« Rasmussen Polls for MI & MO | Main | Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? »
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
New Zogby Out
Posted by DavidNYCNew Zogby poll available here. Bush is leading in AR, WV, TN, OH. His leads are all very big in the last three, including 11 points in Ohio. Kerry's leads are outside the MoE in only MI, NM, OR & WA. He holds leads of less than one point in FL, MO & NV.
Given the dates of this poll (Aug. 30th through Sep. 3rd), this seems like a pretty weak performance for Bush. Zogby, however, says that these results show Bush gaining & Kerry weakening. And what happened to Zogby's promise to include more battleground states? The link to his site makes reference to "20 states," but the WSJ interactive site only shows the same 16.
UPDATE: Results for the missing four states: AZ: K45-B50; CO: K46-B46; NC: K47-B50; VA: K46-B51. And yeah, I have a very hard time believing Bush is up by 11 in Ohio.
Posted at 06:32 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
I think you have to pay to see the CO, AZ, NC, and VA polls.
The Tennessee poll looks like an outlier to me. But at least the Zogby poll trumps the Rasmussen poll in Missouri.
Posted by: Inkan1969 at September 7, 2004 06:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree, this is a weak showing for Bush based on the polling dates. TN has to be an outlier. Inkan1969, VA is leaning solid towards Bush.
Posted by: David at September 7, 2004 06:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Have there been any polls from the Great State of Delaware? I haven't heard a peep from this little state. Either it must be regarded as deep in Kerry's pocket or Delaware is getting ignored like it generally does by everyone who is not from there.
Posted by: Pepe at September 7, 2004 07:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
These polls mostly say a whole lot of nothing. The only ones that seem to be significant are west virginia and ohio? It's hard to put much stock in zogby interactive with his "self selecting" polls.
Posted by: susan at September 7, 2004 08:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
These Zogby polls are worthless. Does anyone really believe Bush leads Kerry by 11 points in Ohio? And that Bush has gained double digits in Tennessee over a two-week period? Or a 10-point Kerry lead in New Mexico? His samples seem reasonable in some states, but on a number of other states, he seems to be way ut of the mainstream.
Posted by: Mark at September 7, 2004 09:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As for Delaware, I would really like to see some polls out of there. From what I understand, Bush targeted the state with some ads at one point while Kerry did not respond. Furthermore, the suburbs of Philadelphia are considered one of the swingiest regions of the entire nation, and Delaware is essentially an extension of metropolitan Philly. I won't feel secure about Delaware until I see a couple polls showing Kerry with decent-sized margins. Hopefully, something comes to light before it's too late for Kerry to respond.
Posted by: Mark at September 7, 2004 09:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush has an 11-point lead in Ohio? Yeah. Right. This makes it painfully obvious that Zogby has some major flaws in its polling techniques. There is no way that the Buckeye State is so overwhelming in favor or Bush. Like many others, I refuse to put any trust whatsoever in results with Zogby's name attached to them.
Still waiting to hear something about tiny Delaware. Why is no one polling there?
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 06:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe:
Polling Delaware would be like polling Montana. A waste of time.
Posted by: david at September 8, 2004 07:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe
I didn't mean to sound so harsh in the previous message. Based on the numbers for in prior elections, I think everyone believes it is a Kerry state.
Posted by: David at September 8, 2004 07:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There has to be a problem with these polls somewhere. There is no way Kerry is within three points in NC and down by 11 in OH.
Jason
Charlotte, NC
Posted by: Jason-Charlotte at September 8, 2004 08:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Zogby seems skewed towards Kerry and Gallup towards Bush. The funny thing was Kemp, a Republican, was saying last night on Hardball that he was a big believer in the Zogby poll. It would seem like the Republicans would be emphasizing Gallup and saying that Kerry has no hope. Maybe they are emphasizing Zogby to keep the Republican money machine coming.
I don't trust Gallup or Zogby. I think the answer is somewhere between the two. Here is what makes me scratch my head about Gallup:
On Gallup 91% of registered votes people who say they will likey go to the polls and vote vs. 82% for Kerry.
On Time 87% of registered votes people who say they will likely go to the polls and vote vs. 84% for Kerry.
American Research Group 82% of registered votes people who say they will likely go to the polls and vote vs. 77% for Kerry.
Posted by: DFuller at September 8, 2004 09:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
i have a summer home in delaware and trust me it`s not going republican. bush is disliked in that state.
Posted by: JOEL at September 8, 2004 11:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
David and Joel:
Thanks for the information on Delaware. I thought it tended to be more conservative than neighboring MD, which is why I was asking in the first place.
