I just sent CBS the following comment:

[Jackpine Radical]

You assert that the online polls give Kerry an unduly large victory in the debates when compared to the "scientific" polls. I think you're overrating the accuracy of the "scientific" polls. First, they tend (especially Gallup) to be overweighted toward Republicans on the assumption that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to vote. While that may be true in a normal election year, it is probably not true this year, given the depth of passion among those who feel that the election was stolen from them in 2000. Second, the "scientific" polls are ignoring or underweighting first-time voters, many of whom have just recently registered with the intention of voting Democratic; and, third, voters whose only phones are cell phones do not show up in the surveys at all. This is a new cohort--hardly a blip in 2000, but numbering in the millions by this year--of mostly young, mostly antiwar, antidraft voters. Guess who they're going to vote for. There is a real possibility that the online polls are a more accurate reflection of the electorate than are the traditional "scientific" polls.

[George_S]

1. Good job

And I'm one of those voters who wouldn't be on the pollsters radars.

[mzmolly]

2. Welp as a former Dean supporter who heard similar arguments

about ignoring the polls, I'm a bit shaky.

However, I know that Dean inspired many people to vote who went for Kerry in the end so???

Voter turnout was high during the primaries, and I guess that's a good sign.