2
   

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

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:44 am
Mom for Kerry checking in... there's gonna be a big rally of us in Columbus on Saturday, Theresa and/or Elizabeth might be there, tons of cute kids in costumes, mondo photo op.

Speaking of which, Kerry's gonna be here tomorrow with Springsteen! Right here at OSU. Problem is it overlaps with Beggar's Night. Trick or treating or the next president of the United States? What to do, what to do. I'm in highly superstitious mode and remembered that we saw Bush in 2000 [labor day parade that went past our house] so now I'm thinking we have to lay eyes on Kerry for him to win.

Last thing, re: my friend, he's not actually voting for Bush this time, though it will be a protest vote (not sure who for, Badnarik maybe). Our argument has been getting narrower and narrower -- we both think Bush sucks as a president, generally, we both think the Iraq war was handled terribly, especially the planning and the aftermath, but he thinks the humanitarian case was more valid than I do.

So not so sure you'd want him here after all. ;-) (He's quite vociferous re: how badly Bush sucks, it's just that it tends to be in the context of "that was a stupid article, I could make a much better case, for example he...")
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 08:38 am
Today's Zogby/Reuters tracking poll, which yesterday had Bush up by 3 points (49 to 46), now has his lead back down to 1 (48 to 47).

According to today's numbers, Kerry gets 90% of blacks, two-thirds of Hispanics and 65% of singles.

'At this stage of the 2000 election, Bush led Democrat Al Gore by 5 points in the daily tracking poll.'
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 08:48 am
Conservative blogger Dales, who has been scrutinous with his elaborate updates of EC numbers throughout the campaign, now has the race at:

Kerry 224
Bush 221
Tossup 114

Effective National Popular Results: Bush 47.0%, Kerry 46.5%

http://www.dalythoughts.com/ecb.htm

Assigning slight advantages, he arrives at better numbers for Bush:

Bush 249
Kerry 228
True tossup 61

But as outlined in that long post above, he himself discounts these advantages, noting how in 2000 states assigned such a slight advantage were almost just as likely to go the other way after all.

True tossup states: OH, FL, MN and HI
Tossup - slight advantage Kerry: NH
Tossup - slight advantage Bush: IA, WI, NM, AR
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 08:51 am
Dales!

Gosh.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 08:52 am
sozobe wrote:
Mom for Kerry checking in... there's gonna be a big rally of us in Columbus on Saturday, Theresa and/or Elizabeth might be there, tons of cute kids in costumes, mondo photo op.

Speaking of which, Kerry's gonna be here tomorrow with Springsteen! Right here at OSU. Problem is it overlaps with Beggar's Night. Trick or treating or the next president of the United States? What to do, what to do. I'm in highly superstitious mode and remembered that we saw Bush in 2000 [labor day parade that went past our house] so now I'm thinking we have to lay eyes on Kerry for him to win.

Last thing, re: my friend, he's not actually voting for Bush this time, though it will be a protest vote (not sure who for, Badnarik maybe). Our argument has been getting narrower and narrower -- we both think Bush sucks as a president, generally, we both think the Iraq war was handled terribly, especially the planning and the aftermath, but he thinks the humanitarian case was more valid than I do.

So not so sure you'd want him here after all. ;-) (He's quite vociferous re: how badly Bush sucks, it's just that it tends to be in the context of "that was a stupid article, I could make a much better case, for example he...")



Keep fighting the good fight, Soz!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 11:37 am
Here's some interesting bets available at a Real Casino. Maximum Wager: $500 per. These guys are probably the biggest sports book on planet earth in terms of volume, and are very trustworthy.
Explanation of +/- : All bets assume against $100 wager for calculation. So, in the first example:
Bush at -200 to win costs $200 wager to win $100
Kerry at +150 to win costs $100 wager to win $150


BOS Casino wrote:
01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15519 Which candidate will win the U.S. Presidential Election in 2004?

