Forty Seven Per Cent Support The Bid While 45 Per Cent Oppose It!

[Adrian]

These numbers are bad for the bid!

http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/olympic_bids/...1216134682.html

[ChiTown16]

Old news:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,7067717.story

the committee issued a statement saying the poll was taken at a time when some taxpayers had lingering questions about whether they would be protected in the event of financial losses.

"In the days since this poll was conducted, those questions have been answered and those concerns have been alleviated," said the committee's spokesman, Patrick Sandusky.

Sandusky noted that the Civic Federation and the IOC issued reports stating that Chicago 2016's plan was financially responsible and posed "minimal risk to taxpayers." He added that aldermen have given the committee "high marks" for its plan.

Also, Sandusky said, polling is only one way to evaluate community sentiment. He said the committee has raised $70 million in private donations and that more than 20,000 volunteers support the bid.

The telephone survey of 380 Chicago registered voters, conducted Aug. 27 through Monday by Market Shares Corp., has a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

What is going on with all of these Canadians involving themselves in opposition to a U.S. bid? (Adrian, Jim Jones, the guy from Vancouver that travels around with NoGamesChicago?)

First it was the 2008 Election with a Chicago candidate. Now the 2009 Olympic campaign with a Chicago candidate?

Honestly, this was just a snarky episode from a snarky TV show:

We really do love you, Canada!

And South Park came out of Colorado, not Chicago!

On the positive side - the bid with the momentum seems to attract the most new opponents.

CHItown '16

[Adrian]

Old news:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,7067717.story

What is going on with all of these Canadians involving themselves in opposition to a U.S. bid? (Adrian, Jim Jones, the guy from Vancouver that travels around with NoGamesChicago?)

First it was the 2008 Election with a Chicago candidate. Now the 2009 Olympic campaign with a Chicago candidate?

Honestly, this was just a snarky episode from a snarky TV show:

We really do love you, Canada!

And South Park came out of Colorado, not Chicago!

On the positive side - the bid with the momentum seems to attract the most new opponents.

CHItown '16

Are you crazy? You shouldn´t concern about Canadians but about half of chicagoans that against olympics in your city!!! I post this article from Chicago Tribune because I know that any of supports haven´t courage to do that. The IOC need to know about support And someone have to post this

[baron-pierreIV]

FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE!! That's theonly way to silence the "No" nuts!! Look, I got certainyl got Anne-Marie's attention. She certainly knew she couldn't push her case here uncontested.

[ChiTown16]

Are you crazy? You shouldn´t concern about Canadians but about half of chicagoans that against olympics in your city!!! I post this article from Chicago Tribune because I know that any of supports haven´t courage to do that. The IOC need to know about support And someone have to post this

If you didn't get the South Park reference, you are very likely not Canadian (just about everyone I've met from Canada has seen it and has a reaction to it).

Astroturfing another country won't help your bid. Almost all of the Chicago supporters have stated our real locations (one claims Waziristan but at least that's not a plausible location to have reliable Internet access). Those supporting other bids should also state their real locations. Otherwise, you're just being deceptive.

And getting a reputation for deception and dishonesty isn't helpful:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...pPjLWSKrsmqKDaw

"It will be one element that will play a role. A big one or a small one, I cannot say," said Rogge, who does not have a vote, though, he can intimate behind the scenes as to who he would prefer to win.

"The IOC members vote on a series of criteria. Firstly the fundamentals such as do we trust the people in charge of the bid, will the transport be there, how good will the Olympic Village be."

And we already had a post about this when it first came out:

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14896

And we responded to it when it was first reported.

No one denied that a poll of 300 people with a margin of error of +/-5% (meaning it could have been actually been up to 52% for / 40% against for the sample / 8% undecided) could have reached those results. But we have debated the methodology and the sampling and the accuracy.

CHItown '16

[Adrian]

If you didn't get the South Park reference, you are very likely not Canadian (just about everyone I've met from Canada has seen it and has a reaction to it).

Astroturfing another country won't help your bid. Almost all of the Chicago supporters have stated our real locations (one claims Waziristan but at least that's not a plausible location to have reliable Internet access). Those supporting other bids should also state their real locations. Otherwise, you're just being deceptive.

And getting a reputation for deception and dishonesty isn't helpful:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...pPjLWSKrsmqKDaw

And we already had a post about this when it first came out:

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14896

And we responded to it when it was first reported.

No one denied that a poll of 300 people with a margin of error of +/-5% (meaning it could have been actually been up to 52% for / 40% against for the sample / 8% undecided) could have reached those results. But we have debated the methodology and the sampling and the accuracy.

