Election 2004 running polls thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
This is the thread to talk about the polls.

Without really meaning to, I've fallen into the habit of checking the state polls every day (usually here), and keeping an eye on current electoral estimations.
It's frustrating how much, in a field that seems like it really should be or has the potential to be pretty scientific and objective, the agendas of the pollers (Polltakers? I hate the word "pollster" for some reason) show. Like, Strategic Vision, which for example right now has Minnesota at a tie after pretty much all previous polls had shown a slight Kerry lead , turns out to be a Republican polling firm. Even more influential, and thus more frustrating, is Zogby, whose polls this time around seem to sway to the left whereas his polls in previous elections always seemed to go to the right (and yes, I know it's due to how his methodology differs from other polling firms, but sometimes I suspect he just enjoys being an iconoclast).

Also, if you please, talk here about new specific polls as they appear and their significance.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Saturday, 31 July 2004 08:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Like why is the upper midwest running right lately aaarrgh.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Saturday, 31 July 2004 08:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Good thread idea. I also go to Real Clear Politics first, despite the conservative bent, for its user-friendliness. There's also these:

Polling Report (includes more detail on questions asked, easier for reading single-poll trend lines; state polls for subscribers)
D.C.'s Political Report (not updated as frequently and less user-friendly, but has lots of state level historical and background data; members get state race polls)

The Upper Midwest is the most dangerous region for Kerry, but I think that it's more likely that he picks up states elsewhere than loses them there.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 31 July 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

WOW WOW WOW

MSNBC is reporting that a Friday Newsweek tracking poll had K/E over B/C 54-41. The previous day's poll had it at 49-47.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 31 July 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

NBC's poll the day Edwards was picked had a similar margin - 54-43. Are these the outer bounds of the candidates' support?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 31 July 2004 15:35 (twenty-one years ago)

If you look at RCP's head-to-head polls, and add this new one, there are 11 in which Kerry is at or above 50%, 7 of them since June 1, but only two of the same for Bush, both before June 1.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 31 July 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 31 July 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Gallup's accuracy record (kinda interesting):

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=1258

scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 31 July 2004 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

More detail on the Newsweek poll (whose respondents aren't clear - adults as opposed to RVs?). Some great results here - Kerry has better numbers than Bush on not only who is better able to handle an international crisis but also who is more personally likable(!). Bush still beats Kerry by a few points on who is better able to handle terrorism, but if you compare that to the handle-crisis result, I'm more convinced that those issue questions are essentially word-association games: Health care? Democrats. Ding! Terrorism? Bush. Ding!

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 31 July 2004 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm going to try to put something on here that should update along with the page that it's coming from. I hope this works:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ev.png

Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 1 August 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, we have another thread for that

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 1 August 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah but that prediction is based purely on polls! It goes here!

Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 1 August 2004 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, the polls aren't really good for anything else. Nationwide polling is pretty much worthless this time.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 1 August 2004 20:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Fair enough, but I don't think that site tells you very much - each state is based on just a single poll, which appears to be the most recent, not the most reliable - many of the polls selected use questionable methods (Zogby Interactive, SUSA) or are partisan.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 1 August 2004 20:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I agree.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 1 August 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

The bounce:

Rasmussen (Likely Voters)

Before (7/23-25): Tie at 46
After: (7/29-31): Kerry 49-45

(a 4-point bounce in a Republican poll)

Newsweek (Registered Voters)

Before (7/8-9): Kerry 47-44 (3-way), Kerry 51-45 (2-way)
Partly-After (7/29-30): Kerry 49-42 (3-way), Kerry 52-44 (2-way)
After (7/30): Kerry 50-40 (3-way), Kerry 54-41 (2-way)

(so if you use the results that are partly before Kerry's speech, it's a 4-point bounce with Nader, and only a 2-pt bounce without, but if you use the single-day results that are entirely after Kerry's speech, it's a 7-pt bounce whether or not Nader's involved)

ABC/WaPo (Registered Voters)

Before (7/22-25): Bush 48-46 (3-way), Bush 49-48 (2-way)
After (7/30-8/1): Kerry 50-44 (3-way), Kerry 52-45 (2-way)

(an 8-point bounce with Nader, and a 6-point bounce without)

Put these together, and you have an average 7 point bounce. That's just slightly higher than what most people predicted (5-6 points).

