Polls are moving back in Bush's direction

[Thomas Veil]

I give up. I just don't know what to say anymore.

With just two weeks left to go, and in spite of Kerry winning all three debates, the latest CNN/Gallup poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/poll.sunday/index.html) shows Bush widening the lead, 52% to 44%, over Kerry among likely voters.

This follows a Newsweek poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6260444/site/newsweek/) a day or two earlier which reached a similar conclusion.

I don't get it. Does Bush have to physically come to your house, rob you blind and shoot your children not to get elected?

If this doesn't change quickly, you might want to think about following through on that threat to move to Canada.

[meta-ghost]

relax. the truth is nothing of the sort. cnn/gallup are shills for the gop. if you look at the internals of the poll, it's legitimacy falls apart pretty quickly.

this is who they say will be voting on election day.

Republicans = 296 (38%)
Independents = 211 (27%)
Democrats = 278 (35%)

now tell me that we are going to see 3% more registered republicans voting. no way.

1) goopers have never in history had such an advantage in registered numbers.
2) democrats have registered millions.

it's crap pure and simple. big media doesn't want a change in the fcc and they're doing all they can to work with the rethug team. it's about creating an aura of invincibility.

in 2000, the gallup model over-sample rethugs by 3% and under-sample dems by 4%. a 7% mistake.

this election won't be anywhere near as close as most are saying. especially electorally

[LethalWolfe]

With just two weeks left to go, and in spite of Kerry winning all three debates, the latest CNN/Gallup poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/poll.sunday/index.html) shows Bush widening the lead, 52% to 44%, over Kerry among likely voters.


Just because people think candidate X presented himself better during a debate doesn't neccisarily<sp?> mean people think candidate X will do a better job in the White House.

The "who won the debate" poll is, IMO, pointless and only good for PR for the winning side.


Lethal

[Sun Baked]

Just because people think candidate X presented himself better during a debate doesn't neccisarily<sp?> mean people think candidate X will do a better job in the White House.

The "who won the debate" poll is, IMO, pointless and only good for PR for the winning side.


LethalI guess that's why they seem to have ignored candidate Z, he would have make them both look like jokes.

Ralphie has done more for the average citizen than both candidate X & Y together.

Of course that doesn't make him a leader, but just somebody that's done a lot.

---

Would have been interesting to see him on stage though, nobody could be worse that Ross Perot on stage, besides Bush. ;)

[LeeTom]

Yeah, these polls are pointless. Kerry will win with 9% of the electoral vote, and all the news agencies will call it a big surprise, yada-yada.
We know who will win.

Lee Tom

[zimv20]

at this late date, i think these "swings" we're seeing are more variances due to who's polled and what questions are asked than true opinion movement.

fwiw, this zogby poll (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041017/pl_nm/campaign_poll_sunday_dc_4) has the margin at 2.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) cut President Bush (news - web sites)'s lead to 2 points with just over two weeks to go before the Nov. 2 election, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Sunday.

Bush led Kerry by 46 percent to 44 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll of the closely contested race for the White House. The president led the Massachusetts senator by 48 percent to 44 percent the previous day.

(more)

[meta-ghost]

Just because people think candidate X presented himself better during a debate doesn't neccisarily<sp?> mean people think candidate X will do a better job in the White House.

The "who won the debate" poll is, IMO, pointless and only good for PR for the winning side.


4 years of incompetence AND looking like an idiot who doesn't know the issues can usually be overcome when:
1) you own the media
2) you own congress
3) you own scotus

but not this year.

[meta-ghost]

at this late date, i think these "swings" we're seeing are more variances due to who's polled and what questions are asked than true opinion movement.

fwiw, this zogby poll (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041017/pl_nm/campaign_poll_sunday_dc_4) has the margin at 2.

zogby is one of the better pollsters. check this approach out:

The very creative John Zogby, in a print-only article in this week's New Yorker reveals why he was so sure the 2000 election would be incredibly close --- by polling America's true reality, the imaginary land of Oz. And... *this same polling technique currently forecasts a 10% Kerry landslide for 2004! Here is what Zogby told Larissa MacFarquhar, the author of the article:

"I asked one question the Saturday before the election in 2000. I called my call center in Utica and said, 'Put this in the poll:"You live in the land of Oz, and the candidates are the Tin Man, who's all brains and no heart, and the Scarecrow, who's all heart and no brains. Who would you vote for?"' The next day, I called Utica and said, 'Whaddaya got?' They said, 'Well we've got Gore---, 'I said, 'I don't care about Gore. What's Oz? 'It was 46.2 for the Tin Man and 46.2 for the Scarecrow. It was right there that I knew I wasn't going to know what was going to happen. But I asked this question again two weeks ago and the Tin Man led by 10 points.