CHItown '16

I´m not worry about what you think about me! The subject of the topic is about the poll!

[aluz]

We can discuss about the poll methodology and so on, but there is an important issue here that might explain why there is a discrepancy from the polls done recently to the ones analysed during the evaluation process.

All polls done before took into account the lack of a blanket guarantee approved the Chicago City Council. I would agree that such a change in polls results would probably be a problem with the new poll itself, if it was not this changing event.

Before the voting, Chicago supporters here bragged about the US cities capacity of staging such an event on private funds. There were even people who said that the IOC had to live with that, after the evaluation report made negative remarks about the lack of government guarantees and the attempt to amend the hosting contract to remove this need.

The recent poll was done when the guarantee was about to be accepted by the City Council. So, isn't it possible that support is fading because people from Chicago don't want their tax dollars on the line?

I am not saying that the poll is right or not. I am just saying that maybe it is. There is a chance that some people in Chicago became against the Games now that money from their taxes is supposed to cover for budget overruns.

[ChiTown16]

We can discuss about the poll methodology and so on, but there is an important issue here that might explain why there is a discrepancy from the polls done recently to the ones analysed during the evaluation process.

All polls done before took into account the lack of a blanket guarantee approved the Chicago City Council. I would agree that such a change in polls results would probably be a problem with the new poll itself, if it was not this changing event.

Before the voting, Chicago supporters here bragged about the US cities capacity of staging such an event on private funds. There were even people who said that the IOC had to live with that, after the evaluation report made negative remarks about the lack of government guarantees and the attempt to amend the hosting contract to remove this need.

The recent poll was done when the guarantee was about to be accepted by the City Council. So, isn't it possible that support is fading because people from Chicago don't want their tax dollars on the line?

I am not saying that the poll is right or not. I am just saying that maybe it is. There is a chance that some people in Chicago became against the Games now that money from their taxes is supposed to cover for budget overruns.

All valid points.

Thank you, Aluz.

The poll was taken as the bid committee's made a significant effort to explain the financial commitments, secured over $1 billion in insurance security, started to discuss the infrastructure and security operating assistance from the federal government (that would otherwise be diverted elsewhere - Illinois in general receives about $0.80 in services for every $1 that we pay in taxes), the unanimous city council vote, and the higher profile support from Obama. The press is also paying attention on are a more regular basis rather than one story every few weeks or months.

It seems to me that that poll (conducted with the same pool of 300 or so / same methodology) would probably be closer to the previous poll's margins of error (52% for / 40% against) with a significantly higher undecided. As the decision has come closer, those who were saying "I don't want to deal with the traffic / congestion / cost / etc." have largely become people saying "If it's going to happen, it's going to happen" and "I can see us doing this."

Especially with a 49-0 city council vote, Chicago residents come to accept that a decision is moving forward and that it's important to understand what it means and how to make the best of it. And as much as we like to debate, we also like winning a competition and as we see the runners coming onto the track, more people are standing up to cheer. Also helpful is The Chicago Tribune who is (finally) starting to write article with both venue and financial details and who has responsibility and ownership and explaining some of the plausible impacts - and how the Games would fit into the lives of people here.

NoGamesChicago is still nutty, though - and now spends a bit more of their press time now complaining that they're broke (although, I expect they're finding enough to spend another $10,000 per person to attend the Copenhagen sessions). I'd like to see a credible investigative report into who organized and who supports this group and about the credibility of their statements. Unfortunately for the press, a take down of NoGamesChicago would also remove a favorite source. So, it's not clear if that's likely to happen.

CHItown '16

[Adrian]

I think the chicagoans realized that probably the costs overuns and the budget is not realistic! And they realized again that they have to pay more taxes in the future... Simple... Is the same analyses that most of the press do!

[baron-pierreIV]

I think the chicagoans realized that probably the costs overuns and the budget is not realistic! And they realized again that they have to pay more taxes in the future... Simple... Is the same analyses that most of the press do!

U're talking from...if indeed you are from Montreal...your city's foolish 1976 experience!!

Taxes were NEVER Raised in Lake Placid 1980, Los Angeles 1984, Atlanta 1996, Salt Lake 2002!!

Why would Chicago suddenly have their taxes raised? Only because outside meddlers like yourself would cause it...that's why!!

[Adrian]

Baron,

If is good to you not believe in the possibility of costs overuns ==> continue believe!!!

I´m not fool to believe that hasn´t possibility!!!

[baron-pierreIV]

Baron,

If is good to you not believe in the possibility of costs overuns ==> continue believe!!!

I´m not fool to believe that hasn´t possibility!!!

