Not saying it doesn’t represent a snap shot of where things stand, but itsn’t funny that when a poll supports conservatives positions or candidates, no matter the source, it’s suddenly valid, but if it doesn’t then suddenly it’s flawed?
It’s a funny thing known as human nature.
Though, one can make a case for lending more weight to pollsters who have historically been close to the outcome. Rasmussen is one that shouldn’t be discounted. That doesn’t mean you discount every other one. Watching the polls is better for trends anyway than exact numbers.
Thompson making a 3 point move overnight after his announcement is an interesting trend to watch for and see if it happens in other polls. I’m waiting to see what Ras shows though, as he’s been dead on in the last couple elections.
“Not saying it doesn’t represent a snap shot of where things stand, but itsn’t funny that when a poll supports conservatives positions or candidates, no matter the source, it’s suddenly valid, but if it doesn’t then suddenly it’s flawed?”
Sadly, this is a law of politics. Not even just of political forums or of conservatives or liberals. If a poll gives an answer you don’t like, it is a rule to say “polls this early out are meaningless” or “leaders lead, not follow polls.”
When a poll reveals an answer the same reader wants to see, they are very quick to shout it from the mountaintops. It’s natural. Like the people who say “shut up and sing/act” until a singer/actor echoes their viewpoints.
It’s not just a conservative thing. It’s a human nature thing.
There are a large group of polling service I find flawed or unreliable due to inherent bias, and Gallup is one of them.
By that, though, what I mean is that I don't trust the absolute numbers. Guiliani at +12% nationally? Ridiculous. That aside, trends can be important. Even if, for example, I don't necessarily believe their number for Romney is correct, the fact that he's trending down is still important to note.