Apparently Zogby has been polling Oz on this race ever since, and as recently as April of 2004 the Tin Man and the Scarecrow were running dead even. But now it's a blow-out! (actually Zogby's poll is two weeks old, which suggests that in Oz the debates took place during September...).

[LeeTom]

That's fascinating about the Zogby Oz thing... and, I might point out, is in line with my prediction! :)

Lee Tom

[Thomas Veil]

Well, I feel a little better about things.

But it also seems to me at, as election day nears, the few remaining undecided voters usually seem to gravitate towards the status quo rather than the challenger. I hope I'm wrong.

[IJ Reilly]

According to what I've been reading, an incumbent president's most important poll number is being at 50% or better; anything less is an advantage for a challenger. This supposedly is a more accurate predictor of victory than who is ahead at any given point. Since the advent of modern polling, very few incumbents have won when they polled under 50% -- which is where George W. is at today. Also, according to the pollsters, very few incumbents have done better in the election than their poll numbers predicted. George Bush the Elder is one of the few, but by less than one percent. All of the others have underperformed their poll numbers.

[yg17]

After seeing the front page of USA Today where it said dubya was ahead by 8 points, some of the facts made in this thread help re-assure the crook only has 15 more days left :)

[zimv20]

the crook only has 15 more days left :)
well, there is the lame duck period.

any guesses on what bush'll do during that time, should kerry win? i.e. would bush do something rash to intentionally **** the kerry presidency?

[meta-ghost]

well, there is the lame duck period.

any guesses on what bush'll do during that time, should kerry win? i.e. would bush do something rash to intentionally **** the kerry presidency?

there isn't much he can do now, his hands are tied. he can't invade iran/syria because the old guard conservative power structure realizes iraq has been a disaster in every respect. nor would he have support from an international community in any way.

domestically, thank the lord we have the filibuster.

[Roger1]

Take all the "k"s off the keyboard?

[yg17]

well, there is the lame duck period.

any guesses on what bush'll do during that time, should kerry win? i.e. would bush do something rash to intentionally **** the kerry presidency?

d'oh! forgot about that

thats what worries me the most...all this time he's had to be careful with his decisions because he's up for re-election. But during the lame duck period or if god forbid shrub gets re-elected, he can do just about whatever the hell he wants becuase he doesnt have to worry about re-election

[wwworry]

I was out canvasing the other day and I noticed that a lot of people who were "infrequent voters" were going to be sure to vote in this election. It's something that most of my lazy friends and I were all out canvasing and most of us poor slobs had given money to the dems for this election whereas before we had never even considered it. I know there are a lot of people out there who are not considered "likely" voters who will be voting this time around.

I don't know if it will make a difference but at least we tried. The polls don't matter. We matter.

[Thomas Veil]

Take all the "k"s off the keyboard?
Dammit, you beat me to it! :p

[Blue Velvet]

Perhaps this may make some Republican voters complacent and not bother voting... after all, if it's in the bag...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Forget those polls, i have not had anyone call me or ask me how iam going to vote and if i recall i saw hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating against Bush and that was everywhere. Bush has pissed off many folks for a plethera of reasons...............i expect a large turnout and a large turnout doesnt bode well for Bush. Whats the weather forcast 2 weeks from now? ;)

[meta-ghost]

Forget those polls, i have not had anyone call me or ask me how iam going to vote and if i recall i saw hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating against Bush and that was everywhere. Bush has pissed off many folks for a plethera of reasons...............i expect a large turnout and a large turnout doesnt bode well for Bush. Whats the weather forcast 2 weeks from now? ;)

democrats will swim thru shark infested waters to vote this year.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I would have to agree with you meta-ghost. i almost would and i aint even a democrat. :D

[Sun Baked]

democrats will swim thru shark infested waters to vote this year.Isn't that a reality TV show?

