New Poll--Voters Shift in Favor of Kerry

[LynnsABCs]

.

[rcecale]

Could that be the New York Times???? Now there's an unbiased source of information.....

Randy

[RickC]

Does the popular vote matter this time?

[lendaddy]

Even better, I believe it's the LA Times.

[VINMAN]

Originally posted by rcecale
Could that be the New York Times???? Now there's an unbiased source of information.....

Randy

Oh come on now, the NY Times would never lean to the left!

[kach22i]

Originally posted by RickC
Does the popular vote matter this time?

Depends as usual on who's doing the counting.

[cowtown]

It always amazes me to read these polls:

By a resounding 58% to 16%, poll respondents said the phrase "too ideological and stubborn" applied more to Bush than to Kerry.

16% believe Kerry is too ideological and stubborn? Who are these people and what has been put in their drinking water?

[lendaddy]

What they didn't ask Which candidate does the following statement apply to? "married for money and flip flops on issues". The very basis of the question shows the bias.

[Z-man]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: 42% of all poll statistics are made up on the spot.

Oh, and another thing: election polls are 90% correct, 10% of the time.

-Z-man.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Even better, I believe it's the LA Times.

Ohhhhh, the LA Times....well, that's different.....

Randy

[singpilot]

I always get a kick out of voting in electronic polls as many times as I please by blocking cookies from that site (which allow me to vote the same choice over and over).

Yeah, I belive THOSE numbers......

[island911]

Originally posted by cowtown

16% believe Kerry is too ideological and stubborn? Who are these people and what has been put in their drinking water?

LOL . . .no kidding.


. . then again, Kerry has been bent about the military, ever since he bought into the idea of 'atrocities; everybody is doing them, John.' Eversince he was left looking stupid for commiting atrocities, he has been stubbornly against anything, and everything, military. . .. bad idea for a potential Commander in Chief.

[techweenie]

"versince he was left looking stupid for commiting atrocities, he has been stubbornly against anything, and everything, military. . .. bad idea for a potential Commander in Chief."

But of course, not showing up for National Guard duty after being disqualified from flying is good prep for CinC?

Wacky.

[Superman]

You guys are amazing. I'm repeatedly awestruck by your imaginative responses to information that, without your imagination, might be useful information. At least something to think about. But if discrediting information information using an 'ad hominem' argument against the New York Times helps to simplify this issue for you guys, then continue doing what you're doing. Simplicity is an important feature when it comes to how certain people learn and understand stuff.

But you have to spin quite a web to get there. For example, you have to dismiss the nation's newspapers as distributing false information. Interesting charge, I think. Not some, but pretty much all newspapers have to be bundled and subject to this conclusion. TV stations, too. And all data, except for the data showing Bush's soaring popularity. I'm sure there is a think-tank some where that can feed this appetite for statistics. But the vast majority of data sources will have to be discredited because that's not what they say.

Just strikes me as odd. You've got a seated President. You control both houses of Congress. America is in the middle of a conservative-thinking craze with the average Joe believing that government is bad, and business and the economy are our only reliable saviors. And yet, you seem to be in need of concluding that the world is "out to get" your party and your candidate. My grandfather suffered from paranoia, and his thinking patterns were like what I see here.

For the rest of you (the ones who think): Polls are fallible but they can tell us things, particularly if they are repeated periodically and they can show a trend (suggesting they are measuring something besides sampling error). Sampling error for proportions tends to be acceptably small (5% error when estimating a proportion within +/- 2 to 3%) once the sample size exceeds about 350, depending upon the type of conclusion you are trying to draw. And finally, polling right now is almost senseless. This nation is so ignorant, and so fickle in its perceptions, and so gullible when it comes to marketing glitz and clever soundbites, that its overall perception right now is immaterial. A clever strategist, particularly a seated President with many opportunities in the next several months to place his mug on TV (as President, not campaigning mind you) to give himself glowing report cards on various victories, can overcome quite a perception deficit in a very short time. This is the nature of the American voter.

Okay, the rest of you guys stop thinking about that last part. Too complicated. Throw your empties at the screen. Much simpler.

[Rot 911]

May God strike me down, but for once I agree with Superman on the OT board! Polls right now don't mean squat. The only one that matters is the one on November when we step into the voting booth.

[singpilot]

Bookmark this thread.

I agree with both Supe and Kurt!

[lendaddy]

Is that what sup was saying, I thought he was saying we shouldn't discount the LA times Oh, well sure then me too

[speeder]

Hey, it takes more than a majority of votes to beat Bush, he's not worried. He's got a sneaky Pete or two up his sleeve.

[lendaddy]

Denis, you know about our Diebold connection too? Man I'm always that last to know these things. No I'm just worried if I should vote Kerry knowing it will be switched to Bush or just Vote Bush? Ahh, the best laid plans.

[lendaddy]

Acually, this guy seems to have a good site, with a composite thing going.

http://www.federalreview.com/compositepoll.htm