I'm still on about these polls. I guess they're all corrupt. I just hate that this article lead with how "venerable" this poll was, so I still think I smell a rat.
Here's excerpts from an
old 2003 article in National Review Online that punches holes in CNN
and Field polls dating from that time:
Last week's CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Aug 7-10, was completed after candidate filing closed. But it uselessly included candidates not running(*). Moreover, it asked respondents if there was a "good or very good chance of voting for…." In other words, the multiple name numbers added up to 172 percent:
Schwarzenegger, 42 percent; Dick Riordan*, 24 percent; Cruz Bustamante, 22 percent; Bill Simon, 13 percent; Tom McClintock, 13 percent; Loretta Sanchez*, 12 percent; John Garamendi*, 10 percent; Peter Ueberroth, 7 percent; Bill Jones*, 8 percent; Arianna Huffington, 7 percent; Peter Camejo, 6 percent; Larry Flynt, 6 percent; Gary Coleman, 2 percent.
This bogus poll was very widely reported as Schwarzenegger, 42 percent; Bustamante 22 percent, etc.
And the second excerpt. It would be interesting to do an exhaustive search on criticisms of specific Polls conducted by polling groups. Maybe one of these days...
Now comes the Field poll, Aug 10-Aug 13. It shows Bustamante, 25 percent; Arnold; 22 percent; etc. The reality: The votes (22 percent) of non-candidates Sanchez (12 percent) and Garamendi (10 percent), not included in this poll, tilted to the one major Democrat, Bustamante.
I'm thinking "venerable poll" is an oxymoron.
As usual, Dan Walters makes sense.
Unfortunately, Maria and Arnold's rich friends won't let him do it.