Daily Kos

Internals Of Gallup Poll: More Confused Than Ever

Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 05:00:13 PM PDT

Everybody on this site probably has seen by now this:
WASHINGTON -- Last week's Democratic convention boosted voters' views of John Kerry but failed to give him the expected bump in the race against President Bush, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds.

In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Kerry trailed Bush 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.

The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention.

USA TODAY extended its survey to Sunday to get a fuller picture of what's happening....

But the article goes on to tell us the internals of the poll which are confusing considering what you just read...

  • Kerry's acceptance speech Thursday was rated as "excellent" by 26%, a more positive response than Bush got four years ago at his convention. A 44% plurality said the Democrats were "about right" in criticizing Bush; 30% said they went too far.
  • Views of Kerry's personal characteristics and leadership improved across the board; views of Bush didn't change much. Bush's edge in handling terrorism was shaved to 12 points from 18 before the convention. In a switch, Kerry is trusted more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief, 51%-46%.
  • Kerry's military service in Vietnam, a theme of the convention, is seen as a plus. A 52% majority says that experience would help him be an effective president. More than one in four say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
  • Bush's internals didn't change or dipped & Kerry's speech was seen as better than Bush's speech in 2000 that gave him a 17 point lead over Gore at the time. Also, Kerry is seen by 51-46 as a better commander-in-chief. All the while people are voting for Bush. BULLSHIT

    UPDATE [2004-08-01]
    From the LINK provided by tmo

    FAVORABLE RATING
    KERRY 58
    BUSH 52

    HANDLE IRAQ BETTER?
    KERRY 49(44)
    BUSH 47(49)

    HANDLE THE ECONOMY BETTER?
    KERRY 54
    BUSH 43

    LEAD THE WAR ON TERROR?
    BUSH 54(56)
    KERRY 42(38)

    MORE HONEST & TRUSTWORTHY
    KERRY 48(42)
    BUSH 43(42)

    STRONG & DECISIVE
    BUSH 51
    KERRY 42

    WHO IS THE UNITER?
    KERRY 52
    BUSH 39

    WHO IS THE OPTIMIST?
    KERRY 42
    BUSH 41

    I also love this:

    The current poll suggested Democrat-leaning voters were more enthusiastic about the race, and therefore more likely to vote. But enthusiasm among Democrats already was high, and the poll suggested the four-day Democratic convention energized Republicans as well. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting than usual, up from 68 percent two weeks earlier. Sixty-one percent of Republicans said they were now enthusiastic about the race, up from 51 percent.

    So even though we're more enthusiastic to vote, we're losing a net of 6 points when going from registered to likely voters?

    Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

    Permalink | 186 comments

    •  This says it all (none / 0)

      USA TODAY extended its survey to Sunday to get a fuller picture of what's happening.
      •  And It's Still a Problem (none / 0)

        Polling only on weekends, especially not including Sunday night, gives you a sample skewed older--younger people are out and about on Friday nights, while older people are watching whichever CBS crime drama airs on Friday nights.  

        But as rimjob points out, look at those internals!

        In just about every single area Kerry gained and Bush lost.  The only question from their previously poll where it was the opposite was on the horserace, and even then only with the "likely voter" portion of their sample.  

        Here's the thing to notice:  Among likely voters, they show a net gain of 3% for Bush.  Among registered voters, it's a net gain of just 1% for Bush.  And among national adults, they show a net gain of 3% for Kerry.  

        That's a screwy sample.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by DHinMI on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:38:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've missed the point altogether (none / 0)

          USA Today is having a difficult time with this poll.
          •  Rush job (none / 0)

            It's obviously a rush job.  They just had to release some poll numbers, quality be damned.  4pt MOE is laughable.  As long as Bush and Kerry are within 8 points of each other, you can't conclude anything.
            •  Laughable or not (3.50 / 2)

              most polls have a margin of error of 3 or 4%.  It's never stopped us from getting whipped up into a frenzy before.

              The sample is screwy, but it's not necessarily too small.