What's even better are the internals in the ABC/WaPo poll:

Kerry experienced a net bounce of 12-16 points on trust to handle the following issues: health care, terrorism, Iraq, taxes, education and the economy. He now leads Bush on all of the issues except terrorism, where he trails by only 3 points. He also leads Bush on intelligence and international relations.

He also experienced a net bounce of 10-13 points on personal characteristics including leadership, security, consistency, values, honesty, and empathy. He leads Bush on the last 3 issues (values!) as well as on vision and complexity, and is only 3 points down on security.

Kerry experienced swings in his favor among Southerners (he and Bush are even in the South in this poll), young people, veterans, and white catholics.

Perhaps most importantly, more Kerry supporters than Bush supporters will definitely vote for, and are very enthusiastic about, their candidate. And party identification swung 9 points in favor of the Democrats.

Even before and during the convention, there seemed to be something happening in the South. In addition to the ABC poll, a Zogby 7/26-29 LV poll showed K/E leading B/C in the South 48-46. And the not-necessarily-if-at-all-reliable Zogby Interactive poll has been showing good results for Kerry in Southern battleground states. Kerry has led in Tennessee by 2.2 (7/19-23) and 1.8 (7/26-29), in Florida by 2.8 (7/26-29), in Missouri by 0.7 (7/19-23) and 0.6 (7/26-29), and in West Virginia by 3.4 (7/26-29). I don't know whether to believe this stuff, but the Missouri results are confirmed elsewhere: a CNN/USAT/Gallup 7/19-22 LV poll had a tie at 48, and a Kansas City Star 7/13-20 RV poll had Kerry 46-44.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 3 August 2004 15:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Thank you for that information and analysis.

I join with you in cautious, indeed paranoid, cheer.

A thing I don't like, in fact hate, is when people say things like: 'Kerry may be smart, but Bush is a more likeable guy'. It's like when they said that John Major was the politician you would rather go for a pint with. That was false then, and this is false now. I don't know how much I would like Kerry as a person, rather than as a political force, but such nuances are irrelevant next to the fact that Bush is hateful and disgusting. Anyone who thinks the reverse will never agree with me about anything, and I hate them, too.

the bellefox, Tuesday, 3 August 2004 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Al Franken uses the analogy that if you're on a plane that's going down & you need someone to fly it - well, you make like Yogi Berra, and he may really want to fly a plane, but he's probably not the best choice.. but he IS likeable.

dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 3 August 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Election Projection is interesting. Their current projection is pretty much how I think the election will turn out (though I don't think it's necessarily what would happen if the election were today), and their measure of how swing-y the states are seems otm.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 3 August 2004 18:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Gabbneb: And yet the front page of USA Today today said something like "No bounce for Kerry, but Bush got one". I love how they twist the interpretation of their own damn poll.

Dan I., Tuesday, 3 August 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Er, well I guess twisting is a strong word seeing as how numbers are numbers. Hold on, lemme find this thing I read about that poll...

Dan I., Tuesday, 3 August 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I guess it was just a Kos thing talking about how weird it is that almost all the internal sub-questiony things in the poll were in Kerry's favor (including the "who do you think would be a better commander in chief" one) while the Big Number wasn't.

Dan I., Tuesday, 3 August 2004 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

SUSA is another questionable poll, I think, but they're also suggesting TN is in play: Bush 48-46 among LVs, within the margin

gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 3 August 2004 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Saletan looks at the polls and comes to the same conclusion that I do - right now, it's Kerry's to lose

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

New polls show Kerry losing Virginia and Arizona, but by only 3 points. I think that's pretty close to what will happen on election day, but that it's a small enough margin that a strong debate performance could conceivably flip enough swing voters to put him over the top in either one.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

An evaluation of Zogby Interactive by a kos denizen. There are reasons to think that their results are off in either direction (or both, depending on the state), but this shows them to be pretty close to the results of other polls. ZI may have a pro-Kerry tilt in TN and perhaps the Upper Midwest, and may have a pro-Bush tilt in OH.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 18:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Everytime I read somewhere that Virginia is "in play" for Kerry, my jaw just drops. Every Single Time.

