2
   

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

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 03:49 pm
In that ABC/WaPo poll, Bush's favourability rating was 51% - lot better than Kerry's - and ever so slightly better than Ashcroft's. But worse than the Democratic Party's.

I might add that in subsequent polls, Fox News gave Kerry a 51% favourability rating (and Bush also 51%), a Time poll gave Kerry 52% favourable (and Bush 54%), and a Newsweek poll gave Kerry 52% as well (and Bush the same). A stunning consensus there, on a picture quite different from what the ABC/WaPo poll evokes.

But a fun list it was ;-)
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 04:24 pm
I just threw it out there for the fun value ... we all were startin' to take ourselves a little seriously :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 04:41 pm
Wierd ...

A few days ago
I wrote:
... since the inception of the Gallup Poll, the Gallup Labor Day Leader has won 17 of the 19 covered contests, only Truman in '48 and Reagan in '80 marking exception to the rule. Incumbent Truman overcame a nearly 6 point Labor Day deficit to narrowly defeat media-favorite Dewey, while challenger Reagan and incumbent Carter were virtually tied 39/38 respectively in that yerar's Labor Day Poll, with 3rd-Party candidate Anderson polling in the low teens. Carter's approval rating at the time was the lowest Gallup had ever measured for a sitting president.

"For the record", History is not on Kerry's side.


Today, The Washington Times wrote:
By historical standards, polls augur well for Bush

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A variety of poll findings now suggest the odds are with President Bush in his battle for re-election ...

... Election history dating back to 1936 may be on Mr. Bush's side. In the last 17 elections, only three candidates behind in Gallup's Labor Day poll went on to win ...

... in only two did the candidate who was behind on Labor Day end up winning: President Harry Truman's 1948 upset defeat of challenger Thomas Dewey and Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory over President Carter ...


Spooky.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:33 pm
Buncha new polls out ... with some interestin' stuff happenin' in the Battleground States, and Memogate wasn't a factor; its just startin' to blossom. nimh's gonna be busy. Not too happy, but busy. August was tough on Kerry. September appears to be offering no respite for the poor boy.

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/kerryquixote.jpg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 01:37 am
I haven't mentioned job approval rates for a while now, was too busy tracking the horserace numbers.

A new University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey (Sept. 3-12) has Bush job approval practically unchanged compared to last month: 52% approve, 46% disapprove.

In the last Newsweek poll of Sept 9-10, 48% approve and 44% disapprove - the positive margin narrows by 7% compared to the week before, but still compares favourably by 8% with the negative margin of late July.

The AP-Ipsos poll of Sep 7-9, like Annenberg has approval at 52% and disapproval at 46%. That compares favourably to all previous polls since early January, with last month's poll having shown a 1% negative margin.

The Time poll of the same days had a whopping 56% approval rating and 41% disapproval. That's 2% better still than in the poll it did during the Republican Convention, and a 9% better positive margin than in late August.

The Fox poll of the same days (Sept 7-8) had approval at 49% and disapproval at 44%; a slight downturn compared to the 51%/43% it noted in late August.

Mixed bag but Bush is looking good.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 02:06 am
Just the one new national poll out, by Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling firm that also did one less than a week ago (comparison between brackets):

Bush 49 (-1)
Kerry 48 (+1)

Bush 47 (-1)
Kerry 45 (no ch.)
Nader 3 (-1)

Here's an update of the horserace graphs. The "average" one doesn't include this last Dem Corps yet, because it will go into new week's score.

