I found back two articles I'd posted here that were lost ... here's one, debunking the notion of "security moms", which Timber and I had been discussing earlier:
Mothers of Invention.
Quote:If you've been following the presidential campaign these last few weeks, you've probably heard a thing or two about security moms--the erstwhile soccer moms who became obsessed with terrorism after September 11, and, in the process, began tilting Republican. [..] Often the stories are larded with a testimonial by a real-live security mom, invariably a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-death penalty former Gore supporter who's convinced only George W. Bush can keep her children safe. All of them conclude that security moms could cost John Kerry the election.
Oh, and the stories usually have one other thing in common: They're based on almost no empirical evidence.
[..] even if you concede that terrorism paid dividends for Republicans among women in 2002, the effect didn't last very long. By winter, all of the old, familiar gender gap dynamics had returned. A February 2003 Washington Post/ABC poll found that George W. Bush's approval rating was 10 points higher among men than women (69-59), and his disapproval rating eight points lower among men (30-38).
[..] it wasn't until after this summer's Republican convention that security moms became a bona fide growth industry. Suddenly, as The New York Times put it earlier this week, "an issue Mr. Bush had initially pitched as part of an overall message--which candidate would be best able to protect the United States from terrorists--has become particularly compelling for women." Except that, well, it hasn't--at least that part about "particularly compelling." The problem with most of the reporting on security moms is that it fails to distinguish between Kerry's support among women relative to men (i.e., the gender gap, which doesn't tend to fluctuate much over short periods of time) and his absolute level of support among women (which fluctuates just like it does for anyone else). In fact, while Kerry has lost ground among women since August, he's lost about the same amount of ground among men. [..]
Don't believe me? Consider some numbers. Just after the Democratic Convention, a Gallup poll put Bush up seven among men, down six among women, for a gender gap of 13. (The poll showed the overall race tied at 48 percent.) In the Gallup poll conducted September 13-15, Bush was up 16 among men and up 2 among women, for a gender gap of 14. (Bush was up 52-44 overall.) A Time poll released on August 6 showed a gender gap of 25 points; the September 10 version of the poll showed a similarly large (22-point) gap. In both cases, women and men had shifted from Kerry to Bush by roughly the same margin. Other polls actually show a significantly expanding gender gap since August--meaning it's men, not women, who've been finding Bush's security message particularly compelling. The Washington Post/ABC News poll came out just before the Republican Convention and then again about one week afterward. It showed a 12-point gender gap becoming a 24-point gender gap during that period. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll came out at roughly the same times, and showed a 5-point gender gap becoming a 20-point gender gap. What's more, both polls showed Kerry's lead over Bush among women rising during the convention, not falling. Not only did women not like the GOP's security message as much as men did, they were actively turned off by it.
When pressed, even pollster Celinda Lake, dean of security mommery, concedes, "I don't think the gender gap is disappearing." [..] The gender gap on specific issues, like terror and national security, persists to this day. A Gallup poll conducted September 3-5 found a 15-point gender gap when it came to who voters trusted to wage the war on terror. The Washington Post poll conducted after the convention found a 27-point gap on the same issue. The Time poll asks voters a question specifically designed to get at the security mom phenomenon: "Do you agree or disagree with the following? I want a president who is strong on terrorism. Not much else matters in my vote this year." In Time's August 6 poll, 31 percent of men and 23 percent of women agreed. In its September 10 poll, after the Republican Convention and the Russian terror supposedly pressed women's security buttons, 39 percent of men agreed and 29 percent of women agreed--roughly the same proportional increase. "We've been looking at security moms on and off," says Mark Schulman, who oversees the Time poll. "We honestly could not find much empirical evidence to support it."
Indeed, just about the only evidence you can find in support of the security mom proposition comes from the New York Times/CBS poll. A Times/CBS poll conducted September 12-16 found that Bush gained 14 points relative to Kerry among women since mid-August, but a mere four points relative to men (itself a highly dubious proposition), which would have narrowed the gender gap substantially. When I asked CBS polling director Kathy Frankovic about this, her response was sheepish. "I attribute it to short-term/long-term" differences, she said. In any case, Frankovic was quick to add, CBS had just finished another poll, which showed a return of the "gender gap one would expect."
Frankovic's explanation isn't crazy. According to pollster Anna Greenberg, women tend to follow politics less closely than men. That tends to yield larger initial movements among women in response to major events--like, say, the Democratic and Republican conventions--before they return to equilibrium. Of course, that doesn't explain why almost no other poll out there captured a similar trend. (Except for Newsweek, which showed a smaller-than-usual gender gap just after the Republican Convention, though the result wasn't nearly as pronounced as CBS's.) But it may shed some light on what might have caused this apparent statistical quirk. [..]
