If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

I said it earlier but it doesn't appear to have been noted and/or agreed with.

Size of the data sampling is not the factor. Size of the data sampling is a factor in the accuracy of the data, and not where the data will go.

Other factors influence where the average will fall and where the median will fall.

For example, imagine the graph you did with your bell curve when the data is average income.

Regardless of the size of the data sampling as long as the criteria is all inclusive the overwhelming majority fall well below average.

0 Replies

I think the assumption here was that, since what we were talking about was the average intelligence of the (voting) population (however fuzzy, silly or unprovable a notion), there is most likely no extremity of the kind you're talking about - for example the kind you'd find in the income curve - that would pull the average away from the median on that kind of scale.

I mean, what you're saying is that there is no statistical reason why the majority should be near the average or why there shouldn't be an overwhelming majority clearly above or underneath the average - its all about how much of extremities are involved. And when you mention the income curve, thats a clear example. But the talk (for better or for worse) was about your potential voter population's average intelligence - and its just kind of hard to see how anything similar would come up there. I mean, unlike with income, when you can earn 100 or 10,000 times as much as someone else, can you really be 10,000 times as intelligent as someone else?

Oy, now we're asking philosophical questions ... Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Not with the IQ system, the numbers just don't go that high.

Whether or not one "can really be 10,000 times as intelligent as someone else" is only a matter of the degree at which the spectrum is graduated.

I think you are right, we're headed right up philosophy's rear.

To make my point very simply:

100 is the basis of IQ

There is a floor.

There is no real ceiling, we just try to keep it rare up there and base any measurements on grading by the curve.

Result: like gravity in terms of population density's correlation with altitude because that is the way we view intelligence.

0 Replies

Quote:

can you really be 10,000 times as intelligent as someone else?

Why, yes...yes, I can. Cool

And you have all known someone with which you likewise compared.

Or correlated.

0 Replies

nimh?

Quote:

Source

0 Replies

For the poll junkies....Pew polls on world views of America, Bush, Iraq war etc
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

nimh?

Quote:

Yes, been a bit of a row about that one. Oversampling of Democrats in the poll, is the allegation. And yes, could well be - the poll might well be flawed. (Reminds you to make it a habit never to rely on any one single poll.)

One problem I have with the row thats being fought over it is the underlying assumption that, if it werent for the slant towards Democrats in the poll set-up, Kerry would never have gotten that 7% lead. Well, forsure thats way above the current average (3% Kerry lead). But in the very same week this "controversial" LATimes poll came out, there was also a Gallup poll - showing Kerry ahead 50 to 44. Practically the same result. Haven't heard anyone complain about that one yet - perhaps because Gallup's too reputed to credibly attack in the way one can attack a liberal Californian newspaper ...

Anyway, yeah, perhaps a grain of salt is in order next time a LA Times poll comes up - much like Fox, Zogby and Mason-Dixon polls might need to be looked at a little sceptically.

0 Replies

I think it's interesting that neither Mr. Dowd nor Mr. Winston appear to accuse the LA Times of any specific flaw in their methodology. They simply looked at the result, observed that it was different from what they expected, and concluded that there must be something fishy about it.

Judging by just this article, I can see that the Republican campaign management doesn't want voters to believe Mr. Bush's standing in the polls. But if the LA Times did anything wrong, I fail to see it in this article.

Update: I just re-read the article and I see the accustion now. Sorry.

Quote:

0 Replies

ABC's The Note ventured into providing a state-by-state likely EC breakdown as well:

Scroll down ...

Its conclusions:

Likely Republican states - 172 EV
Likely Democrat states - 168 EV

Republican with "pushed" battlegrounds - 254 EV
Democrat with "pushed" battlegrounds - 217 EV
Absolutely undecided - 67 EV

0 Replies

I almost feel guilty doing this but...

nimh, here's another one for you: http://www.electionprojection.com/

A quick look and their methodology seems to suck but there it is.

0 Replies

<grins>

Yeah, I knew that one already, they're all listed up in this post

0 Replies

I see you gave it the same consideration that I did.

0 Replies

Huh. New Pew poll out. Data from 3-13 June (so the last Bush vs Kerry graph up above will be revised still). Perhaps Bush got a boost from Reagan's death after all? Results compared to a month earlier:

Bush 46 (+3)
Kerry 42 (-4)
Nader 6 (no change)

Without Nader:
Bush 48 (+3)
Kerry 46 (-4)

More striking still the job ratings for Bush in the same poll:

Approve 48 (+4)
Disapprove 43 (-5)

Thats the lowest disapproval rating anyone except Fox registered in one and a half month.

0 Replies

Bush is finally talking about economic success. Seems the masses, who were buying the Dem talking points, are now actually looking at economic news, and see positive moves in Iraq.

I expect the trend will continue. Mayhap the momentum push (blitz of backing up Bush's record)has started early.

(Hasn't Kerry softened his anti-Bush-economic rhetoric...? Seems like I saw a blurb about it on the news.)

0 Replies

West-Virginia, now that was a state that wasn't, I think, on anyone's list of battleground states a couple of months ago ... ?

But now, its trending for Kerry.

In April, state polls there had Bush still in a relatively comfortable lead of 4-5 percent.

