Politically I've been on hiatus because this whole political season has gone beyond the point of unbelievable... that John Kerry can be even as close as he is. I've been so amazed and overwhelmed by the lack of objectivity of the mainstream media, it's been hard for me to find the words to express it.

Why are the polls so Close?

The first debate didn't do the Pres any favors, he was off his game and everyone knew it, and Kerry got a huge break because of it. Bush clearly won the second debate, and tonight he needs to continue to use the "L" word regarding Kerry's 30 year political career. Kerry has no record domestically that voters traditionally vote for. Unfortunately the mainstream media has done little to focus on the man who would be president, and have instead continually focused on the perceived failures of the incumbent.  Bush's primary job tonight is to expose Kerry for what he is; a dyed in the wool Liberal. Bill Kristol has an article that makes an interesting point about the country's history of who we elect to be president. "NEVER HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE elected as president a candidate with a record on national security issues resembling that of John Kerry."

The major polling organizations nationally have a dead heat between them. State to state tells a different story; and as we all learned in 2000, this is what really matters. Kerry has to win Ohio to stand a chance, at this point if Bush wins Ohio; it's done.

But I digress... Why are these polls so close? Are they as close as they appear? Are they favoring one single candidate? Are they accurate?

Looking back at 2000, below is a rundown of every final national poll conducted since 10/31. ^ indicates totals included the allocation of undecideds. Order is Bush, Gore, Nader.

1 Battleground (11/5-6; 1,000 LVs; +/- 3%)^ 50 45 4
2 Bullseye (10/31-11/2, 11/5; +/- 3.1%) 45 42 4
1 CBS News (11/4-6; 806 LVs; +/- 3%) 44 45 4
1 Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-31; 881 DVs; +/- 3.1%) 45 45 5
2 Fox News (11/1-2; 1,000 LVs; +/- 3%) 43 43 3
1 Gallup (11/5-6; 2,350 LVs; +/- 2%)^ 48 46 4
1 Harris (11/3-5; 1,348 LVs; +/- 3%) 47 47 5
0 ICR (11/1-5; 1,141 LVs; +/- 3%) 46 44 7
2 Marist Inst. (11/1-2; 623 LVs; +/- 4.5%) 49 44 2
1 NBC/WSJ (11/3-5; 1,026 LVs; +/- 3%) 47 44 3
2 Newsweek (10/31-11/2; 808 LVs; +/- 4%) 45 43 5
0 Pew (11/1-4; 1,307 LVs; +/- 3%) 46 43 3
1 TIPP (11/4-6; 1,292 LVs; +/- 2.8%) 48 46 4
2 Wash. Post (11/4-6; 1,801 LVs; +/- 2%) 48 45 3
1 Zogby Int'l (11/5-6; 1,200 LVs; +/- 3%)^ 46 48 5

It's beginning to look a lot like 2000 all over again... Except there was something I noticed a couple weeks ago that started some wheels churning in my mind.

Now... this is just a theory... so bear with me...

I think these polls may be somewhat contrived.  In 2000 Zogby, Gallup, and IPOS pollsters acted independently. Now in 2004 they are aligned with news organizations. Zogby/Reuters, CNN/Gallup, and AP/IPOS.

So, the day after the first debate, on the cover of Newsweek it says, "WE HAVE A RACE" , and they announced that their poll showed Kerry with a two point lead. That's what got me thinking; They want a close race! Or at least the appearance of a close race. If either Bush or Kerry were running away with the election, there would not be to much interest in the news regarding the election, and there would not be too great a voter turnout.

Why? Because it sells newspapers, and gets people to log onto their websites giving exposure to their advertisers. They all made a killing in 2000. Make no mistake, they do want a repeat in 2004.  A close election is good for business.

Now why do I think these numbers may be contrived? Because the internal numbers of polls don't support the results. I don't have specific data, but it's out there if anyone cares to research it. Bush comes out ahead in all the areas that count: He's a strong leader, he's more likeable, etc.

Just my thoughts... Rick