MSNBC - Frank Luntz says - if the Prez is not up by at least 3 points in the Polls, he will lose...

[narses]

"He said that due to increased voter registration and the last remaining undecided voters - who tend to break towards the challenger - ..."

Nonsense. That is true EXCEPT for the President, and less true for everyone else every election. As for President, it goes THE OTHER WAY!@

[Torie]

Missouri unfortunately. Kerry has pulled out of that state.

[dc-zoo]

Well I guess we can pray the 5% Ohio lead in the Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll holds up.

[rwfromkansas]

True.

[carton253]

I was getting ready to post the same thing. Good morning, Princess Warrior!

[rintense]

Where are you getting that 50% break for the challenger? As I've said before, Luntz is the only pollster that has undecideds headed to the challenger. That maybe be true in state/congressional races, but not with the Presidential. As for the FNC stats, if 66% don't think we should be changing leadership during a time of war, then this is good news for the President.

[Heff]

Steve...I love Minnesota...was thinking of moving there. I am in the Twin Cities at least twice a year.

Minnesota Nice!!!

[hgro]

What does Luntz rhyme with? Oh yow, DUNCE.

[Preachin']

Sounds like he is totally overlooking the effects that the one-man one-woman ballot initiatives will have, even on states not including them.

The Christian conservatives will be out in droves.

[John Robertson]

"He's wrong. Last minute undecideds break for the incumbent."

Help me out. I've heard this both ways--a thousand times! They break for the challenger in congressional races...but in presidential races, for the incumbent. And many other variations. How do you know they break for the incumbent--I mean, empirically, how do you know?

Not looking for an argument, looking to be reassured. thanks.

[beckysueb]

I heard just the other day that undecideds break for the incumbent. Wish they'd make up their feable minds.

[Julie(LCR)]

A local man called in to a radio talk show this week, reporting that his 4 children have grown and moved to other states, but their names still appear on the voter logs and every year, someone votes for them. He said he has been fighting it for years but can not get their names off. The conservative host was going to do some work on it.

The election process scares me. It is ridiculous to have an honor system in place when one party is blatantly dishonorable. If these thinly disguised commies get in office , how will we ever get them out with this crooked system?

Does anyone know why the conservatives haven't taken this on yet? I am EXTREMELY pro-life, but I honestly think this fight is even more important.

[hobson]

The historical data is post on THIS thread here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250538/posts?page=55#55

[epow]

He says this factor will favor Kerry, making up ground for Kerry by about 0.5%. He says that the remaining undecided voters breaking for the challenger will give Kerry another 2.5%.

I think Bush will need at least a true 3% lead just to offset Democrat vote fraud. I won't feel comfortable on 11/2 unless an average of the major polls shows him up by at least 5 points at that time.

I just hope the Bush people know what they're up against, and are ready to fight tooth and nail when it happens. Our election laws have been rigged heavily in the Democrat's favor, CA being the prime example, and as a result vote fraud is much easier to pull off. I saw it happen in 1960 when Joe Kennedy bought the White House for his son, and ridiculously lax registration and voting laws make it much easier to do now than it was then. In addition, George Soros has many times as much money as Joe Kennedy had and he is determined to see Bush run out of office.

Folks, I am really, really afraid that we are going to see Kerry sworn into office next January solely because of vote fraud. And I'm wondering if the Bush campaign is taking this threat seriously enough. Forget the stupid polls, concentrate on stopping the fraud because that's where this election will be won or lost.

[HawaiianGecko]