[IJ Reilly]

Whats the weather forcast 2 weeks from now? ;)

Weather junky to the rescue. My patented Approx-u-Weather forecast for November 2 for major cities across the country:

Boston: partly cloudy, breezy, 35/40
Cleveland: overcast, 35/45, chance of rain
Chicago: overcast, breezy, 42/45, chance of rain
Dallas: partly cloudy, 60/65
Denver: overcast, 20/30, light snow
Des Moines: cloudy, 45/48, rain
Detroit: partly cloudy, 35/40
Los Angeles: clear, 40/55
New York City: overcast, 35/40
Miami: partly cloudy, breezy, 75/78
Phoenix: clear, 45/60
Pittsburgh: overcast, 30/45, chance of light rain
Seattle: overcast, 38/45, rain
St. Louis: overcast, 45/52, chance of light rain
Washington DC: partly cloudy, 32/38

No sharks in the models yet, but I'll keep an eye out.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Could be a Republican day with all those clouds.....I find it interesting that Putin Dictator ..i mean President of russia is backing Bush. I wonder how many Americans will vote Bush because a Russian dictator darn it i did it again i mean president of russia tells us to.

[IJ Reilly]

Don't place too much stock in the forecast at this point. I'm working right on the edge of the long range models and they tend to wobble around quite a bit run-to-run that far out. I'll update in a couple of days.

[meta-ghost]

Could be a Republican day with all those clouds.....I find it interesting that Putin Dictator ..i mean President of russia is backing Bush. I wonder how many Americans will vote Bush because a Russian dictator darn it i did it again i mean president of russia tells us to.

some people suggest that the rooskies do indeed hope for a bush win for the following reason:

it use to be that as the only remaining superpower we (more or less) ran the show. from world trade to politics the americans had to be aboard. tell me that is the case now. our influence has diminished in the past four years substantially. our use of force in iraq has now neutered us. there is no way we could lead the charge on any number of issues that will be presented to the world.

that's fine with the rooskies, they have their on agenda.

[IJ Reilly]

The reason for Putin's support for Bush is pretty straight-forward. So long as the US is invading and occupying Middle Eastern nations, we'll be hard-pressed to criticize Putin's war on the Chechens.

[zimv20]

i was listening to the tavis smiley show this afternoon. one of his guests is a professional pollster. brought up was this point: there's a trend among younger citizens to not have a land-line telephone number. i.e. they're cell-phone only. so this group, registering in record numbers and mostly registering Democratic, aren't being counted in the polls.

[skunk]

interesting. new. punctuation. style... :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

would bush do something rash to intentionally **** the kerry presidency?

You are the master of the rhetorical question.

[meta-ghost]

without going into all of the examples of the democratic registration drive, just look at iowa - as noted in todays ap/yahoo story:

"In Iowa, Democrats have registered 42,074 more of their supporters than the GOP -- this in a state Bush lost by just over 4,000 votes."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041018/ap_on_el_pr/winning_the_new_voters&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798

[Thomas Veil]

there's a trend among younger citizens to not have a land-line telephone number. i.e. they're cell-phone only. so this group, registering in record numbers and mostly registering Democratic, aren't being counted in the polls.
That's good to know.

A coupla weeks ago I mentioned that here in Ohio, new Democratic voter registration was outrunning Republican registration by something like a 3-to-1 margin. But because these people have no voting records, they aren't asked to participate in a lot of polls.

It's on little things like these that I hang my hope for a Kerry victory.

Be quite a story if these things did turn out to be a big factor, and Kerry were to win by a more-than-razor-thin margin.

I'm still on the edge of my seat, though. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/uhoh2.gif

[Brize]

Just because people think candidate X presented himself better during a debate doesn't neccisarily<sp?> mean people think candidate X will do a better job in the White House.

The "who won the debate" poll is, IMO, pointless and only good for PR for the winning side.

Can you elaborate on this?

One candidate remained calm under pressure, responded directly to each question, and presented a clear and compelling case for his election as President. The other buckled under pressure, purposely evaded questions that didn't suit him, and failed to suggest viable solutions to issues such as Iraq, Homeland Security, unemployment, and healthcare. Oh, and he also forgot that his tax return included income from a timber company.

Why might this not be a reliable indicator as to which candidate would do a better job in the White House?

[yg17]

democrats will swim thru shark infested waters to vote this year.

Maybe I wont swim through shark infested waters to vote for Kerry, but I will be driving 100 miles back home to vote come hell or high water to put my vote for Kerry in.

And after reading some of the numbers and facts stated in this thread, I am more than confident that Bush will be unemployed by the end of January :)

[zimv20]

Bush will be unemployed by the end of January :)
oh, he'll be very employed. carlyle group, for starters. who else? bechtel? another pro sports team senior position?

one thing i'm confident of -- he won't be one of those post-office humanitarian mission guys, like carter. bush will be all about 1) making money for his corporations, and 2) using his influence to get gov't $$ for those corporations

oh yeah, the bush family will become a water cartel.

