« Sesame Street Polling | Main | Comment Double-Posting Problems? »
Saturday, September 04, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, September 4
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous Numbers in Parenthesis)
National Popular Vote Projection
Bush: 50.30 (47.98)
Kerry: 47.70 (50.02)
Status: Toss-up
Electoral College Projection
Bush: 284, 194 solid (252, 161)
Kerry: 254, 169 solid (286, 210)
States Changing Hands from 2000: WI to Bush
States Projected Under Three Points: AR, FL, NV and WI for Bush (48); IA, ME CD-1, MN, NH and NM for Kerry (27)
On the strength of a very real convention bounce, Bush has retaken the lead. In fact, this is his second largest lead in the national vote projection ever. He has passed Kerry in electoral votes, solid electoral votes, and even semi-solid electoral votes (states by more than three). Right now, conflicting results from, on the one hand, ARG, Zogby and Rassmussen and, on the other hand, Newsweek and Time, keep the race close. Also, the internals of the race have shifted toward Bush, as wrong track numbers are now only around 5 or 6 points in the red, and Bush's job approval is now clearly in the black.
I expect things to get worse before they get better. I have little doubt that when Gallup starts their tracking poll this week, it will show Bush up by 5-12. We will have to see what the future brings, but remember that right now Kerry is still close. Keep fighting the good fight.
Posted at 02:17 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Comments
As depressing as this may seem, there are two things we must remember:
1. Candidates usually get a bounce like this after their convention. Bob Dole, who lost the 1996 election badly, got a much bigger bounce than this.
2. Kerry has a history of pulling through in the end. He is the underdog right now, but the Republican Convention just ended, and we must see what the next two months bring. Kerry just took off the gloves, and now he's fighting. Let's not wring our hands unless Kerry is noticeably behind by the end of October.
In the meantime, Kerry needs to attack Bush's strengths, and campaign hard in FL, OH, MO, WV, TN, NV, AR, WI, IA, MN, PA...
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 4, 2004 03:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Both Time and Newsweek are showing Bush leading by 10 points. I think there's a chance that we'll look back from the perspective of mid-November, after a Bush win, and realize that the election was lost because of many factors, including a fatally flawed advertising strategy by Democrats. As a professor I know would say, Kerry has conducted his campaign "ass backwards," because he has refused to launch negative advertising while nonetheless attacking Bush on the stump. As you notice, the Bush campaign has taken the opposite strategy. Bush's attacks on the stump are there, but relatively restrained, but in the meatime the Bush campaign and its allies have launched more than $100 million dollars of effective negative attack ads against Kerry.
The decision not to launch negative ads against Bush was made by Kerry himself, according to a statement he made quoted in the Washington Post at the time of the Democratic convention, and so we have no one to blame but the man at the top of our ticket.
Can it be turned around? Frankly, I doubt it. Democrats still haven't caught up to what the Republicans did to us in 1988. Clinton was the only Democrat in my memory who would launch a counterattack to any ad against him within 3 days. If it can be turned around, we need to play as dirty as they play. Imagine an ad that says: "At the age of 30 (?) George Bush was arrested for Driving Under the Influence." Image: superimposed over a photo of Bush a giant "DUI" stamp with unimpeachable sources for this, such as the NY Times. Would this be fair or relevant, not particularly. Have the Republican attack ads been fair or relevant, not particularly.
Posted by: Ben at September 4, 2004 05:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
We are in the zone when events of the day will change to outcome of the polls. Raising medicare premiums, not good on the part of the Republicans. Widening war of Islamic fundamentalism against Christian countries and visa versa, such as now happening in Russia, not even on the BushCo radar screen. Worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. Half a trillion dollar deficit and rising with no end to the cost in blood and treasure in Iraq. The best the Republicans can do is question Kerry's medals, when Nixon couldn't find anything on the guy at the time? My money is on Nixon to have found dirt if there was any, hence any soldier getting medals now must realize they have been screwed as well. If the word could get out through the media, the poll numbers would shift around as they have been.
Posted by: LJM at September 4, 2004 11:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
So CD-1 is now the more marginal of the two Maine districts?