The article does merit a N.B., though, and the author provides it in
the blog:
Quote:The Washington Post and ABC News have a new poll out today putting Bush's lead among registered voters at 7, about where it was two-and-a-half weeks ago, when the last Post/ABC News poll came out. (At the time Bush's lead stood at six.) What's interesting for my purposes is that the gender gap appears to have shrunk dramatically, from 24 points the week after the Republican Convention to a mere nine points today.
[But] Kerry hasn't lost much ground amoung women on the specific questions of terrorism and security. On terrorism, Kerry was trailing Bush among women by 9 points the week after the convention; he's trailing by 12 points today. On the question of who will make the country "safer and more secure," Kerry was trailing Bush by seven; he's trailing by ten today. Neither result could be responsible for the nine-point swing we've seen among women overall.
So what is responsible for the reversal among women? Judging from the data, it looks like it's Kerry's approval rating on the economy. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, Kerry led Bush by 6 points among women on the economy. Today they're tied. [..]
The other one was one of the TNR blogs echoing something I was writing here (or rather,
on the other thread) - which is always nice, since usually all I do is echo them ;-)
Quote:KILLING THE MESSENGER: Losing campaigns often complain that it's not the ideas that are the problem, it's just that they aren't communicating them well. Man, is this ever true in Kerry's case. In today's NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which shows a three-point lead for Bush among registered voters (48-45) and a four-point lead among likely voters (50-46), Bush is beating Kerry 68 to 36 when voters are asked if the candidates "have a message" and "you know what they would do if elected."
When voters are polled on the specifics of the two candidates platforms on taxes and Iraq, as many other polls have shown, Kerry wins. His tax plan beats Bush's by 49 percent to 41 percent.
On Iraq, voters were asked which of the following statements is closer to their view:
Quote:Statement A: At a cost of more than a hundred and twenty billion dollars, the war in Iraq has been a poor use of money since it has taken funds away from programs here at home, such as education and health care.
Statement B: At a cost of more than a hundred and twenty billion dollars, the war in Iraq has been a good use of money since it has helped to reduce the threat of terrorism and has eliminated Saddam Hussein from power.
Statement A beats B by 52 percent to 40 percent.
(One caveat: questions about Iraq are fairly sensitive to wording. By 55 to 40, voters say we should "have taken military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." This difference in language is precisely the difference between how Kerry and Bush talk about the issue--Bush in terms of Saddam's removal, Kerry in terms of the cost.)
But overall this poll, like dozens of others taken this year, shows that there is an anti-incumbent majority out there waiting for Kerry to win it over. Bush's approval rating is at 47 percent. He has net negative ratings on the economy (45/51) and foreign policy (44/51). Fifty-five percent of voters say America "is worse off than it was four years ago." More than two-thirds think the economy has gotten worse or stayed the same over the last year. And in what is one of the most interesting findings, even a healthy chunk of Bush supporters do not want a second term to look anything like the president's first four years. Fifty-eight percent of voters say he "should make major changes in [a] second term."
If Kerry loses, there will be a bloody ideological battle within the Democratic party. But the real lesson will be, "It was the candidate, stupid."
Yeah, bummer 'bout the data loss, but it happened.
Over the past week, the trend has not been Kerryward, particularly if one examines the underlying internals, which essentially have been devastating to the Kerry Camp's prospects. Kerry's support slowly, steadily, inexorably slips in key demographics - women, youth, veterans, seniors, Jewish-and-other-religious, ethnic subdivisions, independant/undecided voters, in core decision-founding opinion points including job approval, personal approval/favorability, leadership qualities, and affairs both foreign and domestic. character, political, and economic, in state-by-state totals, even in the number of realistically contestable States - which have shrunk by more than half, with none tipping toward Kerry. Kerry shrinks as Bush grows. For all of Bush's faults and shortcomings, and there are many, the mpore Kerry defines hinself, the more he acquaints The Electorate with himself, thew weaker he becomes.
A couple developments I've been eying with politely restrained mirth-bordering-on-unrestrained-glee have been the predictable Democratic attempt to downplay expectations for Kerry's debate performance - more on which a bit later in this post - and the laughably optimistic Democratic scramble to position themselves for legal challenges to narrow-margin electoral results. Dealing with the latter first, just IMVHO, fat chance - they've already more than blown their chance to mount any substantive vote total tally, popular or electoral, without even considering the inevitable popular backlash that will reward any attempt to once again attempt the Sore Loserman gambit. Reserving any comment on the worthiness of The Republicans to retain and further consolidate power and influence, The Democrats have roundly failed to provide any credible, Electorate-Engaging challenge to The Republican Agenda.