[pseudobrit]

oh, he'll be very employed.

He just won't be working. Still.

[LethalWolfe]

Can you elaborate on this?

One candidate remained calm under pressure, responded directly to each question, and presented a clear and compelling case for his election as President. The other buckled under pressure, purposely evaded questions that didn't suit him, and failed to suggest viable solutions to issues such as Iraq, Homeland Security, unemployment, and healthcare. Oh, and he also forgot that his tax return included income from a timber company.

Why might this not be a reliable indicator as to which candidate would do a better job in the White House?


TV debates in America are about presentation. Style. Not substance. I'm sure a professional public speaker or professional actor could, after boning up on the issues, run circles around just about any politician. Does that mean that public speakers and actors would all be good Presidents? Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell in a live debate against a high school math teacher but does that mean that Hawking is worthless as a scientist?

As much as the debates are touted as the candidates finally having a chance to duke it out head to head it's still all marketing and spin for the cameras. The candidates know that and that's what they target. Style. Not substance. Hair, clothes, skin tone, perceived height, what the podiums look like... all these things have zilch to do w/either candidates' position but both camps go over them (and lots more) with a fine-toothed comb. A myriad of questions, likely responses, and rebuttals are all taken into account. It's more rehearsed then people realize. One of the best retorts ever, Senator Lloyd Bentsen's "Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy" zinger wasn't a sharp, witty on-the-fly insult. It was a planned and rehearsed response to a much expected statement. Bentsent's camp knew that Quayle had a history of comparing his age and experience to JFK and were ready to light him up if he did it in the debate. Which he did and boy did he get lit up.

Getting back to the superficial... Dukakis' eyebrows didn't do him any favors. Do you think that Perot's height, ears, and accent didn't impact voters' perceptions? Do you think a cripple could be President in America today? If you watched the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate on TV odds are you thought Kennedy won. If you listened to the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate on the radio odds are you thought Nixon won.

Up until this point I've kept my statements free of current election references 'cause I didn't want partisan BS to come into play. But sense you opened that door...

Who won debate #1 according to polls? Kerry. According to the polls who was better suited to handle the WoT and Iraq (the topic of debate #1)? Bush. At first this might seem confusing, but it really isn't. "Who is a better debater?" is not the same question as "Who do you think would do a better job?"


Here are a couple of humorous links referring to what I'm talking about:
Link 1 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1008_041008_presidential_debate.html#main)
Link 2 (http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v11n1/hoffman1.html)


Lethal

[solvs]

I noticed that. The polls were surprisingly in Kerry's favor re: the debates... but Bush was still winning. Looking closer, of the people who claim they will be voting Bush, a very large majority said that they hoped Bush would do things differently. I believe it was MSNBC (but don't quote me). His approval is down, approval for Iraq is down, people are unhappy with just about every other domestic problem here... yet Bush refuses to admit he made a mistake despite overwhelming evidence against him. Even Clinton had to fess up after he got caught. But people are still voting for him. Guess you can be as bad a leader as you can be, as long as people don't like your opponent.

I have been hearing about them polling people only with landlines. I'm one of those who just has a cell phone and have not been polled. I've also heard that voter registration has increased quite a bit due to people wanting to vote out the President. The conspiracy theorist in me says that these polls are to get people to want to vote if they don't want Bush to win. If I'm right, it seems to be working. Of the people I know, few support Bush. Mostly because they doesn't like Kerry, or because they think we should stand behind the President, no matter what. Of the 3 people I know that might vote for Bush, none of them is voting. One says he might vote for Nader, just because. Better Nader than Bush.

For once I actually care about the political process. And though I don't like Kerry that much, he has grown on me enough (I should say I have grown to dislike Bush enough) that I will support him. I am literally afraid of another Bush term. I think his attitide will destroy what we know of America. In the last 4 years, he has done more damage than most people seem to realize. If they opened their eyes, they would see that. I am a big picture guy, whereas GW is a black and white type of guy in a gray world. People fall for his rhetoric because it is easy to understand. People don't understand Kerry because he is nuanced and won't give 30 second answers to complex problems.

I can see Bush winning, but I truly hope he does not.

[Brize]

Lethal: Thanks for providing an informative response – very much appreciated.

It doesn't surprise me that the American people are easily swayed by superficial elements, and no, I don't think that a disabled person could be President in America today. In both cases however, that's merely a sad indictment of the electorate.