	>>> Where are you getting that 50% break for the challenger? <<< I have no clue what you are referring to with respect to 50%.  I didn't post anything using that number or anything close to it. >>> As I've said before, Luntz is the only pollster that has undecideds headed to the challenger. <<< I'm impressed that you've said that before, but since I posted two different articles by the Gallup organization where their Editor in Chief Frank Newport claims that undecideds break for the challenger, including URL's for those statements, it makes your statement false. Therefore, I am no longer impressed with your argument. I hope you're correct, as I'd like to see the President stomp Kerry into the ground. My argument that undecideds break for the challenger was to demonstrate that a chart posted by a NON-POLLING organization, specifically dalythoughts.com, might not be correct and people shouldn't necessarily take the data of a blogger over the data of a polling organization that has been around for over seventy years. The guy may be right, but just putting a bunch of numbers into a chart and preaching it to the choir doesn't make it correct. IN FACT at the bottom of the daythoughts.com page that has the aforementioned chart he references this article http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/3/22294/96534 that clearly says that 72% of undecideds vote for the challenger.  Incumbent Rule Research Update by Chris Bowers Lately, I have been spouting off about how undecideds tend to break about 60% for the challenger and 40% for the incumbent in the final week of the campaign. I was basing this off of a quick estimate from research I had done five weeks ago. However, I had never actually sat down and crunched the numbers to truly determine the average undecided swing in the final week of a campaign in elections involving an incumbent. Now I have, and that is one Friday afternoon and evening that I will never get back. Using my own research as well as research sent to me by Nick Panagakis of the National Council on Public Polls, I have gone through 451 poll results since 1976. In all 451 cases, the poll was in the field for at least one day that was within seven days of the election. In every case, it was the final poll taken by the polling firm for the campaign in question. Also, I do not believe that any internal or partisan poll results were used. Unfortunately, outside of the Presidential race, I was severely lacking in data from 1996. My methodology worked as follows: 1. Subtract the final poll result for the incumbent from the actual election result for the incumbent to determine the total number of points the incumbent gained from the final poll until the election. Total all 451 of these results to determine the total number of points all incumbents gained from all final polls until the election. 2. Subtract the final poll result for the challenger from the actual election result for the challenger to determine the total number of points the challenger gained from the final poll until the election. Total all 451 of these results to determine the total number of points all challenges gained from all final polls until the election. 3. Take the total from step #1 and add it to the total from step #2. Divide this total into both the result from step #1 and step #2 to determine the relative gain for the incumbent and the challenger. The results were as follows: Year Polls Und. Inc. Chal. President 28 2.4 14% 86% 1976-88 155 11.8 20% 80% 1994 101 11.2 35% 65% 1998 76 10.1 27% 73% 2000 31 8.6 40% 60% 2002-4 60 7.5 42% 58% 1992-04 283 8.9 34% 66% Total 451 9.7 28% 72% In fact, the author of the article, some guy named Dale (I think) gives the following as his complete profile on his blogging site: (bottom of the page http://www.dalythoughts.com/Update-05-26-04.htm click on the statement My Election Analysis: Whither The Undecideds  Then in the green box that says "About Me" click on View My Complete Profile owner Age: 31 Gender: male Astrological Sign: Capricorn Born in the Year of the: Rat Now, I don't know about you, but I am personally leery of people that claim to be born in the year of the rat.

[Dudoight]

For Crying out loud. Even an idiot would know what you meant...don't apologize. Next thing you know, we will be getting grades and a report card....out of place here in my opinion.

[Primetimedonna]

Does he have any suggestions of WHICH poll Bush will need to up by 3 in? Seems there are always ones showing him down!

[petercooper]

Personally, I don't think there "really" are undecided voters at this point in time this year.

I don't buy all this undecided crap either. If you are undecided at this point, you are a schmuck. I have more respect for Kerry voters- at least they can make up their minds- even though they are liberal losers.

[pdubs]

Ummmm...Not sure what to make of that. What you see at the bottom are the most recent references to his page, which I guess is linked from MyDD and from my site (My Election Analysis). It's automatic; he doesn't put it up there.

At any rate, that's my profile you see, not Dales'. And my blog is in no way related to his site other than my stealing data and occasional poll results from him. Please don't confuse us, as he's much smarter than I am. As for the year of the rat, what can I say, I didn't choose the year I was born. However, I was curious, and looked up what my Chinese horoscope actually meant. There could be worse fates . . . http://www.c-c-c.org/chineseculture/zodiac/Rat.html.

Cheers.

[HawaiianGecko]

lol, it was in response to a guy "rintense" that kept saying that Frank Luntz was the only pollster to say the "undecideds break for the challenger." I posted links to other pollsters that disagreed with him and he just kept repeating himself like he was god or something. (or at least that Gallup wasn't a polling organization)...

Either way, yeah, I had you confused. Since your site was posted a couple of times in this thread and since it had the exact same chart, I assumed it was this guy Dales' site. I certainly wasn't picking on you or Dale for that matter, I felt like I was pushing a rope in this thread just trying to get a point across that there are other reputable pollsters around that disagree.