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

Sofia wrote:

An analysis of Gallup Polls from the last 10 elections suggests that presidential candidates enjoy an increase in support, or a "bounce," of between five and seven points after their party's convention. [..]

I will agree that the GOP's 15% was to make any such good news for Kerry, not to seem to be unexpectedly bad news for Bush--but to try to say Kerry won't get *any* bounce, is the Left's attempt to do the same thing the GOP did--

Well, I dunno. I mean, the article you quote says that in the last 10 elections, candidates enjoyed a bounce of 5-7%. I think we've already pretty exhaustively laid out the reasons why the bounce will most likely be significantly smaller than normally this time. And "significantly smaller" than a historical pattern that according to your article is only 5-7% (I thought it was a little higher than that, myself, but if thats what it is) -- then what you then get would be awfully close to mere statistical noise.

I mean, if 5-7% is what presidential candidates normally enjoy, it shouldnt be more than 3-4% now - which is close to any margin of error.

I dont think it will be more than 3-4%, on average, in any case (with probably some volatile differences from poll to poll). And I must add that the first person who made me think about the exact how & why of that, was Dales, who made the case eloquently and is as fiercely republican/conservative as you are. Just too anal a poll-tracker to let partisan spin get in the way on such matters, I guess - and I mean that as a compliment. I hope my take will be regarded in the same way, rather than as more of the Left's own attempt at spin ...

---
I updated my graphs btw, but you cant see it yet cause I didnt upload them. But President Bush really did have a good two weeks now. The seven polls that have come out on the matter in the second half of this month thus far, on average give Bush a 48,7% approval rating - and thats the best he's had since late April. They give him an average 46,6% disapproval rating - and thats the lowest since late April. (If this indicates a bounce of his own for Bush this past week or two, one could actually worry that even if there is a Democratic Convention bounce, it wont be able to achieve much more than cancel out this little one for Bush ...)

0 Replies

Quote:

I know i'm hammerin' a point, but it remans THE POINT that over more than four years of non-stop, all-out campaigning, abbetted by Mainstream Media sycophancy, The Opposition has been able to do no better than remain an even-odds player. If I were a Dem, I'd be real uncomfortable along about now. I'm not, and I'm not.

It's hard to counter fear-mongering with logic. It's easier to scare people than it is to give them hope. I'm surprised that the Dems are doing this well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yeah, Timbers logic goes right round the other way, too.

After all, after Bush has had almost four years of non-stop, all-out partisan agenda-setting, personally rallying the nation around the flag and all the causes he used it for, abbetted by an access to media time and coverage an opposition pol could only dream of, The President has been able to do no better than remain an even-odds player. In all of modern history, only Truman has done this badly in terms of job approval and still won the election. If I were a Republican, I'd be real uncomfortable along about now.

Razz

0 Replies

Well, nimh, I'll try to explain. Definitely not wanting to argue the point--just simplify it.

No matter what the rationale--and I've read the one you have discussed--the Convention is a sales pitch of epic proportion. To be unable, in the fevered, glossy commercial--to win even a small percentage of voters, is a failure.

Even if the writers and poll-watchers are all Conservatives and have no ulterior motive--the failure resounds.

You may still think I'm wrong, but I wanted to clarify my rationale.

0 Replies

From Rasmussen today:

Quote:

After two nights of the Democratic National Convention begins, the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John Kerry with 48% of the vote and President George W. Bush with 45%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.

Nearly half (46%) of the nation's voters plan to watch John Edwards' Acceptance Speech. The audience will consist mostly of people who already support the Democratic ticket.

While it is tempting to read today's Tracing Poll results [two days ago, the race was still tied, 46/46 - nimh] as a reaction to last night's convention activities, the correlation is not nearly that precise. Very few people are watching the convention. Also, our data is reported on a three-day rolling average basis, so the overwhelming majority of interviews for today's report were completed before last night's major speeches were given. Today's results include interviews completed on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.

and:

Quote:

Nearly half the nation's voters, 46%, plan to watch Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards' acceptance speech tonight.

It is likely that the actual audience will be smaller than the number of people who say they "plan" to watch the speech. However, it is also likely that tonight's speech will attract a larger audience than the first two night's of the Convention. [..]

The audience watching Edwards will not be representative of the nation at large--72% plan to vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 24% of tonight's audience will be Bush voters. One percent (1%) say they're voting for some other candidate while 3% are not sure.

