Posted on 08/06/2004 2:15:10 PM PDT by Nascardude
Naw, it just started us looking at it. This week we are highlighting his war service :)
So, 20% of this sample was from people who aren't even REGISTERED to vote??? Gee, I wonder who they support.
Remember the "bounce"
"He seems like he's got a good head on his shoulders," Montgomery said.
It has to be something in the water. LOL
Flanked by his Vietnam crewmates
-----
Man, AP, I already know that he served. Placing that phrase in every article is ridiculous.
It is hard to keep track of all the zillions of polls that are released every day. Realclearpolitics does a good job summarizing them. Seems some polls showed a negative bounce, others showed a modest positive bounce, and still others showed no bounce. Not much consensus.
After what happened in Missouri, I'm not sure it even matter what these polls say.
Also what happened in MO, is Holden lost. Two days before the primary, SUSA had him edging out a 1% lead, and he lost by 6%. Goes to show that these polls can still be technically correct within their own MOE but still be way off the mark. If these state polls are accurate in Nov, that will be a first.
It is strange that it seems that state polling in presidential elections is typically more off the mark than the national popular vote polls. It would seem like polls would get more accurate as the size of the population being polled decreases.
But then, I never was good at statistics.
That was the ARG poll from Flordia that had Democrats severly overpolled. I don't know what the internals from this poll are.
If the election was held today, which would be unconstitutional, Kerry 296EV, Bush 236EV. We have to take Florida.
Odd how all the polls are just sandbagging the day after the swiftvet story breaks.
Seems these polls are there to be neutralizing fodder for the swift vet story. The talking heads need their DNC talking points.
I don't even bother with sunday mornings because they have inside the beltway disease.
Just a foot note on the history of polls. We've probably heard all the mumbo jumbo about how undecideds always break for the challenger, and No incumbent has ever won with a below 50 percent approval rating. Well here is a trend for the Kerry folks to choke on. Since Gallup began polling during the FDR era, no challanger has ever won without opening up a significantly big lead after their convention. Here are the gallup polls after the challangers convention in past president elections where there was an incumbent:
1996: Challenger Dole trails Pres. Clinton by 7 points
1992: Challenger Clinton leads Pres. Bush by 22 points
1984: Challenger Mondale trails Pres. Reagan by 12 points.
1980: CHallenger Reagan leads Pres. Carter by 16 points.
1976: Challenger Carter leads Pres. Ford by 31 points.
1972: Challenger McGovern trails Pres. Nixon by 19 points.
1964: Challenger Goldwater trails LBJ by 27 points.
Kerry has failed to open up any kind of significant lead over Bush. His biggest lead is 5 in the Fox Poll and in most it averages about 1-3, and in the gallup even shows him behind.
Poll Troll Ping
Excellent points.
Campaign School 101 says find a trend and claim it as your own. The DNC has been following this propaganda technique to a tee.
The problem is that all the reporters seem too stupid to pick up on this. Exposing BS propaganda would be a fertile stomping ground for reporters but they just don't want to do their jobs.
Geez - how many polling companies are out there? There seems like a new one everyday. I don't take a lot of stock in any of them, whether they are plus or minus Bush.
Did they give a number for GWB approval ratings?
Not bad for a ratpoll company. Remember when you see IPSOS read greenberg. When you read greenberg read ratpollster.
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.