George W. Bush -200

John Kerry +150

01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15521 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( Florida Electoral Vote 2004)

George Bush -160

John F Kerry +120

01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15523 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( Ohio Electoral Vote 2004)

George Bush -140

John F Kerry EV

01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15525 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( Minnesota Electoral Vote 2004)

John Kerry -160

George Bush +120

01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15527 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( Iowa Electoral Vote 2004)

George Bush -200

John F Kerry +150

01/NOV/04
08:00 PM 15533 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( Pennsylvannia Electoral Vote 2004)

G W Bush +140

John F Kerry -180

01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15537 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( Oregon Electoral Vote 2004)

GW Bush +120

John F Kerry -160

01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15539 George Bush Vs John F Kerry ( N Mexico Electoral Vote 2004)

G W Bush -160

John F Kerry +120


Here are some Proposition bets (also known as "Fool's bets"). Because they are more difficult to predict, they pay better. Avoid unless you have a VERY good hunch (or know for sure that the fix is on).

BOS Casino wrote:
01/NOV/04
09:00 PM 15535 US Presidential Elections 2004 : Margin Proposition

Bush to receive Over 7% more than Kerry +200

Bush to receive 6.01% to 7% more than Kerry +650

Bush to receive 5.01% to 6% more than Kerry +550

Bush to receive 4.01% to 5% more than Kerry +500

Bush to receive 3.01% to 4% more than Kerry +450

Kerry to receive up to 1% more than Bush +200

Bush to receive 2.01% to 3% more than Kerry +300

Kerry to receive 1.01% to 2% more than Bush +350

Bush to receive 1.01% to 2% more than Kerry +250

Kerry to receive 2.01% to 3% more than Bush +450

Bush to receive up to 1% more than Kerry +175

Kerry to receive 3.01% to 4% more than Bush +600

Kerry to receive 4.01% to 5% more than Bush +700

Kerry to receive 5.01% to 6% more than Bush +850

Kerry to receive 6.01% to 7 more than Bush +1000

Kerry to receive Over 7% more than Bush +400



NOTE : Percentage of all regular votes after the official result

of the general presidential elections has been announced


As you can see; the folks who put their money where their mouths are for a living, are quite confident Bush will win. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 12:11 pm
Quote:

As you can see; the folks who put their money where their mouths are for a living, are quite confident Bush will win. Wink


Bill, You should know better than your last foolish statement.

The people who make a living at this don't risk anything. They set the odds to make sure they make their living no matter who wins.

It is the fools who put their money where their mouths are. They are the ones who provide a living for the professionals.

The fact you are willing to risk your money does not mean you are any smarter. The fact that you are giving the house a certain part of your money on something that is this close suggests quite a different conclusion.

You can be sure that these odds are set to maximize the amount of money bet on the election outcome. These calculations have nothing to do with who the oddsmakers think will win. They take their cut no matter who wins and thus couldn't care any less.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 01:06 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

As you can see; the folks who put their money where their mouths are for a living, are quite confident Bush will win. Wink


Bill, You should know better than your last foolish statement.
It would appear I know better than you, Ebrown, but I don't mind explaining. :wink:

ebrown_p wrote:
The people who make a living at this don't risk anything. They set the odds to make sure they make their living no matter who wins.

This is a common misconception. Sports books try get equal amounts of money on both sides of a line... but it isn't possible to do so perfectly. Lines shift if one side is bet more heavily to attempt to encourage wagers on the other side. This, however, is a risky proposition because it provides a narrow window in the middle where heavy betting on both sides prevail.

Example: Packers -5 against the Bears. If way too many people take the Pack, the line might move to -7 to even out the wagers. What happens if the Packers win by 6? Answer: the book loses to the greater number of players on both sides of the line (this is when weak books go out of business).

For this reason, sports books crunch every possible number to provide the most accurate starting line they possibly can. Each line change has to be of great enough importance to justify the risks I just described. Take a look at the daily Football lines this week and notice how little they actually move. Idea You will find that the more information you crunch together when researching a wager, the closer you are likely to come to where the book has already set the line. The oddsmaker's ability to predict the outcome of wagers is nothing shy of staggering. That is why they are so difficult to defeat.

ebrown_p wrote:
It is the fools who put their money where their mouths are. They are the ones who provide a living for the professionals.
This is a true statement. But, not everyone who plays is a fool.

