Replies

You may be right on that point, but it still doesn't matter. You nor I know why Newsweek and Time decided to weigh their poll the way they did. This is like trying to rebuild a nuclear reactor without ever having taken Calculus. Pointless. You simply don't know WHY that weighting is there. It could be based on any number of reasons derived of historical data or something else. You're just automatically assuming that they're wrong for using that weighting but you have absolutely no factual basis for asserting that. The point is that we don't have enough information right now to resolve this conflict between the polls.

Hmm. Not really sure what to say back to you here? - I think the fact is we both want GWB to win - We both know the "MO" is on our side - But with that, we still both have to stay consistent and look for the facts and truth (that is what makes us different then the Dem's.....facts matter to us) -

And with that notion - We can honestly say that when a poll shows an over-sampling of Rep's.....(that in the horse-race section of this poll.....the results are skewed somewhat) -

They are certainly not accurate - And then we can adjust their weightings to a more historically accurate weighting and see what the results of their poll would be closer too -

Thus looking at the NewsWeek poll (and CNN/Time) if you break the numbers down it appears GWB lead is around 5pts or a little more....but not near the 10pt mark - (at least not at this time) -

Lets wait until Gallup and IBD have their new polls out later next week -

Lets wait until Gallup and IBD have their new polls out later next week -

Agreed, and my primary point in all this, but I don't see why my post confused you. You keep asserting that the Reps are oversampled. Just because they used more Reps than Dems does not necessarily mean Reps were oversampled. It's good that you like facts, so let me try to explain it with a specific example, as opposed to a general thesis. Suppose Reps lie about their choice more often than Dems - JUST SUPPOSE - and suppose that Newsweek KNOWS this from historical data. Lets also suppose Newsweek KNOWS what value to ascribe to this dishonesty phenomenon. Then it is NOT the case that they have oversampled JUST because they called more Reps. Remember, that's just one example. There could be any number of factors like that. But the point is that YOU don't know what they are, Newsweek does. So you can't legitimately do what you're trying to do, that is, make assumptions without all the relevant information. By delving into the internals of something you really know nothing about you're just tripping over yourself.