              •  MOE (none / 0)

                Most election polls have around a 2 point margin of error. a 5 point margin of error is considered a "survey", not even a poll anymore. Also, the more point margin of error, it increases non-linearly.
                •  Really (none / 1)

                  This is from a quick googling.  3-4% MsOE are not at all uncommon.  During the primaries, individual state polls with MsOE of 5 or 6% were deemed credible.

                  www.usatoday.com/news/polls/ tables/live/2003-11-17-bush-poll.htm

                  "Results are based on telephone interviews with -1,000-National Adults, aged 18+, conducted December 15-16, 2003. For results based on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

                  ...

                  For results based on the sample of -847-registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

                  For results based on the sample of -415-Democrats and Democratic leaners, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

                  For results based on the sample of -356-Democrats and Democratic leaners who are registered to vote, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points."

                •  MOE - 2%??? (none / 0)

                  I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of polls and have never seen one with a 2% margin of error. That would require a huge sample - something like 2500, and that is never done. 3% to 4% is fairly normal; but that gets multiplied by two if you are talking about the difference between the two candidates (the MOE is applied to each number), so that is a very big range. And that is part of the problem; no poll is really very reliable. But the big contrast between RV and LV does seem to suggest a bad model for their LV. Three other polls plus their own RV poll show Kerry with a lead so that is certainly what I believe.

                  "A republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin

                  by herodotus on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 12:15:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Also remember confidence intervals... (none / 0)

                    The formula used to calculate MoE is generally done (and in every political poll I've ever seen) at a 95% confidence interval.  The formula can easily be adjusted to 99%, 90% or whatever CI you want, but 95% is generally seen as a nice compromise between accuracy and polling sample size.  So, even under the best polling you will be out of the MoE 1 out of 20 times.  I'll take a shot in the dark and say this is probably one of the outliers (bold predicition I know).
          •  Huh? (none / 0)

            What "point" did I miss, and where did you make it?  And are we only allowed one "point?"

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by DHinMI on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 11:38:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Poll (none / 0)

          It's also important to remember on these "polls", that a +/-4% is such a huge margin of error that it is laughable.  

          there is chaos to the order -Joni Mitchell

          by zendemo24 on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:46:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bottom Line (1.44 / 9)

        I can't believe all the hand-wringing here! Face it, the convention had LITTLE or NO IMPACT. Its tied, it was tied, it will continue to be tied. TURNOUT will be the key!
        •  Rasmussen... (none / 0)

          reports a 4 point bump.

          As it's a tracking poll, it's the one to go to for 'bump' indications (as opposed to more general horserace polling).

          http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

          In such a tight polarised race, 4 points is ok, though still not great.  Remember, it was a case of demonstrating that a vote for Kerry was OK, he's a safe pair of hands.  This greenlights people to ditch Bush if they wish - and they do.

          Getting a great chunk of middle America to go absoutely crazy for the Dem ticket was never the plan, as it's simply impossible.

          The Bush bounce from the Repub convention will be no bigger than this.

          Obama: 67% win probability. (c/o fivethirtyeight.com)

          by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 06:54:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  entirely possible (none / 0)

          the convention has little impact because few people were watching due to the major networks covering so little of it.  Do we know the TV ratings yet?

          -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

          by nicolemm on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 09:09:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Kill Nader (none / 0)

          Face it, the convention had LITTLE or NO IMPACT

          Here's hoping GW's will actually have negative impact.  Unlelss it's shut down by protestors, in which case he'll gain about 10 points.  (viz. Nixon's relief when protesters would harangue his motorcade, c.1972 -- it's votes in the bank!  Talk about negative advertising . . .)

          Its tied, it was tied, it will continue to be tied.

          If only Nader would drop out (or dead), then this thing would be in the bag for Kerry.  I know, I know, we're not to talk shit about Nader, and we're certainly not to start taking collections to hire an assassin.  But nothing's stopping my free-punk noise band from writing a "song" called "Ralph Nader Is A Fucking Idiot".

