You are wrong on the facts, you are wrong in your conclusions. Here is the proof. Read it and weep flappy.
Here is the zogby table of polling results, just as I said, Bush with a small lead until just before the election
zogby.com
----------
Here is the news release, midnight before the election. In this one we show that +1000 polls are not rare, as you stated, we show that the polls did not have Bush up by 6-7 points, as you stated, and proves exactly what I have said - Zogby called it a tie.
Last updated: 06 Nov 2000 23:54 GMT (Reuters)
By Alan Elsner, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Al Gore took a narrow two-percentage-point lead over Republican George W. Bush in Monday's Reuters/MSNBC national tracking poll, meaning the presidential race remained within the margin of error on the eve of Election Day.
Gore, the vice president, led Texas Gov. Bush 48-46 percent on the back of a strong 48 hours of polling. Bush had led, but never by more than five points, for the past 11 days in a row.
Other polls showed Bush with a narrow lead of up to four points, though the Gallup poll suggested movement toward Gore in the past 24 hours. Previous close presidential elections have swung decisively in the final hours of the campaign.
The Reuters/MSNBC national survey of around 1,200 voters likely to take part in Tuesday's election, conducted Saturday through Monday by pollster John Zogby, also found support for Green Party nominee Ralph Nader slipping to 4 percent; Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne polled 1 percent; Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan slipped below 1 percent.
The statistical margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points means the race is too close to call.
With the national poll this close, attention is focused on a few battleground states where the election will be decided. Separate Reuters/MSNBC tracking polls of around 600 likely voters in nine key states showed Gore picking up major momentum in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Washington.
Note that even in the state polls they are interviewing 600 likely voters.
----------------------------
This one, on Nov 2 - again shows a +1000 likely voter poll and a tight race, several days before the election
Bush maintains a narrow lead over Vice President Al Gore CNN/USA/Galllup poll
cnn.com (2100 likely voters).
So much for your theory that +1000 polls are rare. Also it disproves your statement that before the election, it was predicted to be a landslide in GWB favor.
----------------
This one shows tied, 1200 adults, 735 likely voters
cnn.com
--------------------
Here's a good one, 755 registerd voters showing Algore up by 10 pts, So much for your theory that Likely voter polls are too restrictive.
Saturday, September 02, 2000, updated at 10:34(GMT+8)
Gore Leads Bush by 10 Points in National Poll
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore led his Republican rival George W. Bush by 10 percentage points in a national presidential poll released Friday.
The Newsweek poll of 755 registered voters showed that Gore led Bush by 49 to 39 percent, Gore's first significant lead of the 2000 campaign.
----------
You have said that polls showed that GWB was up 6-7 points 72 hours before the election. Wrong. The polls showed a statistical tie.
You have said that +1000 polls are rare. Wrong, they are quite common around election time.
You have said that likely voter polls are to restrictive and thus not accurate. Wrong. All the professional pollsters disagree with you. And the likely voter polls have proven to be reasonably accurate.
So everything you have said is proven to be wrong.
Go ahead, tell me that I am not up to speed on the subject and do not understand scientific sampling. |
