Early Polls Don't Really Mean Much.

[12th Doctor]

Just to put all these early polss that show Kerr ahead by 6% here or Bush ahead by only 3% there, I want to give you some other numbers off the top of my head to show why early polls don't mean much:

In 1960, 92% of American's thought that we would have a man on Mars by 1990!

In 1960, 75% of American's thought that we would have colonies on the moon by 1980!

In 1970, 78% of people thought that the 21st century would be charecterized by the on going struggle between the US and the Soviet Union!

In 1955, 89% of all people thought that we would have a cure for cancer by 1990!

These are just few examples of early polls that were way-off.  So all the polls that come out before the summer should be taken with a grain of salt unless they show very wide margins in the race.

[12th Doctor]

Just to put all these early polss that show Kerr ahead by 6% here or Bush ahead by only 3% there, I want to give you some other numbers off the top of my head to show why early polls don't mean much:

In 1960, 92% of American's thought that we would have a man on Mars by 1990!

In 1960, 75% of American's thought that we would have colonies on the moon by 1980!

In 1970, 78% of people thought that the 21st century would be charecterized by the on going struggle between the US and the Soviet Union!

In 1955, 89% of all people thought that we would have a cure for cancer by 1990!

These are just few examples of early polls that were way-off.  So all the polls that come out before the summer should be taken with a grain of salt unless they show very wide margins in the race.

The only poll that really means anything before the summertime is the Approval rating.  Which is at around 56% for Bush right now.

[12th Doctor]

First off, I was half joking.  "Demonstarting absurdity by being absurd".  But you all understand my point.  It's just too early to proclaim Bush DOA because of some polls.  The 56% comes from the latest Zogby poll I think (could be Gallup) it's not a Fox Poll because I didn't see it on Fox.  

To the Dems: Why do you assume that Bush is going to be the only one engaging in negative campaigning?  The Dems are already doing it with this AWOL crap.  And why do you assume that Bush will have to smear Kerry to win?  Your bias is impossible to ignore, then you land on us for being bias.

To the Republicans:  Oh, ye of little faith.  Why are you getting so pessimistic?  We have a guy here who is (in our oppinion) one of the greatest presidents in 100 years and you are already dicounting him in the election.  Why?  Is this a funeral?  Did someone die?  It's still very early in the campaign and Bush hasn't even started campaigning yet.  Kerry has had a free ride for the past month and whether or not this scandal grabs momentum or not, that is going to change.

So far the race has been the Dem bully punching Bush in the arm at the lunch table.  Sometime here soon, Bush is going to respond and when he does, it will be shock and awe.

[12th Doctor]

Best president of the last 100 years!!! HAHA!!!

I believe my exact words were "ONE of the greatest".  And I also specifically stated from the Republican prospective.

[12th Doctor]

supersoulty is that a picture of u

No, no.  That's a piture of Senator Jim Talent of Missouri.  I think that I look a lot like him though.

[12th Doctor]

I don't think Bush will win like Clinton did in 1996.

No, probably not. This election might be a little unique, actually. When was the last time we had an election where one candidate won clearly, but not overwhelmingly in the PV, and did likeise in the EV?

Carter v Ford 76