Reply #120: I Don't Believe Polls Much Either, But...

[The_Counsel]

"I won't every say that polls are the end all be all of anything, but, let's be honest, Gallup builds their entire company on polls, and if they are SO wrong SO frequently, no one would hire them to do polls anymore. If you have a source where Gallup is so off the main stream, so out of the truth, please post it. Don't just say "Gallup had Bush ahead 52-39 in Oct 2000" with no link."

One need only go to Gallup's own website and find their polling history. If memory serves, Gallup did have Gore getting as low as 39% of the electorate the week before the election. It struck me as odd then, as everyone was saying how tight the race was. Turns out Bush didn't have a lead at all, nationally...

One other thing: Gallup is apparently living off of it's own name and past reputation at this point. For years, they were the ONLY polling firm that most people had even heard of. They were even ACCURATE on occasion. As of now, their polls are so out of whack that I can't think of a single reason why anyone in their right mind would put any stock into them. Other than "Gallup says my candidate is ahead," that is...


"This race is statistically VERY close, the bounce should fade, but, just because you don't LIKE a poll doesn't mean it isn't true. Please keep that in mind. You can't like some polls that are accurate and dislike others and that makes them inaccurate."

You know what...? I don't "like" the polls that have Bush ahead by 1 point, but I find it to be a helluva lot more accurate than "Bush by 13..."