RNC

[mraynrand]

Did you notice that not ONE other person was offended, Tex? Imagine that.

[texaspackerbacker]

The latest RCP average has the spread at 3.8 points, so you must have been looking at the NY Times, Washington Post, or Minneapolis Star Tribune poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

BTW, I love it how the Star Tribune almost always inflates the support for the Democrat, and then when their poll is proved wrong on election day, they blame a late surge for the Republican. You'd think they'd learn that it isn't a good strategy.

So, CNN has Obama at +1...does that make them unbiased? I think this election is going to go down to the wire like the past two.

I've kinda flip-flopped back and forth on the degree of intentional wrongness for propaganda value or political gain in polling. There probably isn't any or much. After all, most of the media polls have one supposed conservative organization working together with a liberal one. And Gallup and Rasmussen supposedly are scrupulously unbiased. Just the same, most seem to think it's legitimate to poll more Democrats than Republicans. Also, the wording of questions can obviously make a great deal of difference. At this point, I think competition to appear correct is a stronger motivation than trying to influence outcomes. The shameful exit polling data they put out in "04, however, is a different story.

What I will say with certainty, though, is that the polls are notoriously unreliable. It may be the sample size; It may be procedures; But most likely of all, it is the nature of the people being polled.

We've all heard of the Bradley Syndrome--people telling pollsters they will vote for the black candidate, then doing the opposite. I know from first hand knowledge that something similar is prevalent with hispanics. I've got a Mexican son-in-law who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a black guy, but would never allow himself to appear racist to a pollster ...... and he's hardly exceptional. Add to that the natural human impulse to be 100% certain one day, and just as certain of just the opposite the next day.

I've said all along that as the real unfiltered views, values, and positions of both sides get to the people by way of the convention speeches, ads, and debates, the Dem/lib prospect nosedive and the good guys skyrocket. It happened in 2000; It happened again in 2004; And things are on track for it to happen in 2008--I think by a larger margin this time with the Sarah Palin factor.

Much is being made of the Dems' big push to register new voters. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Palin factor causes more of those newbie to vote for her and McCain than for Obama and ..... what's that old fogie's name?