As you'll see, I've changed the system, retroactively as of August 30. With some polls coming out every week now, I can't keep on using 10-day periods in the graph, it would mean regularly taking averages of two subsequent polls and I dont want to do that. So as of August 30, results are by week. This also slightly changes the numbers for late August and early September you saw in my previous graph above.


http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush-kerry_lateseptember.gif

I'm curious about what the next Time poll will be. It alone now has the Bush lead up at 12%, whereas the others still roughly divide up into two categories. CBS, Newsweek and ICR (as well as the 3-way-only ABC/WaPo and AP-Ipsos polls) have it at 5-9%, while IBD/CSM/TIPP, Dem Corps, Zogby and Fox have it at 0-2%.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush-kerry_average_lateseptember.gif
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 08:39 pm
AP via Yahoo!: Bush/Cheney 54, Kerry/Edwards 40 in latest Gallup and Nader holdin' on at 3 ... Go, Ralphie, Go! Mr. Green

Quote:
... A new poll from the Pew Research Center said the "bounce" that seemed to propel Bush to a lead just after the Republican convention had disappeared. But he was ahead by double digits in another survey.

The Pew poll found the race at 46-46 among registered voters, and 47-46 Bush among likely voters. A Gallup poll being released Friday has Bush up 54-40 in a three-way matchup, with Ralph Nader at 3 percent ...

AP doesn't seem to think its a big deal; the mention is 20 paragraphs deep in the article. I suspect, however, the new Gallup numbers will get a bit more prominence in tommorrow's papers and programs, and be widely discussed and debated through the weekend. The folks followin' Kerry's parade are sure findin' lots of use for their umbrellas.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Sep, 2004 11:29 pm
Oh well ... it wasn't that big a deal after all; my excitement was premature. That 54/40 "Blowout" reflects "Leaners", not "Likely Voters". A 14-point lead woulda been nice, but CNN's Posted Results show a less encouraging match-up among Likely Voters. There, Kerry pulls a couple more points, and Bush's number is a little different ... the margin is only 13 points, 55/42 Bush, while Other/Neither/No Opinion split the remaining 3 points among one another. Poor Ralphie. I suppose can learn to live with that sort of disappointment. Still, there are weeks to go yet, and the trend may yet change ... Go, Ralphie, Go!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 12:59 am
17.09. 23:58. Can't access A2K, so saved for later posting.

Ah ... two polls, I wished they'd had two-way numbers too, so I coulda put them in my graph. (I'm beginning to have second thoughts about that too, about doing only two-way polls, but reversing that decision and doing the three-way numbers for all those polls all that way back would be a Tantalic job. Perhaps I should include three-way races if no two-way numbers are available).

Anyway, it looks like the race might be wide open again, after all.

The Harris Poll, Sept. 9-13 (compared to Aug 10-15):

Bush 47% (no change)
Kerry 48% (+1)

Nader 2% (-1)

Pew Research, Sept. 8-14

OK, hold on, this is a weird one. They did their poll on Sept 8-14. This is what the overall result was for registered voters, compared to August 5-10:

Bush 49% (+4)
Kerry 43% (-4)

But, the numbers shifted dramatically during the time they took the poll. So they split the numbers:

8-10 Sept: Bush 52%, Kerry 40%
11-14 Sept: Bush 46%, Kerry 46%

For the likely voters sample, pollingreport.com, at least, doesn't even bother giving the overall result, but Dales does:

Bush 51%,
Kerry 42%


But then there are the separate ones:

8-10 Sept: Bush 54%, Kerry 38%
11-14 Sept: Bush 47%, Kerry 46%

Kind of like an instantaneously dissappearing bounce. I would just write off such weird results, if Pew weren't a pretty reputable poll with a fairly good record.

It is my utter conviction that the whole National Guard story on Bush was bad news even if Rather had not effed up on it. Waste of time, as Soz and I discussed here already when the story first broke. Tempting to hit back the same way they hit Kerry with the SVFT, but useless. Every day spent discussing these matters instead of the economy, Iraq, the deficit, Medicare etcetera is a day Bush can be glad with. And thats what we said before the memos turned out to be fake.

But the poll numbers are just totally in flux. A result like Pew's, or even Harris's (showing any bounce Bush may have had from the Convention already dissipated) suggest that perhaps, the scandal does sort effect after all.

I dunno. Most commentators I've read (here in Holland, too) agree that if Kerry is to stand a chance, he has to somehow succeed in breaking through the mediahype crap and bring out his message again - a message, anyhow. And that all this petty scandal business is the stuff Bush Jr.'s peace of mind is made of. But who knows.

