These neck-and-neck polls do not sit well with me.

It might be just enough for the fucks to steal the election from us and give us 4 more years of hell.

The sample size of most of them is so small relative to the population that it really makes them an exercise in futility. Don't worry yourself too much about them unless they are showing a really wide spread.

When the mainstream media perpetuates the idea that this election will be a close call, then the majority of the population will not be all that surprised if Bush wins the election. It makes it easier for Bush to get away with stealing the election.

If otoh Kerry would be clearly leading in the polls, and then Bush wins, that might cause people to take to the streets.

If they steal it again, Florida repeat in any state... It will be revolution time.

this won't be close come November.

Remember, Carter was neck and neck with Reagan throughout the election season. Then the challenger won huge.

Only in our favor? Kerry pulls out way ahead of Bush on election day?

Clinton was way ahead in October 96. Dole was running in the low 40s, Clinton just a hair above 50%. Election day results were a LOT closer than that, Clinton didn't get the true majority he was shooting for. Analysts at the time wrote it off as the fact that Dems are less reliable voters (cause we pull votes from lower income groups, who are less reliable voters) and because of an "overconfidence" among fair weather Clinton voters.

But I wonder now if it wasn't jsut a function of the fact that last minute votes almost always break for the outsider or underdog. The only exception I recall to that is in 2000 where the last minute deciders broke mostly for Gore.

that threw Clinton's two elections off were Perot.

I remember seeing a Gallup poll a few days ago that showed Clinton about to win the '92 election by a bigger margin, assuming that the challenger would end up drawing a large number of undecideds.

Sure enough, they did go for the challenger, but not Clinton. A part of that broke for Perot.

It's amusing that Nader tried to compare himself with Perot in that he can draw republicans and democrats. What BS. Perot drew a large base from BOTH parties, so while in the case of '92 he may have helped Clinton in a few states, in '96, it's harder to say.

and that would be a good thing. let the media whores be wrong. they were wrong about gore too.

Didn't everyone learn this from the Iowa primary or the 6 months leading up to it? Didn't we learn this in '88 when Mike Dukakis was 20 point ahead coming out of the convention?

And anyway...national polls are completely useless since the election is not national.

We need you ALL! Call your local Kerry (or Senate or Congressional) campaign office, leave your number, tell 'em you want to help. If they call back to ask for your help and you're busy, say no. If you're not, go give 'em an hour or two... It's our ONLY insurance.

Polls do help to shape the expectations of people.
It's called "the manufacture of consent" - google it.

Saw it with my very eyes, during these primaries and right now.

It stinks.

Funny, when I was complaining about the media early in the primaries, no one believed me. Don't know why? Guess we all have to learn the real hard way.

1. Election Day itself
2. Zogby

Please notice that Gallup and all the other "big names" are now partnered with media corporations. If we don't trust CNN's news "coverage," why should we trust a CNN/Time/USA Today poll, for instance?

The "media polls" are neck-and-neck as a direct result of the media's unprecedented role as the propaganda arm of the government. You'd have to go back to the Yellow Journalism days of the Hearst newspapers to find a time when the media was anywhere near this sycophantic to a president (elected or not).

The media has a vested interest in keeping the polls "close:" more eyeballs.

Are there any more reasons to kill your TV?

:argh:
dbt

Every poll had Dean with a commanding lead. He got 3rd place. Enough said.