Posted by: anon at September 5, 2004 12:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Certainly more of a bounce than I would have thought, but I suspect MOST of it will fade fast. However, I completely agree that they have been surprisingly soft in criticising Bush; is it true that they have not been running negative ads?? [I am not in a swing state and have really not seen ANY ads]. If so, I think that's a huge tactical mistake and one that needs to be corrected quickly. And they don't need to run ads on his DUI or his Guard service -- there's PLENTY in the last 3 years. The economy, Iraq, and anecdotes about Halliburton should be a good start.
Posted by: Jason at September 5, 2004 12:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Perhaps the Kerry campaign erronrously assumed that Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, would create all the negative buzz necessary to bring Bush down. My guess is the vast majority of that film's audience was already converted before seeing it. I'd be curious to what percentage of undecided voters became Kerry supporters after having viewed it. Was such a poll ever taken? I agree with Jason, Kerry needs to play hardball, and as he points out, there is plenty from the last year to use against Bush.
Posted by: Pepe at September 5, 2004 12:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Of course I meant "there is plenty from the last THREE years to use against Bush."
Posted by: Pepe at September 5, 2004 12:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry has already been playing hardball for a long time. http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0427b.html
If he hasn't, what do you call Al Sharpton saying at the convention that Bush basically is a racist against blacks who would repeal the civil rights act if he could? What do you call giving Michael Moore the most honored seat in the presidential box with Jimmy Carter? Truth is, moveon outspent swiftboat vets on negative advertising by 65 million to 500,000. Swiftboats worked because significant numbers of vets found the ads credible, and they network and talk among themselves like crazy. This is an ad that mostly only showed in 3 states. Some of these guys are still so mad about Kerry calling them all war criminals in 1971 that you cannot believe. The rage was in check until Kerry repeatedly bragged about his vietnam service at the convention, when he had previously renounced his medals and said he and his mates were war criminals. Farenheit 911 would have persuaded a lot more people if it was more credible and factually correct, unfortunately it just isn't at all.
Posted by: Carol at September 5, 2004 12:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm curious about something. Is there a map somewhere that shows in a color scheme the more Democratic and more Republican areas of each state? For example, showing the Bay Area in California as more blue but San Diego as more red, or northeastern Ohio as fairly blue but southern Ohio as more red?
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 5, 2004 01:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel, you should try Dave Leip's Atlas of US Presidential Elections. (Link in the blogroll, under "Reference Resources.") He has election results by county, CD, etc. for each state. It'll give you a good sense of which areas are Dem vs. GOP.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 5, 2004 02:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Those swift boat ads are a direct attack on Kerry's character, unlike the moveon.org ads, which are directed towards policies. What Kerry has to do is to attack Bush and Cheney's character in every possible way. As I've mentionned, the gloves are off, and Kerry's refusal to hit hard could cost him this election.
People dislike Bush, but Kerry has to close the deal. A Bush-Cheney scandal would work beautifully.
Posted by: Shar at September 5, 2004 04:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Couple of comments. First, I think people in general are trying to read the details of intricate sand patterns on a beach 24 hours before a hurricane. Following the poll numbers as closely as you are is an excercise in futility. The fact of the matter, is that most US Presidential elections are not close. At this point in time in most elections though, the race is close. Folks, there is an impending offense by anti-US elements in Iraq, several months of murky economic results, and most likely the capture of UBL to come. Then there are the debates. Can GWBush go through the debates without a major gaff? Just because he did 4-years ago doesn't mean diddly. Can Kerry really win by being "the other guy"? What would a third hurricane in Florida do to the election? Don't knock yourselves out over the darn polls. Nobody has a crystal ball. Yes, the odds favor a close election this time, yes I expect Kerry to do very well in the closing days of the election, particularly with late deciders, women, etc. Yes I expect the GOP to have more effective negative adds, and that UBL will be caught in October. Of course, what do I know, I'm just a Republican.
Posted by: MarkOlsen at September 5, 2004 04:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nat:
Concerning the red and blue counties, try presidentelect.org.