Personally, polls be damned, I don't even care to think about it. I mean, what the ef is wrong with you people! In less than two months' time, you get to decide on the most portentous choice for world politics in half a decade. Look at Bush's three trillion dollar-worth of plans, and what he stands for. Look at Iraq. At a plethora of world issues Bush will put his administration's disastrous stamp on for four more years. And all you care to discuss for two effing months long is who says what about who did or did not do which stuff how exactly thirtyfive years ago? Kerry might have saved his men but gotten a medal too much? Bush may not have done enough of his reservist's flying exercises? I mean, WHAT? What are you people thinking of?! Is the world such a complex and frightening place that out of sheer intimidation, you flee into the micromanagement of arcane details? I do that sometimes at work, I admit, but damn. From global warming to nuclear nations, the state of the world is at stake and your media, blogs, pollsters and yes, news consumers blather on day after day about someone's exact (lack of) fulfillment of minor duties mid-last century. Let's talk about their duties now.

<grumbles>

12:17 AM

Can I do another grumble? And fall right into the trap of keeping talking about Vietnam after all?

Rasmussen has this:

Quote:
September 16, 2004--Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters believe John Kerry's service during the Vietnam era was more admirable than most young men of that era. Nearly as many, 23%, said his service was less admirable while 45% said Kerry's performance was about the same as others.

<blinks>

The man served four months fighting up the treacherous waters of Vietnam, getting hurt (however lightly), saving men (according to those men) - and a quarter of Americans think he behaved "less admirably" than most young men? Another half basically say it was unexceptional for someone his age? What, were "most young men" up there with him? Thought not, there were plenty that found some way to stay home.

At least hardly anyone dares assert Bush behaved more admirably than most - "41% believe Bush's performance was less admirable than most while 46% said it was about the same."

OK and now I'm going to stop talking about it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 01:08 am
Yeah, and then later last night (or yesterday, to you), the Gallup poll Timber mentioned came out with devastating results for Kerry. Results of Sept. 13-15, compared to ten days ago (directly after the Republican Convention):

2-way, likely voters:
Bush 55 (+3)
Kerry 42 (-3)


2-way, registered voters:
Bush 52 (+3)
Kerry 44 (-4)

(last time, Bush had built up an impressive lead among likely voters, but the two candidates were still tied among registered voters. No more so.)

6-way, likely voters:
Bush 54
Kerry 40
Nader 3
Badnarik 1
Cobb 0
Peroutka 0

6-way, registered voters:
Bush 50
Kerry 42
Nader 4
Badnarik 1
Cobb 0
Peroutka 0
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 01:35 am
Dales notes:

"New Democratic Network Poll: B49-K45 LV
Penn, Schoen, and Berland Associates conducted this poll of 800 likely voters for the New Democratic Network poll, from Sept. 9th through the 12th."

Can't open Acrobat docs from here, so no further details.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 02:13 am
nimh wrote:
I mean, WHAT? What are you people thinking of?!


unfortunately, nimh, i believe that at least 40-50% are not thinking. they are frozen with fear that they will get attacked by terrorists. it is a mind blower when people living in podunk are more worried about being killed by terrorists than people in our cities. this a natural response in our situation, i suppose. until 9/11 we had only been attacked by "countries", not spies and bomb throwers. difference is, people in metropolitan areas are exposed to violence everyday. a very old story. even older for those living in rumsfeld's "old europe".

frankly, i don't have time to worry about it. and it is not my job to worry about it. i don't mean that in a flippant way, only that the primary purpose of american federal government is to provide for the common defense. so far, i don't see a lot of that going on. afghanistan? o.k., i backed it. that's where osama was/is.

iraq? please. stop wasting time on the hatfields and the mccoys. if bush really wanted to protect me (yes. i say me. i'm a tax payer too), he would quit screwing around and put the kabosh on the porus borders. he would put national security above cheap labor for his pals. he would insist that everything coming into the country be inspected, instead of trusting a manifest faxed to the border patrol 24 hours before a mexican truck hit route 66. the list goes on. but it isn't happening. know why?

