"worthless"?
I thought you were just tossing out menial gripes when I read your comments. If I had realized that you believed your comments made that poll "worthless", I would have set you straight sooner...


Yes, yes. Margin of error. Something that exists for every poll.
That should go without saying, but the importance of it should not neglected.
But by the same token, it should not be misinterpreted.

No. You can't just assume that all the "undecideds" probably think that Bush should not be impeached and include them in with that statistic. That would be an error.
It means they are UNDECIDED. As in they could think one way or another pending further information. If they find out that Bush's efforts were widely and wildly unsuccessful, that could influence them one way. If a court ruling came out that said Bush's actions were constitutional or unconstitutional, that could have a different impact.

And moreover, another error should have been apparent to you if you had added up 52 + 49 to get 101%. Obviously, some rounding took place...

But utilizing the margin of error, and just as "accurately" deciding to place the "undecideds" in with the "impeach Bush" crowd, I could just as accurately claim the results could be 60% for impeaching Bush as compared to 40% not impeaching Bush. Using the very same methods you used, in the other way....


Yeah. Keep telling yourself that....
There is a reason that the results are reported 52% +/- 2.9% vs 43% +/- 2.9% instead of 49% -0%/+6% vs 46% +0%/-6%...
If the margin of error actually causes significant overlap, that's one thing.
But that isn't what we had here...
Even if we use your margin of error, without misrepresenting the "undecideds" as something they are not, we STILL have more people wanting "impeachment" than not.

And in addition, why don't you have any comment on the fact that impeachment proceedings took place for Clinton when A SMALLER MINORITY thought that he should be impeached?
Utilizing the same standards, our "majority" is more than enough to press the issue...
Only 34% thought he should be impeached then, as opposed to 52% now...


It was a fairly close election.
Polls all over the place had different winners with different margins at different times in the election campaigning. This event or that event shifted the political landscape.
This web-site summarizes Zogby's election polling results over time, and the last item posted shows that Zogby predicted BUSH the winner.
Not Kerry as you claim.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

In fact, if you count up the results of the different polls that Zogby did over time, you'll find that they predicted Bush the winner TWENTY TIMES out of a total of 34 listed polls. Kerry came up as the winner ONLY SEVEN times, while they were listed as TYING for seven times as well.
Statistically, that would mean that in 58.8% of their reported results, they said Bush would win. 20.6% of the time, they said Kerry would be the winner, and another 20.6% of the time, they said they were tied.

And almost all of the polls that put Kerry ahead were the EARLY polls. The LATER polls, closer to the election, almost unilaterally said that Bush would win or the occasional "tie".
ONLY ONE poll after October 8th showed Kerry being ahead. Out of TWENTY-TWO POLLS after October 8th, ONLY ONE showed Kerry as a winner.

Next time, get your facts and your math straight...