New L.A. Times Poll
...shows President Bush ahead for the first time...
Some notes of caution for Bush supporters:
1) The track record of the L.A. Times poll is notoriously awful. They are consistently off, though usually they tend to oversample Democrats and so end up skewing results toward Democrats.
2) The L.A. Times is itself practically a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. It wouldn't be surprising that the poll results - coming so close to the start of the RNC convention - are purposely skewed so that the paper can claim that he got no bounce coming out of it. Judgment will have to be withheld following the convention to see how the paper plays it, but this is not at all unlikely.
3) The poll is of "adults" - approximately 10% of which aren't even registered voters. This means that their opinions are irrelevant. If you're not going to vote on November 2nd then who cares what you think? The most accurate polls tend to be of "likely voters" - but, again, given the L.A. Times track record on polling even that would be suspect.
To sum it up: we'll have to wait and see how this shakes out. Because of L.A. Times shoddy record and naked partisanship, I wouldn't be suprised to see Bush's lead either identical - or even less - coming out of the convention: all for the sake of downplaying any positive momentum Bush is likely to gain if he gets a bounce.
Let's see how this plays out...
Some notes of caution for Bush supporters:
1) The track record of the L.A. Times poll is notoriously awful. They are consistently off, though usually they tend to oversample Democrats and so end up skewing results toward Democrats.
2) The L.A. Times is itself practically a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. It wouldn't be surprising that the poll results - coming so close to the start of the RNC convention - are purposely skewed so that the paper can claim that he got no bounce coming out of it. Judgment will have to be withheld following the convention to see how the paper plays it, but this is not at all unlikely.
3) The poll is of "adults" - approximately 10% of which aren't even registered voters. This means that their opinions are irrelevant. If you're not going to vote on November 2nd then who cares what you think? The most accurate polls tend to be of "likely voters" - but, again, given the L.A. Times track record on polling even that would be suspect.
To sum it up: we'll have to wait and see how this shakes out. Because of L.A. Times shoddy record and naked partisanship, I wouldn't be suprised to see Bush's lead either identical - or even less - coming out of the convention: all for the sake of downplaying any positive momentum Bush is likely to gain if he gets a bounce.
Let's see how this plays out...
posted by Jim | 11:24 PM
<< Home