2
   

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

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:12 pm
I dunno, it looks to me as though Gallup, irrespective their particular specific numbers, is tracking with the momentum shown by the crowd ... not just polls but futures trading as well.


Graphic current as of 09/20/04 13:00 CST:

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/Capture_09202004_125136.jpg

Graphics will update as host sites update:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news_images-on_site/3waybig.jpg

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/Pres04_WTA.jpg

Static graphic, released 09/20/04:

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/SEPgen3.GIF

Any questions?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:16 pm
Think you should include Rasmussen in there too Timber as they do daily polls that have been very interesting to watch.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:18 pm
Yes. Why are the gallup, zogby, and pew polls showing such drastically different results?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:23 pm
>>>Oversampling. Bleh. The part that gets me is that the mis-representation of the race may discourage voters...

Cycloptichorn<<<

wouldn't be the first time though, would it. this stuff plays right into the ego thing of steered voting that makes the loser the winner because people like being able to say "i voted for the winner".

seems stupid, but it works sometimes. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:24 pm
What all currently show is a Kerry disadvantage, regardless the individually reported magnitude. Whatever may be the magnitude of that disadvantage, there can be little dispute it is is real, has been persistant through the past several weeks, and shows no sign of retreat.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:32 pm
Differences between the polls are inevitable unless all poll the same area on the same day at the same time of day. I would be highly suspicious if there were no differences between them. Timber is right, however, that as an aggregate, trends do start showing up and currently the trend favors Bush.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:32 pm
timberlandko wrote:
What all currently show is a Kerry disadvantage......the lead is real, has been persistant through the past several weeks, and shows no sign of retreat.


i believe it will. i believe, i believe, i believe,i believe.....

the cbs thing will most likely put vietnam behind us, where it belongs. amazing how one single issue hijacked an entire election process.

iraq and the economy; followed by nuclear proliferation, russia's lapse and soon korea ( 3 subs moved from florida to washington state ), iran, +/- mid october?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:45 pm
An insightful RealClearPolitics commentary touching both on polling discrepancies and Kerry's current problem:

Quote:
WHAT'S UP WITH THE RACE? The simple answer is Senator Kerry is losing. After months of a presidential race that was more or less a tie, President Bush has broken out to a 5-7 point lead nationally. With so many polls being released these days the best way to filter out much of the noise is to follow our RCP Poll Average.

Kerry began to fade at the beginning of August and Bush very effectively used the convention in New York to break out of the Bush +2/Kerry +2 race that had existed for months. This can be seen very clearly in the historical graph of the RCP Poll Average.

Some of the polls at the end of last week created quite a stir as two (Pew Research and Harris) showed the race tied, while Gallup's poll had President Bush ahead by 13-14 points. Over the weekend the CBS/NY Times poll came out showing Bush ahead 9, while Zogby had Kerry only trailing by three points.

Some like to quibble with Gallup's "likely-voter" model and suggest that registered voters are a much better way to look at the race at this time, but Gallup's registered voters results still show the President ahead by eight points, the same amount Bush is ahead among registered voters in the CBS/NY Times poll. All of the chatter about registered voters vs. likely voters, and weighting for party ID vs not weighting for party ID is missing the central point. The bottom line is that Senator Kerry is trailing by significant margins, in significant polls, in mid-September. That is not good news for Democrats.

Other evidence points to Bush indeed having moved out to a real lead. The polls in the battleground states where this election was always going to be decided have moved significantly toward the President in the last three weeks. The battleground has shifted under the Democrats' feet and the Kerry campaign's hope to be fighting on GOP ground in Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas and Virginia has all but disappeared. Instead Kerry is fighting for his life in the Democratic-leaning states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and most importantly Pennsylvania.

Gore carried Pennsylvania in 2000 by 4.2%. Right now Kerry leads in only one of the last seven polls and he trails President Bush by 1.7% in our RCP Pennsylvania Average. Using the average of those seven polls taken the first couple of weeks in September, Kerry is running around six points behind where Gore was in 2000 which seems to confirm the idea that Bush is ahead 5-7 points nationally.

In the critical states of Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin Bush is running 4-5 points better than his pace in 2000. Michigan, Colorado and West Virginia are the only states where there are positive polls for Kerry. And unlike PA, WI, OH and MO where there are multiple polls confirming Bush's breakout, we only have one non-partisan poll in MI, CO, and WV helping Kerry. As more polls come out in these three states those remaining positive areas could move against Kerry as well.

Because of all the hurricanes in Florida there has been only one poll recently, but that one has Bush up 6 and provides more confirmation of where his lead sits nationally.