0 Replies

So, there is a 28% viewership that they are appealing to--if we agree with the polling, though I bet tonight will be the big night for viewers (as your article agrees), checking to see if Kerry has a pulse.

If this effort can't sway even a small percentage--if they can't change a small group of minds--they have failed.

Considering the pretty big contingent of anti-war Democrats, who are given no real change from Bush--and the lackluster appeal of the party to their own base, I wouldn't be surprised it they lost a few points, rather than gained--but a no gain or a loss can just not be logically spun as a positive or a non-issue for the Dems and the guy at the top of the ticket.

This is the best packaging of the man who wants to be President. He has no opponents to pick through his rhetoric, no hard questions to answer... Its a big Gimme. He has to articulate his plans, show who he is, and convince people he's capable of doing the job. If he can do this successfully, he will add to his numbers--pure and simple.

My opinion.

The same applies to Bush, though he has a different set of tasks to acheive than Kerry.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

So, there is a 28% viewership that they are appealing to--if we agree with the polling,

No - that would be 28% (who dont already plan to vote for Kerry/Edwards anyway) - of the 46% who planned to watch the Edwards speech.

So thats actually a 12,9% audience of "convertible" Americans - including those, like you or Timber I assume, who'll watch because they like politics but wont ever be persuaded anyway. And with the caveat Rasmussen mentioned that "it is likely that the actual audience will be smaller than the number of people who say they "plan" to watch the speech." (As in, I plan to do more exercize ... but then I've been "planning" that for quite a while ;-))

If anyone knows what the actual ratings were - how many people actually watched - that would be cool.

0 Replies

As for your actual argument there, I think we're having a non-disagreement here. Even I assume the Convention will "sway a small percentage" - it'd better. I just expect it to be a much smaller percentage than the Convention bounces of previous election cycles - because of the decreased media coverage but mostly because a much larger share of people have already made up their mind than normally. Especially the target group usually "brought home" by a Convention - the real cant-choosers are usually not persuaded by Conventions anyway, its the as of yet unconvinced flaky partisans and partisan leaners among the Independents that the Conventions usually succeed in "bringing home", and those groups in particular have already been rallied this time.

So, sure I think the Convention should sway a couple of percentage points - but much fewer than normally - and if its indeed 5-7% normally (I thought it was more), than I'd say it'll be less than 4% now. Which will be hard to tell apart from the margin of error-related up and down of polls.

Anyway, we're going in circles now - think I've pretty much said everything I could say about it.

0 Replies

Sorry. This has been such a boring political season...(Today: A tie. Today, it's a tie. Today--It looks like their neck and neck. OK, today, still a tie...)

I'm talking every fine point slap to death. I'd assumed the Convention would provide a myriad of invigorating subjects to discuss....

<wailing>

When I start repeating myself--just ignore me...

I miss those old, scuffling for delegates Conventions. The end of an era...

Waaaaa!

(Stalks off to look for new polls or something>

0 Replies

I feel your pain, Sofia ... <grins> I'm sure we all do!

And today ... its still basically a tie.
(That was funny ;-))

0 Replies

Well, the election looks about even right now.

The Zogby poll, (which has gotten the winner right the last three times, all within one-that's right, one-percentage point), says Kerry and Edwards are five points over Bush/Cheney. This poll ws taken during the days of the convention.

If the normal 7 to 9 point bounce principle is applied, Kerry is behind. If the bounce effect is less, because fewer voters are undecided this year than other years at this time, then they are about even.

You never know. this was Kerry and Edwards's introduction to a lot of people, and the effect might not be felt for a little while.

It sometimes happens in politics that the effect of an event is not felt for awhile.

Is this the peak of Kerry and Edwards? Or did they leave an impression, good or bad, in people's minds that will reveal itself later?

0 Replies

Well, I hope the post-Convention numbers will be better than Zogby's - I mean, in comparative perspective. I like a five-point margin for Kerry/Edwards, forsure, but the problem is that Kerry did not gain a single percentage point in this poll compared to the last one by Zogby, on 6-7 July. They're still at 48%. Bush/Cheney fell by 3 though, from 46% to 43% - three percent that went "unsure".

The regional breakdown of the Zogby poll is all screwy, though - unexpected to the point of raising some suspicion about the poll's validity. According to the poll, Kerry is actually trailing by 5 points in the midwest (43 to 48) - but ahead by 2 in the south (48 to 46, close to the national average). That seems very improbable.

