Kerry is well ahead in the Electoral College now!

[Bainx]

I stick with rasmussenreports myself

I also took stock in Rasmussen during the last election. They had Bush ahead by 3% even taking into account, their margin of error and look what happened!
No Rasmussen for me, no thanks!

 

[telewinz]

Well, just make sure we have a Republican House or Senate after the November elections. Having control of the either (or both) will help to insure no harmful legislation will pass. Especially with the increased "hard feelings" that are unavoidable no matter who gets elected.

 

[AZRickD]

I stick with one poll because to jump from poll to poll disallows any decent trend analysis. If you don't like Rasmussen, go with Zogby.

RegBarc said:

Regarding Libertarians..

At least they do hold the Constitution above all,

I used to think that but found that a large minority of them are actually anarchists.

Rick

 

[Desertdog]

I stick with one poll because to jump from poll to poll disallows any decent trend analysis.

Why not take the scores of all of the legitimate polls, not online, add their scores together, and divide by the number of polls to get an average total?

I heard then do this one time on the Fox News Channel and Bush was still ahead by 3 points.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

I used to think that but found that a large minority of them are actually anarchists.

There's no conflict; If our government were to start obeying the Constitution, that would be a huge step in the direction of anarchy, enough to make any anarchist weep for joy. Constitutionalists and real anarchists, (Not the fake kind you see setting cars on fire when the WTO is in town!) are thus allies, even if we'd like to go further in the direction of limited government than you would.

 

[Watchman]

Polls dont mean diddly squat...

all that matters is the final results after election day...

 

[AZRickD]

The campaigns place quite a bit of stock in polls. They base their expenditures in key states based on how close the polling is.

When Bush went way ahead in Arizona, the Kerry campaign pulled the lionshare of add money out and pumped it into Ohio. When they began to trail in Ohio....

Rick

 

[RealGun]

The campaigns place quite a bit of stock in polls. They base their expenditures in key states based on how close the polling is.

I believe the context would be their own polls.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Published polls don't mean diddly squat. They're quick, cheap, and dirty, and they only get published if they say what the people who paid for them want the public to hear. The internal polling done by the major parties and their candidates are a completely different animal, but you and I are hardly going to get a look at THOSE results.

 

[AZRickD]

"I believe the context would be their own polls."

In 2000 (some of you may have forgotten or not ever been aware), Gore's polls had the race so close that they thought that there was a possibility that he would lose the popular vote but win the EC. The Gore campaign had people on the interview shows floating trial balloons to support that possibility. Turned out to be the other way around, of course, which leads to the thought that polls are not surgical instruments but more like a handsaw.

I also recalle that the Zogby poll was withing a 1/10th of a percent, give or take.

Don't make the error of confusing Zogby and Rasmussen with ABC and CBS.

Rick

 

[Desertdog]

Headlines on http://www.drudgereport.com

ZOGBY: Kerry Opens Three-Point Lead on Bush...
WASHPOST: Bush Leads By Five...

 

[Gary H]

Look at the Internals in the Washington Post Poll

Supports Bush and Probably WON"T change: 48%
Supports Kerry..............................................: 42%

Bush Stronger that Kerry in:
Iraq: 54%
Terrorism: 56%
Economy, Education, Health, Jobs: Too Close

Stronger Leader: Bush 56%
Clear Stand: Bush 57%

These figures had a +- 3% possible error due to sample size.

These internals look very good for Bush, but October might harbor other surprises.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/C...teRange=Variables.pollDateRange&startingRow=1

 

[buzz_knox]

At least they do hold the Constitution above all, and don't twist some of it to their own end. Faith based iniatives with government money? That's hilarious.

Not quite. Faith based initiatives were excluded from federal funding using a bogus separation of church and state argument. Excluding religious groups from such funding while allowing non-religious groups to receive said funding is itself discriminatory and illegal. What was done was to restore some balance.

 

[Dave R]

Looks like this predictor has Bush back on top now...

Bottom line is, folks, this one is TOO CLOSE TO CALL.

We need to get to work.

 

[AZRickD]

Oops. I was only half-right

It turns out that Zogby only had half of the 2000 election correct. He nailed Al Gore's total, but mangled Dubya's.

As well, we have to remember that the other polls that were "wrong" didn't necessarily have the sample timing to account for the "surprise DUI" charge, now the early call of Florida for Gore by the networks which was cited as suppressing voter turnout.

So, here is a 2000 pollster accuracy compilation from http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

The final result of the 2000 election: 48 percent for Gore, 48 percent for Bush, 4 percent other. Note that the DUI appeared to have a very late-breaking effect on Bush’s level of support.

Zogby underestimated Bush by 2, had Gore accurate.
Washington Post had Bush accurate, Gore underestimated by 3.
Pew underestimated Bush by 2; underestimated Gore by 5.
Newsweek underestimated Bush by 3; underestimated Gore by 5.
NBC/Wall Street Journal underestimated Bush by 1; underestimated Gore by 4.
Marist overestimated Bush by 1, underestimated Gore by 4.
Harris underestimated both Bush and Gore by one point.
Gallup had Bush accurate, Gore underestimated by 2.
Fox News underestimated both Bush and Gore by 5 percentage points each.
CBS News underestimated Bush by 4, Gore by 3.
Battleground overestimated Bush by 2, underestimated Gore by 3.