According to Electoral-Vote.com, Kerry is currently leading in electoral votes 264-222 with 52 electoral votes in a dead tie.
This site uses a compendium of several state by state polls (including Zogby, Rasmussen, USA Today, Scripps-Howard and others that do state tracking) and updates daily.
Oddly, Kerry has pretty consistently led the electoral race while trailing by two or three points in the national polls. We may get a reverse of 2000 with Kerry losing the popular vote but winning the election.
Does this mean that you are not going to repond with a post explaining your misrepresentation of the polls in post # 105?
Or tell me what Rasmussen is?
Or are you just going to make snide remarks? Aren’t you the one who requested something to debate earlier in this thread? Why are you running away now, can’t you defend your conclusions?
Thanks, that’s interesting. That truthout site appears to be er…rather slanted left. It says " It should be noted that Rasmussen provided the core data for both the TIME and Newsweek polls. Their independent interpretation of the very same data produced dramatically different conclusions than those reached by TIME and Newsweek." I don’t understand what they mean by this. “Rasmussen provided the core data”-does that mean they are a polling company or what? It sounds like they are trying to spin the results-or they are implying thet Time and Newsweek are. I wish I knew what polling methods they used.
The Rasmussen site was kinda interesting. I noticed that they are now calling the EC race as 175 for Kerry and 213 for Bush which is interesting because it’s exactly the opposite of what other posters have said in this thread (Like DTC, just above) That’s the problem with polls, they are like opinions and asshole, yadda, yadda. Does Rasmussen have a bias?
Yes, but I’m sober now, and you’re still showing your Bush-like demenor by refusing to admit you posted something stupid. Why not just admit you misread the polls and posted in haste, and then move on? You’re making yourself look like a real idiot.
Truthout is unabashedly and unashamedly in-your-face left. However, if you want to see ALL of the news and some decent commentary, subscribe (free) to the email letter. The right assumes that it’s ALL commentary by raving lefties, when in fact they publish articles from many publications.
Look, there have been ample posts that discredit the erroneous 11 point bounce, yet I don’t hear you acknowledging there is nothing to “weep” over. I don’t see the point in reducing this thread to “you said/no you said”, as much as you would like to. There was no 11 point bounce, your cite has been discredited, and that is the end of it.
Although the Rasmassun polls are compiled into the electoral-vote.com site, they are not the only poll used. The difference between Rasmassun and the e-v numbers is that Rasmassun isn’t awarding states within the margin of error. e-v.com classifies states as “barely” belonging to one candidate or another even if the are leading by only one or two points. Rasmassun calls them ties and doesn’t classify them as belonging to either candidate. The states where Kerry has margin of error leads gives him more than the 270 he needs to win the elction. With the exception of a couple of weeks following the Swift Boat attacks, (when Bush briefly hovered around 280) Kerry has consistently led in the electoral race.
Rasmassun is quite respected, btw. Just because you’ve never heard of it doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate poll. Like Zogby, it tends to be more accurate than some of the more well known polls.
Your “double digit lead” simply doesn’t exist. Bush is in fact trailing in the race (Those national tracking polls are meaningless. You have to look at the state by state trends) and he got almost no bounce from his convention. Moreover, he’s got debates coming up, as well as fresh news about his ANG malingering, a Kitty Kelley book which accuses him of being a former cokehead and a closeted homosexual (a book which I’m sure is at least as credible than the Swift Boat book). More legitimately, Bush has just gone over a thousand dead in Iraq, he has tried to sneak a 17% rise in Medicare past old people after promising them he cared about them in his convention speech, his economy still sucks, he’s the first prez with a net loss in jobs since the Depression, his gay bashing strategy does not seem to be gaining any traction, he’s got record budget deficits after inheriting a surplus and he still hasn’t caught the guy who killed 3000+ Americans three years ago saturday.
Bush has a long way to go and he has nothing he can run on except stupid fear-mongering ala Cheney.
You’re way too excited about one aberration in a tracking poll, weirddave. The “bounce” you speak of is not really supported by other polls and data.
Just FYI, but the phrase “read 'em and weep,” which you used to lead off your OP, is generally considered to be “crowing” about a victory. It’s the sort of thing you say when you’re playing poker and you lay down a full house. It’s got definite “ha-ha, I win, you lose” conotations to it. At least, that’s how I’ve always read it. Consequently, your OP sounded to me like you were pleased about Bush’s lead in the polls.
I’m not taking any sides in the argument about the accuracy of that poll or any other. I just do words, not numbers.
