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

I love that place!

nimh

I bumped into that Saletan piece this morning while I did a quick news survey, in fact, without reading past the first paragraph, on the hope it might be valuable. Normally, he's a fairly dependable fellow. I'm still in a hurry, so can't read it now either, nor your address to it. Away for a bit again.

I included much of the following in a post on another thread, but it fits well here, too:



Bush-Cheney up 5% from the second week of July, Kerry-Edwards off 3% for the same period ... a point or so either way one poll to the next doesn't mean much one way or the other, but a net 8-point uptick over a bit less than a month is more than just possibly statistically significant, particularly in light of the fact the period encompasses the Democratic Convention. Incidentally, this showing is the best for Bush since his mid-April 51%, while Kerry has not polled lower since his contemporaneous 46% showing.

It should be noted as well that with this release, Bush at 51% is again shown by Gallup with a majority, not just a plurality, an achievement not particularly notable in Kerry's record of results from the same organization.

Then too, there is yesterday's Bobblehead Poll; Bush took 4 out of 7 to clinch the series

No, they are more trustworthy than the rest, since Zogby got the last three winners right along with their margin of victory within a single point.

None of the others can back up that claim.

and robberies. hahah ,sorry , couldn´t resist


Three bank robberies for Iowa town during Bush, Kerry visits


US CNN

Keltic, the only outfit that got the spread right in 2000 was Harris, and all they nailed was the spread; they missed a bit on the actual score. In the long run, the greatest accuracy and consistency has been displayed by Gallup, while over the past decade or so, the electronic trading markets, bookies, and socio-economic-model projections have outperformed all the conventional pollsters. Again, no one individual poll, other indicator, or result therefrom is particularly significant in and of itself; what is of academic use is the comparison-over-time vs one another, vs the group as a whole, their trendings vs the trendings of all, and finally, comparison both individually and in the aggregate vs actual result over a series of elections for the lot of them. The roughly 7 decade track record of Gallup not only is the longest, but the most consistent and most accurate. That aside, still Gallup is but one among many, and should be considered primarilly in that light, as must be all the rest.

LOL, Thok! I just watched the end of a movie about the Great Train Robbery, as it happens - looks like the art of daring schemes hasnt died out yet!

Blatham, dont worry - I kinda like Saletan, usually, and even this article was interesting enough - just straight away got my spin detector buzzing. I'm sure we'll be experiencing a lot more "buzzing" still, this year ...

Well, whaddaya know - talking of spin and the lack thereof - how very interesting that its Fox thats bringing us the "bad" news!

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 3-4, 2004 (compared to 20-21 July).

Among likely voters:
Bush 43 (-1)
Kerry 48 (+3)

or, in the three-way race:
Bush 43 (0)
Kerry 47 (+3)
Nader 2 (-1)

Among registered voters:
Bush 43 (-1)
Kerry 46 (+2)

or, in the three-way race:
Bush 42 (-1)
Kerry 46 (+4)
Nader 2 (-2)

Bush job approval:
Approve 44 (-3)
Disapprove 48 (+3)

Dont mind me if I point out that this is the worst result yet for Bush shown in any Fox poll thus far.

I won't mind at all, nimh.

Veeeeery eeeeeenterstink. Of further, if unrelated interest, is that FOX's CFO came out endorsing Kerry. Doubt there's a connection, though. Just interesting. Gotta say things are gettin' more and more interestin' every day, though.

Today, Rasmussen shows Kerry-Edwards with a 3-point lead too, having been bouncing between 46 and 48% for quite a while while Bush_Cheney seem stuck at around 45-46. What strikes me odd about recent Rasmussens is that Kerry, despite his well established if essentially marginal, Presidential Preference lead is and consistently has been at disadvantage on the questions of Leadership, National Security/Defense, Trust, and The War on Terror, and appears unable as well to establish an advantage on The Economy. Striking is that Kerry has a 13% disadvantage among veterans, Bush 58%, Kerry 35%, and 54% of the veterans surveyed rate Bush Good or Excellent on his handling of Iraq. Coupled with the fact Bush's approval rating has been tracking consistently above 50% since early June, Rasmussen may not reflect particularly good news for Kerry.

