I believe the polls in 2000 and 2004 also had Gore and Kerry way ahead too at this time. We shall see. Many polls had Gore and Kerry significantly ahead up to the last week. Sort of like I explain to the team I coach, while it is nice to be recognized at the top in the poll, the most important time to be at the top of the poll is at the end not the beginning...

In 2004 at least, that's not even close to being true.

 

Bush led the poll average from the last week of August on in 2004, and led most of June.

 

For the record, since Gore won the popular vote in 2000, I wouldn't say that polls showing him with a lead that Summer were exactly discredited... although I can't find any aggregate polling data on that one

Oh no, I guess McCain should just drop out now. Lord knows this means he has no chance of winning now.

QUOTE=02Ram54;2861630]In 2004 at least, that's not even close to being true.

 

Bush led the poll average from the last week of August on in 2004, and led most of June.

 

 

For the record, since Gore won the popular vote in 2000, I wouldn't say that polls showing him with a lead that Summer were exactly discredited... although I can't find any aggregate polling data on that one

 

Not even close to being true???

 

You are citing the LA Times in your post, then you speak to my post and refer to an average of polls. You are citing the LA Times so compare apples to apples. LA Times in 2004 had Kerry ahead in March, in June, and in July (evidently they did not do a poll in April or May because I can not find it and it is not on Real Clear Politics).

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_vs_kerry_historical.html

 

Then you refer to popular vote in 2000??? Where did I mention the outcome of the election??? I am speaking of the polls and comparing the time frame and the LA Times. I do not have internet data but if memory serves in 2000 election Bush ran very high in late 1999 against Gore due to some of the Clinton impeachment backlash. By July many of the polls gave Gore the edge (I am sure the LA Times did). My point is consider the poll and the time. Not necessarily the best indicator on who is going to win the election.

 

Since you brought up 2000... Gore lost the 2000 election because he did not carry his home state... Even Dukakis won Massachusetts in the landslide in 1988. Even Mondale won Minnesota in the demolition in 1984. Even Carter won Georgia in the 1980 massacre. Even McGovern won Massachusetts in 1972. If you can not carry your home state, come on... I wonder if any presidential candidate has not won their home state outside of Gore??? Possibly Goldwater in 1964???

In 2004 at least, that's not even close to being true.

 

Bush led the poll average from the last week of August on in 2004, and led most of June.

 

For the record, since Gore won the popular vote in 2000, I wouldn't say that polls showing him with a lead that Summer were exactly discredited... although I can't find any aggregate polling data on that one

 

Was the DNC convention in July 2004? That would explain Kerry's lead in mid July

There is a long way to go in this campain but I believe this election is Obamas to lose!

 

True, and he's just the guy who can do it. Luckily for him, McCain just may be the guy who can't win it also.

Was the DNC convention in July 2004? That would explain Kerry's lead in mid July

 

Convention was July 26th to the 29th. The swiftboat stuff and flip/flopping tag happened after that, which pushed Bush back ahead.

Convention was July 26th to the 29th. The swiftboat stuff and flip/flopping tag happened after that, which pushed Bush back ahead.

 

The group that put out the "Unfit For Command" book against Kerry is releasing one, "The Case Against Obama" in August of this year I believe...Hopefully it has the same effect.

I think I'll vote anyway.....

Generally, yes, but with the enthusiasm levels for Obama and current level of politicization in pop-culture, I think a wise pollster is weighting them heavier than they would historically.

That is one explanation. Another explanation is that the LA Times and Newsweek both lean hard left and understand that sampling registered voters will exaggerate Obama's lead.

Good for Obama. Hope the polls are a reflection of the election.

That is one explanation. Another explanation is that the LA Times and Newsweek both lean hard left and understand that sampling registered voters will exaggerate Obama's lead.

:thumb:

Not even close to being true???

 

You are citing the LA Times in your post, then you speak to my post and refer to an average of polls. You are citing the LA Times so compare apples to apples. LA Times in 2004 had Kerry ahead in March, in June, and in July (evidently they did not do a poll in April or May because I can not find it and it is not on Real Clear Politics).

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_vs_kerry_historical.html

 

Then you refer to popular vote in 2000??? Where did I mention the outcome of the election??? I am speaking of the polls and comparing the time frame and the LA Times. I do not have internet data but if memory serves in 2000 election Bush ran very high in late 1999 against Gore due to some of the Clinton impeachment backlash. By July many of the polls gave Gore the edge (I am sure the LA Times did). My point is consider the poll and the time. Not necessarily the best indicator on who is going to win the election.

 

Since you brought up 2000... Gore lost the 2000 election because he did not carry his home state... Even Dukakis won Massachusetts in the landslide in 1988. Even Mondale won Minnesota in the demolition in 1984. Even Carter won Georgia in the 1980 massacre. Even McGovern won Massachusetts in 1972. If you can not carry your home state, come on... I wonder if any presidential candidate has not won their home state outside of Gore??? Possibly Goldwater in 1964???

You said polls, with an 's', meaning multiple, in your post. I apologize for the confusion.

You said polls, with an 's', meaning multiple, in your post. I apologize for the confusion.

 

You are right, misused the plural there. Should have been more specific.

I thought a Sunday morning pundit hit the nail on the head.

 

John McCain cannot win this race.

BUT Obama CAN LOSE it.

Oh no, I guess McCain should just drop out now. Lord knows this means he has no chance of winning now.

 

Sage advice.