Posted by: David at September 5, 2004 08:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
When Kerry had a lead in the polls of 3-8 points this site called it "Lean Kerry." Now that Bush has a lead of 10 points, however, it's a "Toss Up"? Wake up. There's a point at which optiminism borders on delusional, and I think this site is getting near that point. As of now, I think FL, MO, and nearly all of the other key swing states are strongly trending toward Bush. It's now "Lean Bush." If and and only if it turns around it becomes a toss up.
Posted by: Ben at September 5, 2004 01:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Chris's methodology incorporates many data-points. The GECC isn't going to indicate a Bush landslide on the basis of two polls alone.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 5, 2004 02:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
We can't call it anything yet. The two polls that show Bush ahead by 11 were taken during the convention, when the Republicans were at their peak. We'll see what next week brings, and I refuse to make serious predictions until the last two or so weeks of October.
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 5, 2004 03:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm with you, Nathaniel. It's like the college football polls. They are meaningless until the final one. I'm just glad that the election isn't being held today!
Posted by: Pepe at September 5, 2004 06:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Newbie butting in here ... I was just looking at Rasmussen. Shows three nights of 49-45 (the last 49.1-44.7) -- then today, when they added in the interviews from yesterday -- Saturday night of Labor Day weekend -- the three-day total shifted to 47.6-46.4 Bush.
If the first 2/3 of the sample was 49-45 Bush, then the final third of the sample -- last night -- had to be roughly 44.6-49.8 Kerry.
That sounds like more familiar territory.
This will mean a lot more if things continue to move in the same direction.
I realize Rasmussen' methodology can be questioned, but I also understand that it's slanted Republican -- especially on the weekend.
More important, now that Rasmussen's showing tenths of a % point, it could be a pretty good measure of *change* in sentiment, irrespective of the underlying numbers.
I think what we are seeing is the END of the SBVT bounce. There WAS NO convention bounce, though what we have seen was made to look like a convention bounce. Both parties, for their own reasons, have chosen to portray it that way.
Convention bounces, to the extent they exist or existed, seem to be soft, somewhat apathetic support that is accorded to whichever candidate is getting the most publicity at the moment.
I predict we will look back on this Labor Day weekend as the equivalent of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg.
Ralph
Posted by: Ralph at September 5, 2004 08:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Lets not panic here if you look at Rasmussens daily tracking poll Kerry has bounce back two points in one day..its a dead heat folks even after all the crap...I sense a backlash not by voters but by Democrat activists...this is going to piss off our base..see Susan Estrich for example. Better all this happens now...but good grief we are still in there face..cool off all will be ok.
Posted by: nodakson at September 5, 2004 10:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Any more info on the accuracy of "likely voter" models? I understand there's different ways of predicting it, but I'm figuring many younger people (who tend to move, be college students, tend not to be home at the times pollsters call) will be voting this year than did in 2000, and Kerry is really leading among them (as opposed to 2000). Combine this with the registration efforts of local Dem parties and non-profits (Lets get out and do this before the deadlines in our states)and I figure we can expect Kerry will see a good turnout among voters.
That said, I've contacted my county party to help register folks.
If this topic has already come up, sorry!
Posted by: Marc Cittone at September 5, 2004 10:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The Swifties segued seamlessly into the convention. There was uproar about Swifties, then uproar about the convention.
Say whatever else you will, Karl Rove is second to none at getting the bottle rockets to fire in proper sequence and the balloons to drop as choreographed.
This was a highly engineered bounce -- an emphatic, dribbled bounce-pass -- designed to foster the meme that Bush got a a big convention bounce -- that Bush inevitably will win -- and taking astute advantage of the awkward month between the Democratic convention and the Republicans.
Karl Rove gamed this to be as impressive as possible. To me it looks like his Battle of the Bulge.
If Kerry takes his gloves off, too, then we're back on that same playing field that didn't look so hot for Bush a few weeks ago.
Posted by: Ralph at September 5, 2004 10:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm not an advocate of seeing the world through rose-colored classes. I have no interest in fooling myself into thinking things are hunky-dorey when they're not. I want to see reality clearly and as objectively as possible, without being skewed by either false optimism or deflating pessimism. That's one reason that I follow the Electoral College as closely as I do, and why I began my Electoral College survey (newest iteration to be posted tomorrow) to provide for myself as clear a picture of the status of things as I can find. So I understand that it's important to guard against being overly optimistic or failing to call a spade a spade, but it's my opinion that some people, including, I'm afraid, some of the frequent posters on this site, are going entirely overboard, and in the process of trying to be "realistic", they're bending over backwards and losing all sense of how the actual ebb and flo of this election is moving. The result is that their postings are terribly pessimistic, dark and full of foreboding if not outright despair.