          They're talkin' about nuclear war
          It's a motherfucker, don't you know
          If they push that button, your ass gotta go
          -- Sun Ra

          by Jason Bergman on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:13:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No change (none / 0)

          Even though every media eye was on the convention, the only people that paid any attention to the speaches were the people that are already invested in the race.  I am not suprised that it didn't have any effect on the general pulse of public opinion because anything the general public paid attention to was preflitered through the voice of their normal "trusted" media correspondant.
    •  It seems to me interesting (none / 0)

      that CNN on its political splash page

      http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/

      does not have a link to this poll.  I think they realize that something is screwy in it.  The USAToday folks say at their web page that polling was continuing today to try and explain their findings.

      There is a logical disconnect between people saying that Kerry did a great job at his convention and despite all his negatives, let's vote for the President.  The final result on this will be different--fortunately, it's a weekend news cycle.

      Guess what. Kossacks continue to be very rude. I am for Obama, but I'm not a Kossack.

      by DCDemocrat on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:09:08 PM PDT

      •  Agreed. (4.00 / 3)

        And the interals are encouraging. What this suggests to me, is that if this poll is an outlier--and I think it is, but we will have to wait and see--then it is actually an encouraging outlier. I'll take an outlier that has Kerry at 50 amongst registered voters and that has his leadership qualities improving across the board, including taking a lead on trust to handle the duties of the commander-in-chief (51-46).
        •  You know a lot more about this stuff than I do (none / 0)

          but I always take great comfort that of all the multitudes of polls released on Election Day 2000, only Zogby and Cindy Lake said that Gore would win (and both predicted the margin correctly.)  That has ever afterwards suggested to me some inherent bias against counting voters in polls who trend Democratic.

          Guess what. Kossacks continue to be very rude. I am for Obama, but I'm not a Kossack.

          by DCDemocrat on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:20:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I take comfort too but... (none / 0)

            I just read that Clinton's share of the '96 vote was largely exagerrated in pre-election polls. So I suppose it can go either way. So while this erases my comfort in the fact that there may be a hidden automatic Democratic pocket of support in polls, it gives me a different confidence that the polls are usually off by a little bit, and what makes the difference will be what we do on the ground, and other last-second dynamics.  In that regard I feel the energy and work done is in our favor.
            •  Here's what keeps me optimistic: (3.75 / 8)

              I'm one of those who thinks this poll is bullshit.  It doesn't make sense.  There is no way Bush could gain support after that convention and that speech.  Anecdotal evidence and common sense says otherwise.

              Regarding the outcome of this election, look at the basics of this year compared with 2000.

              1. Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000 by half a million votes.  Republicans haven't won the popular vote since 1988.

              2. Kerry is a better candidate than Gore, with a united Democratic party behind him.

              3. Republican voters, despite loyalty to party, are not as enthusiastic as they were in the Clinton-hating days of 2000.  Disillusion over handling of the war, the budget deficits, and the immigration issue have hurt Bush considerably, even if voters put up a united front to pollsters.

              4. The left is even more determined to win than in 2000.  Remember all of praise for Nader by left-leaning types (Moore, Maher, etc.)?  That has evaporated this year.

              5. Bush has presided over an unpopular bloody war based on lies and exaggerations.

              6. Bush has turned record surpluses into record deficits.

              7. Bush has overseen a net loss of jobs over his term, giving him the worst jobs record in seventy years.

              8. Far from being a bipartisan war leader, Bush has sought to alienate and vilify those who disagree with him.

              9. Seven long minutes reading "My Pet Goat".

              10. Bush has many embarrassing scandals brewing, from Plame to Abu Ghraib.
              This is not the record of a winner.  Granted, Bush has the media spin machine in his favor, and he'll do his best to whip the nation into such a frenzy of fear that they will be afraid to vote for anyone else, but I simply do not see how this man can actually do better than he did in 2000.  He has shown his true, incompetent colors, and he has the worst record of any incumbent in history.  I think the Democrats are running a very smart campaign and they are unlikely to blow this.

              I don't care what the polls say.  Come the debates, Bush should be finished.  His only hope is another al Qaeda attack (God forbid), some sort of implosion on Kerry's part (unlikely), or a total breakdown in the intelligence of the American people.

              Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

              by existenz on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 11:31:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Never misunderestimate the capacity (4.00 / 4)

                of the American people to suffer a total breakdown in intelligence.  

                Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

                by LionelEHutz on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 12:36:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (none / 0)

                  We need to stop relying on anecdotal evidence or on "this will happen because it has to". We can't assume that the public will do anything. They are fools and idiots. They will do whatever the media tells them.

                  The media stuck the McGovern label on poor Howard. Now they've pinned it on Kerry as well. Expect to hear that again and again and again.

                  •  The public is not... (3.80 / 5)

                    made up of fools and idiots. I hate it when my allies at Kos say things like that. You can't expect most people to attend to politics and the news the way that we do. We're dorks. Right-minded, ethical dorks, but political dorks none-the-less. It's perfectly reasonable that people believe the news. They don't look at it with the scrutiny we do. They never have and never will (it takes a lot of time!) Our job is to talk to people, not condescend to them.

                    "Microscopes are prudent in an emergency." -- Emily Dickinson

                    by godotnut on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 05:25:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Your optimism is blind (4.00 / 2)

                1. Republican grassroots electoral strategy takes into account their knowledge of their minority status. They plan victory based upon turnout and electoral vote strategy.
                2. Religious conservatives, and uberhawks have had four years to learn that GWB is their freaking superstar.
                3. Religious right voters, despite disloyalty to party because it is not hardline enough on social issues, have never been as enthusiastic about any other candidate as for GWB, because he is their standard-bearer of faith.  He's a good morally upstanding Christian charismatic leader in their eyes, and nothing else matters.
                4. While left-wing activists are united to oust Bush, right-wing activists were united to oust Clinton in 1996 and failed.
                5. Bush's policy failures mean nothing to his followers, because to half the country, Bush is one of "us," while the Democratic candidate is the other, the enemy, the "them."
                6. Bush's followers enjoy the vitriolic and divisive climate, because it gives them an outlet for their hate and fear. Their self-righteousness cannot exist without enemies domestic and foreign they can demonize as the contrasting "evil."
                You can't just assume that the good guys win.
                •  True, but (none / 1)

                  during the Clinton years, most people couldn't be worked up about him having sex and lying about it.  Yes, they thought it was sleezy, but it didn't affect his performance as president, which is what really mattered.

                  This time, many people are upset because 1) whether Bush deliberately lied or not, he misled the public into thinking Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and it was an immediate threat, 2) he led 900 people and counting to their deaths, 3) he underplayed the costs of what is now a very expensive occupation that might not be successful, 4) he took resources away from fighting the true terrorist threats.

                  Also... his tax cuts blew a huge hole in our country's fiscal stability while doing little to stimulate the economy.

                  •  Thing is (none / 0)

                    the pundits often dismiss bad feelings toward Bush as coming from the "left wing fringe," when in fact, while it may run strongest there, it definitely isn't the only group to feel that way.  In contrast, only the "right wing fringe" was worked up enough about Clinton's sex scandal to want him gone.
                    •  Unless Texas is dominated by the right-wing fringe (none / 0)

                      I think Clinton antipathy was more widespread than you think. And in 1996, the Monica sex scandal hadn't revved up yet.
                      •  Texas is dominated by the right-wing fringe (none / 0)

                        Can't believe you didn't know that already :)

                        But, seriously, Texas is very far to the right. Where else can free public education be called "communism"? Take a gander at the party's platform. Lots of fringe stuff there.

                        Three Way News Your source. For everything. Really.

                        by jimdscott on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:40:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  What about 1998? (none / 0)

                        Clinton antipathy was at its height in 1998, and yet Democrats actually won seats in Congress.  Clinton's popularity shot to his highest point, while Republican popularity tanked.

                        Regarding 1996, Bob Dole was a really crappy candidate.  He was torn apart by Clinton in the debates.  Clinton's economy was doing great, and he had already created something like 7 million jobs in his first term and the deficits were getting smaller.  Clinton hatred was there, but it wasn't nearly what it would become a few years later.  But even when it boiled over into support for Bush in 2000, we still beat them despite our internal differences.