Still 7 to 5, Bush, at the casino.

Some more "Real Money" talkin'


08/04/04

A little tighter than 7-to-5 at IEM, but The Bush lead has been expanding steadily since The Convention.


Bush: 0.527, up nearly 2 full basis points since Aug 1, volume running much higher than Kerry's (Better than 5-to-1; 386 units month-to-date vs Kerry's 68 units)
Kerry: 0.484, down a point and a half same period

Again, depends on which poll you look at.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 30-Aug. 1, 2004.

"Who do you trust to do a better job handling [see below], Bush or Kerry?"

"The U.S. campaign against terrorism"
Bush 48%
Kerry 45%

"The situation in Iraq"
Bush 46%
Kerry 48%

"Improving the U.S. intelligence agencies"
Bush 43%
Kerry 48%

"Taxes"
Bush 43%
Kerry 49%

"Relations with other countries"
Bush 42%
Kerry 51%

"The economy"
Bush 41%
Kerry 52%

"Education"
Bush 39%
Kerry 52%

"Health care"
Bush 36%
Kerry 55%

A "hidden" Bush bounce that came directly before the Democratic Convention, and managed to cancel out the bounce Kerry might otherwise well have had, like I speculated here? Dales isnt having any of it. Responding to Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress, he writes:



On the other hand, an ever increasing batch of new state polls seem to show a general enough uptick for Kerry, as Dales elsewhere admits: "The state polls that are coming in now are fairly consistently showing a modest bounce for Kerry."

Ie, going on numbers that came out just over this past week:

in Florida, Republican pollster Strategic Vision has it a push and usually Dem-friendly ARG a 7-point Kerry lead (truth probably in the middle);

in Pennsylvania, SurveyUSA has a 12-point Kerry lead and Strategic Vision an 8-point Kerry-lead;

in New Hampshire, ARG has a 7-point Kerry lead;

in Michigan, SurveyUSA has a 11-point Kerry lead and Strategic Vision has a 7-point Kerry lead;

in New Mexico, a Libertarian-sponsored Rasmussen poll has a 7-point Kerry lead;

in Iowa, Republican pollster Strategic Vision has a 3-point Kerry lead;

in Minnesota, Republican pollster Strategic Vision a 4-point Kerry lead;

in New Jersey, Quinnipiac has a 13-point Kerry lead;

in Wisconsin, Republican pollster Strategic Vision has a 3-point Kerry lead;

in Washington, SurveyUSA has an 8-point Kerry lead;

in Tennessee, SurveyUSA has Bush leading by only 2%

Only in Ohio and Arizona some bad news:
in Ohio, Strategic Vision (R) has a 4-point Bush lead;

and in Arizona, Market Solutions has a 3-point Bush lead.

Not an unpleasant overview, eh?

In his "classic" Electoral College Breakdown, which purely goes on the last poll that came in, without any analysis - in the version of his "classic" ECB that doesnt count the Zogby Interactive polls, that is, the score is now:

Kerry 265 - Bush 186
Or, counting the states that are only slightly leaning one way or another:
Kerry 301 - Bush 231

[rolling up sleeves getting ready to convince a whole lotta people here in Ohio to vote for Kerry! Kind of cool to be in the "Florida of the 2004 elections", actually. My vote means something!]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Selling the Sizzle
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: August 7, 2004

We've got 43 million people without health insurance. We're relying on energy sources that are politically dangerous and economically unsustainable. Wage growth is not what it should be, and yesterday's jobs numbers suggest that strong economic growth may not be producing strong job growth. Would it be illegal in these circumstances for at least one presidential candidate to propose policies remotely in proportion to the problems that confront us?

Apparently so. John Kerry and the Democrats spent their convention talking about broad values like unity and military service and almost no time talking about specific proposals. And if you peek in at a Bush campaign event, it's like a traveling road show of proper emotions. Bush will remind the crowd of the feelings we all experienced on Sept. 11. Then there will be several paragraphs on the importance of loving thy neighbor, and several minutes spent reciting the accomplishments of Term 1.

