why poll numbers won't necessarily translate to * votes

[shockingelk]

Everybody is being constantly bombarded with the message "We have to support the president - we're at war! To not do so is unpatriotic!" This makes sense to most Republicans and a lot of independents and some Democrats.

Pretend you're a Republican or independent ... The telephone rings - it's a pollster asking you who you'd vote for today. You think "It's unpatriotic not to support the president - we are at war! I don't like this war, I don't like Bush's amnesty for illegals, the amount of debt we've accrued is unconscionable and the WH is destroying the environment ... but I have to support the president - we are at war!" So you tell the pollster, "*."

Come November, you have the option of making effort to go vote for a war-bungling, illegal alien lovin', deficit spendin' liar who even endorsed a pro-choice candidate in the PA senatorial primary ... or you have the option of sitting this one out.

There is no equivalent among those who told the pollster they'd vote for Kerry - there is no such thing as a "not supporting John Kerry in this time of war is unpatriotic" meme. No reason someone would voice support for Kerry unless they really support him.

[unblock]

1. even better: every president who ever polled over 90% lost re-election

in modern polling history, only the bushes how polled 90%, both at the height of iraqi war fever.

bush the smarter lost. so, from a sample size of one, every president ever to poll as high as 90% went on to lose the next election.

and don't just laugh at this, there are actually very good psychological reasons why this may be far more than a fluke. start with the opposite of the "lowered expectations" phenomenom, for instance.