ebrown_p wrote:
The fact you are willing to risk your money does not mean you are any smarter. The fact that you are giving the house a certain part of your money on something that is this close suggests quite a different conclusion.
I'm catching your barely veiled insult here Ebrown, and chuckling, because you are speaking from authority despite your obvious ignorance of the subject at hand. And btw, I haven't wagered on this election as of yet, either.

ebrown_p wrote:
You can be sure that these odds are set to maximize the amount of money bet on the election outcome. These calculations have nothing to do with who the oddsmakers think will win. They take their cut no matter who wins and thus couldn't care any less.
You can be sure from this statement, that Ebrown has no clue what he's talking about. Get a grip Ebrown.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 01:17 pm
This is starting to worry me.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 02:03 pm
It's quiet. Too quiet.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 02:04 pm
Ok Bill, I have got a grip.

I don't have any specific inside information about gambling, but I do have a strong background in mathematics. I promise you that the lines from a casino are not a good way to judge how the election is going.

Here is my logic. I start with three basic assumptions....

1) The Bookmakers main goal is to maximize profits while minimizing risk.
2) The Bookmakers are very smart and know mathematics.
3) The Bookmakers have no more information about the election than we have.

If I were a bookmaker... I would deduce two things that I think most intelligent people (including the bookmakers) believe.

- All of the polls and all of the pundits say that the race is incredibly tight. There is some evidence from smart people who say that polls may be underestimating Kerry support.-- but, everyone agrees the outcome is very uncertain.

- In spite of this evidence, there are many people who, for whatever reason, are convinced that Bush will win.

Now, if a bookmaker has deduced that the mathematical odds of Bush winning is 50-50, but she knows that most bettors believe Bush will win what should she do?

Well the answer is obvious...

If you want to maximize profits you will base your line on what the bettors believe not on your prediction.

In this climate, even if you believe that the race is 50-50, setting the odds even would be foolish. People would bet on Bush unevenly and you would put yourself at risk

It is much better to base your line on the bettors expectation and not concern yourself with the outcome.

It is true that I don't know for sure that this is how it is done. But I do know that mathematically, this is the only sane way to do it. I think it is a safe assumption that the professional bookkeepers are both sane, and know math.

Just look at the uncertainty of the polls and the questions raised by statisticians. These lines are way out of whack... unless (as I suspect) the bookmakers know what they are doing.

But to think that the betting lines provide any insight into the real state of the race is foolish.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 03:03 pm
ICR has a new poll out, based on a survey done October 22 - 26. Numbers compared with ICR's last poll, done some three weeks ago:

Bush 48,0% (-0,4)
Kerry 45,4% (+2,1)

Nader 2% (no ch.)

This brings me to another observation. Compare these latest numbers:

ICR:
Bush 48,0 Kerry 45,4
Zogby tracking, today:
Bush 48 Kerry 47
TIPP tracking, today:
Bush 48 Kerry 44 Nader 2
Rasmussen tracking, today:
Bush 48,8 Kerry 47,1
WaPo tracking, yesterday:
Bush 48 Kerry 50

Does anyone else see a pattern? The polls greatly disagree about where Kerry stands - up at 50% or down at 44%? But they're eerily unanimous about where Bush stands. Every single one of them says 48 or 48-point-something percent.

The other day, I was reading somewhere (god darn it, where did I read it? Did I link it in here?) that what you've got to look out for in the final polls in races that involve an incumbent is the percentage the incumbent is getting. Because even though polls in such races apparently have the challenger pegged all wrong ever so often, they usually have the incumbent polled pretty much exactly where he does eventually end up at. Said ... some credible-sounding article (sorry).

So, that would then be 48-point-something for Bush. If that's what he does get, will that be enough for him to win? Well, last time he got in with just 47,9%. But then, Gore did not get in with 48,4%.

The previous time a presidential candidate got 48% was in 1976 - when it was too little for Ford to get re-elected; Carter got 50%. But, you'll say, we've got third-party candidates weighing now. Naders probable 1% on the left, and some minor others, Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka. What was the map in 1976? Well, third-party candidates were McCarthy from the left, who got 0,9%, and otherwise three further candidates who netted 0,2% each, among whom the Libertarian candidate and the American Independence candidate.