A nice extra in the poll is that it also includes a match-up that has Nader, but also Badnarik and Peroutka (who is Peroutka?). Bringing in the dark horses has no impact whatsoever though - Badnarik gets 0% and Peroutka 1% (and Nader 3%). Wonder how much Cobb would have gotten ... also 0 or 1, I guess ... :-(

0 Replies

The oldest, and one of the most respected and demonstratedly final-result-accurate (a little more than a 2-point overall average spread since the 'Thirties, less than 1.5% mean deviation, final pre-election poll compared to actual election outcome, since 1960) is The Gallup Organization. A look at Gallup's Trend Lines shows a couple of interesting things. One is that typically, polling results generally do not begin to closely track actual election results untill well into September or early October. Another is that Gallup, even in final, immediate pre-election polls, tends to show the Democratic candidate, win or lose, performs somewhat less well in the general election than would be assumed from that candidate's Gallup-indicated polling figures. Not sayin' that is relevant to the current situation, just that its interesting.

0 Replies

In the 2000 election, the CNN/USA Today poll, (conducted by Gallup), gave Bush a 2 point margin of victory in the popular vote.

Since Gore's popular vote margin was over 0.5%, his actual popular vote margin of victory is properly rounded off to 1%. So Gallup was off by 3%.

Better than Voter.com, though. They had Bush up by 5%, and the phony baloney Rasmussen Report was off even worse-they had bush ahead by nine points-52-43%.

Like I said before, the Rasmussen Report is a piece of garbage which nobody should pay the slightest attention to!! Exclamation

http://members.cox.net/fweil/FinalPolls2000.html

0 Replies

Still you miss the academic point of the excersize, kelticwizard; it is not how closely any poll approaches the eventual outcome that is of significance, it is the trending of a broad sampling of polls over time, as compared both with one another and as an aggregate against the eventual outcome. None of the polls pegged the real numbers, but together they indicated a sharply divided race with a narrowing, generally-within-the-MOE range. And thats just what it turned out to be.

0 Replies

I think in anyones language his race is too close to call.........

0 Replies

Still, Timber, I didnt know Rasmussen had been that far off last time ... thats interesting.

And ABC, WaPo, NBC, Newsweek all polling a 3% Bush lead when it actually was a tie - that sure puts some conservative complaining here about how you cant trust the alphabet networks' polls because they all lean liberal back into perspective ...

0 Replies

Casino's are back to favoring Bush. They had it at even money before the convention. Now the odds read:

George W. Bush -160

John Kerry +120

For those of you that don't gamble, that means you have to put up $160 to win $100 on Bush. And you have to put up $100 to win $120 on Kerry.

That makes Bush a slim 7 to 5 favorite and don't forget; these people put their money where their mouths are. Idea

0 Replies

Timberland:

Believe it or not, I mostly agree with you. But Rasmussen is a phony, and should be disregarded. Showing Bush nine points ahead and Gore wins the popular vote by 1%, (rounded off)-that's off by 10%!!

In the three greatest electoral runaways of the past fifty years, Johnson-Goldwater in 1964, Nixon-McGovern in 1972, Reagan-Mondale in 1984, the loser got about 40% of the vote, the winner got about 60%. the winner beat the loser by 20%.

So Rasmussen is off by 10%, and 20% is a landslide.

At some point, you must admit that some things have no value.

The whole stupid Rasmussen poll was merely created for right wing talk radio hosts to quote optimistic numbers for the Republican. Even if Rasmussen shows fairly nice numbers for Kerry now, when the race goes on rely on them to try to build Bush momentum.

0 Replies

Occom Bill:

I believe that is probably because the post convention bounce was frequently referred to as 7-to-9 points, and Zogby-who gets the outcome right in these things-had Kerry only 5 points ahead after his convention.

The bounce only lasts a couple of weeks anyway.

Plus, there has been a lot of bad stuff coming about Bush-justifiiably I might add. Yet he still hangs in there poll-wise. There is the sense that if all these things only push Bush slightly back in the polls, what happens when his campaign gets revved up?

I'm for Kerry. But I also think that he should be farther ahead than he is now. He has a reputation for coming on strong late in the campaign, as he did against Weld and in the Iowa caucuses. So we'll see.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know