I totally discount Zogby’s internet poll. It’s a self-selecting sample. Its a BS poll from a guy who has a personal stake in the results.

Posted by: chris at May 30, 2004 11:57 AM

Polls at this point before an election, especially with a candidate like Kerry, really mean verry little. At the same point in 1988, Dukakis had a 14+ point lead over Bush41 in the polls. When you look in depth at most all of the polls now, the resounding point is that around 80% of Bush’s support is solid and you can say that of only 30% of Kerry’s support. The largest segment of Kerry support is simply the same old Anybody but Bush crowd, certainly not a group to be counted on to show up in support of Kerry on election day. Many of the most critical battleground states have more scientific polling that indicates that Bush has a lot of strength amongst the undecided vote (people leaning), higher support than in 2000 from the Jewish and Hispanic populations and incredible strength from current military and veterans. Therefore, I would firmly disagree with most of the unscientific and slanted polling information being done and skewed in either direction, the much more important information comes from election trend information from specific key demographics.

The instant gratification mentality of most of the left and even some on the right are really quite frustrating, especially when people’s emotions ebb and flow with the daily and weekly polling information or the daily reports from Iraq. When looking at the full picture, there is no choice in 2004. We are in the midst of war in which we have a media that refuses to take on a war footing. They are so blinded by chasing the negatives and the fantastic failures, that they are missing an incredible number of Pulitizer prize material which is only found in some of the foreign press and on the internet in these wonderful blogs. Representative democracies do not take shape in a year, but many years or decades. Police, correctional officers, firemen and soldiers from every country break the rules or laws - the wonder of our democracy is that the wrong-doers are fairly tried and punished instead of being promoted or congratulated as Saddam and the Baath party would have done in pre-war Iraq. The people in the prisons now likely belong there (most), instead of productive citizens whose mistake was to be of a certain religion, race or have ever questioned the wisdom of the Baathists. The WOT will go on for many years, but I much prefer fighting it in the backyards of the terrorists than in our own. Preemption is a necessity - staying the course is a necessity - the continuance of the current administration is a necessity - simple patience is a necessity. Change is indeed needed - we have a wonderful representative democracy, look at the representatives near you, mayors, state senators, governors, US congressmen, US senators and ask yourself if they will do what is necessary or will they act in ways that limit our effectiveness. Many people look to only the highest leaders and ignore those they empower in their neighborhoods that speak for them. I realize some of this is off topic, but they are related tangents. I choose American representative democracy, not Euro-styled passive socialism.

Posted by: politicals at May 30, 2004 01:18 PM

The article indicates that Minnesota is a “battleground” state.
A look at the voting pattern in Minnesota show a consistant Democratic Party leaning.
If that has now changed, then Pres. Bush and the Republican Party are making great gains, not losing ground.

Posted by: TimK at May 30, 2004 01:20 PM

“80% of bushes support is solid and only 30% of kerrys”. if thats true , then bush is a shoo in. unfortunately.

Posted by: westcountry at May 30, 2004 06:03 PM

On the creative use of Polls:

• If a poll agrees with your preference, it is Highly Scientific and Deeply Insightful.

• If a poll does not agree with your preference, it is Partisan, Unscientific and Not To Be Trusted.

It doesn’t matter, either way.

Posted by: Don at May 30, 2004 06:40 PM

In response to Don, I choose to disagree, the polls are usually correct, the trouble generally is that the inferred result is often skewed by those with agendas or profit motives (like the Zogby poll mentioned in the thread) or the poll may have been poorly constructed in its inception. If proper, scientific methodologies are applied, then conclusions can be drawn. I have 3 engineering degrees, several patents and over 40 refereed journal articles which attest to the fact that I can accurately interpret data. When the primary resonse of most a candidates support
group states that their primary reason for support is that their candidate is NOT THE OTHER CANDIDATE, then the support is indeed not firm support. However, if you look at a poll of 600 Hispanics in Florida and the support for Bush is considerably higher, then it certainly is relevant. When you look at a poll of Jewish voters in New Jersey and you see significant shifts in support from 2000, it is relevant. Anyone that wishes to say that a generic internet poll of 300 or 500 individuals is more relevant or equally relevant, 5 months before an election is sorely misguided. The media reporting often does have an agenda and the troubling fact is that there is a sector of the voting populace that is affected by the headline media. Those that look a little deeper, can get the rest of the story. Even polls of union members have shown some signs of better numbers for Bush in 2004 than 2000 and the economic trends will only help those trends. Union spokespeople (usually quoted in print and televison) will obviously not give the same impression.

