Posted on 10/19/2004 7:39:42 PM PDT by TBBT
well, there's a sunburst of an original thought.
well hopefully he is right because the pres is up 7 in national polls
w2004
ciao
I think Frank IS factoring in fraud when he said the "new voter registration" will give Kerry a .5% edge and undecideds will break for Kerry giving him an additional 2.5%...
These are code words for "You need a cushion to overcome the multiple votes from voter fraud from the Dems"
Bush will win if he's ahead.
There is a reason that Luntz is doing commentary on MSNBC rather than polling for the GOP like he used to do.
Ialways considered him to be rather loosly wrapped.
Are you flip-flopping? ;)
I agree. The President was up by 3 points last time--and it ended up even. By the time you add democratic voter fraud,,,,and an unusually large uneducated/union/minority/gay/muslim/moron turnout--I won't feel confident unless the President is up by 5 points!
Let's see, women and blacks are not polling in accordance with conventional wisdom and conventional wisdom doesn't include the relatively new Republican get out the vote machine. Somehow I hear Luntz, after a Bush victory, that he was really leading by more than 3 thereby protecting his flawed theory.
You are absolutely right. Luntz is either right, or wrong. Same for me. Then again, you may be wrong. In that case, who would be right?
Who's on first? :-D
Actually they were going to break for Kerry before they broke for Bush. This is do to the extended two week polling time set up to facilitate the Kerry fraud plan. In the passed such fraud had to be crammed into a 16 hour window but with the extended window the undecided can slow down long enough to get the spin out of their heads and make an informed decision.
F-R-A-U-D
If Bush is three points ahead in polls, he is 13 points ahead in the real world.
Lovely. All of the illegal registrations they mean. They will get out the vote by passing out money, cigarettes and crack cocaine to steal an election.
undecideds generally break for the challenger in congressional races,
not in presidential elections despite what Mr "20 years" says.
Well they did for Ford in 76, and Reagan in 1984, but didn't for Bush1 in 1992, Clinton in 1996, or Carter in 1980. Generalizations are dangerous here. Generally, if the incumbent has a big lead, the numbers erode down. In a tight election, it really depends on what folks feel in their gut on election day. In this case, many voters are unhappy with both candidates. In the end, it will depend on just how many of them are willing to take a risk on Kerry, about whom they still have doubts, balanced against their dissatisfaction with Bush.
I suspect Luntz is right though, that there will be a larger turnout, and that it will help Kerry, and many of the pollsters, with their models based on past turnout, particularly Gallup, won't pick it up. I suspect that is worth about 1% for Kerry, which means Bush has to be ahead by 2% based on old models, to break even, all other things being equal regarding how the undecideds break at the last moment.
Kerry has a 40% chance of winning IMO, at present.
Here is the thing. Dems bugged people to sign up while I think Republicans were smarter in who they sign up via chruchs, school football games, ect.
The "undecideds break for challenger" is NOT applicable to the presidents race! It's one of those talking points that gets repeated and people begin to believe the MYTH!
I'll believe Karl Rove over Mr. I'll-say-what-my-sponsors-want to-hear-Luntz any day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.