Finally, you have states like New Jersey that should be a solid Kerry state where the three latest polls show a tight race. Needless to say, all of this state polling news is not good news for Democrats. While the Kerry camp can cherry pick one state poll here or there, it appears pretty clear that the balance of the state polling evidence confirms a Bush lead of at least 4-7 points as opposed to a "dead-heat" race.

On top of all the polling evidence just looking at which side is changing advisors, direction, message, etc.... is all you need to know about which campaign is ahead and comfortable with the existing dynamics of the race.

One problem (among many) for the Kerry campaign is that a 5-7 point hole in a country that is as polarized as today's is more like a 10-12 point deficit 15-25 years ago. Kerry wasted his opportunities to break out to a lead of his own with his non-helpful VP selection and say-nothing convention. And with all the pounding Bush has taken for the last eight months Kerry isn't left with many attractive options on how to get the needed 270 Electoral Votes.

Senator Kerry needs to get this race back to within 3-4 points in our RCP Poll Average by the first debate in ten days, or these poll numbers will start to harden and he will need a debate meltdown by the President to have a chance.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 12:49 pm
Still a loooooong way to go to the election, gents.

I would remind everyone here that there are many presidential candidates who are this far behind and manage to catch up.

The news events can have a great impact; if things keep getting worse in Iraq, who can say what affect that will have on the election? The debates as well? The answer is, really, noone.

The fact is that statistical sampling and a lack of calls made to youth voters throws off these polls quite a bit; it's hard to say with any certainty who is really ahead right now.

But I would feel good if my guy was ahead as well, so cheers to you gentlemen. Enjoy it while you can.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:00 pm
Wow, this thread has really taken off.

georgeob1 wrote:
... one's competitors always admire a failing front runner.

To think that we admired Clinton because we somehow thought he was weak or failing is not just a little tunnel-visioned, it also testifies to an ink-black view of mankind. Oh, we think he's nice? He must be weak! The only strong man is a feared man, bla bla. Straight to Machiavelli and Darwin - but life aint all eat or be eaten. We survive by co-operating, in democracies more still than elsewhere, and those who rule by intimidation eventually just have their unavoidable fall cheered and advanced in glee and anticipation.

Anyway, I'm off-topic.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:04 pm
Nimh, what do you think about the recent spate of arguments re: oversampling/cell phone non-sampling?

If ya don't mind me asking.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:17 pm
nimh wrote:
... To think that we admired Clinton because we somehow thought he was weak or failing is not just a little tunnel-visioned, it also testifies to an ink-black view of mankind. ...


Perhaps true in general, but I think my proposition holds quite well when applied to Old Europe.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:21 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
In a race where all candidates are considered, the latest Zogby poll shows Bush up by a mere three points. The Zogby poll a week before this showed Bush up by four points in an all-candidates race! [..] The election is six weeks away. If Kerry goes up a point a week for the next six weeks, as he is presently doing, he finishes ahead of Bush by three points in the popular vote. And three points advantage in the popular vote will result in the Electoral College agreeing.

Of course those on our side have their own tunnel visions ... <smiles at keltic>

Some things in life, I guess, must simply be accepted. Foxfyre believes only the Rasmussen polls. Kelticwizard believes only the Zogby polls. Such is the world. ;-)

Seriously though, I want to propose a question again. Zogby may have been the closest in 2000 (well, apart from Harris, I believe, actually), but several other polls were within the margin of error as well. If six polls had the result guessed right within the margin of error (see here), then how does one explain a situation in which the poll that, of those six, had the result second-closest now says one thing, but several of the other six say a very different thing? They were all close last time - are we to reject the several others who had it close then but now say Bush is leading big, just because the one poll that had it one percent closer still says the opposite? Does that make sense, statistically?

No. But there's more. For one, a one percent shift in any poll is indistinguishable from statistical noise. Well within the margin of error, so can't really base any conclusions on it. Example in case: in the two-way race, likely voters, the very same Zogby poll actually had the race move to Bush by one point (47%/45% to 47%/44%).

Finally, you can't extrapolate purely on the basis of the single shift from one poll to the very next. I mean, shift the reference point by one or two counts, and you get a totally different result. For example: exactly a month ago, Kerry lead by 7 points in the Zogby 2-way poll. Now he trails by 3 points. So going on Zogby, by the same logic, in one and a half month Bush will win the elections by 18 points. You gotta take a little bit of a wider horizon than that ...

I want Kerry to win too, and the divergences between the polls are large enough to suggest there's still a window of opportunity, even if imho it's small. (That's it's small in my HO is because of what I expect from the debates - namely, an advantage for Bush. More about that later.) In the meantime however, I'm trying to sift the sense from the senseless in the analysis mix ... no offence intended.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:29 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
nimh wrote:
... To think that we admired Clinton because we somehow thought he was weak or failing is not just a little tunnel-visioned, it also testifies to an ink-black view of mankind. ...


