If you were to conduct a review of polling results over the past few years, you would learn that the USA Today/Gallup poll has performed the worst of all major polls in this country. Their more memorable gaffes included having Kerry over Bush by 6.3% the day before the 2004 election as well as Gore over Bush by 8.2% in 2000. The reason for this is they include many respondents who have never voted and have no intentions of doing so. Of course, their errors ALWAYS lean toward the left, so I really wouldn't get too excited about Giuliani's lead in this particular agenda-driven poll.

By contrast, one of the most reliable pollsters in the country has been Scott Rasmussen. He gave us the Bush win in 2004 within one-fifth of a percentage point. He nailed virtually all the senate races (won mostly by the 'Rats) in 2006. Rasmussen employs a weighting mechanism via a likert scale in order to better determine which respondents possess enough gumption to actually participate on election day. One of Rasmussen's greatest successes, in my opinion, was his foreknowledge that all these millions of young people who were supposedly going to rush out and vote for John Kerry would never show up.

At the risk of interrupting your anti-Huckabee agenda, you will also notice that Guiliani has steadily slipped all across the country and is no longer in the lead nationally or in key primary states. Huckabee is the national front-runner at the moment, an amazing accomplishment considering the barrage of criticism he has received from the conservative media these past two weeks.

Apparently, Huckabee supporters are as honest as their candidate; which is to say, not very.

The actual final Gallup poll in 2004 had Bush over Kerry 49-47; they weighted the undecideds as going to Kerry and projected 49-49. Only one poll after the July convention had Kerry ahead - by one point. Only in early March and early June (one poll each) did Gallup have Kerry ahead by as much as 6%. Here's the record of Gallup Polls in 2004.

Rasmussen was most accurate in 2004. So what? Zogby was most accurate in 1996. Oh, that's right - Rasmussen's numbers look better for Huckabilly. Of course you prefer them. But Scott's numbers have been far lower for Giuliani all along, and were higher for Fred until his fade; now Huckabee seems favored. Maybe Rasmussen is right and everyone else is wrong. Or maybe not.

Rasmussen, btw, is showing Huckabee sinking in South Carolina, losing 7% in a week and back down to a tie with Romney.

You are confusing USA/Gallup with Gallup's own surveys. They were by far the superior polling agency for decades before they became infused with mainstream media agendas. Gallup had little competition in 1996 and their results were actually quite miserable back then too. I find it most disingenuous of you to accuse someone of favoring one pollster over another simply because of the results they yield... when it has been clearly established that they have achieved the most accurate data. You, in fact, are the one who cherry-picked your poll by using only data from a single, left-leaning pollster who has underperformed in virtually every election this decade. Then, in a shocking display of irony, you have the audacity to cite RASMUSSEN poll for South Carolina numbers to your liking!

Sir, a little balance would go a long way toward restoring the credibility that your otherwise excellent articles deperately need.

Pardon, but wasn't Rasmussen the pollster you just got through endorsing in comment #1?

That, sir, is irony . . .