[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who are going to show up to vote are likely voters. There is no possible distinction between the groups barring a time machine. When pollsters ask who is likely to vote, they are asking who is going to show up. The empirical evidence has borne out that asking if a voter is likely to show up effectively screens out non-voters and produces accurate results.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things...

"Likely voters" aren't determined simply by just asking someone if they're likely to show up. That wouldn't be accurate enough, as people on average tend to overstate their intentions. It is usually one of the questions they ask, but there are usually five or ten more questions also. But that isn't really relevant to my point anyways.

More importantly, my point was about turnout, and turnout isn't going to be determined by "likely voters". The likely voters are just that... likely voters. In 2004, voter turnout was about 55%. In 2000, it was about 51%. In 1996, it was under 50%. The difference isn't in the percentage of "likely voters", but rather the people who wouldn't be qualify as "likely voters". They might be considered more of "possible voters", "might vote", "occasional voters", etc. The likely voters are going to vote no matter what; it is the non-likely voters that influence the turnout rate.

I think this topic has been beaten to death. I don't think she can win a general election, others do. Neither one of us is likely to change the others mind, so be it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should start your own polling company. I think you have identified a major flaw in the way all polls work.