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

why? do you think of VA as solidly republican?

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I do. Like it was Texas on the east coast. I mean, I don't know much about the recent political history of the commonwealth, but you know, Ollie North, man. It hasn't voted for a Democrat in forty years. It was the only southern state to go for Ford in 1976. It just seems that Walker Bush is just right up their alley.

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

It hasn't voted for a Democrat in forty years

until Mark Warner in 2002.

It is Republican, but it has solid Dem constituencies (DC suburbs, SE blacks, a few Appalachian holdouts), some of which are growing fast (tho dunno at what rate relative to the rest of the state).

gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

go rednecks go!

(i do not approve of that word and am using it only for satirical purposes obviously)

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, gabbneb. I meant that they haven't voted for a Democratic president in forty years. I'm aware of folks like Robb and Wilder since then.

I always thought that whatever Democrat pockets there were in the state were more than overwhelmed by the Republican strongholds elsewhere.

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Does anyone know of a polling source that keeps records of what the numbers were during the summer prior to the 2000 election? It would be nice to compare the numbers we're getting now with what was predicted at this time 4 years ago.

theodore fogelsanger (herbert hebert), Thursday, 5 August 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I was trying to find the same thing. I know I saw a page somewhere with a graph of how one poll changed througout the 2000 compaign, but it would be cool to find the same sort of thing including multiple polls.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 5 August 2004 01:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Republicans: OMG, New Jersey's such a swing state!
Quinnipiac: Not exactly

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 5 August 2004 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

southwest and central virginia are both solidly republican (i know, having grown up there), but tidewater is solidly democrat and nova is pretty split. being that tidewater and nova are FAR more populated than the rest of the state, i would surmise that va is very much in play. there is, however, the rumor/assumption/what have you that more liberal federal employees live in maryland, while the more conservative ones live in fairfax/alexandria/etc. in my experience, i have actually found this to be true.

and i know of two people who voted for bush who are voting for kerry: my father and stepmother. my mom, a SOLID republican (christian right and all of that), would've considered voting for edwards over bush (probably would not have in the end, simply due to abortion).

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Friday, 6 August 2004 13:13 (twenty-one years ago)

out of curiosity, yanc3y, what reasons have your father and stepmother given for the switch?

(also: is tidewater a suburban county?)

||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Friday, 6 August 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

The Tidewater is a region

carpetbagneb (gabbneb), Friday, 6 August 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, duh. i guess one corner of it is suburban DC, then....

||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Friday, 6 August 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Not really poll related, and I know "talk is cheap" blahblahblah etc, BUT this is one of the most exciting things I have heard from the Kerry campaign.

bnw (bnw), Friday, 6 August 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

the reasons they've given have been kinda nebulous. they were both democrats until my father started listening to talk radio during the clinton years and headed suddenly rightward. he actually turned into a bit of a frightening man for a while, yelling at my brother for wearing john lennon t-shirts. (called lennon a "commie"; meanwhile my father saw the beatles live twice, and i was brought up being taught that all of the beatles were heroes)(he also did something that i have had a difficult time forgiving him of: calling the police about the family of one of my brother's friends. the family was libyan, and while playing their son supposedly said to my seven-year-old bro dylan "you be an american so i can kill you." my dad then reported the family as possible terrorists. this shames me to no end.)

my stepmother is an old punk-rocker (thanks for the gang of four records when i was 12, karen!) and pretty politically aloof. yet they both voted for bush in 2000. i think they both just feel weary of him. they don't like kerry by any stretch of the imagination -- again, they both would've voted for edwards -- but i think they've just suddenly realized that bush hasn't done the country any good. both supported invading iraq (my dad's partial reasoning: "my son lives in nyc; obl almost killed him; let's kill saddam" -- at times me being in nyc on 9/11 is a badge for him), but both recognize that things there are awful now.

also, my father is like many white middle-class '90s conservatives: ex-hippie who dodged the draft who has decided that he's earned his middle class comfortability and fuck that bill clinton for being better off than him and did he mention that "orientals hate kissing" yet?

i love my dad though.

anyway.