Now, to the debates. Barring an absolutely conclusive, nothing-less-than-incontestable Kerry win in the first debate, the remaining two debates will be among the season's least-watched events, wastes of airtime and of candidate's campaigning time. Now, that could happen; in an infinite universe of possibillities, all things are possible. Reducing the proposition to probability, however, leads to an expectation of somewhat less-than-resounding Kerry debate victory in the public mind. What should be borne in mind is that a TV debate between candidates is not scored on the traditional basis of debating points, but rather on viewer impressions of the sound-and-video-bytes encompassed within the debate. If there is one thing Kerry has demonstrated beyond contest, it is the ability to expound on a point with 3000 words where 10 words would have made the point. I find that striking particularly because I do the same damned thing. Bush the Younger, on the otherhand, is reknowned for memorable one-liners - often delivered with just the right facial expression and body language required to favorably impact The Electorate. To prevail in Thursday's debate, Kerry faces the daunting task of convincing The Electorate he is other than The Electorate so far has perceived him to be, while Bush the Younger need be merely himself, his plain-spoken, folksy self, thus reinforcing the Electorate's impression of him as someone who can be counted upon for steadsfast consistency, unswerving resolve, and sympathy with broadly shared values.
Certainly there are valid, substantive issues on which to contest Bush the Younger's re-election. And just as certainly, The Democrats have failed to bring these issues into focus. What the Democrats have engineered is not the resurgence of their influence, but the need for the deep restructuring of their Party if it is to remain a force within the American political infrastructure. The Republicans managed to do just that following their back-to-back Nixon and Goldwater defeats in the early 'Sixties. It only took 'em a generation to bring it off.
In Ohio, according to an (admittably Republican) pollster polling Bush at a 52%/43% lead, "John Edwards has a +19 net favorability rating. Kerry's is -2."
Another item that got lost in the outage: Daly analysing
the impact of debate cycles in previous elections. Very interesting. Conclusion:
Quote:In each of these elections, there has been a clear winner in the debates. Yet in every case except 1980, the debates did not change the race. Where things were heading into the debates is where things finished.
At a late point in the campaign Kerry is rolling ot continually varying versions of his "plans" for Iraq, for the economy, healthcare and all the rest. The problem is all this has little to do with the central tendency of Kerry's previous rhetoric in the campaign since the primaries. Indeed some key elements of his "plans" contradict his earlier campaign pronouncements. Worse for Kerry it also bears very little relation to positions Kerry has taken during his years in the Senate.
Kerry is all about - John Kerry, his ambition, his grossly inflated self-image, the various false images he has put forward about himself, and the facile dexterity with which he so quicly adapts his various "carefully thought out" positions to the latest events.
Like the Wizard of Oz, once the curtain was drawn back, Kerry is rapidly shrinking to insignificance. He will lose the election by at least 5% in the popular vote. Moreover the Republicans will also emerge with larger majorities in both houses of the Congress than they have currently.
georgeob1 wrote:Kerry is all about - John Kerry, his ambition, his grossly inflated self-image, the various false images he has put forward about himself, and the facile dexterity with which he so quicly adapts his various "carefully thought out" positions to the latest events.
oh. is that like "this" president"??;
compassionate conservative that won't let misguided "homos" get married and doesn't want to allow women to control their reproduction?
because
his "faith" says so??
the candidate that said "no nation building"... then does just that in a country that had nothing at all to do with the attack on america on 9/11?
fiscal conservative that has not only bankrupted the country through special interest tax cuts, but
borrowed money from japan, and china to do it??
boy who said he would not be arrogant with the other nations of the world? and then proceeded to label the "irrelevant" and "old".
what the ....????
Don't Tread: This president has never suggested Roe v Wade be overturned even though he is personally pro life as are more than 50% of all Americans. He opposes changing the definition of marriage as do well over 50% of all Americans though he is on record as supporting the states providing some kind of civil union contract to provide protections to gays as do the majority of Americans.
The 'special interest' tax cuts have already and will continue to demonstrate an increase in government revenues. Both presidential candidates are on record that the president should act in the nation's interest whether or not the U.N. or any other group approves.
Would you like some legitimate ammunition with which to criticize the President? I can provide some. So far you've missed the mark I think, as is reflected in the polling of the national pulse reflected in this thread.
