ABC poll shows Bush Losing Ground

[Van Helsing]

but I agreed with your stand against the TF, and am glad he/she appears to have let it drop!

I see the ( SUSH T/F ) is about today

Microcell i never read the rest of what you said

 

[faithinkarma]

Of course polls mean something. They indicate how people would vote TODAY. They certainly do not tell us how people will vote in November. But they do show which way the wind is blowing. Discount the polls when they do not suit your purpose all you want, I bet the White House is not ignoring them. They same people who say they mean nothing, would be high fiving if they showed Bush with a significant lead. In the same way people say the economy turning will turn people towards Bush, and yet, when the economy looks gloomy they rush to point out that the blame for the economy cannot be attritbuted to the president.

You just cannot have it all ways. The polls mean exactly the same thing whether your candidate is leading or not. The president cannot take the credit for a good economy if he does not take the blame for a bad one.

And anyone who has missed the Clinton and Kerry bashing threads........ Well, what can I say? It is all in perception I suppose, but I think virtually everyone is familiar with those threads and their originator.

 

[shortbun]

I don't pay attention to polls, especially this far ahead of the
election. The big thing I don't like about polls is that people
look at them at the last minute and let the "polls" help them
decide how to vote. I wish everyone would read both sides,
listen to both sides, research both sides and make their own
decision based on as much 'fact' as they can find instead of
letting sound bytes and spinners cloud their thinking. It's so
hard to beat ones way through the garbage and get to the
facts but worth it. I let the real actions and words spoken by
the real people guide me. Sometimes what is NOT said is also
a great barometer. Polls are not.

 

[jrydberg]

Agreed you can't have it both ways... but I never put much faith in polls. They are indicative of what a small segment of the population thinks. If the polls show 90% of people against something, that's hard to ignore. But when polls are in the 45%-55% range, it's hard to make any significant judgements about that.

As for the economy, I don't think the president has much to do with it (other than the potential to screw things up), but my observation about the election still stands because most people do attribute economic successes or failures to the president. I don't, but I'm not the general population

 

[Eeyore1954]

I tend to discount any poll, favorable or unfavorable, to any selected candidate I support because I do not trust how the alleged random samples are done. It's all too easy to sway the sample population one way or the other; all too easy to sway the outcome by the way the question is worded. I find it interesting to watch the myriad of polls that come out -- one putting this candidate in the lead and the other putting his/her opponent in the lead. Which one is right?

It's all a hilarious exercise in futility, but it makes for amusing reading or listening as the pundits spin themselves into tizzies over the results. Never have so many gotten so much out of so little.

 

[faithinkarma]

I do not think that polls are necessarily any predictor, ( even though I cannot recall the last time the polls were seriously wrong, although I am certain I am about to be enlightened about this ) but I do think that responses to individual questions can be very telling. For the first time more than half the respondents are against the war. This was Bush's strong suit. Should this number continue to slip, that certainly spells trouble for the Bush campaign.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

I tend to discount any poll, favorable or unfavorable, to any selected candidate I support because I do not trust how the alleged random samples are done.

Which is why it is interesting to look at a wide variety of polls and notice the differences among them. This poll doesn't surprise me, Gallup posted very similar results earlier this month. If you go to their website they also have some interesting information on public opinion in the battleground states (because as the last election taught us, popular vote does not win the election), and the effect that Nadar is having on the voters which would typically fall into the Kerry voting block.

I agree that it is too early to make any predictions, most people will not get caught up in the election until after Labor Day. That is when the Polls will become very interesting IMHO.

And I don't think VH is a troll just because he makes posts that some find unpleasant and disagreeable.

 

[Van Helsing]

And I don't think VH is a troll just because he makes posts that some find unpleasant and disagreeable.

Thanks Toby'sFriend

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I tend to discount any poll, favorable or unfavorable, to any selected candidate I support because I do not trust how the alleged random samples are done. It's all too easy to sway the sample population one way or the other; all too easy to sway the outcome by the way the question is worded. I find it interesting to watch the myriad of polls that come out -- one putting this candidate in the lead and the other putting his/her opponent in the lead. Which one is right?

It's all a hilarious exercise in futility, but it makes for amusing reading or listening as the pundits spin themselves into tizzies over the results. Never have so many gotten so much out of so little.

Just another proof that even last-minute polls don't count: In our last elections our Chancellor was trailing his challenger by about 5%. When all votes were counted he'd won by a cat's whisker: About 6,000 votes more. It was the closest ever, but enough to win in a -according to the polls- a no-win-situation.
Nevertheless I also hope the polls are right this time. The USA does not deserve another term of GWB - and neither does the world.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Should things improve in Iraq, I think that the fickle public will start to go back towards Dubya. Should things continue to deteriorate, I think he loses...and possibly even badly.

When did things in Iraq begin to deteriorate?

The USA does not deserve another term of GWB - and neither does the world.

Yes, because we wouldn't want someone in there who is improving the lives of everyone around the world by promoting smart economic policies and democracy.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Douglas Dubh
When did things in Iraq begin to deteriorate?

I had to see this again. Makes you stand back and go "hmmmmm" followed by..........

Originally posted by Douglas Dubh
Yes, because we wouldn't want someone in there who is improving the lives of everyone around the world by promoting smart economic policies and democracy.

With all due respect, what's life like on your planet?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

With all due respect, what's life like on your planet?

Apparently, much more enjoyable than that of pessimistic liberals.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

With all due respect, in the past two years, taxes have been lowered, millions of jobs have been created, a dictator who killed over 300,000 innocent people has been toppled, all in the face of 9/11 and a recession. You can bash Bush all you want, the bottom line is he is producing results in the face of adversity and is not backing down to any challenge.

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
Your sole purpose on WDW boards is to bash GWB. What a troll.

I thought he might be a troll as well, but soon after that post came out about trolls, VH seemed to soften - became 'kinder and gentler'. Me thinks he got a talking to from a moderator.

 

[Van Helsing]

Me thinks he got a talking to from a moderator.

Well you'd be very wrong wouldn't you