Remember when "polls" said Lieberman was in the lead for Dem nominee?

[Lex]

Way back when, the pollsters were having us believe that Lieberman was the "top choice" among Democrats running for the 2004 Presidential Election.

Same pollsters.

Keep that in mind.

[WI_DEM]

1. those polls were all about name recognition

but we still should take the polls with a grain of salt. It is still very close.

[Lex]

3. The news stories about the polling said Lieberman was the "top choice"

among Democrats for being the Dem nominee.

I don't know what the pollsters asked exactly, and I understand that name recognition would give him an edge early on, but the pollsters were saying Lieberman was a shoo-in for the Dem nominee based on their polling.

[Road Scholar]

5. And the polling was then, as now, incorrect

A very good comparison! Thank you. The polls are all over the place and worrisome, the only constancy is their inconstancy.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi In_Transit!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lex]

14. In_Transit is my Dad! How cool is he?

He's just starting to figure out how to post on messageboards, so I hope everyone will cut him some slack while he learns! He's a political junkie, and so that's where I suppose I get it from.

And, he can't wait to see Smirk get defeated in November!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Polls Are Snapshots...

They are not determinitive....

[dolstein]

4. Sorry, but that's not a valid comparison

Those polls were of likely Democratic primary voters and were taken several months before any votes were cast. Given the timing of the polls and the lack of voter familiarity with the candidates, those polls were pretty much worthless.

But there's a big difference between those polls and the general electoin polls that are being taken now. If you want a valid comparison, you should look at the polls taken in mid-September of 2000.

[Lex]

6. "those polls were pretty much worthless"

exactly

[Roland99]

7. Trouble with polls is

there are a bazillion of them out there and they change every few days.

Someone could take Poll A from last week and compare the numbers to Poll B from 3 days ago and again to Poll C from today.

If one is going to compare poll numbers, it must be from the same poll each time.

[sangh0]

8. That's the BEAUTY of polls

IMO, polls don't accurately predict who is going to vote for whom. I think we all realize that the results of any poll taken now are going to change sometime after the poll is taken and before Election Day.

What's important are the trends. Particularly the longer-term trends

[gratuitous]

9. Are you saying that Bush has Joe-mentum?

I heartily agree.

Buckle down, folks. We have another six weeks of work ahead of us, and we know these lying, thieving bastards aren't going to just hand back the country they stole from us. We're going to have to rip it out of their greedy, grasping, blood-stained hands.

Get folks registered, and start extracting promises from folks now that come November 2, they will vote.

[Lex]

10. Yes! Bush has the equivalent of "Joe-mentum"

By-and-large, it's all puffed up, media-created, bullsh*t. Nothing on the ground is indicating what the polls are showing.

Even Bush's campaign "rallies" are staged events with most people bused in who have sworn a loyalty oath.

"Chimp-mentum" = "Joe-mentum"

[AlCzervik]

11. and you know what happened to Joe-montum...Joe-nertia

[faithfulcitizen]

12. Let's just hope Lieberman isn't still leading in polls

j/k :7