money. from some of the figures i have heard, the war in iraq is a real money saver. 200 billion would only start the process of doing even the 2 things i mentioned here.

and truth is, people don't want to pay taxes. they've been convinced that it is a very, very bad thing. you put money in, and somebody else is going to benefit. how unfair. nevermind that a lot of people saying this are retiring on money i kicked into the system. money that probably won't be there for me because now bush wants to end social security in a desperate attempt to bolster his crap economic policy by having people invest in that fool proof commodity, the stock market.

i find it difficult to understand how anybody could support george bush. he is not "america", he is a man. we survived worse assaults on our way of life and much worse global threats long before he showed up. the idea that we are doomed without his alledged "leadership" comes off to me like that fed ex commercial. "we're doooomed!!".

please. we are america. if the people have no more faith in themselves than to hide behind bush's bluster, we are no longer the country that so many of his supporters talk about.

so i'm not gonna vote for him.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 05:33 am
I figure that the answer to why the furor over who did what when and where 35 years ago is The Big Story largely arises from the three facts that media favorites Kerry/The Democrats have presented no coherent, viable, distinct alternative to The Electorate, that the entire Democratic Base is united behind the sole notion they were wronged in the election of 2000, and that Kerry himself chose to make his Vietnam service, not his legislative record, the lynchpin of his candicacy. What The Democrats and The Mainstream Media miss is that over the past decade The Electorate consistently and increasingly has favored their opponents in local, state, and national elections, steadily allowing The Republicans to take majority representation in everything from city councils, mayoralities, county boards, state legislatures and governorships to both Houses of Congrress and, of course, The Whitehouse itself. Rather (no pun intended Mr. Green ) than look inward for and proactively address the root causes of their decline, The Democrats persist in attributing their woes to wrongdoing on the part of their opposition. The Democrats really have presented only one argument, to whit, the "Republicans are evil liars" meme. The Electorate just doesn't buy that. Stubbornly, and futiley, persisting in the meme, The Democrats, abbetted by the Mainstream Media, only further distance themselves from The Electorate.


The Democrats defeat themselves.


And they're getting better at it.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 05:48 am
So true and this week Kerry went back to that tired mantra, even put Ted on the campaign trail and he's a broken record of the same tune.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 05:56 am
"The Republicans are evil liars"

is not an argument.

Its a conjunction of two propostions. The Republicans are liars and the Republicans are evil.

I'm coming round to the view that its better to stick with the devil you know.

At least during the impending American intervention in Iran, we will be spared saying "he's no better than Bush!"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 07:56 am
Laughing Steve ... I got a real chuckle out of that. Thanks.

An aside re Teddy on the trail; He was scheduled to keynote a rally in Mary Jo Kopechne's home town. Uncharacteristically, someone higher up realized the inadvisability of that, and Teddy's travel plans were rearranged. Apparently not all DNC thinkers are committed to self-destruction.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 09:43 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'm coming round to the view that its better to stick with the devil you know.

At least during the impending American intervention in Iran, we will be spared saying "he's no better than Bush!"


Did In read that correctly? Steve favors Bush? (or at least considers him the lesser of two evils).
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 09:59 am
Interesting, that. Idea
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 10:24 am
Nimh, et al:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybres163973220sep16,0,5538561.column

Quote:
Making call on sham of political polling

Anybody who believes these national political polls are giving you facts is a gullible fool.

Any editors of newspapers or television news shows who use poll results as a story are beyond gullible. On behalf of the public they profess to serve, they are indolent salesmen of falsehoods.

This is because these political polls are done by telephone. Land-line telephones, as your house phone is called.

The telephone polls do not include cellular phones. There are almost 169 million cell phones being used in America today - 168,900,019 as of Sept. 15, according to the cell phone institute in Washington.

