Does anyone believe those Newsweek and Time polls anymore?

[Zynx]

If you do, you are a stooge who actually believes that since 2000 the Republicans have gained a seven point party affiliation edge. Bush may be ahead right now, but it ain't by much. Zogby, Rasmussen, ARG, and Economist polls all taken during the same period show the race virtually dead even, which is just great as far as I am concerned. If we think we are eleven points behind, but are actually tied or just a couple points behind, we can kick some ass.

Also, on a side note, it gives me great pleasure to smack the "the sky is falling!" people in the face again. ;-)

[BootinUp]

1. I believe that they measured something

They were taken during the convention, so as even Bill Schneider on CNN said, they do not show a convention bounce because the convention wasn't over. Whatever they measured, it is difficult to put it in perspective. So I wouldn't worry too much about them.

[papau]

2. It is possible that the Bush technique of the other guy is bad has

worked - once again.

I hope not, and I doubt the size of the bump even if it has worked.

But I am on hold until 9/15 and we are past 9/11 media praise of Bush's intel failure and lack of courage as he flew around country (which will be presented by the media as a profile in wisdom, courage, and leadership).

[Zynx]

3. Let's put it this way: Bush does not have an 11 point lead.

I hope that nobody actually believes that he does. Sure if you survey that many more Republicans than Democrats, yeah, he would have an 11 point lead, but in reality, there are many more Democrats than Republicans.

[SayitAintSo]

4. Nope - it's good to be "misunderestimated" ... n/t

[Zynx]

5. Yeah. When those #s collapse for Bush, we'll look good.

They'll have to say, "Bush plunges in polls!".

[slor]

6. Of course I believe them...

as I do the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and Phoney McRing Ring (for you Simpson fans).

[Zynx]

7. LOL!

I forgot about Phoney McRing Ring.

[bigtree]

8. They were a catastrophic success

[leftchick]

9. apparently CNN does.... Did you catch their caption this AM?

JOHN KERRY SLIDE... was at the bottom of the screen for the whole update from the JK campaign... funny I don't remember seeing a bush* slide caption anytime he is behind... once a media Ho always a media Ho I guess.

[asjr]

10. Time and Newsweek have become

Whoremags. If anyone believes their polls it will only give momentum to people who are on the fence. I don't believe that many are on the fence, but it would help Democrats. Some people who say they would vote for Shrub may just say it becauses they do not want to appear "unpatriotic." Only they know how they will vote and I would bet it would be for Kerry.

[Zynx]

11. They are rags that are little better than the NYPost.

There. I said it.

[louis c]

12. Here is the evedience that the polls are wrong

link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x750751#750751

[rhite5]

13. The "Fix was In" on these Polls .....

They HAD to show a good convention bounce -- just put it out a little early.

I cannot believe any thinking person who actually watched that convention felt compelled to want to vote for them, whether they were R, D, or Independent.

[louis c]

14. kick

[grace0418]

15. Here's what I think about the polls.

Most of the polls out there record the opinions of "likely voters." I think that's an important distinction. "Likely voters" are usually taken from lists of people who voted in the 2000 election. But think about how many people you personally know that have never voted before who will be voting in November. I know a LOT of people who will be voting for the first time. And not a single one of them has broken their voting apathy to come out an vote for Bush. So I think the polls could actually be a good thing. It will keep the GOP smug and complacent, per usual. And it will fire up the Dems to get even more people out to vote.

Here's another thing to consider. Think of the circle of people you know, not just close friends and relatives but all the people you know through work, social activities, whatever. For me, that's a whole bunch of people from all different backgrounds. In that circle of people, at least in my experience (this is highly unscientific of course) ALL of the people that voted for Gore will be voting for Kerry, MANY of the people that voted for Nader in 2000 will be voting for Kerry, and even a few of the people who voted for Bush in 2000 will be changing their vote to Kerry this year. Add those gains to the number of people who will be voting for the first time in 2004 (ALL of whom will be voting for Kerry in my experience) and you have a very different picture than these "scientific" polls would suggest. I don't know a single person who is changing their vote TO Bush in 2004, just a few stubborn fools who refuse to see the truth.

Now try it with your own circle of friends, family, acquaintances, and colleagues. I posed this question on a music forum that I'm on and people from all over the country came up with very similar results to mine. To me, that says more than any poll. But let them keep polling those "likely voters," they'll be in for a big surprise in November.

One last note, I have NEVER been polled even though I live in a big city and have voted in every election since I was 18. In fact, no one I know has ever been polled. Why is this?