I didn't have the opportunity to watch the debates on television, so had to settle for audio versions from the iTMS. As such, I was surprised to read that Kerry had been 'awarded' the first debate, because I hadn't seen Bush's scowling and slouching. On the basis of audio alone, that first debate seemed pretty even to me. The second and third debates however, were, to my mind, balanced in Kerry's favour. I say that not on the basis of style, skin tone, clothing, or cheap point scoring, but on the ability to remain calm and focused under pressure; the ability to directly engage with the issue at hand, and the ability to articulate coherent and viable policies. Yes, these are hallmarks of a skilled debater, but they are also essential qualities for a President.

The reason that Bush is considered as a better bet with regard to the 'War on Terror' and Iraq is a) because the two have purposely been conflated, and b) because the Bush administration has deliberately created a climate of fear and confusion. It's sad enough that Bush used 9/11 for political gain, but sadder still that a significant proportion of the US electorate have fallen for what is a fairly unsophisticated ruse. As such, the contradiction highlighted by the polls is not particularly surprising or confusing.

[RandomDeadHead]

Thats an interesting point about cell phones. I don't know anybody that has a land line anymore. Where I live, Sprint is a monopoly and has NO competition, except for the cell phone companies.

Do I
(a) pay sprint $65.00 a month for pure crap service. And have to pay extra for long distance.
(b) pay Alltel $42.50 a month for unlimited minutes and nationwide long distance.
Hmm, witch to choose?

Now I am sure that most Rich white republicans that are 65 years with their pearl white Caddy's in the drive way have landline's. But certainly not any of the young people I know(18-30). Hell, I don't know any people my age that have land lines any more. (30-50).

So if you only poll people that have house phones you are totaly disregarding a shockingly large portion of America. And of that portion I am willing to bet A huge percentage of them are newly forged democrats.

Damn, thats like only polling people who bought Hummer H2's during the 2004 model year. Pure Bushit.

[IJ Reilly]

How inaccurate the polls may be this year due to the proliferation of cell phones isn't known and I'd personally be hesitant to guess. The young people who are more likely to have mobiles instead of land-lines are also the group least likely to vote. Has that statistic changed this year? We'll all be made aware in a couple of weeks.

FWIW, I've got three land-lines and two mobile lines, and haven't had a call from a pollster on any one of them yet. And I don't have a pearl white Caddy in the driveway, either. Maybe that's why.

[Thomas Veil]

Here's something interesting:

Air America's home page today carries this CNN poll (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/20/tracking.poll/index.html) taken two weeks before the election, showing Bush ahead of Gore by a full 10 points. And as we know, Gore "lost" by only a slim margin.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush may be expanding his narrow lead over Vice President Al Gore in the hard-fought presidential race, according to Friday's CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll. Friday's results indicate Bush garnering 50 percent and Gore drawing 40 percent of likely voters' support.

However, the survey of 702 likely voters was conducted October 17-19, meaning a third of the interviews were completed before the final presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri, last Tuesday. The results are based on interviews conducted Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, with nearly all of the Tuesday night interviews conducted before the debate concluded. So, while it is too early to tell the full effect of Tuesday night's face-to-face encounter, the poll indicates that Bush has gained some strength in the past few days.
Yes, the poll was taken before the final debate. But I don't remember Gore doing anything spectacular in that one, do you?

Addendum: Slate has a running poll showing who's winning the electoral vote. At the moment they have Kerry ahead of Bush 276-262. Check it out. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108392/) It's a statistician's delight. :p

[meta-ghost]

And as we know, Gore "lost" by only a slim margin.


gore = 50 million votes
bush = 49 million

[Mike Teezie]

I haven't been polled.

The optimist in me thinks it won't be as close as current polls are showing.

The pessimist in me is too afraid to even consider another 4 years of the Dub.

[IJ Reilly]

Election Day weather forecast update. Current national trend is towards warmer, somewhat wetter and a bit windier in the Midwest and Northeast.

Boston: partly cloudy, breezy, 50/55
Cleveland: overcast, breezy 40/45, chance of rain
Chicago: partly cloudy, windy, 38/45
Dallas: overcast, breezy, 60/65, rain
Denver: partly cloudy, 30/35
Des Moines: clear, breezy, 30/35
Detroit: cloudy, breezy 38/45
Los Angeles: clear, 50/70
New York City: overcast, breezy, 50/60, light rain
Miami: partly cloudy, breezy, 75/78
Phoenix: clear, 50/65
Pittsburgh: overcast, 40/50, chance of light rain
Seattle: overcast, 40/50, rain
St. Louis: partly cloudy, 40/50
Washington DC: partly cloudy, 45/50, chance of light rain