I missed Rasmussen, but he's not much different. What people have to realize is a pollster can say anything without having to be correct until the last poll before an election. Their reputation is based on that one last poll. With all the others, they can claim something changed when they are shown to be wrong.
"I missed Rasmussen, but he's not much different. What people have to realize is a pollster can say anything without having to be correct until the last poll before an election. Their reputation is based on that one last poll. "
I disagree, Rasmussen's polls never swing widely like the others. BTW, Bush is at 46% again for the second day, which translates into 48-49 with likely voters.
There it is---from Juan. The Dems latest talking point is that, "Yes, Clinton et al saw the same threat from Saddam. BUT HE DIDN'T GO TO WAR!"
What's worse? A president who evaluated the intelligence, saw a threat, and acted to eliminate the threat? Or a president who evaluated the intelligence, saw a threat, and did nothing?
I've heard this argument from them at least 4 times in the last week. It must be on the memo...pubbies should pounce. The Dems' biggest weakness is the public's concern that they won't be tough on national defense.