Interesting contradiction (CNN website screenshot)

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

The remarkable difference between their "scientific" survey and the real world. (The chart is from their online poll.)

[Longhorn]

1. So even if 100,000 of those Kerry votes are trumped up due to

political activists (such as DU'ers), he'd still be leading two to one. How can they ignore those results or believe the results they're getting from their "scientific" polls?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

3. What I find really amazing is

CNN actually left the online poll stats UP this time. The first debate saw them pull it and replace it with a nonsense question less than an hour after it went up! I guess they figured out we were observing and commenting on it and they didn't dare pull the dirty trick twice in a row.

Justice is served.

[fishwax]

4. those instant internet polls are silly

funny how the media is just now starting to realize it, now that the left is showing out in force to vote in them. But scientific or otherwise, Kerry is definitely coming out ahead.

(and, sorry, but boomer sooner ;):D)

[Demit]

2. A "virtual DRAW"??? I think I'll believe my lyin' eyes, CNN.

[Bandit]

11. Yes isn't that funny..Pundits say a Draw but in none of the polls

do the people express that opinion. Every single poll I visited, no matter whether they had Bush* winning or Kerry, none of them had it as a TIE. In fact none of them had Tie in more than the 3-4 percentile range. I guess the pundits are just so much smarter than the regular people across the nation.:shrug:

[fishwax]

5. The most important scientific poll

which showed how undecideds reacted, showed that Kerry won by a substantial margin. (Not as substantial as the polls on the internets, but substantial enough :))

[clydefrand]

6. Why don't these internet(s) ;-) sites do their quick vote

so that a person can't vote again. It can be done apparently because I've voted on one or more that won't allow a second vote.

Clue me in, you programmers that know about the INTERNETS, why can't they program their site that will prevent multiple votes?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

7. They DO

but the technology is limited. It's usually tied to either your unique IP address or to cookies which can be erased. The IP is more secure, but I'm sure there are ways around that too. In the end, it all comes down to honesty and personal integrity, for what that's worth in politics.

[ocean girl]

8. Fabulous! Thanks for posting that screen shot. Sums it all up, huh?

[truebrit71]

12. What a bunch of unapologetic whores...

..I'm not surprised :eyes:

[KharmaTrain]

9. Oh It's Those DU Bots Again!!!

Yep, all us DU members were turning our computer inside out...tossing cookies, voting, tossing, voting. Sheesh.

I'm no fan of online polls going back to when the term "Freeping" first came about (Will recently posted one of his older articles on the topic)...and someone enterprising can find ways to hack these things. They can also be hacked from inside (did I say that?), which many of us thought was happening back in 2000 & 2002.

I laughed when I read the Freeper string about this last night. Confusion went to circular firing squad mode...encouraging everyone there to vote for Kerry to really screw up these polls.

While I'm not surprised the kool-aid drinkers thought their boy "won" the night, how could anyone else with a modicum of a braincell not have just watched that debate and saw Captain Queeg Bunnypants still blaming those damn strawberries.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

10. Yep, it sure makes ya wanna toss yer cookies

:evilgrin:

[spooky3]

13. "Scientific" sample: 38% R, 32% Dem, 30% I

"The respondents included 515 registered voters who watched the debate. Their political affiliations broke down as 38 percent Republican, 32 percent Democratic and 30 percent independent."

Not too representative of registered voters, is it? But that's Gallup's tendency in every poll.

[Sean Reynolds]

15. The ABC poll sampled more Democrats than Republicans...

[Sean Reynolds]

14. Ok, but can we really believe online polls?

Because 90% of every online poll I've seen as of late has shown either Bush or Kerry winning the 2004 election by at least 20 points. How can you trust that? How can one site show Bush winning the election with a whopping 65% of the vote, while another website shows Kerry winning with 70% of the vote? Does it really change that much? Are all the polls we read about in the newspapers lying and the election won't be close at all?

Face it, these online polls are about as solid as quick sand. Kerry didn't even win the first election by THIS type of landslide, so I don't understand the point you're trying to drive home. The typical 'phone' poll shows that it was a tie. The typical online poll shows it was a blowout either FOR Kerry or Bush (I've seen a few websites that have Bush winning). So? Does this mean the next online poll we see that has Kerry winning the presidential election with 72% of the vote is going to reflect what we'll see on election night? No. I bet you even those phone polls will have a closer number than a typical online poll.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

16. You can trust that the truth will prevail.

If you give up on that hope, you may as well crawl under the floorboards and settle in. I prefer to stay out in the light.