Why do AP, Zogby and Gallup have shrub in the lead?

I feel that those polling agencies are corrupt, opinions?

Nader is not on the ballot in any state but they push it as if he is.

Nader helped shrub get elected in 2000. I had hoped he would have sense not to repeat the mistake this time. Most people who say they will vote for Nader would vote for Kerry if Nader isn't on the ballot. I have a friend that voted Nader in 2000 and plans to again this year. I am trying to get him to see that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. He thinks Kerry is too conservative. I asked him, though, "Would you rather have Kerry or Bush in the White House?" His reply, "Kerry of course - he's not as conservative as Bush." Well duh! Figure it out!

"Nader helped shrub get elected in 2000"....

Gore lost because Gore screwed up. If you care at all about facts on the issue instead of mindlessly quoting your mantra, look at http://cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html.

I realize now though that I'm going to get smoked for this. The "Nader lost it for Gore" thing has become religious dogma for most of you out here and questioning it is heresy.

that went wrong.

IF he hadn't been in the race, Gore would have won more cleanly than he did and the election couldn;t have been stolen so easily --

The supreme court was a factor.

Outdated voting equipment was a factor --

The list goes on.

To deny Nader as a factor is the equivalent of denying the supreme court was a factor.

Gore didn't lose because Gore screwed up. Gore won -- however history will show he lost and will so because it was stolen.

Which of these polls polled registered voters, likely voters, Americans (whether registered or not)? How large was their polling sample? Zogby and AP both were statistically a tie since the difference was well within the standard margin of error. As for the Gallop poll, I'd have to see the methods used. Polls can be conducted in a way that skews the results. There were a couple of polls in 2000 showing Bush with a huge lead. As we know that did not happen. Be interesting to compare the methods of polling between the polls and see which one is statistically the most sound.

Kerry's considered too liberal by former Bush supporters, and too conservative by the far-left.

Tough cookies.

There's absolutely NO way Bush can be ahead of a street dog at this point, let alone John Kerry.

Nader is not even campaigning, how can he be doing even better than 2000?

These are propaganda polls.

For Touchscreen fraud to work, the race has to be close. Once all the polls show Kerry in the lead by 7-8% it would be harder but not impossible to use Touchscreen magic to win.

Or maybe not. Don't know exactly how polls work, but my ex wife worked in telemarketing and when they called, they had a list of prefixes, for example, the first three letters of my phone no. are 326. They had 326-0000, 326-0001, etc. and just kept dialing until they got hits. Maybe that's how these polling places work too. But I'm reasonably sure it's not some conspiracy.

Gallup biases conservatively by 3%-4% when numbers are close to 50%. Worse when higher. It's some kind of systematic problem in their demographic modelling- it's been present and noticed for years.

AP/Ipsos seems to have sampled 'registered voters', judging from the Nader numbers. The half of the electorate that tends to vote is split approximately 48/45/2, the half that doesn't splits (to my deductions in previous pollings) approximately 45/45/10. Throw in some amount of error or a little bias and you get their kind of results.

Zogby is simply showing the worst pollings Kerry got prior to the 9/11 commission hearings. Note that if you split Undecideds the usual way, Kerry is still projected to win.

Admitting a little noise into the sampling, then splitting the Undecideds in favor of Kerry by 2:1 or 3:1 (pretty standard splits of Undecideds when there is an incumbent and a competitive challenger) still reveals a Democratic win (or at worst, tie) in all of these pollings. I've found that almost all national pollings, when analyzed this way, point to an electorate that -should Kerry and Bush continue to appear about equally strong until Election Day- ought to vote 51% or 52% Kerry, 46% or 45% Bush, and 2% to 3% Nader. (At equal rates of turnout, which will probably not be the case.) Btw, there are 3% that tend to vote Democratic but make the decision only in the last two or three days.

Accept them and fight to change them. Many Republicans are zealots. Many Americans live in a fantasy world created by big media instead of the real one.

imho.