[sinkspur]

I choose to look at things as they are.

No you don't. The 57 number for Bush was artificially high. The Bush administration has said this would be close election, and has been saying that for the last year.

The polls prove it.

[familyofman]

"The polls prove it."

Then why are you in denial that W once had a 57%. Why is that number, derived at a particular point in time, any less valid than a number derived in the same manner by the same group today? Don't start parsing, just because you don't like the trend.

I think the trend & what it shows is valid. If you accept the current number - how can you dismiss the rest of the series? It's strickly a 'number(stat) thing'.