Regarding Time, Newsweek, Zogby and Gallup: I am more convinced than ever that these polls and many others are probably giving us more misinformation than they are a true sense of where the voters are at this point in time. This concerns me, because their perceptions can influence in subtle ways what people think. I expect a lot of surprises, both good and bad, out of the Swing States on Election Day.
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 01:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dems were just as cocky about strastopheric Kerry margins in Maine until reality cut them down to size. As most polls suggest, Kerry could very well lose one of Maine's four EV's. Uneven reports from demographically and geographically similar New Jersey should prompt SOMEBODY to take a Delaware poll. We can't simply operate on faith.
Posted by: Mark at September 8, 2004 01:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
But Mark, which poll would you believe or put faith in? Right now I'm questioning everything about all of these polls. There probably some that really are trying to be unbiased and scientific, but how do you separate them from all the bad ones? What seems to be happening is people everywhere are simply cherry picking. They are finding the "valid" polls to be the ones that just so happen to correspond to their own political leanings.
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 02:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, I trust Rasmussen state polls more than the other major state pollsters, but that may be an unreasonable bias. Strategic Vision and Zogby both seem to be pretty much worthless, although SV often seems as though it's closer to reality than Zogby. I concur, however, that individual polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Hopefully, state polling will hit fever pitch in the weeks to come so we can get a better handle on where the candidates stand by averaging state poll results. Ultimately, however, the state polls may all prove woefully erroneous depending on what issue is most prominent on the minds of voters when they step into that voting booth on Nov. 2. This is why I'm hoping Bush makes the same arrogant mistake he did last time and take the weekend before the election off while Gore kept fighting till the bitter end. Kerry could plant the final seed in the minds of voters and seal the deal. Still, it's probably unlikely Bush will be as suicidally cocky again as he was then.
Posted by: Mark at September 8, 2004 02:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'll generally believe Rasmussen and Strategic Visions when they say Kerry is ahead, and Zogby when he says that Bush is ahead.
That said, while Zogby's TN result is no surprise to me -- I think earlier results showing a statistical tie were the outliers here -- his OH result is worrisome. When Strategic Visions showed OH for Bush by 6%, it was easy to take it with a grain of salt; Zogby's result makes me think OH is a lost cause for Kerry, as hard as that may be to believe. I had tended to think that OH would probably end up going for Bush, as it did by 3.5% in 2000, but that it was a state that could be plucked from the Bush column if they didn't defend it well. The Republicans may have successfully removed it from this situation, even before resorting to help from Diebold.
Posted by: Marsden at September 8, 2004 03:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The key is: the race is still very early. I laugh at the media this week which is ready to give to election to Bush because polls the day after the RNC show Bush ahead. He should be. Kerry has basically run $0 in advertising for the last month. The only pro-Kerry adverting has been done by the 529 attack dogs. How can anyone call the race over before the first debate? Of course, Bush will say a bunch of things that make zero sense at the debate but everyone will ignore what he says because they like people who sound like hicks. He will say:
The Democrats are the party of tax and spend. Excuse me. Who has held both the presidency and congress for the last three years when government spending has increased by 26%? The government has increased in size by $500 billion a year under Bush. He has raised ever American���s tax burden by $1,700 a year and he lies and tries to claim that he has cut your taxes. Kerry needs to label the Republican Party the party of Borrow and Spend because that is exactly what it is.
He will claim to want to allow people to invest part of their Social Security. Excuse me. He���s had four years with a Republican congress and has made a very minimal effort to pass it.
He will claim that the United States will more likely be attacked by terrorists under Kerry than Bush. This is a bunch of bull. Bush has been more focused on his vendetta in Iraq than securing the homeland against attack.
Posted by: DFuller at September 8, 2004 03:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Ohio will go Kerry if the race is close. Zogby's poll numbers for the state have been way out of the mainstream for the last month or so. Given the limitless bad news in the state, I can't bring myself to believe that Bush is doing 7.5% better than he was doing in 2000. My guess is that Bush is currently leading there after the convention, but that Kerry has at least as good of chance there as he has in Wisconsin. I maintain 50-50 odds for OH since I've yet to hear a single Democrat or Republican attest to Bush's widespread appeal in the state in the last year or so.