Yanc3y (ystrickler), Friday, 6 August 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the energy policy is the core of Kerry's candidacy. I'm surprised he hasn't played it up more yet, but maybe the idea is to roll it out more slowly.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 6 August 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

an annotated selection of polling links

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 6 August 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I spoke to a Presidential Election historian who teaches at my University. I was curious about the discrepency between polls (Gallup suggesting a Bush Lead, all others leaning toward Kerry). His take on the whole thing was that polls during the convention period cannot really be trusted; predictions are extemely premature until we get into September. Plus, pollsters don't call people who rely on their cellphones and you have to imagine that number has increased in the past few years.

herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Friday, 6 August 2004 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Plus, pollsters don't call people who rely on their cellphones

Sometimes, I think that they're only calling people with rotary phones.

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Saturday, 7 August 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The Springsteen effect? IF you take the last two polls, NJ looks like less of a swing state than GA or even SC.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 8 August 2004 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Strategic Vision really lives up to its name, doesn't it? Seems like they consistently lean about 3-4% towards Bush in swing states compared to other polls, while remaining carefully in line with the others in non-swing states. Also is it my imagination, or do they put out an awful lot of polls compared to the other major firms?
Influencing perception of the the state of the race is as good as influencing the race itself.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 19 August 2004 05:50 (twenty-one years ago)

two weeks pass...
It isn't just them, and I don't think it's about bias so much as it is obvious and infuriating incompetence! The methodologies of every major polling firm this year suck. Christ Zogby, it's not that hard to see that no matter how you jiggle your numbers there's no way you're getting a representative sample from the fucking internet! And those fucking shitheels at Gallup aren't any better.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Thursday, 2 September 2004 09:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Same thing happened in Kerry's favor (same numbers too) during the DNC. And then things came back to the usual Rasmussen always-within-3-points-seesaw. Also, if you look closely, you see that the number of Republicans sampled in today's report is a point higher than in the previous day's (dunno if cause or effect, though).

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 2 September 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Can a likely voter be unregistered and if so, why does their opinion matter? (Because they might register?)

nader (nader), Thursday, 9 September 2004 18:00 (twenty years ago)

LVs are a subset of RVs

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 9 September 2004 18:28 (twenty years ago)

Rasmussen has Ohio at Kerry 48-46

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 9 September 2004 18:29 (twenty years ago)

More new polls:

CBS RVs 9/6-8: Bush 49-42
Rasmussen LVs 9/6-8: Bush 47.5-46.8
Fox/Opinion Dynamics RVs 9/7-8: Kerry 46-42 w/o Nader, 46-43 w/
Fox/Opinion Dynamics LVs 9/7-8: Bush 47-45 w/o Nader, 47-43 w/

ABC/WaPo comes out tonight

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 9 September 2004 18:40 (twenty years ago)

ABC/WaPo, 9/6-8 w/ Nader:

LVs: Bush 52-44
RVs: Bush 50-44
Adults: Kerry 46-45

Internals are terrible for Kerry.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 9 September 2004 21:34 (twenty years ago)

goddamnit. how the fuck does kerry have higher unfavorables than bush or cheney???

Whats the the big gap between the traditional pollsters and the tv/newsmagazine polls?

bill stevens (bscrubbins), Thursday, 9 September 2004 21:54 (twenty years ago)

the newsmagazine polls oversampled repubs. I don't know if I'd characterize the others as trad v. tv, but the more favorable to Kerry ones aren't pushing leaners, and the less favorable ones are, it seems to me.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 9 September 2004 22:02 (twenty years ago)

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 9 September 2004 22:33 (twenty years ago)

I don't consider Survey USA to be particularly reliable but their latest polls have Kerry up 2 in PA, back 2 in MO, back 3 in OH, and back 4 in NC

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 11 September 2004 19:55 (twenty years ago)

recent national polls:

the 2-4 point polls:
Rasmussen, LVs, 9/8-10: Bush 47.5-46.1
Zogby, LVs, 9/8-9: Bush 47-45 w/o Nader, 46-42 w/
Democracy Corps, LVs, 9/6-9: Bush 50-47 w/o Nader, 48-45 w/

the 5-8 point polls:
AP-Ipsos, 9/7-9: Bush 51-43 RVs, 51-46 LVs, both w/ Nader
Newsweek, RVs, 9/9-10: Bush 50-45 w/o Nader, 49-43 w/

