[1035rep]

Sorry, I wasn't finished when I hit the post. I have an article that did a comparison on the polls that were taken during 2004. If I wasn't so tired I would look it up for you. If you are really interested let me know and I'll post it for you tomorrow.

Have a good night

[Bubbatuck]

Thanks.

Rasmussen had the final numbers almost exactly.

I was responding to the oft-repeated claim here that polls are usually wrong, and then they point to 2004 as an example.

In fact, most polls in 2004 showed the President slightly ahead of John Kerry. Further, electoral polls are a bit different, because a national poll is meaningless - you have to do a state-by-state analysis to figure out who's likely to win.

My point is that everybody screams that polls are usually way off. They are not. Occasionally, an outlier will appear, but polling is serious business, and the companies work hard to get it right. After all, it's their bread and butter - they compete on the basis of who best accurately reflect public opinion.

People here think that some liberal bias exists in all polling companies that compel them to compromise their business interests for the sake of making the President's approval look 3% worse than it actually is. I think that's absurd.