Hedgecock Just Said Talent Has Pulled Ahead of Carnahan. Any evidence?

Rush Limbaugh Show | 9/27/2002 | LS

[LS]

Roger Hedgecock, subbing for Rush, just said that he had a poll showing Talent was not ahead of the "Widder Carnahan" in Missouri---which, in his opinion, is why the Dems are getting frantic. But he didn't give a source. Anyone have any info on this phantom poll?

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting about Coleman -- him and Thune are considered to be winners in November!

I cannot wait to see Wellstone and Johnson get defeated!

[Wolfstar]

That had to have been a typo. I heard Hedgecock on my way into work, and he said Talent HAS pulled ahead of Carnahan.

[Dante3]

I hope Bush will campaign for them. Bush is very popular and can make a difference.

[Lee Heggy]

Everytime I see Jean Carnahan I am reminded of an old joke that goes...'Why do husbands die before their wives? Because they want to."

St. Louis will be the key for her to win if they can get enough of the old time Missouri corruption going.

Missouri, never reconstructed and PROUD of it!

[Wolfstar]

Public polls are not intended to inform, they are intended to manipulate. They are not intended to report opinion, but to make opinion.

[rface]

I wonder if some of the most recent ZOGBY #s that are due out on Monday have been leaked?

( 9/26/02 )

Coming MONDAY September 30th:
Latest Zogby America Poll results involving President George W. Bush, the war against Iraq and Election 2002

ZOGBY

[PhiKapMom]

I would expect since he came to OK for Inhofe and Largent, he will definitely be in MO, MN, and the rest like he is in CO today!

[jackbill]

not is probably a type for now.

And "type" is probably a typo for typo?

[jackbill]

However I askeed 5 coworkers who live in Missouri and according to that poll Talent is leading by 60 points. Does that help?

Not a good sample. You need some non-workers (welfare recipients) in your sample.

[texasbluebell]

I really want him beat!

Gephardt has been in DC way too long. Time for him to get a real job.

[Norman Conquest]

With the exception of Mass., any race is winnable. Aggressively contesting every seat forces the DNC and NDSC to spend resources in states they'd otherwise coast in.

[SwinneySwitch]

Charlton Heston can make a difference too!

[Mo1]

Hey PhiKapMom .. texasbluebell just mentioned on another thread that if Talent wins .. he takes office the day after the elections .. this explains why the Dems are going off the deep end this week .. they could lose power sooner then we think

[cactusSharp]

which reminds me of the "other" joke

ma'ma, ma'ma, why is daddy running around
in circles ??

"shut up and reload"

[wildbill]

They keep talking about how much more money they've raised than the Dems. Unfortunately, they usually wait to the last minute to spend it--and most of the voters have already made up their minds.

Witness the 96 election. Barbour was asked early on about the massive spending by Dems in the MidWest in the Spring and Summer. He chose to wait--and we got four more years of Clinton.

[patent]

,i>Zogby's polls are more accurate because they include the last minute, "enhanced" democrat turnout.

Yeah, he counts "likely" voters, whether they are inside or outside of the cemetary.

patent

[Brandybux]

"And "type" is probably a typo for typo? "

Like I said before, it hapens all the tim.

[anton]

Yea, but they didn't poll the dead. You know, those motor registered voters that vote real late in St. Louis. They always vote 100% democrat. Hmmmmmm.

[Timesink]

I don't know about you, but I'm getting increasingly disgusted with supposedly unbiased public polls that show one thing while internal polls show another. And when election day comes, the internal polls turn out to be the correct ones. What's the deal: are the public polls run by partisan zealots or just incompetents? Or perhaps incompetent partisan zealots?

Well, one reason is that the campaigns are willing to pay the extra dough for a higher sampling rate - say, 1500 voters instead of the 800 or 900 a media outlet's public poll does. You get diminishing returns the more you increase the sample size - 2000 respondents would only add a few tenths of a point more accuracy than 1500, but cost 25% more - but up to around 1500 or so it's worth it for the added accuracy.

Also, internal polls filter out the BS. They stick with LIKELY voters, for one thing, not just registered voters, half of whom won't even bother to show up on election day. They also filter out the Democratic bias. And by that I don't mean an intentional attempt on the pollsters' parts to skew things for the RATS, but rather a real, honest phenomenon that causes all polls to come out showing a few percentage points more support for the RAT candidate than actually exists. (The reasons for this have never been proven, though they're believed to be largely due to political correctness. There are still lots of people afraid to say out loud that they support a Republican, lest they get tarred as a racist, homophobe, [insert standard-issue rat mudslinging term here]. So they tell the pollster they support the RAT, and then vote GOP in the privacy of the polling booth.) The public pollsters will not correct for this phenomenon statistically, because that would be unfaiiiiiirrrrr to the Democrats, since they can't really "prove" the phenomenon exists at all. The internal campaign pollsters don't need to play those games. They eliminate the BS and find out what's REALLY going on. And that's why they're more accurate.

And that's also why anytime you see both candidates "neck-and-neck," you can rest assured it means the GOP candidate has at least a 1-2% advantage.

[section9]

Well, at least Carnahan will still get Ferrara's vote this November.

Well, at last, we'll be able to call election night in Missouri and Florida what it is:

"Night of the Living Dead"

Be Seeing You,

Chris