History is the BEST LESSON, Adrian!!

It has been done in LA, Atlanta and Salt Lake. Why should it not be done again for Chicago? There are people and models from the previous U.S. Games that guide the Chicago bid...so as they say, "history repeats itself."

Study before you post because you will be proven WRONG!!

[Adrian]

Baron,

If is good to you not believe in the possibility of costs overuns ==> continue believe!!!

I´m not fool to believe that hasn´t possibility!!!

THE HISTORY REPEATS SOMETIMES NOT ALWAYS!!!

[aluz]

All valid points.

Thank you, Aluz.

The poll was taken as the bid committee's made a significant effort to explain the financial commitments, secured over $1 billion in insurance security, started to discuss the infrastructure and security operating assistance from the federal government (that would otherwise be diverted elsewhere - Illinois in general receives about $0.80 in services for every $1 that we pay in taxes), the unanimous city council vote, and the higher profile support from Obama. The press is also paying attention on are a more regular basis rather than one story every few weeks or months.

It seems to me that that poll (conducted with the same pool of 300 or so / same methodology) would probably be closer to the previous poll's margins of error (52% for / 40% against) with a significantly higher undecided. As the decision has come closer, those who were saying "I don't want to deal with the traffic / congestion / cost / etc." have largely become people saying "If it's going to happen, it's going to happen" and "I can see us doing this."

Especially with a 49-0 city council vote, Chicago residents come to accept that a decision is moving forward and that it's important to understand what it means and how to make the best of it. And as much as we like to debate, we also like winning a competition and as we see the runners coming onto the track, more people are standing up to cheer. Also helpful is The Chicago Tribune who is (finally) starting to write article with both venue and financial details and who has responsibility and ownership and explaining some of the plausible impacts - and how the Games would fit into the lives of people here.

NoGamesChicago is still nutty, though - and now spends a bit more of their press time now complaining that they're broke (although, I expect they're finding enough to spend another $10,000 per person to attend the Copenhagen sessions). I'd like to see a credible investigative report into who organized and who supports this group and about the credibility of their statements. Unfortunately for the press, a take down of NoGamesChicago would also remove a favorite source. So, it's not clear if that's likely to happen.

CHItown '16

Thanks for the input Chitown '16.

I have visited the NoGamesChicago website and it is 100% politically biased as you said. We have people doing the same in Brazil, but they failed to gather enough people around their agenda. Usually, the opposition comes from people who battle for space within the federations and the NOC.

However, this new initiative ChicagoasForRio doesn't seem to be spawning from the former. The website, and the brand, is more ironic and seems to be formed by some people worried about the spending. It seems more of a community group than a political party tool, like NoGamesChicago which makes personal attacks to Mayor Daley, the President and the First Lady.

Cheers

[Adrian]

Bla bla bla ..... and about the poll?

[ChiTown16]

Bla bla bla ..... and about the poll?

The poll that I'd written about just two posts ago? And that we already have another current thread about?

CHItown '16

[Adrian]

The poll that I'd written about just two posts ago? And that we already have another current thread about?

CHItown '16

I didn´t see any satisfactory explanation about the poll yet!!! Only bla bla bla

[Adrian]

AND THE EXPLANATION? SILENCE?

[baron-pierreIV]

well, adrian, whether you approve or not...it's pushing thru anyway. So if you want to be bull-headed like the Spaniards..then that's your funeral. Out.

[ChiTown16]

AND THE EXPLANATION? SILENCE?

Just because you choose not to read or acknowledge what I say doesn't mean that I haven't said it:

The poll was taken as the bid committee's made a significant effort to explain the financial commitments, secured over $1 billion in insurance security, started to discuss the infrastructure and security operating assistance from the federal government (that would otherwise be diverted elsewhere - Illinois in general receives about $0.80 in services for every $1 that we pay in taxes), the unanimous city council vote, and the higher profile support from Obama. The press is also paying attention on are a more regular basis rather than one story every few weeks or months.

It seems to me that that poll (conducted with the same pool of 300 or so / same methodology) would probably be closer to the previous poll's margins of error (52% for / 40% against) with a significantly higher undecided. As the decision has come closer, those who were saying "I don't want to deal with the traffic / congestion / cost / etc." have largely become people saying "If it's going to happen, it's going to happen" and "I can see us doing this."

In fact this is quoted in whole at the top of this page.