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..............
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 03:16 pm
Your grip is tenuous at best, Ebrown. The best books make about half of there profits by "cheating the line"… or moving it slightly to exploit foolish players. The Packers for instance have crazy loyal fans, and the lines reflect this (so it's usually not a good team to bet on). 1/2 point to a point is huge.

Of course, public perception is included, exactly as you describe. What you are refusing to recognize is that the public does have a clue what's going to happen (otherwise polls would be rather useless). Statistically, this "perception" that Bush is going to win is something of a self fulfilling prophecy since the same people doing the thinking will be doing the voting next week. Presumably, as time passes, polls and people's assessments will become better and better predictors… yet the line has been holding pretty steady lately.

Another place your inexperience is betraying your lack of knowledge on the subject is your belief that "These lines are way out of whack". Let's take a look at a football game coming up this weekend:

31/OCT/04
01:00 PM 199 Arizona Cardinals

+160

200 Buffalo Bills -3

-190

This one is pretty close to the election numbers +160 and -190. That -3 you see next to the Buffalo Bills is the all the difference the book expects the score to be. I'm sure you know how little 3 points is in football… which is after all, a game of inches. The point I'm making here is that the -200 and +150 are not as great of stretch as you seem to think. Let's look at another game coming up this weekend:

31/OCT/04
01:00 PM 195 Green Bay Packers -2½

-135

Washington Redskins

+115

Notice in this game, only ½ of 1 point has been removed from the line, yet the money line has dropped very, very dramatically. (Gamblers know that on or off the 3, ½ point is worth a full point, but that's not important here). What is important is how drastically the moneyline moves from such a tiny move in the line.

Conclusion. Although the -200/+150 numbers seem dramatically out of place to you as a novice, they are actually indicative of a pretty close wager.

ebrown_p wrote:
But to think that the betting lines provide any insight into the real state of the race is foolish.
Ebrown, your assumption is as foolish as someone saying the same about the Packer Game this Sunday. The betting line certainly cannot predict the outcome, but you better believe it can provide an insight. If not, by your rational: you would be a fool not to place a substantial wager on every underdog. On average, if what you say is true, you would win 50% of your wagers, but the payoff is substantially higher, so it would be very profitable. Think it through Ebrown… your mathematics skills should have already told you you're wrong.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 04:17 pm
Quote:

If not, by your rational: you would be a fool not to place a substantial wager on every underdog. On average, if what you say is true, you would win 50% of your wagers, but the payoff is substantially higher, so it would be very profitable.


This is not correct.

By my rational, you should only place a bet on the underdog when you believe the line is out of whack with what you believe the dog's chance of winning is. (Even then you need to find the risk acceptable -- and there is always risk).

My only point is that bookmakers set lines to maximize profits-- not to make a prediction. In cases where bettors expectations are out of line with a mathematical prediction (like with the Packers and their crazy fans) , bookmakers have an incentive to "cheat the line" (as you correctly point out).

I will soften my argument a bit. Lines are [i[indirectly[/i] related to a rational prediction, but only indirectly. In this election there are reasons to consider them especially unreliable.

The fact for this election

- The polls and any other "scientific" measure puts this race in a statistical dead heat.
- People seem to be expecting a Bush victory. The number of people who support Bush is much lower than the number of people who expect Bush to win.

You may be right about the "self-fulfilling prophecy", but it is quite possible that this will have the opposite effect where desparate Kerry supporters are more motivated to vote than confident Bush supporters. This seems like another part of a pretty near 50-50 proposition.

But my mathematical skills do tell me this.In an election where every scientific/objective measure tells you the odds are 50-50, but your bettors tell you they are 60-40. The smart mathematician who wants to maximize profits will take the bettors beliefs very much into consideration regardless of her own beliefs or calculations about the actual outcome.

I should point out that this is kind of mute point. You based your argument on bookmakers setting the "initial" line. This moving line you are promoting is certainly a function of the bettors preferences.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:05 pm
The softening of your stance is indicative of thoughtful intelligence. I respect you for that.

