New Polling thread

[Sayhey]

Sorry, couldn't find the old thread, but I wanted to post these new state polls. All of the following were released on August 17th or 18th.

Missouri

Bush - 48%
Kerry - 47%

Washington

Bush - 43%
Kerry - 51%

Colorado

Bush - 47%
Kerry - 47%

Nevada

Bush - 49%
Kerry - 46%

SurveyUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html)

Of these states, only Washington is a must win for Kerry. The fact that in the others, where Bush must win, it is a dead heat, is not good for the Bush campaign.

[IJ Reilly]

I was surprised to see the same 53/41 Kerry-Bush split in Pennsylvania as was found in California. I suspect Pennsylvania will be a much closer call in the end.

[Bobcat37]

Colorado

Bush - 47%
Kerry - 47%

I better get to work :p

Seriously though, polls are fun, but even if Bush was leading in all of these right now I wouldn't be taking anything for granted.

Anyway, it's still too early IMO, first the Republicans need to get their national convention and then we need to have some Bush vs Kerry debates to see how polls might shift...

[zimv20]

we need to have some Bush vs Kerry debates
how many do you think there will be?

[Thomas Veil]

Damn. You beat me to this topic.

Here in Ohio -- depending on how you read it -- Kerry is pulling away from Bush:

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 761 registered Ohio voters, conducted between August 13-15, showed Kerry at 50 percent, followed by Bush at 41 percent and Independent candidate Ralph Nader at 5 percent.

With Nader not an option, Kerry had 52 percent support to Bush's 42 percent. The sampling error, in both cases, was +/- 4 percentage points.

Kerry's advantage dropped significantly when only likely voters, 628 in the survey, were considered. Forty-seven percent of respondents sided with the Democratic senator, 45 percent with Bush and 4 percent with Nader.
Personally, I read that as a hopeful sign, if not an outright convincing one. I tend to give more credence to the "likely voters" than to the respondents in general.

Still, that first figure (50 - 41%) is the widest gap Kerry has enjoyed in Ohio...and Ohio is, of course, one of the most critical states.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/ohio/index.html)

[Bobcat37]

Personally, I read that as a hopeful sign, if not an outright convincing one. I tend to give more credence to the "likely voters" than to the respondents in general.

Still, that first figure (50 - 41%) is the widest gap Kerry has enjoyed in Ohio...and Ohio is, of course, one of the most critical states.

Wait what? You're sorta double talking. First you say that you see the polls as a hopeful sign, then you say you put more faith in the "likely voters" poll which has Kerry barely beating Bush (within the margin of error might I add), and then you refer back to the first poll as Kerry's greatest lead yet (which you previously admitted to taking less credence in).

You aren't exactly being consistent IMO.

[Thomas Veil]

I simply recognize that Kerry has the same narrow lead he's held for several weeks now, and that if any of the "non-likely voters" do vote, Kerry is likely to pull even further ahead.

[Leo Hubbard]

For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat. In a Times poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2-percentage-point advantage over Bush.


That small shift from July was within the poll's margin of error. But it fit with other findings in the Times poll showing the electorate edging toward Bush over the past month on a broad range of measures, from support for his handling of Iraq (news - web sites) to confidence in his leadership and honesty.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/20040826/ts_latimes/bushedgesaheadofkerryforthe1sttime
I
DNC convention bounce?

[Leo Hubbard]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Bush won more popular vote, but Kerry got more electoral votes! :)
That would be sick. :eek:

[mischief]

Wouldn't it be ironic if Bush won more popular vote, but Kerry got more electoral votes! :)

Only if the recount was blocked.

[Don't panic]

i think, no matter who wins, its time to modernize the system and do away, once and for all, with the absurd, unfair, obsolete "electoral vote" system.

enough of this "swing states" BS

MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT THE SAME!

[mischief]

i think, no matter who wins, its time to modernize the system and do away, once and for all, with the absurd, unfair, obsolete "electoral vote" system.

enough of this "swing states" BS

MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT THE SAME!

Hmm... If we're going to do that we may as well use one, standardized and SECURE voting system that relys on a secure network and secure access.

The only system I can think of that we all rely on to meet those requirements is the Banking system/ATM networks. Shall we require anyone transacting on Voting Day to vote before transacting? Better turnout... no confusion about where to vote... standardized and accepted ID requirements...

[Don't panic]

Hmm... If we're going to do that we may as well use one, standardized and SECURE voting system that relys on a secure network and secure access.