The effect is worse than rabid wingnut trolling, because it comes from within and infiltrates our psychic defenses. We take it in (again and again and again) and, lo and behold, soon we are feeling down and depressed about the election, when a clear-eyed view would tell us that we're simply a little behind right now, but far from out of it, and certainly nowhere near the entrance to the land of panic.
There's a reason why juries in trial courts are told not to talk to each other during the presentation of testimony and other evidence, and it's not because anyone expects a sentient human being to go all the way through a trial without forming any kind of opinion about what's happening. But until we actually express those opinions to someone, by writing them down or saying them in conversation, we're not really terribly committed to them and can more easilty be persuaded one way or the other by a discussion of the evidence and the opinions of other jury members. Well, the same things holds true here as well -- if you go around constantly saying how bad things are, there's very little possibility you're going to be open to actually seeing clearly when things are good, or, at least, better than your fears. Not only that, but the constant pessimistic repetitions actually helps to create the reality it's expressing, by helping to spread the meme from person to person -- and that, in the end, is terribly destructive to the cause we have got to be dedicated to, electiong John Kerry and getting rid of George Bush.
In short, I don't think that the kvetching and geshrying we're being subjected to right now is either justified or helpful. I understand that some people just feel that way, and I grant that they've got the right to do so -- I simply wish that if they cannot bring themselves to look more closely at things and, as a result, feel more positive about the race, they work a little harder to keep their negativity to themselves.
I hear gasps among you. Yes, I am indeed arguing for people not to post what they feel. I do not want to be constantly exposed to such pessimism and negativity, and I do not want the memes expressed to catch hold and become a consensus reality and infect the expectations game on which so much of politics is based. Please note that I am most assuredly not arguing for any kind of censorship except the necessary self-censorship that comes from discipline and dedication to a cause which is more important than one's own need for self-expression.
I certainly understand where the negativity comes from. We all see clearly how bad Bush is and how profoundly his policies and his administration have screwed up pretty much every aspect of our world, and, knowing this, we look around and can't understand why so many people are apparently still supporting him, why the undecideds can't see what we see and make up their minds, why liberals like Ron Silver are attracted to a failed presidency like Bush's, any why the race is so tight. We think, I believe, that Kerry should, by all rights, be leading by big margins because it's so damn obvious to us that Bush needs to go and that Kerry (and practically every other Democrat who was running) will be a much better president. We're thrown off balance by the blatant fact that things are neck and neck and that they'll probably stay that way right down to the wire.
But that's just the way it is, not everybody sees things our way. That's perhaps unfortunate, but it doesn't mean the race is lost, and it isn't any reason to despair. It's certainly more than enough reason to do everything humanly possible to help bring about a Kerry victory: giving money, getting involved, canvassing our friends, neighbors and relatives, and, yes, keeping our pessimism and negative thoughts to ourselves.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at September 5, 2004 10:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dead on Ed!
This all reminds me of that wonderful scene from Kelly's Hero's where Oddball (Donald Sutherland) drones:
"What's with the negative vibes Moriarty?"
I do appreciate your thoughtful postive directions... Keep 'em coming Ed!
Posted by: Larry the Duck [Jemimah Puddleduck] at September 6, 2004 06:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I tend to think somewhat along the same lines as Ralph. There is not a real need to panic about the polls at this time. If you will remember, in the 2004 presidential election, given pollsters had Bush leading by hugh margins, but in the end it was brother Jed who had to save the day for George Bush down there in Florida. This is called the confidence game. You get everybody to think you are a winner (via the polls) and other reluctant people will join your team. If you will notice, yesterday, Bush invited Dems and Independents in W. Virginia to join his team and vote for him! The second part of the Republican strategy is to say Bush won the debates. Determining who won is objective. The media, especially Fox will be declaring Bush the winner. They will pick one line or phrase and make a big deal out of it, and then declare Bush the winner. Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again". That statement made him the winner, nothing was said about the quality of what was said, but because he said some cute little statement, HE WAS THE WINNER!
