I find it interesting that they grill people with loaded questions about Palin's abilities, but then nicely ask if they think Obama is vulnerable, and finally finish the survey with more loaded question against Palin and the Republican ticket (and showing that Romney was quite a bit more popular than the primaries alluded).
The first thing I noticed in this survey is that they weigh the results against Census data. In theory, this is all find and dandy, but why not simply report the actual data? And now I wonder why Newsweek is even considered a reliable source on popular opinion.

Even though the odds are long, I'm anticipating what you will write if McCain wins. If there's justice, you won't write anything at all . . . since you will have lost your job.

The problem with your comment Wonfish is simple. This poll is not reflective of the last few presidential elections.

In 2004, it was 37-37, 2000, it was 39-39. So, tell me. Why is it, when the last two elections, the number is even, and this poll comes out with an 11 point swing (strange how when it was helpful to them to have McCain in the lead so they could depress the public by showing McCain's lead "vanishing", they went from even to 11 point margin) and is in any way considered valid whatsoever?

They have gone beyond the pale of "reporting" and are now using polls to drive the news.

"A former Newsweek reporter admitted in an article this week that he has no objectivity and imagined disabling Rudy Giuliani so he wouldn't run in the presidential primary race last year.
Michael Hastings wrote in GQ magazine that he had a "recurring fantasy" that he could somehow stop the former New York City mayor in his tracks.
"I quickly realized Rudy was a maniac. I had a recurring fantasy in which I took him out during a press conference (it was nonlethal, just something that put him out of commission for a year or so), saving America from the horror of a President Giuliani. If that sounds like I had some trouble being 'objective,' I did. Objectivity is a fallacy," he said."

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_7484&pageNum=2

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/55_say_media_bias_bigger_problem_than_campaign_cash

55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem Than Campaign Cash

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080819.asp

Pew Research finds Media Credibility Plummets, Just 30% Believe 'Most Trusted' CNN

Wonfish: Please refrain from attempting to divine my hopes and dreams, this is not personal. Although dems hold a plurality, their % of the population does not exceed that of repubs by 30%. Indies certainly do not exceed repubs by 30% either. Dems hold a plurality by about 5% give or take. There are anywhere from 10 to 20 percent undecided out there. These polls do a huge disservice - if O loses, his supporters will cry foul, racism, wrongdoing, whatever and refer to these polls in support of their position. This will further divide and harm the country. I am not saying O is not ahead, I am arguing that at most, he is ahead by 5-8%. Undecideds may break either way however, and this race is not over until 11/4.

Wonfish: please refrain from attempting to divine what I am wishing - this is not personal. Despite what these polls say, there are not 30% more democrats than republicans in this country, and there are certainly not 30% more independents than republicans. This poll skews too dramatically in favor of dems and indies. There is probably 5-6% more democrats than republicans at this point, and dems do hold a plurality. My point is when you under/over sample like this, when combined with such a large number of undecideds out there, there is no way of knowing which way this will go. O supporters will blame racisim and wrongdoing if O loses and use these inaccurate polls to support their arguments.

d