                        I'm not being a blind optimist.  I know the American people have the capacity to be fooled -- just look at those cheering crowds at Bush's speeches.  But for various reasons I don't see this as another 1972.  God forbid if it is.

                        Old Man McCain.com - the best McCain attack blog on the web!

                        by existenz on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 02:04:25 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Zogby, (none / 1)

            on the day before the election, was actually calling for a Gore win in 2000 by 1% -- if I recall correctly. So I've had my eyeballs glued to the Zogby poll ever since. And his latest poll taken July 27-29 shows Kerry/Edwards holding a five point lead over Bush/Cheney (at 48%-43%).
      •  CNN All Politics page has link to poll now (none / 0)

        They've got a link to that poll now here, front and center on their political page. I think the poll is screwy, but I don't think that would stop CNN from posting a story about it.

        A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

        by tmo on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:23:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that's a change in the last few minutes (none / 0)

          The only good thing I can say now about their site is that they cite the registered voter data in their article before they cite the likely voter data.

          Guess what. Kossacks continue to be very rude. I am for Obama, but I'm not a Kossack.

          by DCDemocrat on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:28:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Alpha males & beta sheep (none / 0)

        let's vote for the President.

        I think all we're seeing is a typical wartime flock-around-the-alpha-male mentality -- people still want to say they "support the president", and this translates into saying they'll vote for him when a poller calls.  This does not actually mean they will vote for him when the time comes, it just means they feel bad, this far ahead of the actual election, telling someone that they don't support their commander-in-chief -- which is tantamount to saying they don't support America, or they don't support the troops, or some other nonsense.

        Certainly people like this are idiots, but let's just hope that when they have to actually make a decision and not just pledge allegience to the Great Leader, they'll be more thoughtful about the matter instead of registering some inane sheep-like sentiment like they are now when talking to pollers.

        They're talkin' about nuclear war
        It's a motherfucker, don't you know
        If they push that button, your ass gotta go
        -- Sun Ra

        by Jason Bergman on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:19:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  CNN Looks Bad (none / 0)

      IMHO CNN just looks dumb/incompetent/bias by reporting poll results which everyone knows makes no sense.
      •  No, it's a good thing (4.00 / 2)

        That way, the Repugnicans won't know what hit 'em.

        Unless people vote based upon who's the most popular candidate...then it's not good for us.  But I think we'll be seeing some more polls soon which aren't as obviously conflicted and screwy as this one is.

        •  Good point (none / 0)

          I agree that we really don't want to see Kerry too far ahead at this point.  Look what happened to Howard Dean before Iowa.  Kerry just needs to keep it close and then do well in the debates.  Democrats are going to turn out for this election.
        •  People who vote for "winners" (none / 0)

          It's a phenomenon in every election. The candidate ahead on election day gets a small percentage of extra votes from people who like to vote for a winner.

          I've read about this in several elections. Humans are weird.

          (and who knows how these people poll--do they poll as undecided, or as in favor of the candidate that was ahead in the last poll they heard?)

    •  If this is true... (none / 0)

      "In a switch, Kerry is trusted more to handle the responsibilities of commander in chief, 51%-46%"

      If this is accurate, Kerry will win, period.  The only advantage Bush had left was the CIC issue.  The whole point of the convention was to get past the idea that Kerry couldn't be CIC.  If this was achieved, and holds, the final result will not even be close.

      •  there you have it (3.50 / 2)

        This election is a replay of 1980 in reverse. The voters have decided Bush is dogmeat, they just need to be reassured that Kerry isn't nuts (I mean no disrespect to our almost saintly ex-president Carter by the analogy, I loved him then and now, but in political terms he was the walking dead). Reagan convinced American voters he was'nt a dangerous radical, and the rest,sadly, is history. If voters feel they can trust Kerry, particularly on defense against terrorism, it's all over. If he performs as well in the debates as he did in that speech, Bush will start to crater.

        A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free people.

        by faugh a ballagh on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:57:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Except... (none / 0)

        For this part of the internals:

        STRONG & DECISIVE
        BUSH 51
        KERRY 42

        There's still alot of persuading to do bud, so let's not get carried away.