Foxfyre wrote:Don't Tread: This president has never suggested Roe v Wade be overturned even though he is personally pro life as are more than 50% of all Americans.
oh please... have you not taken a look who he's surrounded by?? who he keeps putting up for the courts? his campaign? ralph reed? the christian coalition?
Foxfyre wrote: He opposes changing the definition of marriage as do well over 50% of all Americans though he is on record as supporting the states providing some kind of civil union contract to provide protections to gays as do the majority of Americans.
are you honestly trying to tell me that he would never, ever sign a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ?? not too sure about your 50% there. and if true, i have to wonder, just why does it bother right wingers so much? if gay marriage were legal, it doesn't mean you'd have to leave your wife for "rex"...
Foxfyre wrote:The 'special interest' tax cuts have already and will continue to demonstrate an increase in government revenues.
if that were true, and i don't believe it is, how do we explain the largest deficit in american history? ya can't blame all of it on 9/11 and iraq. and do you really find it fiscally responsible to borrow money from other countries, one of which at least, is a social and political enemy? and if the purpose is to increase money to the government, a concept that gives conservatives night sweats, why are american corporations allowed to continue all the off shore tax dodges?
Foxfyre wrote:Both presidential candidates are on record that the president should act in the nation's interest whether or not the U.N. or any other group approves.
and i don't have a problem with that. but iraq was not, and is not about the nation's interests. it is, however, about special interests. although i was not one of the people shouting "no blood for oil", i'm now pretty convinced that oil, and dwindling relations with the saudis( another ungrateful arab nation that the u.s. has protected) is exactly what iraq is about.
Foxfyre wrote:
Would you like some legitimate ammunition with which to criticize the President? I can provide some. So far you've missed the mark I think, as is reflected in the polling of the national pulse reflected in this thread.
well if you'd like to add to what many of us already believe, be my guest. as far as polling goes; polls are like armpits, everybody's got one. when i was younger, i actually worked on different kinds of polls and market research. the vast majority of polls are tilted towards one result or another, because of the questions that are asked, how they are asked and in what order they are asked.
and really, how important is it if you'd rather have a beer with bush or kerry? neither you or i will ever have a beer with either of them.
amazing! my wife just sent me this out of the blue.
presidential prayer team web site
I accept that you despise George W. Bush Donttread. I think you haven't substantiated anything here, however, except your own prejudices about him. Neither those who can find nothing good about this president nor those who think he's perfect in every detail are taken seriously by me, and those who presume things about him that are not supported by either his own words or his actions are taken even less seriously by me.
Foxfyre wrote:I accept that you despise George W. Bush Donttread. I think you haven't substantiated anything here, however, except your own prejudices about him. Neither those who can find nothing good about this president nor those who think he's perfect in every detail are taken seriously by me, and those who presume things about him that are not supported by either his own words or his actions are taken even less seriously by me.
but what about the ammunition you were eager to supply???
btw, i've said it multiple times on this site, but i'll say it again; "i do not hate george bush. i don't like him much, but i don't hate him."
prejudices against him?? balogne. i don't like what he's doing and the direction he's taking the country, with able help from cheney and the other neo-cons.
right. nobody is perfect. no disagreement there. kerry's not perfect either. or clinton. none of the republican presidents i have voted for in the past were perfect. but they were
competent. i don't believe bush is.
he's done a terrible job. not on everything; i supported him on afghanistan. but on most things, i don't think he's done "a superb job".
so i want to fire him. that is not the same as hate. there are people who do hate him, though not nearly as many as the number of right wingers that "hated" clinton.
sorry that a little opposition gets ya so uptight.
DTOM, the facts are not with you. Believe as you wish, but you pose talking points, not evidence.
On the question of support for abortion, a
clear minority of Americans favor relaxing current restrictions, while a purality favor more stringent controls. The populace is essentially split on the abssolute question of legalization, neither the pro-choice nor the pro-life factions show substantially greater or lesser support than do their opponents.
Congressional Budget Office Figures reveal the current budget deficit in terms of percentage of GDP, the only meaningful measurement, not only is far below "the largest in history" but is well within the average range for the post-WWII period. Both the CBO and the GAO agree that the deficit for this fiscal year will be less than was anticipated even as late as this spring, due entirely to greater-than-expected tax revenue resulting from more-robust-than-had-been-expected general economic expansion. The same was true of last years' deficit as well; tax revenue due to increased economic activity resulted in a smaller-than-projected deficit.