CHItown '16

[Adrian]

Article from the Wahington Post today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367059123032815.html

See the last paragrafo about Chicago bid: "But the city's chances could be hurt by the U.S. Olympic Committee's fights with the IOC over financial matters in the past year, as well as the inability of the federal government to offer a financial guarantee for the Olympics"

Each city should take care for themselves....the diference is the Chicago doesn´t have a financial guarantee of the Federal Government (see the article from Washington Post above)...for example Rio have signature from the Federal Government that guarantee too the finances and I´ve heard that the total budget there is more than one trillion of dolars an year! But I´m not worry about Rio ...I´m worry about future taxes in Chicago and possible deficits that block investments!!! And the polls indicates that more than 75% of chicagoans worry about!

[Athensfan]

Adrian, for a Canadian your English is surprisingly weak...

Your concern for the financial well-being of Chicagoans is touching. You are so concerned that you are repeating the exact same post in multiple threads. Your repetition invites me to respond similarly.

The financial aspects of Chicago's bid have been more closely scrutinized than those of any other bid in history -- not only by multiple civic analysts, but by independent auditors. All these entities have found Chicago's bid to be financially sound. The city council was so convinced of this that they voted unanimously to sign the host city contract. The IOC is "completely satisfied" with the financial guarantee. It is true that in this case the bid is underwritten by the city rather than the federal government, but the financial plan has been so thoroughly vetted that the risk appears to be low. This is especially true when you consider the United States impressive track record for profitable Games.

Finally, while the federal government has not underwritten the finances, it is obvious that the government's commitment is total. This is evidenced by the creation of Valerie Jarrett's position and Obama's personal involvement. No matter what happens they will not abandon Chicago.

Chicago 2016's plan is superb and the people of Chicago will not be hung out to dry.

The facts do not support your scare tactics.

[Dino]

Article from the Wahington Post today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125367059123032815.html

See the last paragrafo about Chicago bid: "But the city's chances could be hurt by the U.S. Olympic Committee's fights with the IOC over financial matters in the past year, as well as the inability of the federal government to offer a financial guarantee for the Olympics"

Each city should take care for themselves....the diference is the Chicago doesn´t have a financial guarantee of the Federal Government (see the article from Washington Post above)...for example Rio have signature from the Federal Government that guarantee too the finances and I´ve heard that the total budget there is more than one trillion of dolars an year! But I´m not worry about Rio ...I´m worry about future taxes in Chicago and possible deficits that block investments!!! And the polls indicates that more than 75% of chicagoans worry about!

Adrian, what exactly are you worried about with Chicago's bid? Are you worried about the percieved low support? Is it the fact that other bids' finances are backed by national governments and Chicago's backed by the city government (which happens to be an economic powerhouse in its own right when compared to other cities besides Tokyo)? Or are you worried about the possibility of raising taxes? It's true that there's also a 50% chance of our taxes being raised, but also there's a 50% chance that it won't. So what exactly is the bigger picture you're trying to portray? Are you worried that a Chicago 2016 win can kill a Toronto bid for 2020? You claim that your sister owns a business in Chicago. Currently right now she has the city residents to spend their money in her business, but wouldn't she want to expand that base and bring in more people, say more tourists in the future?

[Adrian]

Adrian, for a Canadian your English is surprisingly weak...

Your concern for the financial well-being of Chicagoans is touching. You are so concerned that you are repeating the exact same post in multiple threads. Your repetition invites me to respond similarly.

The financial aspects of Chicago's bid have been more closely scrutinized than those of any other bid in history -- not only by multiple civic analysts, but by independent auditors. All these entities have found Chicago's bid to be financially sound. The city council was so convinced of this that they voted unanimously to sign the host city contract. The IOC is "completely satisfied" with the financial guarantee. It is true that in this case the bid is underwritten by the city rather than the federal government, but the financial plan has been so thoroughly vetted that the risk appears to be low. This is especially true when you consider the United States impressive track record for profitable Games.

Finally, while the federal government has not underwritten the finances, it is obvious that the government's commitment is total. This is evidenced by the creation of Valerie Jarrett's position and Obama's personal involvement. No matter what happens they will not abandon Chicago.

Chicago 2016's plan is superb and the people of Chicago will not be hung out to dry.

The facts do not support your scare tactics.

I´m from Montreal and my FIRST language is french! Don´t you know that in our State of Quebec we have french language??? You are fool because you don´t consider this!!!

[Athensfan]

I´m from Montreal and my FIRST language is french! Don´t you know that in our State of Quebec we have french language??? You are fool because you don´t consider this!!!

I'm well aware that French is spoken in Quebec. However, your linguistic mistakes suggest your first language is not French. Instead of "paragraph" you wrote "paragrafo". The French for "paragraph" is "paragraphe". Guess what? "Paragrafo" is PORTUGUESE.