The only system I can think of that we all rely on to meet those requirements is the Banking system/ATM networks. Shall we require anyone transacting on Voting Day to vote before transacting? Better turnout... no confusion about where to vote... standardized and accepted ID requirements...

very interesting idea.
my only problem with a system such as this would be the theoric possibility of tracking the votes to who voted. this could be easily abused, with very scary consequences

[mischief]

very interesting idea.
my only problem with a system such as this would be the theoric possibility of tracking the votes to who voted. this could be easily abused, with very scary consequences

That'd be an inherent side effect of any truly secure voting system. Unless you wanted to use some form of "voting paypal". :p

[Don't panic]

That'd be an inherent side effect of any truly secure voting system. Unless you wanted to use some form of "voting paypal". :p

another problem: it would be reasonably easy to buy votes: (because you could be able to provide proof of what you voted, or someone, could borrow/check you vote)

(although digital cameras technology and absentee voting it already is)

[Lyle]

Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130234,00.html) we go. The lead is that:"The presidential race is tied with Kerry holding a one-point advantage [at 44 percent] over Bush [at 43 percent] among likely voters, down from a five-point edge immediately following the Democratic National Convention."Looks like Bush's favorable numbers have increased a few points (from 47 to 50 percent) since their previous poll and Kerry's have dropped by about the same amount (from 52 to 48 percent). I will leave the rest to the true believers to spin this however you choose. ;)

[mischief]

another problem: it would be reasonably easy to buy votes: (because you could be able to provide proof of what you voted, or someone, could borrow/check you vote)

(although digital cameras technology and absentee voting it already is)

It was all so much simpler when you could just compare the number of paper scraps in the hat to the number of folks in your village...

[themadchemist]

Isn't the sample size--500-700 per state--kind of small?

[Lyle]

Isn't the sample size--500-700 per state--kind of small?It's a legitimate question; I don't know the answer.

Have been hearing more this evening about a number of other new polls, all of which appear to put Bush in the lead by a handful of points (but always within a margin of error):

The latest CNN/USA Today Poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/prez.poll/index.html), which finds Kerry holding a single-point lead among registered voters, but Bush holding a three-point lead among likely voters.
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5833253/), which finds Bush two points ahead among registered voters.
The latest L.A. Times Poll (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=akQFfZ909f8I&refer=top_world_news), which finds Bush ahead by three points among registered voters.

[Sayhey]

Here is a poll of the horse race that has some significance because of the HUGE sample size. Most polls are done with less than a tenth of this sample. Of course, we must remind ourselves again and again that these national numbers mean very little - it is the state races for electoral votes that count.

Nationally, a large Zogby/Williams poll of 20,900 voters found Kerry leads Bush by 50.8 percent to 46.7 percent among likely voters, with only 2.4 percent undecided or so soft in their support of either candidate that they could easily change. That survey had an error margin of plus or minus less than 1 percentage point.

Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm21317_20040828.htm)

It says at the end of the article that the survey was taken between Aug. 11th through the 24th. Of note is not only that Kerry tops 50% but that this is of likely voters. Kerry does better in almost all polling of the larger pool of registered voters. If turn out increases it is to his benefit.

[Lyle]

Latest TIME magazine poll results are summarized in this press release (http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html). From the lead:
For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.Also, per some previous comments about sample size and so forth:
The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +/- 3% points, and +/- 4% points for likely voters.

[Don't panic]

we are doomed. :mad:

they say people eventually get what they deserve.

Is this what we have become? A confederacy of dunces that will follow like idiots a bunch of blatant liars just because they pretend to be waving the biggest flag?

how sad

[blackfox]

Lyle, regarding the Time poll, do you think it is/was influenced by the proximity to the RNC in NY and the press it has been (naturally) receiving? It would seem that such would (temporarily) skew public opinion...

At any rate, I see this being a squeaker down to the end, with the polls in October being the only ones of any consequence...as Americans are fickle and have short-attention spans overall...whoever holds up a shiny thing last to the US public to get their glazed-eyed attention(s) should win...

[Lyle]

Lyle, regarding the Time poll, do you think it is/was influenced by the proximity to the RNC in NY and the press it has been (naturally) receiving? It would seem that such would (temporarily) skew public opinion...
Oh sure, I completely agree. Would a reasonable comparison be to look at the "morning-after" poll numbers immediately following the end of the Democratic National Convention? I found one story here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/polls.bounce) that seems to indicate the Kerry's post-convention "bounce" was basically non-existent, and I recall other news coverage around that time to have been pretty consistent with that reporting. But I don't know that you can really compare the two.

I'm not a statistician or anything, and I know that pundits on either side with spin these results in creative ways; it was just striking to me that this poll shows Bush with a double-digit lead over Kerry as opposed to the dead heat that we seem to have been stuck in for some time now.

At any rate, I see this being a squeaker down to the end, with the polls in October being the only ones of any consequence...I was going to say that the poll held on November 2 is probably the only one we can say anything definitive about at this point. Unless of course we get a repeat of the 2000 elections. ;)

Cue the party faithful to start carping about how Bush stole the election........ Now.

[mactastic]

At this point national polls really mean very little. State by state numbers are more informative. Not like that will change anything, but it IS possible to get the most votes and still lose...

[Leo Hubbard]

we are doomed. :mad:

they say people eventually get what they deserve.

Is this what we have become? A confederacy of dunces that will follow like idiots a bunch of blatant liars just because they pretend to be waving the biggest flag?

how sad
No, thats why they are voting for Bush, to get the liars like Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, out of the White House. Too bad certain states still are full of dunces that will follow like idiots a bunch of blatant liars or we'd have the Republicans and the Libertarians as the two major parties in the White House.

[skunk]

No, thats why they are voting for Bush, to get the liars like Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, out of the White House. Too bad certain states still are full of dunces that will follow like idiots a bunch of blatant liars or we'd have the Republicans and the Libertarians as the two major parties in the White House.
Thank god for dunces, then.