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

I understand where you're comin' from, and where you're goin' with the proposition, Cyc, and you may be more on-target than I am ... I just don't think you are, for the reasons I've stated. It is something I've looked at in some depth, and I feel the available evidence supports my conclusion. There may be evidence of which I am unaware, or the evidence of which I am aware may be in error.

I do recall once having thought to a certainty I had been wrong about something, only later to discover that had not been the case :wink: :wink:

Noone that I know of. Not that polling every day is necessarily a more reliable way of going about polling.


Rasmussen did disastrously in 2000. Worst of everyone, I believe (Keltic?).


Heh. Didn't mean to offend. Perhaps you don't remember, but we had a discussion that lasted over several posts, that concerned Bush's and Kerry's respective standing on the issues - who do voters trust more on Iraq, terrorism, the economy, taxes, health care, etc?

I brought three or four different pollsters' results on a list of issues, but you dismissed them all (on the ground of them being "alphabet network" stuff, or some such). Instead, you insisted every time that you believed Rasmussen, instead - even though Rasmussen actually only polls on two or three seperate issues.

So that's where that came from. The characterisation referred to a specific previous exchange of posts, not something that I just pulled from the air. :wink:

Heh. Thats so bizarre its funny.

Yeah, but I've noticed it does that once in a while. Stretches will go by where its mostly just you, mebbe 1 or 2 others, and usually myself, more or less quietly and contentedly pickin' and dissectin' and guessin', and all of a sudden along comes a crowd and the room gets noisy again.

I will say I think this thread is among the absolute premiere active discussions on the website; characterized by some very good exchanges and sidebars, and for the most part almost uniformly civil. It gets lotsa pageviews, too, so obviously, in addition to the active participants, there are plenty of silent watchers followin' along. Whooda thunk statistical analysis could gain a general-readership following?

Actually, the first time I saw it was the end of June, or perhaps early July, well before the RNC. The results were the same then.

What reminded me of it, was seeing an earlier post here about someone's poll "annoyances" and this seemed to fit right in with that theme LOL.

Calling AOL users or Republicans "retards"...what's new about that?

Nimh wrote:


I believe if you go back and look, I did not 'dismiss' the others as you say and I brought up Rasmussen as a counter to polls, some of which I KNOW were skewed as I have been on the receiving end of a couple of them. I am no statistician by any stretch, but have had some training in statistics and in designing questions geared to 1) produce honest answers or 2) produce desired answers. As a result, I do not trust any one source as the last word any more than any one should, and I trust those with known biases for one party or candidate least of all.

Calling AOL users or Republicans "retards"...what's new about that? <--- JW

Nothing. It just saves time to do it in the same sentence.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclop - if name-calling makes you feel better or somehow makes it easier for you to get through each day.....you go right ahead.

That AOL poll updates response totals throughout the day, and renews to 0 Votes/Blank Map at 12:00:01 AM AOL Time the first day of every month. Its been around quite a while, and has sorta become a standing joke on politicogeek forums and boards.


It is fun to look at once in a while, though

Sorry, must have touched a sore spot. Do you use AOL?

Actually, because you posted the graph, I guess you do. Let me give you some advice: stop using AOL. Immediately. You are overpaying for a crappy product.

Then again, I would advise you to stop being republican as well, but that seems sort of arrogant so I guess I'll just let you figure things out for yourself.

Cycloptichorn

JW writes:


You may be right, but the earlier straw poll maps I recall being more evenly split between red and blue though there were more red states than the average polling data would support even then. But maybe I'm remembering something other than the AOL map. Of course as you said, these polls are in no way scientific. But it was interesting to me that the map looked so very much like the results of the 1986 election, I can only hope that it is prophetic.

Now, I've been watchin' that AOL poll for months, and I am not, nor have I ever been, an AOL user, not even AIM (though once in a very great while I am on ICQ) ... just want that said "For the record". Thanks but no thanks ... I can do this internet thing without training wheels.

I have an opinion of AOL... a not very high opinion. I prefer my internet straight, not filtered through and directed by AOL. Someone once observed "AOL lets you see much of the internet, while a real ISP lets you participate in the entire internet". I sorta go along with that take. I ain't real fond of MSN, either ... but they're not quite so bad as AOL.

Fox, I have a simple policy, based on dealing with a variety of polls for all this time now, on posters who, when I say "poll A", say "poll X", when I say "poll B", say "poll X", and when I say "poll C", say "poll X". See Keltic and Zogby.

You're right - anyone'd be a fool to trust any one source as the last word. That went then, too, as it goes always.