There is no way to poll cell phone users, so it isn't done.

Not one cell phone user has received a call on their cell phone asking them how they plan to vote as of today.

Out of 168 million, anything can happen. Midway through election night, these stern-faced network announcers suddenly will be frozen white and they have to give a result:

"It appears that the winner of the election tonight is ... Milford J. Schmitt of New Albany, Ind. He presently has 56 percent of the vote, placing him well ahead of John Kerry, George Bush and another newcomer, Gibson D. Mills of Corvallis, Ore. It appears the nation's voting habits have been changed unbeknownst to us. Mr. Schmitt was asked what party he is in. He answered, 'The winning party.'"

Those who have both cell phones and land lines still might have been polled the old way - on their land lines by people making phone calls with scientifically weighted questions and to targeted areas for some big pollster. These results are announced by the pollsters: "CBS-New York Times poll shows George Bush and John Kerry in a statistical dead heat in the presidential race."

Beautiful. There are 169 million phones that they didn't even try. This makes the poll nothing more than a fake and a fraud, a shill and a sham. The big pollster doesn't know what he has. The television and newspaper brilliants put it out like it is a baseball score. Except not one person involved can say that they truly know what they are talking about.

"I don't use telephones anymore because there is no easy way to use them," John Zogby was saying yesterday. It was the 20th anniversary of the start of his polling company. He began with what he calls "blue highway polls," sheriffs' races in Onandaga and Jefferson counties in upstate New York.

"The people who are using telephone surveys are in denial," Zogby was saying. "It is similar to the '30s, when they first started polling by telephones and there were people who laughed at that and said you couldn't trust them because not everybody had a home phone. Now they try not to mention cell phones. They don't look or listen. They go ahead with a method that is old and wrong."

Zogby points out that you don't know in which area code the cell phone user lives. Nor do you know what they do. Beyond that, you miss younger people who live on cell phones. If you do a political poll on land-line phones, you miss those from 18 to 25, and there are figures all over the place that show there are 40 million between the ages of 18 and 29, one in five eligible voters.

And the great page-one presidential polls don't come close to reflecting how these younger voters say they might vote. The majority of them use cell phones and nobody ever asks them anything.

Common sense would say that the majority of the 18 to 25 who do vote would vote for the Democrat. The people who say they want to vote for Bush are generally in the older age brackets, and they don't have as much trouble with the lies told by Bush and his people. The older people also use cell phones much less because they can't hear on the things and when trying to dial a number on these midget instruments they stand there for an hour and get nothing done. The young people on cell phones appear not to be listening and they hear every syllable. They punch out a number without looking.

They are quicker, and probably smarter at this time, and almost doubtlessly more in favor of Kerry than Bush.

Older people complain about Kerry's performance as a candidate. Younger people don't want to get shot at in a war that most believe, and firmly, never should have started because it was started with a president lying.

Zogby has no opinion because he is a professional figure man and he has no figures he trusts.

"I am making a segue into Internet polling, which is going to be the future," he was saying yesterday. "You use screened e-mails of hundreds of thousands. Every household has some chance of being polled. How can you not do it that way? I have three children. The one in Washington uses only a cell phone. The ones at home use cell phones."

If you want a poll on the Kerry-Bush race, sit down and make up your own. It is just as good as the monstrous frauds presented on television and the newspaper first pages.


Opinions? Does the switch to cel phone usage amongst our youth skew the polls towards older respondents?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2004 10:49 am
I'm 36 years old... and haven't had a "home" phone in nearly a decade.

It'll cost you 2 to 1 to pick Bush in a casino these days. The fat lady is on her way to the stage.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oz fest 2004 - Question by Love2is0evol
Human Events Names Man of the Year, 2004 - Discussion by gungasnake
Your 2004 mix tape - Discussion by boomerang
BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE... - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Weeping and gnashing of teeth - Discussion by FreeDuck
WOW! Why Andrew Sullivan is supporting John Kerry - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Margarate Hassan - hostage in Iraq - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 04:58:38