Posted by: Barbs at September 6, 2004 07:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel, You can get an idea of how regions within a state vote by looking at county data on Dave Leip's site:
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 6, 2004 07:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Can someone here explain to me why FOX News seems to have so much power and influence in America? Is this reality or perception? I mean, they are just one of many news sources. Is Fox news more powerful than ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, talk radio, the internet, the New York Times and Washington Post combined? I hardly think so. FOX News is just one of many places that people can go to for their news. I just wonder if people make FOX to be more influential than it actually is. As far as I'm concerned, all the traditional news sources are seeing their influence wane, as more people are coming to the internet for their news and views. Anyone reading this post is proof of that.
Posted by: Pepe at September 6, 2004 08:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Conservative Americans from the heartland of America have taken to Fox News as their sole source for information. Often Fox is more of a official propaganda outlet, than an object news source. But, so be it. That's what many American people want. They don't want objective news, they want feel good rah rah pro-American Fox News. These are the same people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative news sources. Rush has 20 million listeners, where do you think they turn for TV news? Fox News of course.
The average heartland American has been convinced via years of conditioning that the mainstream media has a liberal bias and can't be trusted. For some reason these heartland American have turned from what they perceive as liberal bias in the mainstream media, to blatant conservative government propaganda bias at Fox News. They aren't so much concerned with bias, as long as it's telling them a story they want to hear.
Americans are a strange bunch. They aren't really interested in learning the true nature of the world they live in by obtaining news from truly independent sources and seeing things for what they really are. Just look at all the lies Bush has told over the past 4 years, and for some reaon people still perceive him as trustworthy and moral?!? They're about to reelect this lying two-faced President. I mean, Clinton lied, but his lies were of much less importance. Bush lies about matters of life and death and the American people aren't bothered by it. Our political process has become essentially irrelevant in recent years. Bush can say and do anything and people still like him.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 6, 2004 09:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
They're about to reelect this lying two-faced President.
This is what I'm talking about! "About to reelect"?!?! It's two months until the freaking election -- where's the "about to"?
(And, for that matter, where's the "reelect"?
Get ahold of yourself.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at September 6, 2004 12:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Well, I know there's a lot of time before the election. But, if the American people were at all rational about their politics, Bush wouldn't even be close to being reelected. He'd have the wealthy elites (whom he really represents), he'd have the hardcore conservatives (idealogical soulmates), and he'd have some military support, but beyond that any rational average American would be voting for someone else after 4 years of utter lies.
If the election were held today, Bush wins. We still have debates and other posibile Kerry rebounds. But, the Republicans also have an ace up their sleeves. If they produce Osama Bin Laden shortly before the election, Bush gets another bounce. Don't be at all surprised if that happens.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 6, 2004 06:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I couldn't agree more, Rock. How can a state like Ohio, which has lost well over 200,000 not already be in Kerry's pocket? Honestly, I think it has to do with a lack of charisma on Kerry's part. Bush has it, Kerry does not, and that makes it more of an uphill battle. The debates will probably not cause any major shifts--I would consider a draw a Kerry victory. Let's face it, Bush outfoxed both McCain and Gore in 2000, two men that everyone thought to be vastly superior and more intelligent to him. It's not only foolish, but dangerous to think of Bush as "stupid," no matter how much one may hate the man. In case folks haven't noticed, he's one savvy politician who has mastered the art of the campaign.
Posted by: Pepe at September 6, 2004 07:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For those interested, I've posted my latest (9/6) survey of Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast
sites here.
Executive summary: Bush has regained almost all the ground he lost to Kerry in the last two months. He has about 255
to 261 electoral votes, while Kerry is at 254. Of the 48 sites surveyed, 20 show Bush winning and another 6 show him
ahead. Fifteen sites show Kerry winning and 6 show him ahead. One site has the race tied. It's most likely that Bush's
gains are not the result of a "convention bounce."
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at September 7, 2004 12:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
gains are not the result of a "convention bounce.