I usually use other sources to surf the net, but I keep an AOL account because 1) I like their e-mail system the best and 2) it is the only surface with full capabilities that lets me put my granddaughter or great nieces and nephews on the computer with relative assurance they won't be 'molested' or wind up on a porno site.

And 'traioning wheels?' Humph. Maybe. For those of us who grew up relying on typewriters and penmanship, AOL is the most user-friendly service to help teach this stuff to us computer klutzes.

But I think their news staff is definitely pro-Democrat, pro-Kerry, anti-Bush. Must have really galled them to have to put up that all red map.

That's kinda funny. When I briefly had AOL - I found myself in the middle of German Vampire site while I was looking for something thoroughly innocuous (most likely something gardening related). Amazing what you can find in the AOL groups.

Yep. I am not optimistic on the debates.

Bush is a lousy speaker. It struck me again when I watched his speech at the Rep Convention. But everyone knows he's a bad speaker - we've all become at least kind of used to it, and many apparently even kinda comfortable. Noone is going to go - oh my God, did you see Bush in the debates, he's a lousy speaker/debater, I'm not going to vote for that guy! Those who'll think that already think it now.

Kerry, however, is also a lousy speaker. So first off, its not at all clear whether he'll even do better than Bush at all. Secondly, although everyone who tunes in to the debates will have heard Bush speak before, that doesn't go for Kerry. Many voters will use the debates to at least once check in with this year's race - watch them if nothing else. They will hear Kerry speak and debate at length for the first time. These are the same people who still haven't made their mind up about Kerry, and I don't think they'll exactly come away with a glowing impression.

Summarizing: barring some unexpected meltdown, Bush will just be the person everyone knows he is. It's Kerry they'll be eyeing up, and orating / debating a folksy downhome character is not the context in which John F. Kerry shines brightest or most sympathetically.

It's worse still, I think, actually. Bush's stulted semi-analphabetic style may be exasperating to many higher-educated voters, but it seems to play well enough with most commonfolk. Vice versa, Kerry may seem a relief of intellect to the university-educated after Bush's monosyllabisms (what was that campaign button? "Bring back complete sentences"?), but seems to just lose many of the regular folk. Trouble is that (in Holland at least) - and obviously, I'm painting with a broad brush here - the highly educated usually already make their mind up some time before the elections. It's those who don't even pay much attention till two or three weeks before the actual elections that can still be hauled in by the debates - and that's usually not the university-educated folk.

I may be wrong, but the way I look at it now, it would be best for Kerry to have either many debates (so people get used to him, too, and he can then get his thing across in the end) - or no debates at all. Just the one single debate IMO would be worst of all.

Talking of which - I think I missed it - I know the committee that proposes such things proposed three debates - did the WH say yet whether it accepts the invitation?

FactCheck pretty much says the SBVT allegations are disputed and largely unverified, while suffering from contraindication provided by anecodatal reference and by some oth the available documention. They do not "debunk" the SBVT claims, nor do they endorse them.

On the otherhand, their treatment of the "Bush Shirked" meme is notably less ambiguous. I can't take time to go chasin' around for 'em right now, but I believe I've posted links on this thread to the relevant FactCheck articles ... mebbe not, but I think I have. I'll check later, and one way or another, I'll try to toss ya the pertinent links. If I forget, somebofy remind me.

Or just go to www.factcheck.org on your own, and enter "AWOL" or "SBVT" into the searchbox.

Oh - one would almost forget - there's a new poll out, too. IBD/CSM/TIPP.

Good news: it has Bush up by only 3 points (among likely voters).

Bad news: last week, it still had the two candidates tied.

Among registered voters, oddly, it has Kerry up 2 compared to last week; but in the three-way race, the same registered voters sample has him 3 points down.

All in all a minor setback, which confirms the overall trend of a Bush lead of some points.

All's not lost though - though the balance in all four ways of putting it moved towards Bush, it's not because he actually convinced anyone extra to vote for him - it's all just Kerry voters moving to the "Undecided" column.

Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll conducted by TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence. Sept. 14-18, 2004

2-way, likely voters
Bush 46% (-1)
Kerry 43% (-4)

2-way, registered voters
Bush 44% (no ch.)
Kerry 46% (+2)

3-way, likely voters
Bush 45% (-1)
Kerry 42% (-4)
Nader 2% (-1)

3-way, registered voters
Bush 43% (no ch.)
Kerry 42% (-3)
Nader 3% (no ch.)

swift boat veterans works much better



probably better to read it yourself - rather than accept timber's assessment. i've learned that lesson.

OK who started on the swift vets again? Fess up.