Bush Approvals on the rebound

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would help if some of the more reliable polling companies had a new poll out.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We have three and they are tending in the same direction.

Do you remember the Gallup and Newsweek polls from right before the election? As, for Fox that's self-explanatory. Look, here's another junk poll, and it has Bush's ratings flat, or very slightly down.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I keep forgetting that polls are only worth a darn if Bush is at or below 40.

Yes, if he's below 40, they're unassailable.  If he's over 40, they're garbage.  Glad to see you've got it down.

Check out the Gallup polls from OH, PA, and FL from right before the election and get back to me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I keep forgetting that polls are only worth a darn if Bush is at or below 40.

Yes, if he's below 40, they're unassailable.  If he's over 40, they're garbage.  Glad to see you've got it down.

Check out the Gallup polls from OH, PA, and FL from right before the election and get back to me.

why don't you just tell me your conclusion

Florida: Kerry +3
Ohio: Kerry +4
Pennsylvania: Bush +4

That's outside the MOE on all 3, and they got all 3 wrong. The odds of that are 2.5%^3 = about 0.001625%

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I keep forgetting that polls are only worth a darn if Bush is at or below 40.

Yes, if he's below 40, they're unassailable.  If he's over 40, they're garbage.  Glad to see you've got it down.

Check out the Gallup polls from OH, PA, and FL from right before the election and get back to me.

why don't you just tell me your conclusion

Florida: Kerry +3
Ohio: Kerry +4
Pennsylvania: Bush +4

That's outside the MOE on all 3, and they got all 3 wrong. The odds of that are 2.5%^3 = about 0.001625%

I see.  Lots of people messed up on polling in the 2004 election.  I think caller ID has made accurate polling much more difficult.  People screen their calls much more than before now, and it is much more difficult for a non-friend to get through to a person.  This has to have an impact on the randomness of the polls, since having to rely on those who are willing to take calls from strangers, or unable to screen calls, probably skews the polls in unpredictable ways.

The point is they messed up all 3 of the big battleground states, being outside of the 95% confidence level on all of them, and those weren't the only ones they screwed up. They had Bush +8 in Wisconsin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So they leaned away from Bush in the 2 most important battlegrounds?

I see.

What is a reliable poster then?

Gallup was outside of the MOE, and had the wrong person up in all of the 3 most important states.

SUSA and Mason Dixon seemed to do much better. Hell, even those clowns at Rasmussen did much better. Scanning through those polls.

FL: All pretty close
OH: All very close
PA: All very close
WI Mason-Dixon close
IA: SUSA, Mason-Dixon within MOE
MN: Rasmussen sort of close
MI: SUSA, Rasmussen somewhat close
MO: SUSA, Mason-Dixon fairly close
NM: Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon too pro-Bush, but within MOE
NV: SUSA and Rasmussen too pro-Bush, but within MOE

Those pollsters were in the MOE 21 out of 21 times, which is better than chance. They may have used weighting to help here. Only the SUSA NV poll was borderline.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ok.

SUSA and MD haven't had a new poll for a long time.
Not inciting argument, just sayin'

If we would rather go by those polls, then we don't really know anything right now.

Additional Options...er, the results of the other ones are encouraging for people like me.

Also, I am confused by your aversion to the FOX News poll.  I do consider the source ( I never watch the channel); but it says nothing about their public opinion polling.  If the polling was a shill for Bush, then they wouldn't have let him get down to 41%.

etc.

Well, in any case, it would be usefull to have more polls out so that bad polling agencies don't screw up the statistics.