Zogby still shows it tied today - B46, K46

Reuters ^

[TBBT]

Zogby still shows it tied. I was hoping for a 1 or 2 point uptick for Bush since one weekend day has rolled off. Wonder were it will be when Sunday rolls off?....

[ClintonBeGone]

It didn't invert....ever.

See July 11, 2004.

[Lakeside]

Ouch! I'm wounded.

[MMkennedy]

The point is, Zogby has not been right on since 96. CBS and Harris have their own problems, but the idea that Zogby is the gold-standard is ludicrous.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Ok, shall we use their poll results for the current election?" Nope. Because we are not falling for your normal Dim tactic of bait and switch. LOL! Why don't you go crying to mama, little boy? That will give you plenty of practice for all the gnashing of teeth and crying you will be doing on the night of November 2. Hehehehehehehehehe!

[ClintonBeGone]

It didn't invert....ever.

Thanks! So it looks like in 2000 Zogby was again right on in predicting at least the winner of the popular vote. He said Gore 48% and it was Gore 48%. And people question this guy?

[tagawgrag]

The closest, actually was CBS. Look it up.

I'll let you provide us with a link.

-You don't remember, Dan would never let us hear the end of it!

[traderrob6]

TROLL>>>>BE GONE

[ClintonBeGone]

Ouch! I'm wounded.

I can think of more descriptive terms. But what's clear to me is, at least today, you are incapable of carrying on an adult conversation.

[ClintonBeGone]

The point is, Zogby has not been right on since 96.

Actually, Zogby is the gold standard. Unsycophant was kind enough to post a very good table that shows that in 2000 Zogby predicted Gore with 48% and that's what he got. What more can the guy do?

[codercpc]

I keep hearing that no President has won reelection with an approval record under 50%, and RCP has the average real close to that point.

My question is about how LOW the approval rates were of the other Presidents that lost.

I seem to remember reading (but I have no idea where to find these figures), that all of the Presidents in the modern age that lost reelection were much closer to the lower 40%'s. Can anybody tell me where to find this info? Is there any comparisons to the high 40%'s that the President now enjoys?

[bcatwilly]

Here is my point about Mr. Zogby. Any dufus out there can claim the race is a "dead heat", i.e. within the margin of error, because it most likely is at this point. So I believe he is in a "holding pattern" until he is forced to show something one way or another. IF he is so sure that John Kerry is going to win this election and the underlying job approval numbers and people who want a new president show this, then why is Mr. Kerry not doing better than the 45-46 level in almost any poll that I have seen. A fair analysis of his own data, if he cared to do so, would involve him discussing in his editorial comments that it appears voters are not at all sold on Mr. Kerry for some reason (for which he could be polling on other questions if he wanted) etc.

But no, his editorial comments just say things like "boy this looks like 2000 all over again", "Kerry is incrementally chewing into the Bush lead" and "he shows a big advantage in new registrations" and on with the Democrat talking points.

Having said all of that, I will NEVER completely discount Zogby because I believe he is so biased and intimately familiar with the Democrat machine and the likely fraud that he may be showing a legitimate "fraud factor" in his results. He carped about "minority undersampling" in 2000, which I believe was the 2000 election cover for their fraud attempts. Now I tend to believe the "massive new voter registrations" are the cover this time.

[ClintonBeGone]

The closest, actually was CBS. Look it up.

Actually, if you look at Unsycophant's chart, you'll see Zogby was the closest.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1250834/posts?page=99#99

[Congressman Billybob]

You are a one-trick pony. We have seen your pony's trick. Six times in this thread. Zogby is now an outlier, as Real Clear Politics makes abundantly clear. I predicted on 29 August that the dynamics of this race would have Bush at +10% against Kerry on 2 November and a landslide in the Electoral College.

Give it a rest.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Mein Fuhrer, I Can Valk!"

[ClintonBeGone]

I believe he is so biased and intimately familiar with the Democrat machine and the likely fraud that he may be showing a legitimate "fraud factor" in his results.

Do you have some evidence or is this, as you alluded to, simply your opinion?

[ClintonBeGone]

I predicted on 29 August that the dynamics of this race would have Bush at +10% against Kerry on 2 November and a landslide in the Electoral College.

The problem with you is 1, no one cares what you write; and 2, you're wrong.

[unsycophant]

A little-known independent pollster based in Utica, N.Y., Zogby rocketed to fame by correctly predicting the results of the 1996 presidential election. But like all religions, the cult of Zogby relies on myths about his feats and denial about his failures.

Zogby's dead-on prediction in 1996—he forecast Bill Clinton's eight-point win over Bob Dole, while most pollsters expected a much wider Clinton margin—won him a burst of media attention. What is odd is how Zogby's reputation has mushroomed ever since. Pundits, reporters, and chat show hosts now routinely genuflect to him. "Joining us now from Detroit is the nation's most accurate pollster, John Zogby," said Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor in November.

...The cult grows despite Zogby's embarrassing miscues....

The most important reason for Zogby's popularity is that his polls make Republicans feel good. Conservatives clutched at his accurate prediction of the 1996 race because it seemed to show that Clinton wasn't so popular after all. Since then, Zogby's numbers have usually shown Republicans doing better than they do in other polls. (Zogby is a registered Democrat and, he says, a liberal.)

Slate.msn.com

-----

Yes, the Right is all about feelings.  *I* feel like Bush is going to win. I don't really need Zogby to validate that. (((Warm-fuzzys)))

ps: Zogby predicted Bush would lose by 2pts.

[KwasiOwusu]

"Because you can't" Wrong again child. I don't have to because I am not interested in the fluke 2000 Zogby call. Zogby has been consistently wrong in every election since 2000, like in the 2002 elections and the Cali recall elections. Plus of course ALL Zogby's charts have been produced by other freepers in this thread, and they have already proved that Zogby was NOT the most accurate even in 2000 either. LOL! So you are WRONG yet again. Is that your little sand castle I see crumbling and falling apart yet again? LOL!

[bcatwilly]

Of course it is only my opinion, but I belive that his openly biased comments in the press tip his hand pretty well. The rest is me filling in blanks and keeping paranoia levels appropriately high against an opponent that clearly lies at every turn and cheats etc.

NO "independent pollster" should be calling an election for John Kerry in May of this year, that is absurd and shows that he clearly has a "horse" in this race. So how can I feel that his "horserace" numbers are not skewed a little?

[ClintonBeGone]

You are a one-trick pony.

That's rich coming from a guy who's been 'exploring' a run for congress since the Clinton administration. What is this your full time job? You can't possibly be paid for the junk you write.

[ClintonBeGone]

Of course it is only my opinion, but I belive that his openly biased comments in the press tip his hand pretty well.

How is it biased to interpret the results and trends of your polls?