        "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

        by chuco35 on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:23:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  silver lining? (none / 1)


      A big bump for Kerry now would just result in
      a month or more of headlines saying "BUSH GAINING
      ON KERRY" anyway.

      Slow and steady wins the race...

      Obama's mixed heritage: part RFK, part MLK, part Clinton, part Dean. Read more

      by jab on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:36:23 PM PDT

      •  ExACTLly! (none / 0)

        Despite all the administration spin, despite the media's willingness to go along with that spin, despite all the dittoheads, there is a slow and steady erosion going on in this country. I keep hearing more and more anecdotal reports of defectors. Some of it personal, some of it on call-in shows, and some of it reported IN THE SCLM. We also have seen the reports of erosion in the big-name base, among conservative columnists for instance.

        I don't think it's going to be a story of big blips. I think this election will be won on that slow steady erosion. The most wonderful thing about it is that it is almost completely immune to isolated events and ads. Instead, what I think is happening is that truth is seeping out. It is now talked about as common wisdom that Bush lied to go to Iraq. Let us revel in that. We got the truth out there. They didn't control the message.

        Drip, drip, drip.

    •  If you watched their coverage (none / 0)

      of the convention you know that CNN has no integrity.  These guys are in the tank.  This is a result for "ilkely voters".  And who decides who the likely voters are?  Why the pollster of course!
    •  Not a poll junkie (none / 1)

      but the obvious problem with this one is its reliance on "likely voters."

      We need a better description of this sample -- just who are these people and how is their "likelihood" determined? Are they trying to poll the same sample pool repeatedly or are they coming up with new samples?

      "Likely voters" have sometimes been a really awful predictor of results.

      On the other hand, it's not necessarily bad for our side that polls show Kerry and Edwards behind. Sometimes we need that little spur to get our folk to vote.

      ;)

      --felix

      •  Likely voters (4.00 / 2)

        I think a lot of pollsters are underestimating how many Bush-haters there are who are likely to vote in this election who normally don't.
      •  1992 (none / 0)

        I think pollsters are forgetting 1992 when people came out in droves to vote pappy out of office...
        •  Not 92, 94... (none / 0)

          1992 saw relatively little action.  Bush Sr. was voted out, but only one incumbent senator lost (Boschwitz to Wellstone, increasing the Dem majority to 56 seats).  The house obviously had some changes, but nothing earth shaking.  Clinton was too optimistic with large majorities in both chambers and instead of hitting the ground running he just hit the ground.

          That helped set up 1994, or the "Republican Revolution" with their "contract with America" bullshit.  

      •  Likely voters (none / 0)

        They're probably using voter registration records to determine likely voters. In Oregon, at least, they show whether a person has voted in the past five elections. Likely voters are those who voted in 4 or 5 out of the last five.

        This is public information and can be gotten cheaply and easily at the local elections office.

        •  no: "more enthusiastic than ususal" (none / 1)

          They're probably using voter registration records to determine likely voters. In Oregon, at least, they show whether a person has voted in the past five elections. Likely voters are those who voted in 4 or 5 out of the last five.

          No.  According to the CNN story on the poll this was the way they figured it

          Seventy-four percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting than usual, up from 68 percent two weeks earlier.

          Sixty-one percent of Republicans said they were now enthusiastic about the race, up from 51 percent.

          So what they are saying is that among voters that they were able to reach over a summer weekend the bounce in Republican enthusiasm for Bush was 10 points vs. only 6 points for Democrats.  This one difference clearly accounts for the rest of the results. The ten point jump in Republican enthusiasm for Bush seems to be about the only statistically significant result in the poll and probably represents a skewing of the sample from restricting calls to Friday and Saturday evenings when they were likely to get a lot of older Republicans who watch a lot of TV, saw the Democratic convention, perhaps think a bit better of Kerry, but are now , perhaps for the first time,  interested in the election enough to call themselves "enthusiastic" but still ready to vote for Bush.

          •  The trouble with percentages.... (4.00 / 2)

            According to the percentages that you listed it would seem that the Repugs had alot farther to go up than did the Dems.  Imagine if the enthusiastic Dems was 99% and the Repugs enthusiasm was at 25%.  If the Repugs enthusiasm "jumped" from 25% to 50%, and the Dems remained at 99%, what would the headlines read?  

