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

Thanks for 'filling in for me' Thomas! I'd seen the numbers but hadnt gotten round to posting them here.

georgeob1 wrote:

Prior to the debate Bush's approximately 5% lead was eroding, down to, perhaps 2% or 3%

Actually, it was a 4-5% lead that had eroded to a near-tie. The eight opinion polls that were done over the last week had an average Bush lead of only 0,6%.

So if the draw in the debate will lead the polls to "settle down" more or less at where they're now, then that would be at a 1% Bush lead or so.

If the polls actually do end up predicting a 1% lead for either candidate in their final tally as well, that basically means the elections are a toss-up.

First, it's a rare poll that's less than 1% off on the eventual outcome - the final polls in 2000 were on average 2,2% off.

And though the average of all polls usually gets closer to the actual result than that (since the polls sometimes compensate for each other, with some off this way and others that way), even the average is usually off by more than 1%.

For example, the ten conventional polls listed by the NCPP for the 2000 elections on average predicted a Bush win by 1,6%. As we know, instead he lost the popular vote. The nine polls listed for the 1996 elections on average indicated a Clinton win by 12,1%. As we know, he did win - but only by 8%. In 1992, five polls on average indicated a Clinton win by 8,6%; he won by 6%.

Basically, if the polls have it closer than 2%, we don't know sh!t.

0 Replies

The other problem, of course...and it is a huge problem in the context of "Who is more likely to win?"...

...is that the polls are nationwide.

Almost all of Kerry's support might come from states that are sure winners for him...

...but the plurality will not matter in the Electoral College.

And it might be more widespread.

No telling yet.

Anyone see any "Key States" analysis?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The online polls reveal nothing more than that online polls are useless. Given the editorial attitude of the likes of CNN and ABC News, their assessments of "Essentially Tied" are at the very best very worrisome for the Kerry Camp.

Just to make one thing clear that could easily get confused here: the ABC and CNN polls Thomas posted here were not online polls. In the online polls of CNN and MSNBC, Kerry "won" by something along the lines of what c.i. mentioned - currently, 63% to 37% in the case of MSNBC. But the ones posted by Thomas are conventional phone polls - of the same brand in fact that, in ABC's case, had Cheney winning his debate by 8 points.

Furthermore, whatever the ABC "editorial attitude" may be, it does not seem to have affected the ABC/WaPo polls so far. If anything, the very opposite. In ten out of 12 polls out this year, they had Bush better up against Kerry than the average of all polls did. Their last four polls had Bush up by 1-4% more than the average of all polls did. Their job approval polls, too, for over two years consistently had Bush's approval rating higher than the average of all polls did.

So forget the "editorial attitude" spin about these polls. If ABC/WaPo has Kerry winning by just 3%, you could in fact almost set a bet that your average other poll would have had the margin larger.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyone see any "Key States" analysis?

Yep. Doesnt seem to be much different from the overall score. For example, Rasmussen's last "Battleground states" survey had Bush and Kerry tied at 47%, while their overall tracking poll that day had Bush at 48% and Kerry at 47%.

By the way, I found two cool graphs at Pollkatz!

"The electoral landscape" shows the fluctuations in the polls over time in terms of how many electoral votes Bush and Kerry were pulling in the state-by-state polls. The subdivision in "strong", "weak", etc. clearly shows the point where Kerry's run suddenly weakened in late summer, but it also shows the ultimate division of all EC seats hardly changing.

At least as interesting, the Kerry/Gore poll index comparison does exactly that: it tracks how Kerry's poll numbers compare to how Gore was doing four years ago. Point to note: the graph currently has Kerry doing some 3% better than Gore did at this point in time four years ago.

I woulda posted these graphs here, but they're too big ..

0 Replies

I guess you missed the latest episode of "Memogate: The TV Series"

Pretty difficult to label as spin an an assessment of editorial attitude exemplified by

Quote:

ABC News Director Tells Staff Not To Hold Kerry 'Equally Accountable' to Bush

October 9, 2004

An internal memo written by ABC News director Mark Halperin admonishes his news staff not to "artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" in the second Bush-Kerry presidential debate.

The memo, dated the morning of the second Bush-Kerry debate, cites two articles critical of the Bush campaign (In New Attacks, Bush Pushes Limit on the Facts, by Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson, NYT, and Bush vs. the news, by Howard Fineman at MSNBC.)

"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Haperin wrote, referring to the Nagourney/Stevenson and Fineman articles.

"Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win," Halperin continued. "We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004:

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off and [sic] endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

Click Here to see memo

0 Replies

Well, unfortunately it will be denied and dismissed by Kerry supporters, Timber. Nobody has the guts to acknowledge how biased the big alphabet networks are or how much they use their influence in many ways to favor their preferred candidate or point of view, and how often they use their influence to disadvantage any opposition.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I guess you missed the latest episode of "Memogate: The TV Series"

Pretty difficult to label as spin an an assessment of editorial attitude exemplified by [..]

Timber, did you read my post? Who are you talking with, here - what exactly are you arguing with?

I never went into what the "editorial attitude" of ABC can be said to be. I'm concerned with their polls, here.

Thomas posted the polls by ABC and CNN on the debate. In reply, you wrote here that "online polls are useless" and that "given the editorial attitude of the likes of CNN and ABC News, their assessments of "Essentially Tied" are at the very best very worrisome for the Kerry Camp."

But that was mere bravado, and I called you on it. These polls weren't online polls, so that point was moot. And the question about ABC News' "editorial attitude" is a red herring, unless you can show that it has impacted the ABC polls and that their poll on the debate thus can't be trusted either.

Well, I dealt with that in my post above. Both on the Bush vs Kerry horserace and on Bush's job approval ratings, the ABC-commissioned polls have in fact, if anything, been more favourable to Bush than most other polls. Surprisingly consistently so, in fact.

Hence what I wrote:

Quote:

Furthermore, whatever the ABC "editorial attitude" may be, it does not seem to have affected the ABC/WaPo polls so far. [..] So forget the "editorial attitude" spin about these polls.

0 Replies

In further news,

as Timber noted, the daily Rasmussen tracking poll today showed an uptick for Bush:

Bush 49,6 (+1,2)
Kerry 45,9 (-0,2)

The Zogby daily tracking poll however has the movement the other way:

Bush 45 (-1)
Kerry 46 (+1)

The WaPo and ABC/WaPo ones for today are not in yet (or perhaps they don't do weekends).

Handy daily overview of the three tracking polls here, at 2.004k.com.

0 Replies

Here's my new graphs (yaaay!)

I've had to change tacks, as I already announced. I had good reasons to always use only the two-way race data, rather than the data that included Nader. For one, it wasn't sure in how many states he would even actually be on the ballot. Two, his support - like that of most prominent third-party candidates - tends to be way overstated, especially early in the race. Polls that had him at 4% or 6% were no exception, and there was no way he was actually going to get that much.

But in this last phase of the campaign, most pollsters have stopped doing both two-way and three-way data. Last week, six out of eight polls did not publish two-way race data anymore. At the same time, several pollsters have started using the three-way option selectively. You will find overall numbers for all three candidates, but only the respondents who live in states where Nader is on the ballot have actually been listed three names.

So, I'm shifting to the three-way race too. But for comparison's sake, that meant I had to track back the three-way polls to when they first started being used in spring, as well. Bit of work, but we all need a hobby. The green line in the "average" graph below is the difference between Bush and Kerry scores in the three-way race; the yellow line remains the lead one or the other had in a two-way race. The difference at times was striking. It also explains why my graphs always looked different from those of RealClearPolitics, which have always used the three-way data.

Here goes:

Two-way race data:

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

Three-way race data:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/bush-kerry_3way.gif

Averages:

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

Extra:
IEM political markets, Presidential Winner Takes All, pre- and post-debate:

7/10, last price:
Bush 56,3 Kerry 44,0
8/10, average price:
Bush 55,3 Kerry 46,2
8/10, last price:
Bush 56,0 Kerry 44,6
9/10, average price:
Bush 55,4 Kerry 45,3
9/10, current price:
Bush 54,3 Kerry 45,4

Doesn't look like they've really been affected one way or another.

0 Replies

Er - do all those squiggles mean it is close?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Er - do all those squiggles mean it is close?

Heh. Depends on where the squiggles be headin'.

The further the lines go up into the red, top half of the graph, the safer Bush is for reelection. The further they go into the blue, bottom half of the graph, the more it's challenger Kerry who's on top in the race. If they're all around the middle line (where it says "0" on the left), it's a toss-up race.

As you can see in the third graph, which shows what the average lead for either politician was in all the polls of any single (ten-day, later week-long) period, the race was long stuck somewhere between a 4% lead for Kerry and a 3% lead for Bush. By June and July, the race seemed to actually have frozen into a 1-4% Kerry lead. Then came the swiftvets affair and the Republican Convention, and the race found a new equilibrium, up at a 4-5,5% Bush lead. Right now, it's back to pretty much being wholly tied.

Oy! I see that the labels on the category axis - you know, at the bottom, where it should have said "June I", "June II", etc - have gone! Lemme go repair that.