This statement-
Ebrown wrote:
You may be right about the "self-fulfilling prophecy", but it is quite possible that this will have the opposite effect where desparate Kerry supporters are more motivated to vote than confident Bush supporters. This seems like another part of a pretty near 50-50 proposition.
-is what I fear most. Polls that say Bush wins have to light a fire under Kerry supporters, and the unprecedented (in my lifetime) amount of hatred for George Bush makes this impossible to predict, IMO. That's why I haven't placed a wager. I only place wagers when I believe I'm going to win, and this is too much of a crapshoot for me. When I don't have a very strong feeling which side of the line to go, I have little choice but to assume the line is accurate. I'll take a 50/50 shot every time if it pays 3 to 2... that's what a gambler shoots for. Hell, that's how business works for that matter. Nothing is guaranteed.

Ebrown wrote:
I should point out that this is kind of mute point. You based your argument on bookmakers setting the "initial" line. This moving line you are promoting is certainly a function of the bettors preferences.

There is no such thing as a "fixed" line... and it is in the casino's best interest to set the opening line as close as possible to the final line, for the reasons I explained earlier. That float in between can be the difference between a profitable month or a loss. If a superbowl hit a float like that, it would wipe out half the smaller casinos in one swoop. It is a safe bet to assume the casino tries exceedingly hard to make their opening line as close as possible to the what the final line will be. Absent some other information: realistic chances should be the dominating factor in where the final line will be. The FACT that few people can beat the casino, even though they get to choose which side of the line to wager, is testament to how incredibly good the oddsmakers are at setting the line.

The fact that moneyline payoffs go up so dramatically compared to point spreads is further testament to how accurate they are (consider that for a moment Idea)

Now consider that their are substantial odds in various States with both Bush and Kerry as underdogs. If you really believe the casino is guessing, and you can stomach the risk, wouldn't it behoove you to place a wager on all of those underdog propositions? Unless of course; you don't think the casino is guessing. See what I mean?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:23 pm
Nimh writes
Quote:
So, that would then be 48-point-something for Bush. If that's what he does get, will that be enough for him to win? Well, last time he got in with just 47,9%. But then, Gore did not get in with 48,4%.


Admittedly there was the Perot factor in 1992 and 1996, but Clinton won in 1992 with just 43.3% of the popular vote and he netted an even 50.0% in 1996. I think there haven't been many election in which the winner exceeded 50% whenver there is a credible third party candidate. It's anybody's guess how credible Nadar will be against two rather unappealing candidates.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:24 pm
Yo Bill

I am one of only 22 left in a big suicide pool.

We started with almost 400.

Last week was particularly devistating. We went from over 80 survivorst to the 22.


I gotta pick this week...and I've used up all the goodies. I may pass a few teams in front of you...and I would not mind a comment or two.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 05:57 pm
Good moves Frank! I'll be happy to share opinions as long as I don't have to share blame. :wink: Out of respect to Nimh though, why don't you grab me on this thread.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:34 pm
More Poll stuff ...

So, what about "The New Voter"? The First-Time Voter Tracker Survey by The Pace University Poll & Rock the Vote (Download note: 20 page PDF file) shows First Time Voters trending Bush (Sample taken 10/1-21);

2-Way: 48% Bush, 44% Kerry, Net with Leaners, compared with this poll's July figures of 40% Bush, 50% Kerry, Net with Leaners. That works out to a 14 point net gain for Bush, July - October, among this particular demographic.

The 3-Way tally is 48% Bush, 42% Kerry, 4% Nader, Net with Leaners, compared with this poll's July figures of 44% Bush, 42% Kerry, 6% Nader Net with Leaners.


Among the poll's internals are several interesting indicators:

* Kerry's Net Favorable stands little changed at 48%, compared with July's 49%, but his Net Unfavorable of 46% is a full 10 points above his July score of 36%, while for Bush the figures are 52% current Net Favorable vs July's 49%, and his current Net Unfavorable of 44% compares to his July score of 47%. While the shift has been relatively slight, it has not been negative.

* Cheney has gone from a July 40% Net Favorable to a current 48% score, while his Net Unfavorable of 42% is little changed from his July standing, while Edwards scores a current Net Favorable of 46% compared to July's 41% with his current Net Unfavorable of 38% is nearly twice his July 20% score.

