when truman was elected. and back then they didn't have the margin of error. truman won by a smidgen.
so polls are reliable, like it or not.
2007-10-09 11:54:11 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The polls also said howard dean was going to win the democratic nomination by a landslide in the last election's primaries. Well, that didn't really happen either... in fact, he lost by a GROSS margin.
Polls are reliable... like a 1987 pinto that's been in a rear end collision.
2007-10-09 12:02:23 · answer #1 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wrong again. In the election of 1936 a national magazine ran a poll of its subscribers which indicated that Alf Landon of Kansas would unseat Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President. The magazine forgot that over 80% of the subscribers were registered Republicans.
The results were such an embarassment that the magazine shortly went out of business.
And Harry Truman didn't win by a "smidgen". He received 303 Electoral votes to the 189 votes for Thomas Dewey. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, running on the States' Rights Party ticket received 39 Electoral votes. I hardly consider that a "smidgen".
2007-10-09 19:04:35 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the Election of 2004, the polls showed Kerry was a favorite, yet Bush is still our President.
2007-10-09 19:19:32 · answer #3 · answered by .. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not right. Kerry was a head of Bush and Dean was ahead of Kerry.
http://www.floppingaces.net/kerrypoll-thumb-520x462.jpg
2007-10-09 19:20:03 · answer #4 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
RANT for the sake of a RANT!
Ignore the poster and his asinine NONE MILITARY "questions"!!
2007-10-10 03:57:23 · answer #5 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