            Dems Support Stagnates or Repub support doubles?

            There is alot inherently wrong with viewing this type of info as a scorecard without a more thoughtful analysis

          •  There's also the possibility... (none / 0)

            that Republicans' realization that Kerry is a viable candidate motivates them to vote against him.
        •  Four out of the last five??? (none / 0)

          I don't know that that would tell you who REALLY is going to vote.  I consider myself pretty politically interested, but I'm not old enough to have voted in even the past four presidential elections, and, living in D.C. as I have for the last ten years, I don't have a reason to vote in mid-term elections -- and many people who DO don't bother.  It's a fact that mid-term election turnout is always way below the presidential elections.  So I don't know how you can reliably use "4 out of 5" to tell you who's going to vote.  I think we'll see a lot of new voters out there this time -- voter interest in this election is very high.
          •  Caution: Landslides (none / 0)

            Which is why I think Kerry might when in an electoral landslide -- we'll all be able to buy t-shirts with a big blue America on it that reads "Kerry Country" underneath.  "Likely voters" mis-represent who is actually voting this year.  As Michael Moore keeps reminding people, fifty percent of the country doesn't vote, and there's simply no way to know how many of that fifty percent have registered and which way they'll vote, because not only are they way off the "likely voter" radar, we don't even know if they've registered (R) or (D).

            My guess is that there aren't a lot of undecided people who have never voted in their lives who are going to sit up when they see how horrible John Kerry is and rush to get registered to ensure that he doesn't get elected.  The opposite scenario is, on the other hand, quite believable indeed.

            I don't think that Kerry can or will win in a landslide in terms of the popular vote, but if he can get up to 55% or so, the electoral college will certainly skew the results heavily in his favor.  See Reagan's 1984 results (note the "retro" blue/red designations!), in which he won all but D.C. and Minnesota (communists!), but in reality only got 58.8% of the popular vote.  Though he appeared to win in a "landslide", given that only half the eligible voters turned out that year (and 1980 was no different), I hope that 2004 will be in no way comparable.

            If lazy non-voters (the ones that aren't getting polled right now) and Kerry's numbers can start pushing 60% (Allah willing), the t-shirt manufacturers are going to have to start ordering extra supplies of blue ink.

            They're talkin' about nuclear war
            It's a motherfucker, don't you know
            If they push that button, your ass gotta go
            -- Sun Ra

            by Jason Bergman on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 01:42:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "President Elect" (none / 0)

              The site to which you linked is kind of interesting, at least for historical data (I admit, I still get confused on red and blue because for years, I associated red with Democrats and blue with Republicans - not sure why), but I wonder where they get their data for their 2004 forecast.  For example, they say West Virginia is solid Bush - I thought it was at least a toss-up and maybe even leaning Kerry.  And I don't believe Ohio and Florida are "leaning Bush" - I thought the latest polls actually said the opposite.

              Interestingly, though, the commentary beneath the map notes, "As has occured in the past several maps we have done, things are not trending well for the president."  Hmmm ... if you saw the following summary of changes since the site's last analysis, would you agree?

              • Arkansas [moves] from LEANING BUSH to SOLID BUSH
              • Maine from SOLID KERRY to LEANING KERRY
              • Minnesota from LEANING KERRY to SOLID KERRY
              • Nevada from SOLID BUSH to LEANING BUSH
              • New Mexico from LEANING BUSH to LEANING KERRY
              • Virginia from SOLID BUSH to LEANING BUSH
              • West Virginia from LEANING BUSH to SOLID BUSH
            Yeah, I don't see it either ...

    Join the snark-a-thon at Blast Off!, for a unique view of Florida and national politics!

    by Sinfonian on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 04:01:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  •  likely voters...hah! (none / 0)

    They might not call me a likely voter, since I didn't vote in 2000.  The reason I didn't vote in 2000 was that 1) I was overseas, and 2) I was registered in Texas.  The utility of casting a vote for Gore in Texas did not justify my going through the hassle of getting an absentee ballot.  It's the only presidential election since I turned 18 that I've failed to vote in...but they often go by past behavior in presidential years in determining whether one is a "likely voter."