0 Replies

Incumbant Kerry?

0 Replies

i really wonder how many voters will change their 'loyalties' by watching the debates ? from what i've heard on quite a few news reports, it's becoming exceedingly difficult to do accurate polling, because many people refuse to answer or give misleading answers. speaking for myself, i have refused to answer telephone polls/surveys for quite a few years - and i know i'm not the only one. hbg

0 Replies

Quote:

Washington Post Daily Tracking Poll: Bush 50%, Kerry 46%

Over the past six days, since the start of this Poll, Kerry has not been above 47%, averaging 46.3, while Bush has not been below 49%, averaging 50%. As this is a 3-day rolling average poll, a third of this sample would reflect any Post-Second Debate effect, though the Veep debate is fully integrated.

And just for the fun of it, here's another pretty image:

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

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/hellcatwwiiol/images/donkeycrush.gif

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Incumbant Kerry?

Challenger Kerry I mean of course, sorry, I must be getting tired. But you knew what I meant, of course.

0 Replies

Talking about media bias and its impact on the race ... how many extra last-minute votes do you think this will bring Bush?

Quote:

Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film

is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

0 Replies

Akshully, I sorta suspect The Electorate is tired enough of who-did-what-35-years-ago-campaigning that unless there's film and it involved a live boy, a dead girl or a farm animal at the time, nobody's gonna care much one way or the other.

0 Replies

It certainly is a political intervention in media programming that, in its directness, is quite unparallelled.

Just imagine what you would say if the owner of ABC ordered all his stations to broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 the week before the elections. Thatd be quite the upping of the ante compared to "memogate". We wouldnt hear the end of it - "the liberal media"!

0 Replies

RealClearPolitics looks at the chances of Bush losing Ohio, but still winning the Electoral College race. After all, Wisconsin by now seems to be pretty safely in his column. If Kerry wins Ohio but loses Wisconsin he still wins, but only by 1 electoral vote. If Bush carries Maine's second electoral district as well, Kerry still loses.

On the other hand, Kerry looks set to win New Hampshire. Still, even with NH in his column, he is at risk in NM and IA. Basically,

Quote:

The quartet of Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico could be where this election is decided. If Bush does have a hold on Wisconsin, then even if Senator Kerry wins Ohio, he will also have to win both Iowa and New Mexico to deny Bush four more years.

0 Replies

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I did a little research to gain some perspective on the possible impact of Sinclair's "unprecedented programming decision". The Sinclair Broadcast Group owns and operates 48 TV stations while having "Marketing Agreements", which entail little or no effective operational control, with 14 additional stations. There are over 1200 licensed telivision stations in The Continental US. 20 of the Sinclair Group stations are FOX affiliates (FOX Entertainment, not FOX News), 19 WB affiliates, 6 UPN affiliates, and 2 are Independents. Of the remaining 15, 8 are ABC affiliates, 4 are NBC affiliates, and 3 are CBS affiliates. While stations within the Sinclair Group theoretically may "reach" nearly 1/4 of all US households, that in no way means anywhere near that number of households watch Sinclair programming.

First, Sinclair stations are located predominantly in secondary or even tertiary "DMA"s, or Designated Market Areas, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Second, average nightly viewer share for any one of the "Big 3", ABC, NBC, and CBS, and often for PBS, is greater than for FOX Entertainment, WB, and UPN combined.

Third, only 6 of Sinclair's stations operate in the VHF band (channels 2 through 13), which itself far outdraws the UHF (channels 14 through 69) band.

Fourth, the bulk of the regular programming aired over Sinclair stations consists of second-tier-network series, minor-audience syndicated shows, reruns, re-released movies, local interest, and infomercials.

Fifth, in not one of the markets served by its stations is the Sinclair outlet the dominant station in that particular market for any timeslot ... often by a huge margin. In most of its markets, Sinclair's highest viewership occurs only during coverage of major sporting events, such as college or professional baseball, basketball, or footbal games, and NASCAR Cup races, when carried by FOX Entertainment. Typically, the lead-in and follow-on audiences are significantly lower than for the sporting event.

In short, it appears Sinclair's prime-time audience skews heavilly toward younger viewers, with a from-time-to-time smattering of other folks who don't happen to like whatever the "Big 3" plus PBS happen to be offering at the moment ... essentially what the trade terms "peripheral", as opposed to "key" (or "core"), audiences. I figure The Media is gonna pay far more attention to this "unprecedented programming decision" than will the viewing public. Discounting of what it may or may not be a harbinger regarding future broadcast general practice, this time around, its by itself very unlikely to have much effect on The Electorate.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know