Posted by: Mark at September 8, 2004 04:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Any idea when the first debate is scheduled ...thats the only hope for kerry
Posted by: mram at September 8, 2004 04:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First Presidential Debate:
Thursday, September 30
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Vice Presidential Debate:
Tuesday, October 5
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Second Presidential Debate:
Friday, October 8
Washington University
St. Louis
Third Presidential Debate:
Wednesday, October 13
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Posted by: Dfuller at September 8, 2004 04:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I was born and raised in NE Ohio, but I haven't lived there in over two decades. My understanding is they have just about the worst economy in the country, they have lost more jobs than anybody, and yet the raise there is leaning Bush. Can anyone here please explain why Ohio is even a swing state and not already far in the blue column? I know NE remains solidly Democratic, but has the rest of the state turned into Kentucky and Indiana? I really don't get it!
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 04:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
they have lost more jobs than anybody, and yet the raise there is leaning Bush.
Must have been a long day--that should be "they have lost more jobs than anybody, and yet the RACE is leaning Bush."
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 04:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, it has everything to do with ethnic makeup. Like Indiana and western Michigan, the majority of Ohio is heavily German and Dutch. These are the two most Republican ethnic groups in the nation. Ohio's urban and industrial landscape ensures enough minority voters and enough blue collar union workers (at least pre-globalization) to keep the state from being as solidly GOP as the more white-collar and non-union Indiana, but the difference in negligible outside the major industrial centers. A city like Dayton, OH, should be solidly Democratic...but Gore won Montgomery County by a mere one percentage point.
Party affiliation is less GOP-friendly in sparse southern Ohio (Chillicothe, Athens), but these low-income working-class voters are socially conservative and seem to be trending into "values voters" like their equally low-income neighbors in Kentucky and West Virginia.
Ultimately, even a Kerry victory in Ohio doesn't seem likely to inspire a long-term trend of Democratic dominance in this state. It's hard to imagine that Kerry has a magic potion that will keep global market forces from battering old economy states like Ohio bloody. If neither the Dems or the GOP can stop the financial bleeding, voters will cast their ballots in favor of who shares their values. If a Democrat is to win in Ohio, 2004 has to be the year.
Posted by: Mark at September 8, 2004 04:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Anyone here that there's talk Bush will reduce the number of debates from three two only two? A friend of mine says that the White House just revealed that they're thinking about blowing off the debate with the Town Hall format, because, they have concerns about people posing as undecided when they actually are partisans. Unbelievable! God forbid Bush have to handle an unscripted question! I also heard that the White House has insisted on the final debate centering on terrorism. The first debate would be the economy--Bush's strategy is to try to end the debates on his perceived strength, hoping that is the one that will linger in most peoples' minds. If this is actually true, all I can say is for all the attempts trying to convince us he's a tough leader, he sure is acting like a coward, isn't he?
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 04:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Being so far behind in OH is bad news.
This is the way I see it:
To win Kerry must hold all the states Gore won in 2000 plus OH or FL.
1) Winning NV and NH is not enough because that would make the vote 269 - 269. Senate would vote Bush into the White House.
2) I do not think Kerry can win these states. The polls which show him ahead or tied are bull: CO, MO, TN, AZ, AR, WV.
3) FL: Jeb will do anything he can to keep Democrats from voting. He disenfranchised 50,000 in 2000 and he will do anything he can to fix 2004.
Just think. We wouldn���t be in this Bush mess if Gore would have been smart enough to not cede his home state to Bush in 2000. Gore could have won TN if he would have spent his funds there instead of FL.
We should know the winner pretty early on election day. A loss of both OH and FL will mean Bush's first presidental win.
Posted by: DFuller at September 8, 2004 05:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes, the word is that the Bush team is ducking the second debate (wouldn't you, if Bush were your candidate?).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3586-2004Sep7.html
Dfuller, on what basis do you rule out a Kerry win in MO? I tend to agree with you that it leans Bush more than some polls indicate (though maybe less than other polls show ...), but I don't think a Kerry win there is out of the question. This is Dick Gephardt's state, remember, and it went D both times for Clinton and only went to Bush in 2000 by 2.6%.
I think Kerry can win with any one of FL, OH, or MO; if he loses WI, he'll have to pick up NH and NV in order to win with only MO of the three. Very hard to see Bush winning without both FL and OH, and it might take some Diebold magic for him to win without MO. Rather dismaying to see the Democrats still targeting NC -- I think Edwards is a big enough boy to accept not carrying his home state as the Veep candidate.
