Skip to main content

View Diary: FACT: Bush Led Gore By 13 Points in Late October (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Heh. (3.00)
    This is so Orwellian.

    Go back and look at the absolute glee over the results over the last Zogby poll. We were always at war with Eastasia.

    Back then it was great, not junk science. Now we get bad noise in the echo chamber and we all ignore it. We were always at war with Eurasia.

    And as for the suggestion that I'm not doing anything? Where on earth do you get that from? This panic, the panic I've had since December 2000, is EXACTLY WHAT MOTIVATES me.

    And I still have plenty of time for snarking, just as you have plenty of time for telling me not to.

    Sail on, sail on, o mighty Ship of State!
    To the Shores of Need
    Past the Reefs of Greed
    Through the Squalls of Hate.

    by Attorney at Arms on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 03:17:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Orwellian? (none)
      It can't be that Orwellian around here if it won't let you change the damn rating on a post. But in general, I do agree with you -- I personally don't pay much attention to polls one way or another, so I'm not too excited when they break our way, nor do I wail and gnash my teeth too much when they don't. Eyes on the prize, baby.
    •  I really dislike this type of post (4.00)
      Obviously, it's not being ignored since there's so much discussion of it. I really don't get the whole echo chamber concept. I mean, of course, we're more likely to closely examine the news that we don't like. I think that's pretty natural and probably the opposite of ignorance. Is it a little bit hypocritical? Yeah it is, but so what?
      Frankly, I find the folks who are ready to kill themselves over these polls much more unrealistic than the folks who are trying to point out some issues with the methodology.

      What bothers me most about the posts that accuse folks of the rose-colored goggles is that they don't offer any practical alternatives. Even if I thought it were true that Kerry is doomed, I fail to see what good it would do to shout it the heavans. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its good to be unrealistic. But the message I get from the poll analyis is we might be down now, but the situation isn't as bad as it might initially appear, let's work to fix it. I fail to see what's unrealistic about that. I just don't see folks on here pretending that everything is wonderful. Mostly what I see is the really really pessimistic posters getting pissed when everybody else isn't as depressed as they are.

      •  Well put (none)
        I agree.  We're here to explore every angle, wherever it takes us, not sulk.
      •  Re: I really dislike this type of post (none)
        "What bothers me most about the posts that accuse folks of the rose-colored goggles is that they don't offer any practical alternatives."

        Whether we're up 10 or down 10, the practical alternative is to do whatever we can to help affect the outcome.

        ---

        The problem with rose-colored glasses is that it leaves people surprised and disspirited when reality sets in.

        All the poll numbers we're seeing over the past 24 hours were foreshadowed by serious weakening in the comparative questions in polls over a week ago.  The bounce we're seeing is the direct result of the SBVT, not of the convention.

        Now, when those polls came out, there were many who sought to ignore the bad news.  (Chris Bowers is my poster boy for this, not you.)  So now, people are surprised and freaked out.

        During the primaries, I watched as a contingent of Deanies (again, Chris Bowers as the poster boy) sought to endlessly spin polls to paint an unrealistically positive picture.  When reality set in, folks became disspirited and confused.

        ---

        We're in a dogfight.  The other side has been landing blows.  But the game is still on for the next 60 days.

        What bothers some posters is that the other side has a shot to win the election.  But that isn't a new development.  Bush was not in nearly as weak a position a month ago as many thought.

        We're going to win some battles and lose some battles.  But all that matters in what happens on election day.  Make a difference.

        •  Petey (none)
          as usual, I agree with you completely. My point definitely wasn't that I think rose-colored goggles are a good thing; an accurate appraisal is critical. I meant more along the lines that for too many posters, it seems like suggesting anything other than that Kerry is done constitutes wearing such goggles.

          I happen to think it's unlikely that Kerry's down 11, though I certainly think he's behind (not unexpectedly at this point, IMO), and he has work to do to bring his favorables back up; the debates will be a prime opportunity, but he needs to lay the foundation before then.

          My philosophy is always first to take all the polls as an aggregate, but for an individual poll to really look at the internals and methodology.

          Newsweek didn't weigh by party breakdown (I checked the math). So I don't see it as a big surprise that they have a sample that's 38% repub and 30% dem. Of course, during a convention, some indies are more likely to identify themselves as R, but that's a pretty significant skew compared to 2000 numbers. If you were to apply the 2000 breakdown to the Newsweek numbers, you'd get Kerry 49, Bush 44. That's my best guess to where we are right now, down by about 5, give or take a point. I'm not a conspiracy guy--I don't think Newseek is in bed with Bush, and I'm sure they accurately reported their own data; but the large margin does appear to be explained by the party breakdown.

          The Time Poll I'm less sure what to make of. I saw where you listed their methodology, and I'm didn't see party ID there either. Again, doesn't make it "wrong" but it does provide a compelling explanation for why the Time and Newsweek polls are the two swingiest. There's also the issue as to why Time decided to poll over the four nights of the RNC but waited until 4 days after the DNC to poll; makes an accurate comparison impossible.

          I'm not sure what your thoughts are on the applicability/validity of weighing. I can admit to a little bit of hypocrisy here, as I've definitely felt that some polls--i.e. Gallup--were applying weights to the benefit of the Repubs. In general, I feel like most of the time, I'd like to see the real numbers--but during a convention you're practically certain to get a large selection bias, so it would seem to be the prime case where a party ID weight would be helpful.

          Where I'm definitely with you is that I think the bandwagon effect is way overblown. If the perceptions of the polls decided the race, Gore would have lost by 20 instead of closing like a fiend. Of course, GOTV was the major mover, but bad polls didn't appear to demoralize those folks.

          •  Re: Petey (none)
            "Newsweek didn't weigh by party breakdown (I checked the math). So I don't see it as a big surprise that they have a sample that's 38% repub and 30% dem. Of course, during a convention, some indies are more likely to identify themselves as R, but that's a pretty significant skew compared to 2000 numbers."

            I'm not sure I would have used a different methodology if I were in charge, but it is an excellent illustration why convention week polls should not be taken very seriously.

            "If you were to apply the 2000 breakdown to the Newsweek numbers, you'd get Kerry 49, Bush 44. That's my best guess to where we are right now, down by about 5"

            Assuming that's a typo, I think you're about right with a 5 point defecit.  And that's not that bad a place to be at this point of the race.

            After all the bad news in the polls from the week before the convention, I figured we'd be down by a 3 - 7 point range the week after the convention.  If we settle at 5, it's a wash.

            •  Yep, typo (none)
              Yeah, I can live with down 5; with a little bit of luck and skill, it should be back to a dead heat around debate time. That's not a given, of course. Definitely work to be done.
              •  Re: Yep, typo (none)
                "Yeah, I can live with down 5; with a little bit of luck and skill, it should be back to a dead heat around debate time. That's not a given, of course. Definitely work to be done."

                I can even live with down 5 heading into the debates.

                But Team Kerry has to get the debates right - and not only the debates themselves, but also the expectations and post-spin.  It's going to be a test not just for the candidate, but also for the retooled commuications team.

                Kerry's CiC credentials have taken a battering, and he's going to face a national security question about that along the lines of the Dukakis "What if your wife was raped and murdered?" question.  He'd better knock that one out of the park.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site