Missouri Primary (Event)

[© tweed]

Unfortunately they seem to be the only companies doing tracking polls...

I realize that you have all heard this time and time again, but the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

Say what you want to say, but a 42-17% lead is a big lead.  I can't see anonther poll being released today that shows Edwards within 15% of Kerry in Mizzo.

[jravnsbo]

Zogby has been way off i agree, so much for his thought in Cal gov race and NH.  

I think ARG is about the best.  But I stand by my thought I'd rather there not be any polls, let the people decide.

Unfortunately they seem to be the only companies doing tracking polls...

I realize that you have all heard this time and time again, but the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

Say what you want to say, but a 42-17% lead is a big lead.  I can't see anonther poll being released today that shows Edwards within 15% of Kerry in Mizzo.

[© tweed]

Zogby has been way off i agree, so much for his thought in Cal gov race and NH.  

I think ARG is about the best.  But I stand by my thought I'd rather there not be any polls, let the people decide.

All of the pre-caucus polls in Iowa showed Kerry with a slim lead over Dean, Edwards, and Gephardt.  So they were both "way off", I guess.

In NH, all were fairly close, but ARG was nearly dead on.  They had Kerry 35-Dean 25-Edwards 15-Clark 13.  Pretty close.

You can't have no polls, how the hell do you run a campaign without polls.

[jravnsbo]

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

Zogby has been way off i agree, so much for his thought in Cal gov race and NH.  

I think ARG is about the best.  But I stand by my thought I'd rather there not be any polls, let the people decide.

All of the pre-caucus polls in Iowa showed Kerry with a slim lead over Dean, Edwards, and Gephardt.  So they were both "way off", I guess.

In NH, all were fairly close, but ARG was nearly dead on.  They had Kerry 35-Dean 25-Edwards 15-Clark 13.  Pretty close.

You can't have no polls, how the hell do you run a campaign without polls.

[© tweed]

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

They should influence people, for example:  Michael Moore, a 2000 Nader supporter, said that the people in the swing states should vote for Gore, but the people in the non-battleground states should vote Nader to help him get the 5%.  

[Gustaf]

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

They should influence people, for example:  Michael Moore, a 2000 Nader supporter, said that the people in the swing states should vote for Gore, but the people in the non-battleground states should vote Nader to help him get the 5%.  

It's a slightly condescending view towards the voters. Also, why should politicians be allowed to have information and not share it with their electorate. Sounds like a fishy situation to me...and as MiamiU points out, polls allow people to make more informed decisions. We just have to assume that they can handle that freedom of choice, like we let them decide so many other things.

[jravnsbo]

people have said int he past they vote for the winner, rather than the guy that is close.  Seen it many times, was not meant to be condescending, just fact.

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

They should influence people, for example:  Michael Moore, a 2000 Nader supporter, said that the people in the swing states should vote for Gore, but the people in the non-battleground states should vote Nader to help him get the 5%.  

It's a slightly condescending view towards the voters. Also, why should politicians be allowed to have information and not share it with their electorate. Sounds like a fishy situation to me...and as MiamiU points out, polls allow people to make more informed decisions. We just have to assume that they can handle that freedom of choice, like we let them decide so many other things.

[© tweed]

people have said int he past they vote for the winner, rather than the guy that is close.  Seen it many times, was not meant to be condescending, just fact.

So, what's wrong with that?  you can't tell people how to vote.  They can vote the way they want to vote.  Stating otherwise is an infringment on democracy.

[Gustaf]

Well, I've heard that if someone starts picking up in polls it can create a band-wagon effect, so it can work both ways. I have definitely seen a lot of that. I think that openness to the voters is important.

people have said int he past they vote for the winner, rather than the guy that is close.  Seen it many times, was not meant to be condescending, just fact.

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

They should influence people, for example:  Michael Moore, a 2000 Nader supporter, said that the people in the swing states should vote for Gore, but the people in the non-battleground states should vote Nader to help him get the 5%.  

It's a slightly condescending view towards the voters. Also, why should politicians be allowed to have information and not share it with their electorate. Sounds like a fishy situation to me...and as MiamiU points out, polls allow people to make more informed decisions. We just have to assume that they can handle that freedom of choice, like we let them decide so many other things.

[jravnsbo]

good word, band wagon effect.  Yes that summarizes nicely what I am trying to say.

Well, I've heard that if someone starts picking up in polls it can create a band-wagon effect, so it can work both ways. I have definitely seen a lot of that. I think that openness to the voters is important.

people have said int he past they vote for the winner, rather than the guy that is close.  Seen it many times, was not meant to be condescending, just fact.

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

They should influence people, for example:  Michael Moore, a 2000 Nader supporter, said that the people in the swing states should vote for Gore, but the people in the non-battleground states should vote Nader to help him get the 5%.  

It's a slightly condescending view towards the voters. Also, why should politicians be allowed to have information and not share it with their electorate. Sounds like a fishy situation to me...and as MiamiU points out, polls allow people to make more informed decisions. We just have to assume that they can handle that freedom of choice, like we let them decide so many other things.

[Gustaf]

Wow, I introduced you to an English expression? Made my day, lol...

good word, band wagon effect.  Yes that summarizes nicely what I am trying to say.

Well, I've heard that if someone starts picking up in polls it can create a band-wagon effect, so it can work both ways. I have definitely seen a lot of that. I think that openness to the voters is important.

people have said int he past they vote for the winner, rather than the guy that is close.  Seen it many times, was not meant to be condescending, just fact.

but why do the polls have to be published?

They can influnce people.  Well I'll just be a sheep and vote for the winner mentality.  Many people do that as they want a winner and don't want to upset the apple cart.

They should influence people, for example:  Michael Moore, a 2000 Nader supporter, said that the people in the swing states should vote for Gore, but the people in the non-battleground states should vote Nader to help him get the 5%.  

It's a slightly condescending view towards the voters. Also, why should politicians be allowed to have information and not share it with their electorate. Sounds like a fishy situation to me...and as MiamiU points out, polls allow people to make more informed decisions. We just have to assume that they can handle that freedom of choice, like we let them decide so many other things.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

ARG isn't as bad as the others (although I remember it making a hash of the 2000 GOP NH primary), but I would trust a poll of 12 drunken farmers over a Zogby poll...

[opebo]

Kerry will win MO in the primary, but lose it handily in the general.

[© tweed]

Kerry will win MO in the primary, but lose it handily in the general.

Agreed.  Unless he slams Gephardt a spot on the ticket.

[© tweed]

Exit poll for MO:

Kerry 52%
Edwards 23%
Dean 10%

[Gustaf]

Exit poll for MO:

Kerry 52%
Edwards 23%
Dean 10%

Another expected result. Good showing by Edwards though.

[opebo]

Kerry will win MO in the primary, but lose it handily in the general.

Agreed.  Unless he slams Gephardt a spot on the ticket.

Nah, that won't do it - everyone outside his district dislikes him and is rather embarrassed by him.  He'd win the same urban 48% of the state for Kerry that any Democrat would.

[Gustaf]

Kerry will win MO in the primary, but lose it handily in the general.

Agreed.  Unless he slams Gephardt a spot on the ticket.

Nah, that won't do it - everyone outside his district dislikes him and is rather embarrassed by him.  He'd win the same urban 48% of the state for Kerry that any Democrat would.

I still think that it's very likely that MO will vote for the eventual winner, like they have in the past. It's been close enough in previous elections for that to happen.

[zachman]

Polls are the best explanation for Kerry's victory in NH. Once again, I should repeat  I have meet several Dean, Clark and Edwards supporters, even a Kucinich supporter, but not a single Kerry supporter. I hate how the analysts try to interpret exit polls. This primary is not about issues its about attitudes and electability!

How did Clark get so much less support than Edwards did? Which candidates advertised here?

As a former Clark supporter, I was rooting against him yesterday. The town hall meeting supporters who went to see different candidates split here between either Clark or Edwards. The media hates Clark, and Edwards is the only one who was still untried. Clark is currently Edward's top priority. Clark's campaign is clearly doomed, he is a great guy, but is not winning the support he needs. Please vote John Edwards.  

[ElectionAtlas]

Missouri primary county and CD maps are now on-line.

[© tweed]

Missouri primary county and CD maps are now on-line.

Thanks!  Not a multi-colored map, however