"I'm not sure what the exact focus was for the 27% poll I mentioned, but it was valid..."
You don't know what the poll was about but you know it was valid? How do you know that? In fact, I've seen a great number of reasons to cast doubt on the validity of most opinion polls out there. In the past several months I've seen bias in the "set up" wording for polls, in the questions themselves, and -- given the vitriol against Bush among many pollsters themselves -- it would not surprise me one bit if the deck was being intentionally stacked.
I'm a social scientist myself and I would never allow a grad student to engage in some of the polling tactics I've seen of late.
I'm not saying all is rosy for Bush, but I'll bet that if the 2004 election were held next week, Bush would beat Kerry again.
Lets take the worst case scenario and state that 27% poll was falsified. Okay, would that lessen the need to have a well-versed person from our side there to rebut it, or increase that need?
I think you'd agree it would be best to have someone there that was prepared to rebut it. Doesn't that validate exactly what I've been trying to promote?