was involved in a scandal with the IMF in which the central bank falsified the country's credit position. And why does he get credit as Prime Minister, when it was Kuchma who was President at that time?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-12-27 10:37pm

Vympel wrote:Oil and Natural Gas, actually. Russia is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

I would imagine the Russians will sell to whoever is paying the most, the EU would have to make some rather bad moves to dissuade them from holding such a position wouldn't they.

Is not honouring Russia’s fairytale ideas about its sphere of influence enough to make them reject cash for the taking?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-12-27 10:48pm

Is not honouring Russia’s fairytale ideas about its sphere of influence enough to make them reject cash for the taking?

Probably not: At the moment, Russia needs the cash more than the EU needs the oil/natural gas...