Time ridiculousness, 9/7-9:
LVs (leaners included): Bush 54-42 w/o Nader, 52-42 w/
RVs (leaners excluded): Bush 51-39 w/o Nader (10% undecided), 50-39 w/

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 11 September 2004 20:18 (twenty years ago)

Economist/YouGov, 9/6-8, w/ Nader
RVs: Bush 46-45
LVs: Bush 47-46

Rasmussen, 9/10-12
LVs: Bush 47.2-46.5

IBD/CSM/TIPP, 9/7-12
RVs: Kerry 46-44 w/o Nader, 45-43 w/
LVs: tie at 47 w/o Nader, tie at 46 w/
Battlegrounds: Kerry 51-40
Independents: Kerry 48-38

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 13 September 2004 23:39 (twenty years ago)

The Bounce Is Over

Harris Interactive (phone poll), 9/9-13, w/ Nader
LVs: Kerry 48-47

Pew, 9/11-14, w/ Nader
RVs: tie at 46
LVs: Bush 47-46

Democracy Corps, 9/12-14
LVs: Bush 49-48 w/o Nader, Bush 47-45 w/

Colorado - ARG, 9/10-13 w/ Nader
Bush 46-45

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 17 September 2004 01:17 (twenty years ago)

Yeah. What's left to do now is dismantling the illusion Bush has a commanding lead.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 17 September 2004 03:15 (twenty years ago)

Though strangely the Gallup poll stills shows a 13 point Bush lead.

o. nate (onate), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:28 (twenty years ago)

i only checked pollingreport.com, but i still havent seen an extrememly recent (last 24 hrs) poll that puts kerry ahead nationwide.

Emilymv (Emilymv), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:37 (twenty years ago)

because there is no national poll from the last 24 hrs

the Gallup poll is an embarrassment. compare it to state polls - the level of national support in Gallup is lower than the state support in CO, TN, NC, VA and SC

a second Colorado poll out today shows Bush up only 1

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 17 September 2004 15:47 (twenty years ago)

The nature of the flaw in Gallup's methodology is starting to make the rounds. It looks like they heftily oversample Republicans.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 17 September 2004 22:36 (twenty years ago)

It really seems to me that the polls that the polls in this election are more flawed than in previous elections. Didn't Gallup used to be known for their accuracy? Or did I imagine reading that?

Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 17 September 2004 22:38 (twenty years ago)

(-1 "that the polls", obv)

Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 17 September 2004 22:39 (twenty years ago)

I hope that I can draw a little hope from your recent posts.

the bellefox, Saturday, 18 September 2004 09:47 (twenty years ago)

Has anyone documented a cause and effect relationship between polls indicating (and/or selecting) a frontrunner and lower-than-expected voter participation (as a voter might consider the contest a foregone conclusion and his/her vote meaningless accordingly)?

For example, does Gallup pre-emptively select the president-elect in its numbers? Does its polling (errant though it may be in its methodology) encourage or discourage voter turnout?

I hope for the former (as I tend to be a stubborn contrarian), but fear the latter.

nader (nader), Saturday, 18 September 2004 17:13 (twenty years ago)

Rasmussen State Tracking Polls:

3 upper Midwest states: Tie
Ohio: Bush up 1
Florida: Kerry up 1
Virginia: Bush up 4
Washington: Kerry up 5
Oregon: Kerry up 6
Michigan: Kerry up 7
South Carolina: Bush up 7

gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 18 September 2004 22:23 (twenty years ago)

Well it's nice to see someone besides Zogby putting Kerry up in Florida, even if it is w/in MOE

Dan I. (Dan I.), Sunday, 19 September 2004 02:43 (twenty years ago)

i tromped around portland today, on a voter reg/mobilization thing.

it was cold & rainy. i registered at least one new voter who was "leaning towards kerry"...

