TIME Poll: Bush opens up double digit lead

[igloo]

Was not expecting this..I thought Bush would get a insignificant bounce....mostly because I thought the Swift Boat saga ate up any potential bounce...but I guess the momentum from the Swifties and the successful convention gave Bush some serious juice....(I wonder if the DNC and Kerry still think their "reporting for duty" convention was wise)

Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader

Friday, Sep. 03, 2004

New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.

Most important issues: When asked what they consider are the most important issues, 25% of registered voters cited the economy as the top issue, followed by 24% who cited the war on terrorism as the top issue. The situation in Iraq was rated the top issue by 17% of registered voters, moral values issues such as gay marriage and abortion were the top issue for 16% of respondents, and health care was the most important issue for 11% of respondents.

Bush vs. Kerry:

The economy: 47% trust President Bush more to handle the economy, while 45% trust Kerry.

Health care: 48% trust Senator Kerry to handle health care issues, while 42% trust Bush.

Iraq: 53% trust Bush to handle the situation in Iraq, while 41% trust Kerry.

Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.

Understanding the needs of people: 47% said they trust Kerry to understand the needs of people like themselves, while 44% trusted Bush to understand their needs.

Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

Tax policy: 49% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 40% trust Kerry.

Commanding the Armed Forces: 54% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 39% said they trust Kerry.

Bush on the Issues:

Iraq: Half (50%) of those surveyed approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 46% disapprove. In last week’s TIME poll, 48% approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq and 48% disapproved.

Terrorism: Almost two thirds (59%) said they approve of how President Bush is handling the war on terrorism, while 38% disapprove. Last week’s TIME poll found 55% approved of Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism, while 40% disapproved.

The Economy: Survey respondents were split on the President’s handling of the economy. Almost half (48%) said the approved of Bush’s handling of the economy, while 48% said the disapproved.

Other results include:

Was U.S. Right Going to War with Iraq? Over half of those surveyed (52%) think the U.S. was right in going to war with Iraq, while 41% think the U.S. was wrong to go to war.

Have the United States’ actions in Iraq made the world safer? Almost half (45%) think the United States’ actions in Iraq have made the world safer, while 45% think the world is more dangerous. In a similar TIME poll taken Aug. 3 – 5, over half (52%) said the world was more dangerous, and 38% said the world was safer.

# # #

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

[jtk4]

yeah there is always a spike after the convention. We must wait for the debates to get any real gauge. As much as people think bush is an idiot he has never lost a debate, so it should be good.

[igloo]

yeah there is always a spike after the convention.

Not exactly.....Kerry shattered that time-tested eventuality......how quickly you Kerry supporters forget that

Various polls showed Kerry getting an insignificant bounce to no bounce to a negative bounce (first time in history).

The DNC "spin" was because the nation was polarized and already made up their minds (which I mostly agree with--I was not expecting Bush to get a traditional bounce either because of this and he already got one from the Swift boat shit)

However it can't be discounted that Kerry had an extremely lackluster DNC acceptance speech------as a matter of fact, polls showed a decline in his approval rating from the day before his speech to the day right after--also a first in the history of tracking that shit.

I will be interested in seeing when the other polls release their numbers.....I would be suprised if there was a bounce as large as the TIME poll......but I now believe there will be a small one.....the GOP has a very good convention, and Bush's speech was politically on point

[BRIANC1046]

who cares about any of these polls? These polls sell newspapers and create stories for news stations.. the nbc poll had Kerry leading 8 days ago.. now you really think after Bush's speech that many people are now voting for Bush? neither poll is accuate.. 900 hundred people... come on..

as we see last yr. the popular vote means nothing anyway..

[igloo]

who cares about any of these polls? These polls sell newspapers and create stories for news stations.. the nbc poll had Kerry leading 8 days ago.. now you really think after Bush's speech that many people are now voting for Bush? neither poll is accuate.. 900 hundred people... come on..

as we see last yr. the popular vote means nothing anyway..

Jerkoff,

While I think there are more polls than we shit, and that polls can certainly be distorting, they do have relevance and applicability, especially when analyzing trends and swings.....and applied against historic data to provide some predictability

And an interesting dynamic that occurred after the DNC convention was there basically was no bounce....a first in history.....

So far, the first couple of polls released show a significant bounce for Bush, (First TIME, now NEWSWEEK being the latest -Bush 54% Kerry 43%). This bounce is what has been traditionally been seen after conventions.

That is certainly an interesting trend vs the lack of bounce for Kerry(remember the lack of Kerry bounce after their convention was explained due to everyone have already made up their minds--which I found completely plausible)

So perhaps the original analysis of the "no Kerry bounce" was incorrect....perhaps there are more undecided's that polls indicate, ironically......perhaps Kerry's speech was a dud (which it was)......perhaps Bush's speech reenergized those to support him who may have jumped ship.....perhaps it simply capitalized on the swift boat momentum to drive a bigger bounce.......perhaps voters are simply getting to know Kerry (both how he defines himself and how others define him) and do not like what they see.....perhaps a lot of things, but nevertheless, an interesting trend....and one that shows momentum for the Bush campaign two months before the election...

Now you mention that NBC had Kerry ahead 8 days ago......and your point is exactly what?.....he was also ahead before the DNC convention, and did not gain much.........which makes this new poll data that more compelling, and shows a very effective Bush convention and a significant shift in patterns.

I am still interested in seeing the other polls, specifically Gallup and Rasmussen, but so far, you can not ignore the preliminary data..

AND BTW.....you mocked the 900 respondents for the poll..........You do realize that ALL polls use similar sample sizes......right?.......Obviously, you do not......you should not speak unless you know what you are talking about.

[jtk4]

no i think he is mocking the polling process. Like who do they poll, what demographic, which states, shit like that. If they just polled conservative states thn yeah he would have a double digit lead. 900 people just does not seem like enough people to make it diverse.

I think that the debates are key.

I should of said usually there is a spike, not there is always a spike.

[igloo]

no i think he is mocking the polling process. Like who do they poll, what demographic, which states, shit like that. If they just polled conservative states thn yeah he would have a double digit lead. 900 people just does not seem like enough people to make it diverse.

.

They don't JUST poll conservatives in GOP states.......it is a cross sampling of various demographics based on scientific polling methodologies......what do you guys think that these pollsters are fucking idiots running two-bit organizations.....jesus christ

C'mon, just because he makes ridiculous, absurd comments does not mean you should support them because the polling data is pro-Bush

Better yet, go research how respectable polling organizations conduct their research....

And to REPEAT....all polling organizations use similar sample sizes.....if you think that in this case, 900 is too small.......that is your call....but the professionals who conduct the polls, and the professionals who use the polling data do not...and I think there is a reason for that (HINT: they know what they are doing)......

And lastly, you can knock polling data all you want, you can not discount what it reveals when it comes from respected polling organizations....

With respects to the debates, we'll see.........If there is two more months of job growth, and Iraq stays relatively quite, I think Kerry would have to absolutely clobber Bush for it to make a big difference....and I doubt that will happen....I expect this debate to basically regurgitate the same shit we have all heard before.....

[mrmatas2277]

reason why Kerry is doing so horrible is...he is boring, unoriginal and flat out a snoozer to hear speak...i have said it before, i think Edwards would have been a better cand. than Kerry...but i agree that the debates are going to be key in many undecided voters...

[jtk4]

I am not mocking the polling process. I was just saying what i thought he was saynig. I would hope they would pol a wide variety of people, even though with 52 states 900 people does not seem right, but hey thats how they make their money right.

You also have to figure these are phone calls, that sucks i would say yes to eerthing just to get off the phone.

[BRIANC1046]

They don't JUST poll conservatives in GOP states.......it is a cross sampling of various demographics based on scientific polling methodologies......what do you guys think that these pollsters are fucking idiots running two-bit organizations.....jesus christ

C'mon, just because he makes ridiculous, absurd comments does not mean you should support them because the polling data is pro-Bush

Better yet, go research how respectable polling organizations conduct their research....

And to REPEAT....all polling organizations use similar sample sizes.....if you think that in this case, 900 is too small.......that is your call....but the professionals who conduct the polls, and the professionals who use the polling data do not...and I think there is a reason for that (HINT: they know what they are doing)......

And lastly, you can knock polling data all you want, you can not discount what it reveals when it comes from respected polling organizations....

With respects to the debates, we'll see.........If there is two more months of job growth, and Iraq stays relatively quite, I think Kerry would have to absolutely clobber Bush for it to make a big difference....and I doubt that will happen....I expect this debate to basically regurgitate the same shit we have all heard before.....

Your article states a random sample was used.. Where do the demographics or any other factors come into play?

Just because they are professionals doesn't mean there right.. Metereologists are professionals and there right about 10% of the time..

and also the company that conducted the poll.. SRBI.. Is known for doing studies on customer satisfaction.. never heard of them doing any studies on politics..

and I honestly don't believe there are many undeceided votes left.. These candidates are too different..

if you respect the polls and surveys.. wait for the gallup.. until then.. don't waste my time..

................................................................................................................................................................................................................

[BRIANC1046]

conducting a poll of 1,000 people in a battleground state such as Pennsylvannia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan would be more significant to me.. thats where the election is won or lost.. in the battleground states..

i mean.. 1,000 undeceided voters from Texas could tell you the convention convinced them to vote for Bush.. but.. Kerry doesn't care about those votes.. He knows he isn't going to win Texas.. Just as Bush has no concern for the undeceided vote in California or Maine..

[igloo]

conducting a poll of 1,000 people in a battleground state such as Pennsylvannia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan would be more significant to me.. thats where the election is won or lost.. in the battleground states..

i mean.. 1,000 undeceided voters from Texas could tell you the convention convinced them to vote for Bush.. but.. Kerry doesn't care about those votes.. He knows he isn't going to win Texas.. Just as Bush has no concern for the undeceided vote in California or Maine..

Now shut the fuck up already you clueless schmuck.....

.

In the sixteen-Battleground States that are likely to determine the winner of Election 2004, President Bush now leads Senator Kerry 48% to 45%.

A week ago, before the Republican National Convention, Kerry was ahead, 47% to 45%. In fact, Kerry has been ahead in the 16-Battleground States for most of the year.

From this point forward, the Battleground State results will be updated every Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Eastern.

This data is based upon interviews conducted over the three nights ending September 3. Every night, Rasmussen Reports interviews 1,000 Likely Voters across the nation to create a three-day rolling average based upon 3,000 Likely Voters. Roughly one-third of all voters live in the sixteen Battleground States.

The 16-Battleground States are Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arizona, Minnesota, Oregon, Iowa, Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Maine, and New Hampshire

The President's improved numbers in these States are just one of many indicators suggesting that the GOP had a successful event in New York.

Forty-four percent (44%) now say the country is going in the Right Direction. That's up from 39% before the Convention.

Fifty-two percent (52%) now expect the Republicans to win, up from 43% following the Democratic Convention

[igloo]

Your article states a random sample was used.. Where do the demographics or any other factors come into play?

Just because they are professionals doesn't mean there right.. Metereologists are professionals and there right about 10% of the time..

and also the company that conducted the poll.. SRBI.. Is known for doing studies on customer satisfaction.. never heard of them doing any studies on politics..

and I honestly don't believe there are many undeceided votes left.. These candidates are too different..

if you respect the polls and surveys.. wait for the gallup.. until then.. don't waste my time..

................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Nice stretch.... you are a FUCKING SCHMUCK, on yet another topic

Do you know what RANDOM SAMPLING means in polling you fucking idiot........DO you have any idea what it means by MARGIN OF ERROR and how they determine that you fucking moron...YOU HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about.....go do some real research on how polling works and shut your clueless mouth up already....

Your bullshit and lack of knowledge is wasting everyone's time....

[BRIANC1046]

first off.. calling people names over the internet is pretty gay if you ask me.. If you insist on calling people names.. do so in person.. don't hide behind your computer..

second.. yes.. I know what a random sample is..your exact quote was " They don't JUST poll conservatives in GOP states.......it is a cross sampling of various demographics based on scientific polling methodologies......what do you guys think that these pollsters are fucking idiots running two-bit organizations.....jesus christ

but no.. this study did not do any cross-sampling.. it did not discuss anything about demographics...

that Rassmusen poll of the battleground states is much more significant in determining a winner of the election

Nice stretch.... you are a FUCKING SCHMUCK, on yet another topic

Do you know what RANDOM SAMPLING means in polling you fucking idiot........DO you have any idea what it means by MARGIN OF ERROR and how they determine that you fucking moron...YOU HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about.....go do some real research on how polling works and shut your clueless mouth up already....

Your bullshit and lack of knowledge is wasting everyone's time....

[igloo]

first off.. calling people names over the internet is pretty gay if you ask me.. If you insist on calling people names.. do so in person.. don't hide behind your computer..

second.. yes.. I know what a random sample is..your exact quote was " They don't JUST poll conservatives in GOP states.......it is a cross sampling of various demographics based on scientific polling methodologies......what do you guys think that these pollsters are fucking idiots running two-bit organizations.....jesus christ

but no.. this study did not do any cross-sampling.. it did not discuss anything about demographics...

that Rassmusen poll of the battleground states is much more significant in determining a winner of the election

First off, I believe those who spew bullshit when they have no clue what they are talking about are fucking morons...like you.

Secondly, go educate yourself on polling and how it is done and how they generate results and data instead of barking. Period. Or, keep going on not knowing what you are talking about. You think it is obviously better, to sit behind your computer, and discredit professionals who know what they are doing, diminish proven methodologies, and discount the reliability of data and how it was derived like someone shit it out of their GOP ass.

Lastly, the Rasmussen data, coupled with the TIME and NEWSWEEK poll all point to a consistent trend that is favorable to Bush, and very alarming to Kerry. ANd speaks volumes about the conventions and their effectiveness. End of story. Whether you like it or not.

To be fair, I do agree with you about the polling in the battleground states. Much more critical. And it is also worth noting that conventions bounces are usually short lived. However, these recent trends can not be ignored.

[BRIANC1046]

well actually.. i just completed my masters thesis.. which was after 4 semesters of graduate research methods.. so, i condider myself semi-knowledgeable about research methods.. how do you think i knew about SRBI.. my professor works for SRBI and i know they are known for consumer surveys.. not political polls.. i still don't consider that survey very significant..

yes, the rasussen poll should be alarming to Kerry. no doubt.. your post did not start with this.. it started with the Time poll.. which has no credibility.. that is all i've been arguing..

and by the way.. a lot of these polls are done by graduate students and even undergraduate students.. ex. Quinnipiac ..

First off, I believe those who spew bullshit when they have no clue what they are talking about are fucking morons...like you.

Secondly, go educate yourself on polling and how it is done and how they generate results and data instead of barking. Period. Or, keep going on not knowing what you are talking about. You think it is obviously better, to sit behind your computer, and discredit professionals who know what they are doing, diminish proven methodologies, and discount the reliability of data and how it was derived like someone shit it out of their GOP ass.

Lastly, the Rasmussen data, coupled with the TIME and NEWSWEEK poll all point to a consistent trend that is favorable to Bush, and very alarming to Kerry. ANd speaks volumes about the conventions and their effectiveness. End of story. Whether you like it or not.

To be fair, I do agree with you about the polling in the battleground states. Much more critical. And it is also worth noting that conventions bounces are usually short lived. However, these recent trends can not be ignored.

[igloo]

well actually.. i just completed my masters thesis.. which was after 4 semesters of graduate research methods.. so, i condider myself semi-knowledgeable about research methods.. how do you think i knew about SRBI.. my professor works for SRBI and i know they are known for consumer surveys.. not political polls.. i still don't consider that survey very significant..

yes, the rasussen poll should be alarming to Kerry. no doubt.. your post did not start with this.. it started with the Time poll.. which has no credibility.. that is all i've been arguing..

and by the way.. a lot of these polls are done by graduate students and even undergraduate students.. ex. Quinnipiac ..

If you have studied research methods, then you SHOULD be more a little more knowledgable on polling methods and everything underneath it....and you certainly have not demonstrated that

I started with the TIME poll because it was the first to come out (or at least teh first I saw). Period. I also stated I was looking forward to seeing the other polls, which I subsequently posted.

If you want to discount the TIME poll your call, but AGAIN, the profesisonals who use these polls are not. If you think the results of the TIME poll are unreliable and not credible, then why is the KERRY TEAM taking the results so seriously? Why the sudden DNC panic, and the Dem leadership urging Kerry to shift tactics?

Do you know know something they don't? Do you think their internal polling process may quite possibly had the same results? DO you think if you call them up, and tell thim you have a professor who works for SRBI, Kerry will gasp a big sigh of relief, and then tell the Clinton political strategists he just hired they are no longer needed? bdanto4 saved the day. (I am obviously overstating things, but I think you get the picture)

If you want to ignore the TIME poll fine, but the TIME poll results are consistent with subsequent polls, are probably aligned with Kerry internal polling numbers, and all indicated a good GOP convention and Bush momentum. Trends and patterns sons, as I indicated.

And I already stated that I look forward to other polls to validate early results, as you never rely on one poll, but that does not mean you discount these polls as "insignificant". That is complete ignorance on your part.

Lastly, many pollsters do use students and volunteers. I actually worked for a polling org (very small one) for a small time. I also have a friend who works in the business. But that does not mean those making the calls are left up to their own devices......you are really ignorant and simply wrong.

DO you really think they put a bunch of kids on some phones without direction, structured questions baked in methodologies, etc???? It was absurd and irrelevant for you to bring that up, and demonstrates that you have no idea what the polling process entails.(let's not forget you questioned the sample size, and then questioned sampling, not knowing that was standard---101 stuff)

You are simply miffed at the poll results.......period. Admit it, is OK

Well, I think we beat this issue to death. I am sure we can agree on that. Either way, the election will be close, very close.

[jtk4]

Seeing as you guys are in the know. I got a question.

Seeing how these are random, do they target different areas (cities, suburbs) to get a deverse amount of people? Then ask the questions regaring income, ethnicity, shit like that.

Or is it just random telephone numbers? Is it people that sign up, is there alist of sorts?

Very interested someone please educate me.

edit for spelling

[BRIANC1046]

jtk4, one of the main reasons i questioned the study was due to the fact that I was wondering the same thing?

the most respectable poll came out today, the gallup, and showed Bush with a very small boost after the convention..

Bush Gets Small Convention Bounce, Leads Kerry by Seven

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup post-Republican convention poll -- the first national poll conducted entirely after the completion of that convention -- shows George W. Bush has received a small increase in voter support. Bush’s share of the vote among likely voters increased by two percentage points, from 50% to 52%..

far from Igloo's dream of a double digit lead..

Seeing as you guys are in the know. I got a question.

Seeing how these are random, do they target different areas (cities, suburbs) to get a deverse amount of people? Then ask the questions regaring income, ethnicity, shit like that.

Or is it just random telephone numbers? Is it people that sign up, is there alist of sorts?

Very interested someone please educate me.

edit for spelling

[dkny8]

Rasmussen shows Bush leading 48% - 47% in their daily tracking poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

[jtk4]

Well all righty

[igloo]

jtk4, one of the main reasons i questioned the study was due to the fact that I was wondering the same thing?

the most respectable poll came out today, the gallup, and showed Bush with a very small boost after the convention..

Bush Gets Small Convention Bounce, Leads Kerry by Seven

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup post-Republican convention poll -- the first national poll conducted entirely after the completion of that convention -- shows George W. Bush has received a small increase in voter support. Bush’s share of the vote among likely voters increased by two percentage points, from 50% to 52%..

far from Igloo's dream of a double digit lead..

Jerkoff,

Did I not say repeatedly that I would be surprised if Bush got a big bounce ....did I not also specifically say because I felt the Swift Boat shit would eat into any expected bounce.....Here is my exact line: Was not expecting this..I thought Bush would get a insignificant bounce....mostly because I thought the Swift Boat saga ate up any potential bounce

Did I not also say that I wanted to see other polls results....here is one of my exact lines on this thread in case you forgot: I will be interested in seeing when the other polls release their numbers.....I would be suprised if there was a bounce as large as the TIME poll ...

...or how about when I said this: I am still interested in seeing the other polls, specifically Gallup and Rasmussen, but so far, you can not ignore the preliminary data......The Kerry camp sure did not ignore the early polls

And BTW schmuck--ALL polls show a shift in momentum (those trends and patterns that I was speaking of).....case closed.

And BTW2 schmuck, "Igloo's dream" of a double digit lead sure seems to have had an impact on the Kerry team---don't you think?.......Also, the Bush lead in the gallup poll is 7 points....not so far from double digits, is it retard?...funny how you left that out in your post

And BTW3...The Gallup poll, the most respectable poll according to you, results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,018 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 3-5, 2004.

The TIME poll which according to you is NOT CREDIBLE: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters

Just wondering......Any problem with Gallup and the sample size and the word random like you did with the TIME poll? I mean, after all you did comment on the TIME poll by saying: "900 hundred people... come on.."

I state again, just keep your fucking mouth shut on matters you have no idea what you are talking about.......or if you want to continue to talk shit, get someone with an IQ to help you out.

[jtk4]

i think he thinks the gallup is more credible because of how they do the polls not just the numbers. ? MAybe they are amore credible company. ? I do not know.

can someone who knows explain how the choose who to call.

[BRIANC1046]

i see the gallup as being un-biased.. the goal of Time and Newsweek is to sell magazines..

has there been a shift? quite possibly.. a double digit shift.. i think we all agree no..

so, why are you STILL trying to defend the Time and Newsweek poll?

Lets wait and see the shift when Bush needs to act on his feet at the debates.. Kerry's intelligence will defintely help him here.. Maybe they'll make Bush some flashcards for the debates

[igloo]

i see the gallup as being un-biased.. the goal of Time and Newsweek is to sell magazines..

has there been a shift? quite possibly.. a double digit shift.. i think we all agree no..

so, why are you STILL trying to defend the Time and Newsweek poll?

Lets wait and see the shift when Bush needs to act on his feet at the debates.. Kerry's intelligence will defintely help him here.. Maybe they'll make Bush some flashcards for the debates

Nice try douchebag..........your shit got stuffed back up your ass.....and bad. You would be better served to simply admit it and walk away. Or would you like to talk some more shit, and allow me to stuff it back up your ass again.

Still waiting for your answer:

And BTW3...The Gallup poll, the most respectable poll according to you, results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,018 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Sept. 3-5, 2004.

The TIME poll which according to you is NOT CREDIBLE: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters

Just wondering......Any problem with Gallup and the sample size and the word random like you did with the TIME poll? I mean, after all you did comment on the TIME poll by saying: "900 hundred people... come on.."

Nice try ignoring all the other points you got destroyed on too. Like I Said, you would be better served to simply say you were talking out of your ass, refuse to see things objectively, are miffed at the poll results, and walk away.