Posted by: politicals at May 30, 2004 07:20 PM

Kerry was in Viet Nam for 4 months….how does he think that experience qualifies him to be Commander in Chief? I don’t think 4 months and a fistful of medals qualifies one to be anything….no question he’s brave but that does’nt mean he’s smart…and he sure isn’t lucky. He’s arrogant and out of touch with the common man…his wife hates the States…who in their right mind would vote for this Guy? Sreamin Dean was a better Democrap choice than this Kennedy wanabe…..

Posted by: Wee Will Wanker at May 31, 2004 01:26 AM

My belief is that Zogby is likely trying to create a perception that he hopes will become a self-fullfilling prophesy: Declare Kerry a “winner” and since humans like to vote for the winner, Zogby is trying to make him the winner.

Regarding Minnesota, with it’s historic Democratic leaning, you should look at the political party of those they have recently elected to decide just how Democratic leaning it is anymore.

Posted by: Max Darkside at May 31, 2004 02:13 AM

Don is correct this time. It is way to early for polls to have any meaning. Plus I question the validity of all polls done by land line in an age of declining land line users. I will never get polled since I don’t have a telephone line. I got pissed off at the phone company a few years ago and went cellular. I haven’t missed the damn thing at all. So all the random sampling by telephione does is give information on the opinions of those that use a land line. The intellectual flaw is assuming that everyone has a land line. Take the number of land lines and subtract business phones then compare that number to a count of households. You can then use that as a factor in generating the margin of error in your polls. But Zogby has a coulmn on Creators.com and there is no indication there that they do this.
Besides, polls are called tracking polls because they track TRENDS. It is no more valid to look at a single poll and draw a conclusion then it would be to look at a single frame (still shot) of a movie and write a critque of that movie. The web site I use to follow the election breaks down the polls and tracks them. While the trend shows Kerry slowing pulling away, it also shows that most of the polls are well within the uncorrected (phone access) margin of error. That makes them meaningless at this point in time.
Iraq will be the center of gravity in this election. While we are not losing in Iraq, we are not winning either. I’m pissed at President Bush because this administration has missed several opportunities to Win In Iraq. My theory is that when you have a halfback that fumbles at the goal line several times in a row, replace him. Being great between the 20’s doesn’t put points on the board. But if I’m wrong, and the kinder gentler way of warfare scores it’s first ever victory, then I’ll eat my crow and vote for Bush. If history triumphs and my thoughts that you can’t win a war without killing a certain amount of your enemies proves correct, I’ll vote for Kerry. If he can’t get the ball over the goal, then there are bunchs of folks that want in the game. As long as the DU_LL crowd isn’t looking for an exit strategy to get us out of Manhatten, we have time to find the Leader with the sand to kill Muslims until they have had enough. In the end that is what it will take. Count Montefort figured out how to deal with religous fanatics. It’s brutal, but effective. My hat is off to anyone who can find another way.

Posted by: ableiter at May 31, 2004 11:29 AM

I wouldn’t bet on Zogby this early in the game. If at all. Maybe in past elections, but this one is the first election since Vietnam with a war in progress. I beleive that in itself sets different criteria in play.

If you notice the mood swings of the American public on the wars actions(catch Saddam, everybody’s UP),(Prison Abuse, everybody’s DOWN), this one will go to the wire. Pollsters haven’t got a “model” for this one.

Additionally, the Mainstream Media is most decidedly Pro-Kerry, or at the least “Anybody but Bush.” But the American people don’t seem to be as dumb as CNN and CBS think. They are seeking other means of news to get a “picture” of a Kerry Presidency. For the first time in an election, the Internet will play a part in providing that information. The “Major” news organizations are losing their effectiveness in swinging votes to “Bloggers”. None of this is taken into account by Zogby’s “model”.

Case in point. The major news organizations are wont to dispell the fallacy that “Veterans are for Kerry”, despite the fact that GWB leads Kerry in that catagory by 14 percentage points. Yet, that information is readily available on numerous sites online.

It is my opinion that this is the year that the Internet begins to take sway over the Media. Journalism has become a dirty word in America. Dan Rather would look just as at home bashing America on al-Jazeera. And, because of that, the Polls don’t work the way they used to………..

Posted by: ET at May 31, 2004 12:07 PM

It looks to me from over here bush must be strong favourite. “Anybody but…” candidates have difficulty getting their weak supporters to bother voting, whereas a guy like bush, if you love him you love him. Anyway, no way are Americans going to vote for anyone who they might percieve as the less patriotic option. Not these days. So unless the next few months go disasterously for him, which i doubt they will, he ought to stroll it.
Which i thinks a shame.The rest of the world much prefers America with a democratic president. less strident .More long term. Smarter.

Posted by: westcountry at May 31, 2004 05:43 PM