Posted by: Marsden at September 8, 2004 06:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
These polls fluctuate so much from week to week that it's insane to wave the white flag as soon as things start looking down just as it's foolish to get too cocky about states where you have a modest lead. Take Pennsylvania for instance. A few months ago, Bush was scoring leads in poll after poll. Democrats panicked and downsized their chances in PA while Republicans gloated and inflated their PA chances. Up until last month, Kerry looked to be running away with PA and the roles reversed. Suddenly, Dems were acting like the election was mere hours away and that Kerry had it in the bag. Now, things are again uncertain in the state.
My guess is that the Ohio situation will go the same way. Come November 2, Ohio will closely reflect the national outcome, with Bush winning by 11 points only if he's winning nationally by near double digits. If Kerry wins the Gore states along with New Hampshire and either Ohio or Florida, he wins the Presidency. That scenario is far from a certainty, but reflects how thin Bush's grip is nationally. Furthermore, a late surge by Kerry for whatever reason could produce states currently being written off by the premature white flag wavers. My gut tells me Bush wins Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia and Arizona, but I don't believe any are out of the realm of possibilities in an ideal situation where Kerry closes as well as he traditionally does. The bottom line in my opinion is that we need to be less arrogant about places we've convinced ourselves we can't lose (Pennsylvania, Minnesota) and less defeatist about at least some of the pink battleground states (Arkansas, Ohio). Acting as if the poll of the hour indicates what voters will be feeling on November 2 is a pointless exercise.
Posted by: Mark at September 8, 2004 07:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark, You're probably right. It's probably not as dark for Kerry as many of us are making it out to be right now. That said, a month ago it wasn't as bright for Kerry as people thought, either. This race is going to see many more peaks and valleys, twists and turns for both campaigns.
I was one who never questioned where PA would wind up until the past several weeks. I honestly thought Kerry could not possibly lose it, no matter how many trips George Bush made there. Now, I'm not so sure. Too many polls suggest that it either has shifted to the Bush column or it's just barely for Kerry. Hard to believe it was once as solid for Kerry as say, SC has been for Bush. If Bush can win in PA, I may have to rethink NC--I have said from the beginning the Kerry could never carry NC, but man, I think Bush carrying PA would be an even more shocking upset than Kerry winning NC.
Another alarming trend is happening in PA's neighbor to the east, over in NJ. Not so long ago Kerry had a very comfortable lead in the Garden State. Was NJ even regarded as a Swing State back in May or June? However, his lead and momentum in that state are eroding with each passing week. That also makes me wonder (again!) what's going on in Delaware, because something weird seems to be happening in the Mid-Atantic states. They are definitely definitely showing more purple than blue these days.
Kerry needs PA far more than Bush does. In fact, I believe that if PA swings to Bush, it's unequivocally over for Kerry. I say that because I think if PA goes over to Bush, Bush will win by a landslide--meaning all PA would do for Bush is cushion his victory.
Yet as we have seen, the recent trends toward Bush could be ephemeral. I think we're going to find that the polls have not been so reliable come Election Day, as there may be surprises in many of the Swing States. PA could certainly stay blue, NJ, too. And Ohio could still swing to Kerry. And who would be willing to wager a huge some of money on what happens in MN and WI? Right now I feel like all the polls are indicating to us is that no one can reliably predict what will happen in the swing states on Election Day.
Posted by: Pepe at September 8, 2004 09:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If Zogby is so accurate, why does he have Bush up by 11 in Ohio? Are these Zogby polls interactive on line polls? I fail to understand how, according to Zogby, Kerry was slightly ahead in Ohio, then neck and neck with Bush, and suddenly, as a result of the Republican convention, Bush surges 11 points. This is so unrealistic. As for demographics, aren't most Ohioans German and English? I can attest to having some German relatives in Ohio who, in fact, are Bush supporters. Ohio is, for the most part, socially and fiscally conservative, and that's somewhat of a problem for the democrats. If Kerry wants to win Ohio, he'll have to play up some conservative values with John Edwards while exposing Bush as a conservative fraud. I've noticed that Kerry has been succeeding with this strategy because he's criticizing Bush's huge billion dollar deficits, he's finally started bashing the war in Iraq, and Bush's military service or lack thereof is being questionned.
There's only one other explanation for Bush's support in Ohio: Ohioans are an extremely fearful and frightened people and will vote accordingly, no matter how dire their economic situation.
Posted by: Shar at September 9, 2004 03:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John Zogby speaks out:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=859
Some of what he says makes sense:
Newsweek's poll sample: 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent.
2000 election: 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.
Zogby poll weighting: 39% Democrat, 35% Republican and 26% Independent.
Was Newsweek trying to create its own story by skewing the poll?
Posted by: DFuller at September 9, 2004 09:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment