Unbelievable new CA poll: Kerry 46%, Bush 45%

This does not look reliable at all, considering other recent polls: Kerry 46%, Bush 45%

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

Here are the Rasmussen numbers, to compare: Kerry 51%, Bush 40%

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

In 1999, The Hotline issued a "reminder" that it would not publish results of polls conducted by SurveyUSA because its "methods are not accepted by the political polling community, and we would be doing a disservice to our readers by giving credence to the numbers."

Just this year, Roll Call reported that "a number of established news entities" -- including AP and Roll Call -- "have a policy of not running automated dialing polls."

According to University of Michigan professor Michael Traugott: "There is no sound theoretical basis for the way in which these surveys are conducted." Traugott specifically cites a much lower response rate for automated calls and the difficulty of eliminating non-voters.

According to Brad Coker, president of Mason-Dixon Polling/Media Research Inc.: "It is hard to believe that you are going to get a cross section of people who are registered, active voters to participate in these things."


Those numbers are cooked, brother!

15-18% of voting dems. voted for ah-nold last year.

The LA times poll and the others in the last few months all show Kerry with about a 10% lead - why would Bush suddenly surge on bad news?

perhaps people are digging in because they do not want to admit they were wrong, and we are in a world of trouble. denial?

the reason i responded above with the voting %s, is because there has been a shift in voting to the right in ca, and that could also explain the shift in poll #s. we know that there are quite a few bogus polls out there. i supose we will find out in nov.

they were just voting for a famous actor. They were voting for the terminator. I don't think just any republican would have won the recall election.

then he very well could take ca in nov. the gov. race proved that the dem party voters in ca are not issue savvy.

most people R or D just didn't want to pay the car tax, and wanted it back it they already paid it.They did it for the money.

I know a lot of dems who voted for Arnold as the replacement because Bustamante is the worst possible candidate the dems could have had. Also, a lot of these people have told me that it is good to have a moderate/liberal republican in office since it is a rarity these days.

you are saying arnold was a good candidate with a good platform ("it is good to have a moderate/liberal republican in office") at the time of the gov. race? you are proving my point exactly, since arnold is not moderate. many things are a "rarity these days" but that does not mean they are beneficial to ca or our society as a whole.

and Bustamante was a horrible candidate

that is why i voted for camejo. did you see the televised debate. while arnold and arianna were making rough love, bustamante was trying to get under the covers, and camejo (and mclintoc) were actually calm and collected, presenting a plan for california.
shoot at least bustamante was going to go after enron and the energy dereg. thieves who owe ca over 9 billion.
arnold never once presented a platform, he said no car tax increase (which pays for local police and fire), and workers comp. in ca is driving corps out (debatable). but other than that he just went around the state saying nothing, using his celeb. to win one for the corporatist. and ca fell for it.
if the dems had organized, and put up a fight they might have won, or at least built some momentum toward keeping the party a strong force in ca.

it is going to cost us money and work to keep California Democratic.... money and work that I would rather be spending directly on getting bush out of office.