No offense, but where's the beef?

Kerry at least has a reputation for caution. It's not surprising that his policies are orthodox Democratic ideas. Bush's hallmark is boldness, but when it comes to laying out an agenda for the second term, he has been remarkably timid.

He's dropped hints over the past eight months that he is about to unveil a second-term agenda (for those of us waiting, this has been the longest striptease act in human history). But even the ideas that are bandied about are mostly small.

Yes, community colleges should get a little more help. Yes, flextime is a good idea. Yes, high schools should be held accountable. But this is not exactly the New Deal or the New Frontier. It's more like the New Minor Modifications of Existing Programs.

Maybe there is a bold tax reform plan in the offing, but so far I'm able to control my excitement.

I suspect there are several reasons the administration has not yet communicated an exciting second-term agenda. First, many people in the administration are so consumed by the war that domestic policy no longer gets their juices flowing. Second, with the high deficits, there's no money for ambitious programs, and fiscal conservatives don't want to hear about huge new programs anyway.

Third, in an age of polarized parity, a new policy direction is risky. You might alienate a necessary part of your coalition. Finally, the consultants like campaigns that stress "themes" and "visions" because they test so well in focus groups.

But this year that's politically crazy. This year the people who can be won over by visions and values have already decided. Most of the people who are undecided don't care about politics. They don't care about politicians. They're asking, What are you going to do to solve my problems? What are you going to do for me?

The sad thing is that while the candidates have been talking about broad values and modest policies, there are exciting new ideas floating around. For example, people in the health care industry are talking about an essay Michael Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg wrote in the June Harvard Business Review.

Porter and Teisberg argue that the current health care system encourages competition at the wrong level - among health plans, networks and hospital groups - which just leads to zero-sum cost shifting. It should occur at the level of individual treatment, which would encourage not shifting costs, but improving value.

The argument takes awhile to unfold, but here are two people taking a fresh look at a seemingly intractable problem. Similarly, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, recently gave a speech at the National Press Club outlining an ambitious health care reform plan.

Frist set out a clear goal, that "all Americans should have the security of lifelong affordable access to health care." He embraced some guiding principles, that the system should be consumer-driven, etc. Then he laid out six policy proposals, including "Healthy Mae" organizations (which would be like Fannie Mae to share insurance risks) and setting up tax-free health I.R.A.'s for old-age costs.

Frist, Porter and Teisberg remind us that it's possible to envision bold departures from the status quo, a spirit missing so far on the campaign trail.

People used to complain that selling a president was like selling a bar of soap. But when you buy soap, at least you get the soap. In this campaign you just get two guys telling you that they really value cleanliness.

Good article, au. Not sure what it has to do with election odds and probabilites, but then I can't be accused of rigorously remaining entirely topical myself. No cricism implied. Thanks for the thought-provoking read.

Timber
None. However, I too thought it was a good read. And since it was about the election, thought this was as good a place as any place to post it.

Gore got over 500,000 more votes than Bush, whichh translates into a percentage greater than 0.5%. In whole numbers, that become a 1% margin of victory for Gore in the popular vote.

Zogby had Gore by 2, which means they are off by 1 percentage point. And they got the right winner in the popular vote. Which is no small thing, as that is the entire purpose of the poll in the first place.

Zogby got the 1992 and 1996 elections to within a single point as well.

I really don't care that mcuh about Gallup and his seven decades, when it comes to presidential elections, you look at Zogby first. They have earned it.
http://members.cox.net/fweil/FinalPolls2000.html

And while you are at it, will you please stop assaulting our senses with "results" from the totally worthless Rasmussen organization?

Look at the chart-they had Bush up by nine points at the end last year-and Gore finished ahead by one. Sorry, but in a nation where twenty points constitutes a landslide, being off by 10 points means you have no right to be taken seriously as a predictor.

Your point about trending over time might have some validity, but there has to be a common sense caveat: the polls in question have to have some record of actual competence. Clearly, Rasmussen's record is one of blithering incompetence, so anything from them is sensibly discounted.