Zogby was the most accurate pollster in 1996 and 2000. And Rasmussen had 2004 right and all of them are showing Cantwell ahead right now. Outside the margin of error.
And after 2004, with no real change in Zogby's methodology, why should we trust him again?
I am not disputing that Cantwell is probably ahead, so why do you argue that? I am saying that Cantwell is not undefeatable.
And if you go by the pundits if the generic ballot test translates into election victory, the Dems will not lose seats.
I trust individual race polls for individual races more than generic ballot tests. Why shouldn't I?
Look, I can root for my candidate and you can root for yours and we will see who is right on elections day.
I am a Cantwell supporter, and for the last time,
that is, and should be, irrelevant to my interpretation of the polling.
Right now the Bush poll numbers in the state at 36% doesn't translate into a republican victory at this time.
Nor does it translate into a Democratic victory, necessarily.
Yea, you say that Republican registraints and Democratic registraints aren't public yet but as a whole, because WA is a Democratic state, there are alot more Democratic registraints than republican registraints.
And Oklahoma has more Democrats, yet Coburn won.
As far as LV/RV, you get a different result if you use either one. Usually, Dems usually do better on likely voters than do registered voters. It all depends on turnout and I think that because Wa is a Democratic state and it is unfavorable to Bush you will get Cantwell winning. This race is going to be close.
Do you have proof for Democrats doing better with LV than RV? I often hear it is the opposite, as moderate to moderate-high voting turnout tends to help the GOP.
As for the presidential level, the same people that voted for Kerry are not going to drop their support and vote for McGavick. Anyway Dems outnumber Republicans in the state so with party registration in the state I give the edge to Cantwell.
You forget the Green.
And Strategic Vision usually go by the more conservative sample and Zogby go by the more liberal sample. It all depends on where you poll in the state. And just like Zogby was off Strategic Vision had its bad points as well.
But their methodology is not as basely flawed as Zogby's. Where has Strategic Vision screwed up as much as Zogby? Provide citations.