BTW, I’ve gone on ad nauseum before about why Registered Voters is a worse measure than Likely Voters – Registered Voters is almost as bad as “Adults” as a category, given the percentage of Registered Voters that actually vote.
Here’s a take I stole from an anonymous emailer at The Kerry Spot (no permalink available):
I would like to respond to your two sentences, “The race is tightening. Kerry’s not in such bad shape.”
Is the race tightening? You use as evidence the fact that the last several nationwide polls have shown the race being relatively close. But that is only part of the story. Tightening is a description of movement, and merely looking at the current location does not tell us anything about the movement. We have to look at the previous result as well to get that.
So let’s take a look at the last several national polls.
The most recent result is from Democracy Corps (D), showing it a B49-K48 race. The previous result from them was B50-K47, so it does show a 2 point closer race than before.
Then we have the ICR poll. It shows a B51-K44 result, up from B46-K46 a week earlier. It does not show the race tightening, but going in the other direction.
Next is the IBD/TIPP poll. It has the race tied among likely voters, with no previous likely voter result. On the registered voter side, it has a two point gain for Kerry.
Newsweek shows the race four points tighter. Zogby shows it unchanged. The associated press shows it a point more favorable for Bush. Time shows it 2 points more favorable for Bush. Fox shows it 5 points more favorable for Bush. Rasmussen, it depends on the day of the week but essentially has it close to where he had it a week ago.
Basically, there has been no movement in the past week. Some polls are showing a tie, some are showing a Bush lead. But they are all showing stagnation right now; when there is stasis one would expect some to show slight gains while some show slight losses all due to random variance within the margin of error.
Is Kerry in bad shape? That cannot be answered without defining ‘bad shape’. Right now, Kerry is behind, but not to such a degree that he could not recover in the normal course of the campaign.
And given where all these polls are, where does the race stand? I like going by my calculated national result which is based off of all of the state polls. It shows the President up by about 3 points, which exemplifies why Kerry is not in terrible, terrible shape, even though a three point margin could mean a sizeable electoral defeat.
I will add this: When you compare polls, you have to compare like to like – that means same polling companies, and same samples. In most cases, that means only comparing the Fox poll to the Fox poll, the Zogby to the Zogby, and so on, in a time-comparison.
To make an analogy appropriate for this site, it’s kind of like measuring your body fat – you want the same person taking measurements from the same place in order to get a meaningful sense of any change.
BB:
“A three point margin could mean a sizeable electoral defeat.” There is the problem that Kerry has!
I think it’s much more practical to watch the state by state contests rather than the national polls. For example if Bush wins PA, FLA and Ohio it’s going to be a long and painful night for Kerry and company. While he really only has to win two of those three he is currently ahead in all three.
If you look at the election from an electoral stand point Bush is further ahead than any national poll would indicate.
The flood gates appear to be opening…
The latest gallup has Bush leading Kerry 55% to 42% amoung likely voters; and 52% to 44% of all registered voters. If you can’t do the math, that is a 13 point difference amoung likely voters and 8 points amoung all registerd voters!!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-17-gallup-poll.htm
“The boost Bush received from the Republican convention has increased rather than dissipated, reshaping a race that for months has been nearly tied. Kerry is facing warnings from Democrats that his campaign is seriously off-track.”
Gotta be really careful with polls, and definitely as BB said compare like to like.
The different companies have different questions and different practices they use when calling people, seemingly minor things that can skew the result quite a bit, especially when the race is so close and so many people still consider themselves undecided. Many polls will try to force undecided voters to declare one choice or another even when they haven’t made a real decision. Othertimes when they say “likely voters” they go by projected voter turnout by party, again skewing the numbers.
They always put a margin of error on these things, but sometimes they REALLY miss the mark. Ex, the Gallup nationwide poll in 2000 of likely voters had Bush with a 12 point lead 10 days before the election. Just a tad off for a guy who did end up losing the popular vote.
Moral of the story: be really careful about reading TOO much into polling numbers.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
It’s very telling that the word “conjugate” dazzles you. You’re such a big boy.[/quote]
No, I’m laughing at you because you’re trying to use a “big” word and you’re using it incorrectly.
[quote]Operaman wrote:
the Gallup nationwide poll in 2000 of likely voters had Bush with a 12 point lead 10 days before the election. Just a tad off for a guy who did end up losing the popular vote.
[/quote]
What’s that you say, Bushies? Gallup has Bush in the lead?
One or two oddball polls have Bush in the lead, but everyone else has it a dead heat. Think these oddball polls might be wrong? What about about the poll that showed a Republican bounce after the Democratic convention, how accurate do you honestly think that poll was?
This race is Bush’s to win or lose, and right now he’s still NOT winning.
Lumpy:
Forgive me, but are you actually reading the newspapers? As I have posted, Bush is even tied with Kerry in states like Minnesota and New Jersey. Both went to Gore last time around. Both were supposed to be locked in for Kerry.
The Kerry campaign is in trouble! Especially if they are counting on the debates to raise his numbers (as one strategist stated in USA Today). I can give you a quick prediction on the debates. Kerry will appear stiff and boring, further turning off the voters. When he attacks Bush he appears to be harsh and mean spirited (note the Ohio midnight attack)
On the other hand President Bush will appear quite “folksy” and down to earth. Someone the common man can relate to. In short, he is simply more likeable than your candadate. Hence, Bush will pull further ahead after the debates!
I have noticed that the more the voting populace sees Kerry the less they like him!
I predicted way back in May (I think it was May) that President Bush would win by 5%. Many of you laughed at this. My theory was that most of the bad things that could happen to Bush had already been played out. (prison scandal, corp. trials, bad economic reports etc) I am going to state once again, it will be Bush by 5%!
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
It’s very telling that the word “conjugate” dazzles you. You’re such a big boy.
No, I’m laughing at you because you’re trying to use a “big” word and you’re using it incorrectly.
[/quote]
Wow, I really don’t think of that as a “big” word, but you got me there. My thought was more about the joining of “you” and “an honest post”, but I did not convey that in its proper context.
What’s even more telling is your inability to see the truth, yet have time to focus on my grammar.
How about breaking away from your narrow little mind and open up yourself to reality? Many of us here are simply trying to open you up to “honesty”, but we seem to be failing you.
I’ll keep trying, and I’ll try to slow myself down a bit so that you can understand my posts. Big apology for the misunderstanding on the “big” word, conjugate. My bad.
Lumpy,
you ever get sick of lying your ass off and distorting the truth…
Check the following site:
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:
Kerry 223
Bush 311
It breaks it down by state and also the size of the lead in each state.
Some really good points have been made here. Even though some disagree, the republican party seems to at least have a clear direction.
-Lower taxes (no country has ever been taxed into prosperity) to move the econemy.
-Fighting terrorism on enemy ground, not ours.
-Refusal to ask for permission from the rest of the world to defend ouirselves and not bowing at the alter of the UN.
-The belief that abortion stops a beating heart.
-Support of a citizens right to keep and bear arms (I fear a government that fears it’s armed citizens)
Sounds pretty good to me!
[quote]mjagiels wrote:
Check the following site:
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:
Kerry 223
Bush 311
It breaks it down by state and also the size of the lead in each state. [/quote]
The averages are incredible…
http://www.geekmedia.org/tradesports/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_EC.html
Even a liberal like Al Hunt is seeing a crack-up:
Excerpt:
WISE MEN: John Kerry remained on the defensive this week, and was unable to make up much needed ground against President Bush, according to two men who have run presidential campaigns in the past.
“The Bush bounce is beginning to look like a Hurricane Ivan surge,” cracked Hamilton Jordan, who directed Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaigns. With the contest still looking “more like a referendum on Kerry,” he adds that the “relatively small number of undecideds” are moving “disproportionately in Bush’s direction.”
What advice would he give to the Democratic candidate? “He needs to find a strong and simple message and make it his own ? focused on the deteriorating situation in Iraq and on the U.S. economy. ?John Kerry needs to look deep inside himself, decide what he believes and thinks, cast caution to the wind and start saying it with some passion and emotion.”
But John Sears, who ran Ronald Reagan’s 1976 campaign, believes the Democratic nominee has “very limited” room on Iraq: “You get up and start criticizing the war and that may help Bush ? Iraq ultimately may hurt [the president], but if it becomes a political issue people usually rally behind the president.” Thus, he believes Sen. Kerry has “no choice” but to focus on the economy and domestic issues.
The president’s campaign, however, better be careful, Mr. Sears cautions, “This week he didn’t do much more than stall the clock. He’s got to keep giving people reasons to vote for him. Now may not be quite the time, but soon he has to be pro-active.”
Mr. Jordan believes that the president, while “hitting on all cylinders” now, is “still vulnerable on the true issues facing the country in this election. Bush only looks good right now in contrast to Kerry.”
Here’s one from those rabid “Bushies” over at Slate:
And here’s a round-up of all the Battleground State polls at RealClearPolitics:
Interesting to note that this “Lumpy” guy quoted someone mentioning Gallup (re: Bush bounce) and then refers to them as an “oddball poll”. Nice.
Lastly, the Iowa futures market is showing a big Bush breakout as well:
http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm
[Addendum: JackZeppelin posted this same link above before I did – sorry, my bad]
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
This race is Bush’s to win or lose, and right now he’s still NOT winning.
[/quote]
I disagree Lumpy – this race is Kerry’s to win or lose, he’s just not winning it…yet.
America is so fed up with Bush, that his contender needs only to show them the way of change that they seek. He hasn’t taken that strong stance, and his time is running out.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I can give you a quick prediction on the debates. Kerry will appear stiff and boring, further turning off the voters. When he attacks Bush he appears to be harsh and mean spirited (note the Ohio midnight attack)[/quote]
If by stiff and boring you mean intelligent and articulate, then yes, ZEB – you are correct sir!
[quote]
On the other hand President Bush will appear quite “folksy” and down to earth. Someone the common man can relate to. In short, he is simply more likeable than your candadate. [/quote]
If by folksy and down to earth you mean smug, cocky, and simple, then again, you are correct.
I believe you are completely off on the latter part of your statement. I think the average joe, even his typical supporter (the Bush supporters around here are anything but typical!), finds him squirmy, beady-eyed, untrustworthy, goofy, and personally unqualified.
[quote]
I predicted way back in May (I think it was May) that President Bush would win by 5%. Many of you laughed at this. My theory was that most of the bad things that could happen to Bush had already been played out. (prison scandal, corp. trials, bad economic reports etc) I am going to state once again, it will be Bush by 5%![/quote]
You are such a visionary. You should run for office yourself, ZEB, if this gym thing doesn’t workout for you…you could be the “40 pullup Candidate.”