So what do you attribute the Bush surge to? In my opinion, August belonged to the Swift Boat Vets. They managed to catch Kerry off guard and they certainly took him off track until just the past few days.
Posted by: Pepe at September 7, 2004 07:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll was out on Labor Day (taken on 9/3-9/5), and it shows Bush ahead by 1% among all registered voters in a 2-way race (vs. Kerry ahead 1% just before the RNC), and Bush ahead by 2% among all registered voters with Nader being listed (vs. a dead heat just before the RNC).
It shows a 7% Bush lead among LIKELY voters in both a 2-way and a 3-way race, compared with 2% and 3% leads for Bush among such voters just before the RNC.
I've thought for a long time (because of heavy Democratic primary turnouts even after the nomination was decided, record Democratic fund-raising, etc.) that the big surprise of this election is going to be a very strong Democratic turnout that may make calculations of who is a likely voter particularly fraught with error this time around. I therefore think Gallup's "all registered voters" catergory is probably a lot more accurate indication of where we are right now than the "probable voters" category. Bush has gotten a little bounce, but nothing like what you'd think from some of the media coverage and the anguish among some Democrats.
It also seems to me that polls that are actually taken DURING a convention are particularly prone to a very obvious confounding variable -- namely, that strong supporters of a particular party are much more likely to be at home and available to respond to the poll (because they're watching the convention on TV) than supporters of the other candidate or uncommitted voters. (I certainly know that was true of myself and some other Kerry supporters I know.) So let's see how things look in a week or two before we start getting too worried.
Posted by: Gary at September 7, 2004 09:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm with Gary. I can't shake a certain level of skepticism about telephone polling, for the simple reason that neither I nor anyone I know has ever received a call from a pollster -- and I live in a closely contested swing state, Iowa, which has been polled continuously for more than a year. There's only a few million of us here, you'd think they'd have gotten around to somebody I know by now. Is it possible that all the passionate, politically active people in my community do not fit the statistical profile of a "likely voter"...?
Why don't the pollsters know how to reach me and others in my demographic (under 30/under $30k annual income)? Just a theory: maybe because so few of us have telephone land-lines and listed numbers these days. Most people I know are reachable by cell phone, instant message, email or voicemail. But almost nobody relies on a residential telephone line anymore, and if they do, they're usually screening out unsolicited calls with caller ID.
Why is everyone so comfortable with the assumption that the people who happen to be sitting around by the phone when Zogby calls -- who I'm guessing skew slightly older and middle-to-upper class -- constitute an accurate reflection of the electorate? I agree with the prediction that young voters and low-income voters are going to have a big impact on this election, but I'm not sure if current polling methodologies are equipped to show how and to what extent. Can someone please tell me what, in the eyes of pollsters, makes one "likely" to vote?
Posted by: Josh at September 7, 2004 03:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The bounce is pretty much gone now!!!
Rasmussen:
Favorable ratings: 9/7 Bush 52% (Down from 54% right after RNC), Kerry 51%
Favorable ratings battleground states: Bush 51%, Kerry 52%
Tracking poll: Bush 47.3%, Kerry 47.3%. On September 4 it was 49.1% vs. 44.7%.
Posted by: DFuller at September 7, 2004 04:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
That's great news, but there are so many conflicting polls out these days, everyone is able to cherry pick the one that makes them feel most comfortable based on their political convictions. Polls have become the tools of maniuplation rather than telling us where the race actually is. Even the unbiased ones may be hard to believe because there are so many unreliable ones out there, who can tell which ones are unbiased and which ones are not? I am amazed, however, at how many supporters of Bush and Kerry both prefer to view things through rose-colored glasses. All I know for sure, is one side is sure setting itself up for a big fall come November.
I've been trying very hard to keep the rose-colored glasses off and see things as much as possible the way they really are. I do this through exposing myself to various news sources of all political bents, talking to people, and just trying to get a "feel" for which way the political winds are blowing--just like some people can tell when a storm is coming in--they can just feel it in their bones. The impression I have is that Kerry is behind right now, and if the election were held today, he would lose. HOWEVER, that's not such a bad thing. The election is NOT today, and there is plenty of time for him to come back and win this thing when it counts most, on Election Day.
Posted by: Pepe at September 7, 2004 06:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment