| *MOST* polls the last few days before the election in 2000 had Bush up by several points, but in fact, he lost the so-called 'popular' vote. This has happened before. In 1980, the race was seen to be neck and neck, until after the election, when Reagan beat the crap out of Carter.
The pattern seen repeatedly is that undecideds almost always go against the incumbent at the last minute. So if you're rooting for Bush, a good healthy lead in the polls might translate into a slim win at the ballot.
I'm not terribly sure anymore that polls tell us anything. But I do believe the webmaster has a valid point - polling procedures have become less accurate. You can no longer be sure about the sample you get from random telephone polling because in a close race, things like absentee ballots and overseas ballots actually change the outcome.
I don't know how accurate this statement is historically, but it always seems like the Democrat gets a tiny bounce before the election. So to me, the only way Bush wins is if he wins BIG.
I *love* the story that I first read in a George Will column about the chessmaster Nimzovich losing to someone he considered intellectually inferior. He jumped on the table, kicked off the pieces and screamed "how can I lose to this IDIOT?". Simple, you conceited moron - he's NOT an idiot. That kind of arrogance is all over Kerry - and he'll still fall prey to it even KNOWING about it going in to the debates. Kerry IS an idiot - like so many people I know, he believes that knowing a couple facts on a subject makes him an expert. I really can't believe his four point plan almost exactly mirrors Bush's. (You should read David Limbaugh's latest - he really skewers Kerry on the war).
No, experience says that a whole state doesn't shift ten points in just one week. Something's not accurate. It's nice to see Bush get a few "wins" on that site, but I've been following it for weeks, and it keeps going back and forth. So I'm not sure that it's worth 'believing'. |