The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> MORE DATA br> Re: Robert Stacy McCain's Live by the Poll, Die by the Poll : /p>

Can you really invoke Hillary Clinton? It's not so much that she got behind in the polls, but that her strategy stunk, fueled by her and her husband's assumption that she was entitled to win and the apparent dislike of them both within the Democrat party that neither apparently saw or understood.

As for the polls now? Given that it appears that some have been cooked liberally with essence of Obama to give unbelievable numbers, who can trust any of them -- except those, perhaps, that do show McCain in the lead or essentially even with Obama?

p>After all, that goes against all the MSM-promoted fantasy that voters absolutely love Obama and that he is actually now president with one teensy-weensy glitch -- he has yet be nominated and elected. br> -- C. Kenna Amos br> Princeton, West Virginia /p>

Polling is not an exact science? I disagree. Polling as done in America is not a science, it's a scam. Seriously. You call less than 1,000 people who agree to be polled and this is supposed to represent the over-all desires of over three hundred million people? Does anyone really think these things are accurate? Most of them tell us they have a margin of error of 3-5 points. In a poll where the results over in the mid forties, that's as much as a ten percent margin of error. The difference between the two Gallup polls mentioned is more than twenty-five percent.

p>No, I would say that polling is not exact, and it's certainly not a science.

topics:
John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Global Warming, Constitution, Africa, Socialism