Well, it's always possible that some of us are very displeased with how things are, but even more displeased with how things would be if Obama had his way.

And I think things are in fact pretty close. There's no reason to suppose a large number of people would be rendered either sane or crazy vs. last election, so why should things shift dramatically? The parties are basically the same, and their candidates stand for basically the same thing.

As I said before, the parties will move to the center, separated just enough to be distinguishable, so the long term effect is having things "pretty close" all the time. Major shifts are only likely if a disruption occurs close to the election, and things can't equilibriate.

I agree with the 2 major parties being essentially the same, but the polls I'm referring to show dissatisfaction with events under Bush's watch at the 70% to 80% range. That sort of gap would suggest anti-incumbent fever... but that may indeed be countered by Obama's lack of useful experience.

It's very unfortunate that, IMO, the two main choices grow poorer with ever election.

meh, all nations show a drop in support for their current leadership, for whatever reason.

basically, people dont get what they want fast enough. and from that, no longer want to support the current leader(s).

Polls suck. They're inaccurate and used as non-news to influence voters.

Push polls, yes... but not all.

I got polled recently by a legit organization, but I forget their name. A long time ago I was polled by Gallop, but I forget if I was for Adlai or Ike.

I always asked to be paid when asked to participate in a commercial poll. My opinions obviously have a value, so I'd like to get some of it.

Yeah, but be at least a little wary of any organization willing to pay for your opinion. Personally I'm less likely to respond to paying polls because I wonder about their agenda...

Polls suck. Push polls suck even more, but there are grey areas between the two.

Here are some reasons why polls suck:

They're used to sway opinions. They assume people are honest in their answer to polls. People aren't even able to vote sincerely in a Plurality system on D-Day e.g. due to strategic voting. Why would they vote sincerely in a poll which bears no legal consequences? Because they're Christian, and God taught them not to lie? And I'm a Jehova...

Instead of developing discussion or giving less popular candidates a chance they create a dogmatic 'us or them' attitude working zealotry, lazyness, polarisation, and argumentum ad populum in hand. They're easy, cheap, hyped news and food for pageviews, a waste of time, and distract from other, relevant issues. They're one of the factors supporting the very thing you are against: a 2 (or 3) party system.

They often lack options which contributes to swaying opinions. Take this very thread. A) Several candidates are excluded B) There is no blanc option C) There isn't an option to state one is not eligable to vote (e.g. minor, non-US citizen). Although it doesn't applt here they often implement the Plurality system which, arguably, doesn't allow the voter enough freedom to express their opinion.

Internet polls suck even more because there is no meaningful authentication, and they're not anonymous. Its child's play to manipulate them. See e.g. Slashdot's poll disclaimer.

Resumee, as far as I'm concerned anyone who takes polls seriously is a fool and knowingly or not serves their dreadful uses, or abuses if you will. Unfortunately, many do take them serious. Individuals who contribute to polls keep their myth alive thereby supporting their usage.

Instead of a poll, an analysis, discussion or interview is much more useful. It still has some of the mentioned problems (albeit usually in lesser extend) but go in depth of a specific issue, making the reader less lazy and more thought-provoked. They also allow freedom of expression to the writer(s), and the reader is able to verify the identity of the writer and/or his/her arguments and references.

Although I have to admit its possible to do faux interviewing and quoting as well. Faux News are seemingly proudly famous because of their ability.

First, again: not all polls. There is such a thing as a strictly scientific approach. A proper design of experiments will enable one to construct a poll that approaches true objectivity.

However, I grant the big "IF". Still, it's been done. I know. My polls are never used to sway opinions.

Second, there has to be an assumption of honesty. And guess what? For the most part it bears out, especially the more anonymous the poll is. People tend to be more honest in well-constructed polls than in almost any other venue. Margin of error accomodates dishonesty.

I'm thinking your exposure to polls has been somewhat limited. I'm just glad I'm not the most cynical person in the discussion.