Posted on 07/24/2004 1:40:56 AM PDT by FairOpinion
Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, leads 47 percent to 41 percent in 18 states where the presidential vote is expected to be closest, the Washington-based Pew Research Center found in a July 8-18 survey. A month ago Bush had an 11 point lead, according to Pew. A Fox News poll July 20-21 showed Kerry trailing 41 percent to 42 percent in 15 ``battlegrounds'' states.
Nationwide surveys show Kerry, 60, leading Bush, 58, by 2 percentage points, according to polls by Pew, USA Today/Cable News Network and the Los Angeles Times. Bush is ahead by 1 percentage point in a national poll by Fox and 2 percentage points in a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey. All are within the margin of error. Majorities of likely voters told pollsters they ``strongly'' support their candidate, meaning Bush and Kerry are competing for about one in six voters who say they are undecided or may change their minds.
(Excerpt) Read more at quote.bloomberg.com ...
If the conservatives/Republicans (there is an overlap, but they are not one and the same) VOTE for Bush, he wins. If they stay home, they and the rest of us may have to live or die with Kerry -- God help us!
But there is also something weird about these polls, I can't believe the switch from Bush leading by 11 points in BGS-s, to Kerry leading by 6 points -- a switch of 17 points in a month.
70% of the people I polled don't know who John Kerry is.+
these kind of polls are garbage. They basically cut out a sub-sample from a regular poll of voters... so you may have 200 to 300 "battleground" voters out of a 800 person national poll.
Margin of error on the smaller sub-sample... high... that's why you'll see wild swings on the sub-samples even while the national horse race number remains static..
"They basically cut out a sub-sample from a regular poll of voters... so you may have 200 to 300 "battleground" voters out of a 800 person national poll."
That is a sample, which is way too small to be accurate.
And pre-loaded with groups more likely to pick a Democrat in the poll... i.e. people who won't actually vote, come November.
This is key. I am sick to death of people calling each other RINOs or Kool-Aid drinkers around this place.
If you read the entire article, it doesn't support the headline. It's actually a survey of a number of different polls, and the bottom line is -- SURPRISE! -- the election is within the statistical margin of error.
You and me both.
Reality is that we will either have President Bush or President Kerry, and just typing the latter makes me shudder.
I think every vote WILL count in this election.
People have to think that if 500 people had stayed home or voted for Buchanan in Florida, we would now have President Gore -- shuddering again at the thought.
It may well be that close again.
I have a friend whose sister works for a large polling group. He told me that many of these polls are being manipulated at this point in time, to show a small kerry bump. They want him to appear as if he has some pre-convention momentum coming into Boston.
To back up this claim, he pointed to one poll that has kerry leading bush in one BG State by 10-points today, that had kerry up by 11-points after the edweirds appointment. We KNOW that there was little to no gain in that move. Many of these polling groups have liberal leanings, and many are being paid for by "terry the terrible".
The polls are tight right now, but in the battleground states, they are just as tight. 10-point leads (in BG States) are nothing more than weighted polling, and skewed questions worded to produce a desired result.
LLS
It's the Dimwit Convention...It has to look good in the press for Leftist America......For now!
Thomas Mahl, in a book called "Desperate Deception," documented the British intelligence service's penetration of American pollsters during 1939-1940, and how they RIGGED many polls to show that Americans favored war in Europe. In one instance, when the poll result didn't give them what they wanted, a high-level Br. plant managed to get the poll killed. In another instance, they targeted veterans' groups that were pro-intervention and polled only them, making the results look like "honest" polling. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I caution ANYONE to note that in 1995, as Gerald Wasserstein of Purdue pointed out, EVERY SINGLE POLL was off, most badly, and every one off to the LEFT. He concluded that the odds of this being an accident were astronomical.
Take note at how the fanatics at the convention react to Kerry compared to Willard.
Summer polls often paint incomplete pictures because a lot of people are on vacation.
This can't be repeated often enough. Kerry has not sufficiently energized his base. Sure, those who tend to vote Democrat will pull the lever for him if they bother to vote at all. Sadly, the same may hold for President Bush. Right now both campaigns lack excitement. We'll just have to see what happens after the conventions.
On the other hand, if Ralph Nader hadn't been in the race, his several thousand voters would have split strongly for Gore. When all was said and done, third parties helped the Republican cause in 2000.
Bill
While on the subject of third parties, don't forget that third party and the fine conservatives voting for Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton!
You are absolutely correct! TURNOUT is critical and polls are trash. If everyone who believes in the Democratic core-concept of FREE STUFF went to the polls and voted, the Republicans would be walked over and left for dead. The Republicans, having a healthy suspicion about FREE STUFF, namely that it has to be paid for, have a more powerful incentive to get down to the polls and actually do the dirty deed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.