Perhaps true in general, but I think my proposition holds quite well when applied to Old Europe.

Well, "Old Europe" might work as an abstraction for you, but it includes me, my family and my (Dutch and German) friends. Clinton was quite universally liked by all, and for none of the reasons you cite.

Cyclo, sorry, I think I'm still like, three pages back in this thread! ;-)

Seriously, I dont know really ... I dont think I think much about it ... I just don't know. I wrote something about it here - but that, too, was more questions than answers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:32 pm
Correction: Foxfyre does not believe only the Rasmussen polls. But who else, at least among those of whom I have access, polls every day? Finding a poll trend interesting is not necessarily an endorsement of accuracy or reliability, though Rasmussen's track record has been pretty good.

Is anyone else annoyed when characterized incorrectly? I find it so annoying, I could never run for president.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:38 pm
Bear in mind this is just my take. Looking at the shifts seen between the 1996 and the 2000 Presidential Contests, there appears to be little reason to expect The Youth Vote will be of much help to Kerry. Clinton carried the Under-30 Crowd by a bit more than 19 points in '96, while 4 years later, Gore managed to pull that particular demographic by barely 2 points. Current polling data where available, though limited, offers no indication The Democrats have managed any sort of recovery there; if anything, the younger voter, particularly those who've come of voting age in near proximity to 9/11 and subsequently, by the scant data I've seen deep in the internals of the few polls I know of which break out that data, anyway, appear to skew somewhat Republican.

As to the "Cellphone-User Under-Representation" theory, I really figure its less a factor than some wish to believe. While many, particularly among younger and more affluent demographics, do exclusively use cellphones, a couple things must be considered. First, "Many" is not "All"; more calls may be required to tap a representative sample of a particular demographic, but the calls are made untill the quota is met and the demographic is essentially proportionately represented in the end. Second, the more affluent voter traditionally, and continues in this cycle, to skew Republican.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:42 pm
There's an AOL straw poll where subscribers can vote once per month. Each month some 300K-400K AOL members vote.

Yes, it's unscientific and silly...which is why I love it. It shows virtually every state red for Bush LOL (with the exception of D.C.).

I can't copy the map, but I found a picture of it here:

http://www.spacetownusa.com/SP32-20040903-215748.gif
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:48 pm
Heh.

AOL is only used by.... who? That's right, retards, and those who can't even grasp the basic nature of the internet.

Therefore; the map is no surprise to me at all.

on another point,

Second, the more affluent voter traditionally, and continues in this cycle, to skew Republican. <--- Timber

Probably. But affluence and cel phone usage have nothing to do with each other. Everyone I know has a cell phone, rich or poor. Ever see those boost mobile ads? They're not exactly marketing to the upper crust of society.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oversampling. Bleh. The part that gets me is that the mis-representation of the race may discourage voters...

Thanks for that info on the Gallup polls, Cyclo. I know there's a lot of over- and undersampling going on habitually (hence, in part, the volatility of some of the polls), but not often is there a systematic oversampling. Yeah, the LATimes polls were for a while blasted by the right for blatantly oversampling Dems - but that criticism died away once the LAT had Bush up by 3% when five other polls still had Kerry in the lead.

I must add that I'm a little sceptical still about Gallup having oversampled Reps all the way back - I mean, this is the poll that had Kerry up by 12% in mid-February, more than any other two-way poll's ever had Kerry up. But still, useful info on these last polls.

I know that some polls apply weightings to their results. For example, knowing that Reps, Dems and Independents have each accounted for a third of the voters in recent elections, some pollsters, when they harvest a sample that suddenly includes 40% Reps or Dems, will re-weigh their sample - dividing or multiplying the numbers to get the answers of Reps, Dems and Inds each accounting for one-third of the overall results again. I also know that Gallup does not apply such weightings. The argument for not applying them is that a series of samples that suddenly have 40% R or D may mean that actual voter affiliations have changed. If that were the case, applying weightings that are based on last election's results might then make you erase out what in fact is a significant new development - something along those lines.

I don't know exactly which polls apply weightings and which ones don't, though - anyone else? Dales had an article about it once ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Sep, 2004 01:52 pm
Yes JW, I believe that particular AOL straw poll was taken mostly during and immediately after the GOP convention. It will be interesting to see the October straw poll with some distance between the poll and the conventions. As the AOL news staff tends to be pro-Kerry, however, I wonder if they will even have an October straw poll?
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 0.05 seconds on 09/22/2024 at 02:37:31