Did the polls have Jeb Bush losing re-election when he won? Where were the polls at the week before the election?
I campaigned for Bill McBride when he challenged Jeb in 2002. No cite, can’t remember any figures – all I can tell you is, there never was a point when the polls favored McBride to win.
He defeated Bill McBride 56% to 44%. McBride was within 3 points in the Fall, but, according to this article from Nov6 of that year,
The linked article says Bush was losing in Oct, but I have never heard of the polling group.
http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/10.25A.mac.surge.htm
A 6% Margin or Error seems larger than most polls, and they did not indicate whether those polled were “registered voters”, “likely voters”, or “voters walking down Main Street”. A MoE of 6% with a gap between the candidates of only 4% means it is WAY tight. There could have been dozens of polling companies trolling Florida then, and one company’s numbers, which show an almost dead heat during one week, wouldn’t mean much to me if the Majors (Gallup, et. al.) were reporting different numbers.
Any poll if this type has errors. But it does show that under the definitions of this poll, McBride was leading. But the week before, Bush was ahead.
It looked quite hopeful the last week or two of the election, and certainly to all appearances there was no shortage of voters who were totally committed to throwing Jeb! out on his fat tin ear.
But alas, the majority of voters picked Jeb!.
(At least, that’s what we were told … you see, with computerized voting machines, you sort of kind of have to take their word for it.)
Actually, with any voting technology, you sort of kind of have to take their word for it.
Not when the technology is a piece of paper and a pencil.
In Canada, in each poll division, each candidate has the right to have a representative present, called a scrutineer, who watches each vote being counted. If the matter goes before a judge, the recount is done in public.
It’s these electronic gizmos that cause the invisible voting concerns.
I agree that some of the technologies are wonkier than others – I just meant that, unless you yourself go in and count votes, you’re taking someone’s word for what the numbers are.
Acknowledging that all voting systems have their flaws does not mean that the most flawed and suspect system is just as good as any other.
That wasn’t what I meant, and that wasn’t what I said.