* Bush's Job Approval of 52% reflects a 3 point gain over the July rating, and the current Disapproval of 44% is a 4 point improvement from July's 48% score.

* The currently reported 52% to 48% Net Support/Oppose for having gone to war with Iraq compares to July's even split of 48% - 48%

* On the question "Do you feel that George W. Bush has done enough to protect the nation from potential terrorist attacks, or has George W. Bush not done enough to protect the nation from potential terrorist attacks?" the current 59% "Has Done Enough" is little changed from July's 58%, while the "Has NOT Done Enough" is reported unchanged at 36% for both periods

* On the question "Do you feel that if John Kerry became president that he would do enough to protect the nation from potential terrorist attacks, or would John Kerry not do enough to protect the nation from potential terrorist attacks?" we have a current 47% Would/44% Would not as compared to the July 43% Would/33% Would Not.

* Over half the respondants said they essentially did not follow either convention, though over 75% said they watched some or all of the debates.

* Nearly 4 out of 5 respondants say they're confident the election " ... will be counted honestly and accurately"

* The question "Have you gone to any political meetings, rallies, speeches, dinners, or things like that in support of a candidate?" garnered identical 11% "Yes", 89% "No" responses in both the current sample and July's.

* The question "And do you believe that the ultimate winner of the 2004 presidential election will be the legitimate choice of the majority of the American people?" tallied 67% Yes, 18% No, 15% Don't know, 1% Refused (no July benchmark listed)

* The question "When it comes to most political issues, do you think of yourself as a liberal, a conservative or a moderate?" yielded a 30% Net Liberal response compared to a 37% Net Conservative, 24% Moderate response.

* The question "Do you think of yourself as a Republican, a
Democrat, an independent" resulted in a 38% Net Republican, 36% Net Democrat, 18% Independent breakdown.

* 57% of respondants were between the ages of 17 - 40, 42% over 40, with the remainfer declining to state age. 47% were Male, 53% Female. 35% were registered as Republicans, 27% as Democrats, 25% as "Other", and 14% listed no party choice.

I found this, from Rasmussen, pretty interesting, too, particularly as it relates to the trending apparent in the Pace University/Rock the Vote poll cited above:

Quote:
Rasnussen: 71% Decided Before Fall Campaign

October 26, 2004--Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters made their final decision on their Presidential vote before the fall campaign season began. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 12% decided about a month ago, 9% a week ago, and 5% in the past few days.

Those who made up their mind earlier in the process tend to be more supportive of Senator Kerry. Those who made up their mind later in the process are more supportive of the President. This is consistent with the fact that Senator Kerry led in most polls through mid-August and has generally trailed since Labor Day and the Republican National Convention.

Among voters who made up their minds in the Spring of 2004 or sooner, Kerry is favored by a 51% to 48% margin. This obviously includes some who decided to vote for anybody-but-Bush since 36% of voters made up their mind before the Democratic nominee was selected.

The candidates are essentially tied among those who made up their minds during the summer. However, those who decided in the past month favor President Bush by a 57% to 38% margin.

Our sample included 136 Likely Voters who made up their mind over the last week. These voters also appear to be breaking in the President's direction but the small sample size prevents any definitive assessment.

There are very few undecided voters today. Those who have recently made their final decision are most likely firming up a choice for the candidate they have been leaning towards for some period of time.

At the moment, 93% of Bush voters are certain they won't change their mind and 89% of Kerry voters say the same. Our daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that just 2% of voters remain undecided at this time (many of whom may not vote).
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2004 06:41 pm
I just saw a 527 commercial.

Jimmy Carter's face fills the screen..."We all remember Presidents who were failures in National Security..." (or something very close featuring "failure".)

Dukakis in the tank....talks about Democrats not having an understanding of military matters...

Then showed Reagan taking the oath, his words at the Berlin Wall...the wall coming down... Bush 1
with Desert Storm troops.

Very strong images. I imagine lots of these will be filling the TV screens from now til Nov 2.

It doesn't end with some empty, blanket negative--it just says, "Right now, we need Republican leadership."

This is the message for this election.
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 09/26/2024 at 03:57:48