Last four weeks, two out of three polls suddenly had Kerry in the lead - but two were Zogby Interactive polls (which are highly controversial) and one was commissioned by an undisclosed party, which suggests a partisan poll.

But now (June 15-17), a new ARG poll also gives Kerry a 3% lead on Bush in the state, whether or not Nader is included (Kerry 47 / Bush 44 / Nader 3, resp. Kerry 48 / Bush 45).

ARG notes:

Quote:

Although only 9% of likely voters, Kerry leads Bush among independents 47% to 40%. In March, Bush was leading among independents 51% to 33%. [..]

In the past 2 weeks, there has been a shift to Kerry among independents nationally, in New Hampshire, and now in West Virginia.

0 Replies

The apparent shift shown by the Pew Research poll aren't isolated:
Harris, which has tended to favor Democrats in the past, shows a boost for The Incumbent (along with a buncha interesting other stuff - check it out), Rasmussen Tracking shows similar results, and RealClearPolitics' current 1-week average tells pretty much the same story. This week hasn't offered The Opposition much to cheer about. Of course, far more telling than individual poll rankings are the trendings of those rankings. Where it goes from here, as always, is the real story. There will be lots of polls yet before the one that counts.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The apparent shift shown by the Pew Research poll aren't isolated:
Harris, which has tended to favor Democrats in the past, shows a boost for The Incumbent (along with a buncha interesting other stuff - check it out), Rasmussen Tracking shows similar results,

You're right about the Harris poll - distinct boost for Bush compared to two months ago. Unfortunately they didnt do a poll without Nader, only one that included him, but it has Bush up 5 compared to two months ago, and Kerry down 1. Considering that two months ago, Kerry on average (of the polls) had only a 2,6% lead, thats bad news for him.

About Rasmussen I'm not sure what you're talking about. All through June thus far, Bush has been at 44-47% in the tracking poll - he's now at 46%. All within the margin of error. Kerry has also been at 44-47% throughout June - and is currently at 45%. All within the margin of error. If you see a trend there, I dont quite see how you do it.

As for the Real Clear Politics table, I prefer the one without Nader - I still think the polls willl show to have greatly overestimated Nader, just like they did last time.

0 Replies

Hehhehheh ... this also from Rasmussen

Quote:

Fox Fans Favor Bush 65% to 28%
CNN Fans Favor Kerry 63% to 26%

Thursday, June 17, 2004--Among fans of the Fox News Channel, George W. Bush is winning by a landslide--65% to 28%. Those who prefer CNN also prefer Kerry by an almost identical margin (63% to 26%).

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey documents a similar split on the radio dial. Those who listen to National Public Radio prefer Kerry by a 68% to 27% margin. However, those who listen to Christian radio stations on a regular basis prefer Bush, 71% to 23%. This gap mirrors the political divide between those who attend Church regularly and those who don't.

The gaps go deeper than simply the Presidential election. In the race for Congress, Fox fans will vote for GOP candidates by a 56% to 25% margin. The CNN audience will vote Democratic by a 54% to 27% margin.

Given this polarized environment, we are especially pleased with the bi-partisan audience that visits RasmussenReports.com. Forty-three percent (43%) of our visitors are Republicans while 38% are Democrats.

CNBC, while hosting a smaller audience, also has more bi-partisan appeal--47% of their audience will vote for Bush while another 47% express a preference for Kerry.

Rush Limbaugh, however, has an entirely different audience--85% say they'll vote for Bush and 11% for Kerry.

0 Replies

Prolly why I tend to prefer CNBC over The Big 3, FOX, and MSNBC ... Laughing

Mostly, though, for daytime TV, I watch Bloomberg.

0 Replies

New polls ... Kerry fans, check out the ABC/WaPo one at the bottom for a lift.

NPR, June 6-10 - so not really a new poll, just only now showed up at pollingreport.com (previous one was back in February, so I'll leave the +/- comparisons for this one).

Bush job rating
Approve 50
Disapprove 48

Bush 49
Kerry 48
Other/Unsure 2

IBD/CSM/TIPP, June 14-19 - they are churning out a new poll every week now (sucks for my graphs with its 10-15 day intervals, means I have to take the average for two of 'em most of the time):

Bush 44
Kerry 44
Not Sure 13

Little change there, Kerry's up 1% compared to last week, Bush unchanged; compared to two weeks ago Bush is down 1%, Kerry unchanged.

With Nader:
Bush 44
Kerry 41
Nader 6
Not sure 10

Again, little change; compared to last week they're all up 1%, the not-sure's down 2%. Compared to two weeks ago, Bush is up 1%, Nader down 1% and Kerry unchanged.

Interesting thing is that, for this one, they do a breakdown per region. In the South, Bush leads 50-38; in the Northeast Kerry leads 45-39. But in the Midwest (41-41) and West (42-41) they're tied.

ABC/WaPo, June 17-20, compared with a month ago - and this one is a bit of a stunner, in Kerry's favour. ABC/WaPo hasnt had Kerry this far ahead since early March:

Bush job rating
Approve 47 (same)
Disapprove 51 (+1)

Bush 45 (-2)
Kerry 53 (+4)

With Nader:
Bush 44 (-2)
Kerry 48 (+2)
Nader 6 (+2)

0 Replies

If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know