While there is a split opinion on wheter or not to ammend The Constitution, a
clear majority of Americans consistently oppose legitimizing Same-Sex Unions. In most instances where the question of gay marrige/same-sex-union has been put to State Ballot, the proposition has been overwhelmingly rejected, losing by margins of 3-and-4-to-1. Even The Democratic Party Leadership and Campaign Handlers have stepped away from it, recognizing it for the poison pill it would be for them.
And those who support George W. Bush support him for concrete reasons. Those who support John Kerry don't seem to have any reason to vote for him other than they don't like Bush. I would rather have a president people vote FOR any day instead of one people just hope isn't as bad as he seems.
Foxfyre wrote:Those who support John Kerry don't seem to have any reason to vote for him other than they don't like Bush.
Nonsense. I don't like Kerry, that should be clear by now, but I'm still 100% sure that I agree more with his stand on health care, tax cuts, education and foreign policy than that of George W. Bush.
You don't have to feel the alternative is perfect in order to know enough about him to be sure that he'd damn well would make a better President than the one you have now.
New Gallup state polls seem to suggest that Ohio still is a better bet for the Dems than Florida:
Link. Toplines:
Florida: B52-K43 LV, B49-K44 RV
Ohio: B49-K47 LV, K49-B46 RV
Pennsylvania: B49-K46 LV, K49-B45 RV
Meanwhile, Rasmussen has Kerry up 7 points in WA (50/43) - but only 3 in MD (48/45). And four subsequent polls in NJ have the race there at anything between a tie and just a 4% Kerry lead.
Latest Harris poll was done on the net instead of by phone, but the results are very similar to their phone-based poll a week and a half ago:
Bush 48% (+1)
Kerry 46% (-2)
Nader 3% (+1)
The interesting parts are the details in
the breakdown:
Quote:One is that the traditional gender gap -- with men leaning more toward Republican candidates and women toward the Democratic candidates -- is only a very modest feature of this election, at the moment.
Another, even more surprising, finding emerges from an analysis by education. Normally Democratic candidates win substantial majorities among those with the least education -- people who never went to college. Now President Bush does better among this group than he does among those with more education.
Indeed, President Bush leads Senator Kerry by nine points among those with no college education and by six points among those with some college education but no bachelor's degree. Kerry, on the other hand, leads by five percent among those with a college degree and by fully 21 percent among those with post-graduate education.
John Kerry is a bad virus. He attaches himself to organizations and people only to advance his self interest and ambition, and damages his hosts in the process. After using the U.S. Navy, The Senate, and two rich widows, he now wants to infect the country.
Kerry has no enduring values or political beliefs, except as may be discovered in an examination of the central tendency of his voting record in the Senate. (VERY left wing). Even in the Senate he championed nothing and accomplished very little. His other public statements and pronouncements are merely rhetorical flourishes intended only to advance his ambition to find yet another host.
He is all about John Kerry - there is little else.
As the folks in San Francisco often say of Oakland, across the bay, "There is no there there"
Los Angeles Times Poll. Sept. 25-28, 2004, compared to last month (where available).
2-way, likely voters:
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
2-way, registered voters:
Bush 49% (no ch.)
Kerry 45% (-1)
3-way, likely voters:
Bush 51%
Kerry 45%
Nader 2%
3-way, registered voters:
Bush 47% (no ch.)
Kerry 43% (-1)
Nader 4% (+1)
Bush job ratings:
Approve 52%
Disapprove 47%
Your data warms my heart Nimh. I see a consistent 5% advantage for Bush in just about every sample.
I believe the earlier piece you quoted, which purported to show that those with more education tend to favor Kerry in proportion to the amount of education they received, was presented by its author to advance his own beliefs, rather than as a dispassionate observation. A good deal depends on where, and in what disciplines, one takes his sample of educated people, and as you know sampling error grows as one drills doun into subsets of the data taken. I have a PhD, and I most certainly do not favor John Kerry.
To paraphrase a piece you quoted earlier'
I oppose Kerry, but I don't hate him.
I believe he faked three trivial injuries to wrongfully get three Purple Hearts, and used them to get an early release from combat duty, leaving his comrades behind to serve multiple one year tours -- but I don't hate him.
I believed he perjured hmself before a Senate Committee, and betrayed his comrades in the process, all to advance his own career, after he returned home - but I don't hate him.
I believe he has spent 15 or so years in the Senate, accomplishing very little other than advancing his own personal interests - but I don't hate him.
I believe he lacks both the executive management and leadership ability, not to mention character, required to lead our government -- but I don't hate him.