    But neither hell nor high water could keep me away from the polls this time...

    "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

    by DC Pol Sci on Mon Aug 02, 2004 at 02:23:47 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  •  Just wondering... (none / 0)

    are the pollsters inputting their information on some kind of Diebold machine?  That would seem to explain how pretty much all the indicators but the horserace seem to favor Kerry.  What's up with that weird LV difference?

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:57:04 PM PDT

  •  all over the place (3.50 / 2)

    All this indicates is that, as with any major event, people--including the people reporting on people--tend to be all over the place in there perceptions and opinions.
    First, let's take a look at the three polls that have been released since friday.  Newsweek had one that covered the thursday before Kerry's speech and Friday.  This was a flash poll so take it for what it is worth--which isn't much.  Thursday the race was closer, while on friday the survey heavily favored Kerry.  Also Rasmussen had Kerry at 47 to Bush's 46--as reported on saturday.  Now Gallup has Kerry down on friday and Saturday 50 to 46 to 2.  However, check out Rasmussen (probably, the only really reliable indicator we have at this point) which has Kerry breaking 49, the only time either candidate has done so other than once earlier this month when Edwards was selected for VP. To leap from 47 to 49 on a three day tracking poll means Kerry would have had to pulled about 51 for the day--the same day as that Gallup poll was taken showing Bush with that substancial lead.
    The simple fact is that everyone is all over the board right now.  Swing voters are notoriously mercurial and known not to take politics as seriously as other voters do.  It's going to take several days for these individuals to settle into a lasting impression Kerry.  Yet, also, the polling organizations are all over the place right now--obviously scrambling to come up with something for the news organizations to report.  Remember, they don't work for comsumers--at least Newsweek and Gallup don't--they work for the news companies.  We'll just have to sit back and wait for a while till a reliable poll does come out.
    I think its safe to say at this point that Matthew Dowd was being highly optomistic in his projection of Kerry's post convention bounce, but then, he's like that.

    Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

    by Descrates on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 09:59:30 PM PDT

  •  POLL analysis: (3.76 / 13)

    Registered voters 916 = (458 Kerry, 431 Bush)
    Likely voters 763 = (358 Kerry, 381 Bush)

    That means 50 registered Bush supporters are unlikely to vote, while 100 Kerry supporters are unlikely to vote according to their methodology...those numbers are a little too neat and clean to be anything but bullshit.

    --------
    Please don't bite the heads off the chocolate Elvises.

    by PBJ Diddy on Sun Aug 01, 2004 at 10:04:24 PM PDT

  •  my thoughts (3.75 / 4)

    I saw Bill Schneider on Inside Politics Friday.  He pooh-poohed the idea of a Friday poll, said it was useless, that they were doing a three-day poll to get good figures.

    Then suddenly, at noon, he pops breathlessly in on Blitzer and announces these shocking TWO-day results.  He allowed as how Kerry had had a five-point lead Friday, but the Saturday figures gave Bush a 2-point lead, and he was opining that the convention had actually given Bush voters more motivation.

    It makes one very suspicious, that they saw the one-day blip for Bush and went all-out to promote it before anything could negate it.  The irony is, had they waited, they might have got more good news for Bush, if the day of "Terror Terror Terror" works to his advantage as everyone claims it does.

    Why this result?  Who knows?  Maybe, as some claim, Saturday's a good GOP day.  Maybe the ABC terrorist warning at 6:30 Eastern last night skewed the rest of the evening's numbers.  Or maybe it's just Gallup -- the consistently Bush-skewing poll, the one that gave him a 13-point lead 10 days befor Election 2000.

    This is why I say it's a good idea NOT to obsess on polls, but to stick to basics.  Bush is a 45-48% approval president, with a nasty ongoing war, a mediocre and seemingly weakening economy, and potential scandals hovering just over the horizon.  That's the basis on which this election will be decided; not what 700 people told Gallup on one Saturday.