Lt. Kingfish Del Pickles (Kingfish), Sunday, 19 September 2004 06:55 (twenty years ago)

I have to say this thread is providing a great deal of comfort when the press over here are still reporting that double-digit GWB lead as fact. Keep it coming.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Sunday, 19 September 2004 15:30 (twenty years ago)

Kerry Losing Lead Over Bush in Illinois

Uh-oh.

jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 19 September 2004 15:54 (twenty years ago)

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybres163973220sep16,0,5538561.column


The telephone polls do not include cellular phones. There are almost 169 million cell phones being used in America today - 168,900,019 as of Sept. 15, according to the cell phone institute in Washington.

There is no way to poll cell phone users, so it isn't done.

Not one cell phone user has received a call on their cell phone asking them how they plan to vote as of today.

Free the Bee (ex machina), Sunday, 19 September 2004 19:25 (twenty years ago)

and note that all of the 'interactive' polls favor Kerry more than the traditional phone polls

Kerry Losing Lead Over Bush in Illinois

Please. That's a Survey USA poll. A much more reliable poll - Research 2000 - shows Kerry up 54-39, a decisive lead. Illinois is a safe Kerry state.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 19 September 2004 19:40 (twenty years ago)

It should be noted, though that the Breslin column overstates or gets wrong certain things - see Zogby's response

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 19 September 2004 19:45 (twenty years ago)

Why You Should Ignore Gallup Polls.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 20 September 2004 01:04 (twenty years ago)

Zogby phone poll, 7/17-19
LVs: Bush 47-44 w/o Nader, 46-43 w/

Internals are good. If things stay the same and the undecideds go to Kerry as predicted, this lines up roughly with my Kerry 51-47 prediction

gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 20 September 2004 10:07 (twenty years ago)

Gab, how many of those states you quoted the Rasmussen figures for above must Kerry win (or, better, what combination of states) to swing the Electoral College his way?

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Monday, 20 September 2004 10:20 (twenty years ago)

WSJ - Divergent Opinion Polls Reflect New Challenges to Tracking Vote.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 20 September 2004 13:39 (twenty years ago)

Michael, if Kerry wins all the Gore states, winning in Florida will be enough for him to win. He could even lose in either PA or WI and win in NH and still win.

Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 20 September 2004 19:43 (twenty years ago)

This looks to be interesting.

don carville weiner, Friday, 24 September 2004 00:56 (twenty years ago)

that dude is partly right but sort of missing the point on weighting - yes, it's inaccurate as to the current self-identification of poll respondents, but it's nevertheless closer to the consistent distribution of people who have actually voted in the last three elections. Teixiera is being somewhat inconsistent, but less so when you consider that the distribution he defended was more akin to the recent distribution of actual voters than is the current party-id

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 24 September 2004 01:01 (twenty years ago)

Actually, I'd say that the dude thinks that Teixiera is missing the point on weighting.

Nevertheless, it looks to be a good blog in the home stretch.

don carville weiner, Friday, 24 September 2004 01:46 (twenty years ago)

I just read the first 4 posts ... nice link, don.

ex-jeremy (x Jeremy), Friday, 24 September 2004 02:42 (twenty years ago)

OK. I realise that population distribution this time around means winning all the Gore states leaves Kerry nine short (?) in the EC rather than the three Gore failed by, so Florida (or Ohio?) is essential. But the notion that Rasmussen has dumped NJ in the 'toss-up' column for the first time depresses the hell out of me. 'Winning all the Gore states' is the first hurdle.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Friday, 24 September 2004 07:35 (twenty years ago)

Striking, this thread. Its subject is ultimately of such vast importance -- it is a thread that tries, modestly, predicts the fate of the world. Yet (and this is an attempt at description, not criticism at all) much of that work is done in such dry numerical terms, black and white lists of numbers which are not legible to the casual reader, and need, I think, an intuitively mathematical talent like Jones to descry aright.

It is like - like, say, the Bible as a bar code.

the bellefox, Friday, 24 September 2004 11:31 (twenty years ago)

That is: 'tries, modestly, to predict'

the chimefox, Friday, 24 September 2004 11:32 (twenty years ago)

I wouldn't worry too much about New Jersey, really. One fervently hopes that Bush has already peaked in this campaign, and now can only fall back.

But... who knows what tricks and scams are on the way in the coming weeks?

My gut feeling however is that the debates will be crucial. It's all fine and well people thinking Bush is better at 'presenting' himself, but that goes out of the window in a detailed debate about the state of the country. He did very poorly against McCain I remember, and hardly impressed in the Gore debates - if I remember correctly, it was more that people were disappointed in Gore and some were turned off him rather than Bush winning positive support.

Pennsylvania is going to be rather more crucial a Gore state for Kerry to fight and win than the much safer New Jersey. And he ought to win there, but it might be close and organisation will be key.

Tom May (Tom May), Friday, 24 September 2004 12:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm not the man to be dishing out the numbers (I can't read between them and inside them like Gab), but Rasmussen (which I now check a couple of times a day - and it could be notoriously and wildly out, I dunno) now has the national vote down to less than one point in favour of Bush. I hope this is a trend.

Tom is right about PA - all along I've been mistakenly thinking it was a Bush state in 2000 and it wasn't. So, of the nine states too close to indicate even a firm lean, five unfortunately remain Gore states from last time (Iowa, Minn, New Mex, Penn, Wisc) - which Kerry MUST win. The only state Rasmussen is calling as a switch is New Hampshire - from Bush '00 to Kerry '04. This plus all the Gore states equals 264 EC votes. Not enough. I've given up on Florida - it's seem improbable that Jeb will allow it slip away - but there's always Ohio.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:00 (twenty years ago)

WHOOT!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/

Aaron W (Aaron W), Saturday, 2 October 2004 21:38 (twenty years ago)

This is great news. I've been wondering aloud on other threads whether the reason for the apparently small-but-statistically-significant Bush nationwide lead since the Republican Convention is a collapse of Democrat support in some of the eastern seaboard states Kerry is, ultimately, unlikely to actually lose - NJ, NY, MD, etc.

If so, the Bush lead isn't that much to worry about - the battleground states are all tight, NH looks like coming back to the Dems, perhaps CO too, in OH they're registering new voters like crazy (er, as long as the forms are of the correct paper stock...) and so on. It's not beyond the realms of possibility, etc.

And now maybe the Bush lead has gone - for good. Godspeed John Edwards.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 2 October 2004 22:06 (twenty years ago)

I hope that Newsweek poll is accurate. Despite the fact that a lot of the news talking heads tried to play it as a "tie," Kerry practically humiliated Bush last Thursday. It was hopeful to see that Rove and Co. are maybe not the invincible evil geniuses we thought they were. Kind of like in the boxing match in the 1980s when Rocky Balboa made Ivan Drago bleed and realized that he was human afer all and not a robot built by the Communists. And if memory serves I think Rocky eventually won that fight.

herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Saturday, 2 October 2004 22:35 (twenty years ago)

it seems that as more time passes, the media is shying away from it's initial decision to not declare a "winner" of the debate, or is at least finding other ways of declaring it ("people say that Kerry won"); this is great, because it takes a while for these things to seep into the public consciousness anyway. by the time the next debate rolls around they'll be saying Bush has a giant challenge to overcome his performance in the first debate.

kyle (akmonday), Sunday, 3 October 2004 00:01 (twenty years ago)

I am glad, if the polls are indeed saying that Kerry is ahead. It's amazing.

the bellefox, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 11:45 (twenty years ago)

Rasmussen remains steadfastly unmoved by it all - the Bush lead shrinking by a single point from four to three in their nationwide poll and little change in the battleground states. I can't quite believe the dramatic swing of the Newsweek poll but I don't believe Kerry's debate performance had this little impact either.

Let's hope it's a cumulative effect and the remaining three debates sway people in the same direction. Perhaps this wave of new voter registration in OH, FL and elsewhere will be decisive.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 11:58 (twenty years ago)

When will we know when Florida is back on its feet enough for their polls to be very meaningful? Is it already the case, or no? I'm not very comfortable with relying on Ohio, cause if we lose New Mexico we get the Dreaded Tie.

Dan I. (Dan I.), Saturday, 9 October 2004 20:09 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.