The upcoming Republican Party convention

Yep. Looks like everybody's got 11%.

<patting head for subduing Olympic victory lap>

0 Replies

Mind you, conservative blogger-cum-neutral poll-watcher Dales (you know, the guy I'm always quoting on the other thread), has this warning today:

Quote:

Funky Internals

I cautioned some readers last week to beware of the first few polls that would be released after the Republican convention. Do not get me wrong, it is a lot of fun seeing these polls with my guy up double digits. I would love to see them continue.

But take a look at the demographic breakdown of the Newsweek poll. They have 7% more Republicans than Democrats in the sample.

It is possible that the Republican convention caused some percentage of independents to start self-identifying as Republicans, and some Democrats to start self-identifying as independents. But it is not likely.

More likely is what I described below in an earlier post:

"It was taken right in the middle of the convention, and my experience has shown that polls taken during and within a day of conventions tend to produce results that may not be replicated even just two or three days after the conventions. Why this is, I am not sure although my guess is that it is not that so many people change their minds during the convention and then change right back, but rather that during these events the people who are watching tend to want to share their opinion and a higher percentage of them do not hang up on pollsters than do otherwise- and since those who are watching tend to be partisans for the party giving the convention it skews the results in their direction."

0 Replies

I know it's not over til it's over--which is why I am patting my head.

0 Replies

How come when Zogby has Kerry up 5% at the end of the Democratic convention in Boston, everybody accepts it.

But when he has Bush up by only 2% at the end of the Republican convention-suddenly the Zogby number doesn't mean anything.

Kind of a double standard here, folks.

Haven't seen Fox's number anywhere, but even if it is 11%, Zogby has the best record for the past three years in predicting these things.

Anyone have a link to the Fox number?

0 Replies

Cover me. I'm going in...

keltic--

What nimh tried to explain is that Zogby took their poll the day before the bounce happened.

So, they were right. Bush was only up 2% on the 2nd. The other polls were taken on the 3rd. That is when the 9% bounce occurred, resulting in a net bounce of 11%.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

SHUT UP!! Don't Tread...(can I call you Don't)
You shook hands with NIXON!! Details!!!

Quote:

You sound like a Libertarian, or a one-issue guy (Social Security?)

heh,heh,heh. Very Happy

aw, ya can call me "don't", some call me "dtom" and others call me things that would create a tos report. lol...

pres.r.m.n.; well my parents were, and still are republican true believers on national. i was raised that way, and in fact, one of my earliest memories is of the folks coming home from a nixon fundraiser with a little gift for me of 2 fine looking goldfish in a little bowl. names? why, nixon and lodge of course!

so a few years go by, i'm able to reconcile my desire to attend the air force academy with diggin' the beatles and stones (how'dya do that??), write a letter to nixon praising the ibm program. when nixon comes to town, pop takes me to the photo op. he's pressin' the flesh and when he gets to us, my dad shakes and then points downward, "this young man's a real fan mr. president". nixon reaches down, i say in my best voice "sock it to ...me?" as he gives me the 2 handed pump shake, and actually smiled at me and said "well, that's fine". i actually was a lttle stunned.

that's about it. but, i tell you, the event is "seared -seared" into my brain.

** first part. i confess. registered libertarian since '76. rarely vote that way on nationals.

not a one issue voter though. i keep bringing up the "how we gonna pay" issue because it is one of the only issues that their can be no meaningful ideological slant on. take anybody in the world. make them president and the cash flow problem still remains. pragmatic is good.

0 Replies

dtom!!

WOW!! Great story. I was worried you may have thought the one-issue thing was not neighborly. I hadn't meant it that way. There are legitimate issues people are really concerned about, and anyone voting on SS has my complete understanding.

I'm frequently accused of being a misplaced Libertarian, myself.

Thanks for the story.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I was worried you may have thought the one-issue thing was not neighborly.

Quote:

I'm frequently accused of being a misplaced Libertarian, myself.

naw, i don't take this stuff seriously till they start getting personal or just plain ignorant, such as the guy that put up the trash about getting clipped was the best thing kennedy ever did.

the libertarian party has some great founding fathers type stances. unfortunately, they also have some really, incredibly goofy ideas too. so i guess they are about the same as the others.

0 Replies

Great story, Don't Tread.

I never got to meet any politicians.

Probably just as well.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Cover me. I'm going in...

keltic--

What nimh tried to explain is that Zogby took their poll the day before the bounce happened.

So, they were right. Bush was only up 2% on the 2nd. The other polls were taken on the 3rd. That is when the 9% bounce occurred, resulting in a net bounce of 11%.

You mentioned three other polls at 11%-Newsweek, Time and Fox. Let us take them in their turn.

A) The Newsweek poll ended on 9/3. The 11% lead here is due, in your interpretation of nimh's post, to the fact that there was a big swing toward Bush on the third of September.

B) The Time poll ended on 9/2. Yet, it also showed an 11% poll lead. If

1) these polls are accurate, which you claim them to be, and

2) the big swing happened on the third, which you also claim,

please explain why Time would have the same Bush lead as Newsweek, considering the Newsweek poll is supposed to reflect an allegedly big Bush swing the day after the Time poll ended? Were the Time respondents clairvoyants?

C) The Fox poll. I asked for a link to the Fox post convention poll. You supplied none. I looked for this post-convention Fox poll on pollingreport. It listed it not. I went to www.foxnews.com. It only had an article on the Time and Newsweek polls, no mention of any post convention polls of their own. I went to Drudge's site. Only Time and Newsweek polls were discussed, not Fox.

Either Rupert Murdoch has had a sudden attack of shyness, or there is no Fox post convention poll, let alone one that gives Bush an 11% lead.

The guess here is we have just had an example of the reason the game "telephone" was invented. You know, the game where several people are in the room, the first person writes down what he is going to whisper to the second, then whispers it. The second whispers to the third what the first person said, and the third whispers to the fourth what the second person was supposed to tell him. Until the end, when the last person gives his version of what he heard, which has no relation to the first statement.

In this case, I would venture to say that someone was watching Fox TV and heard that two polls gave Bush an 11% lead. This person told someone else that Fox said that Bush had a post convention lead of 11%, and someone then told you that a Fox poll gave Bush an 11% lead.

That is what I think this Fox post convention poll amounts to. Very Happy

0 Replies

So there you have it. Two polls, historically not as accurate as Zogby in presidential races, which conflict with each other because one is supposed to reflect a big swing that occurred after the other ended, yet both show the same number.

And one UFO, (Unlocatable Fox Opinionpoll).

Meanwhile, Zogby did the same thing with the Democratic convention as he did with the Republican, which is to end the polling on the final day of the convention, when both conventions have their candidates speak. Yet Zogby's modest numbers were accepted at the time for Kerry. But nobody accepts Zogby's modest numbers for Bush.

How inconsistent. How lamentable. Yet, how sadly predictable.

0 Replies

heard some intereesting comments on MSNBC yesterday. there was a discussion of political polling. the participants seemed to agree that telephone polling has become quite unreliable because many people refuse to participate, they hang up as soon as someone tries to question them. speaking for myself, i do not answer any questions over the telephone unless i know or have beeen introduced to the caller. there are simply too many 'so called' polls or interviews that are a sham. i recently declined to participate in a health interview sponsored by the ontario government to assess health needs of seniors. a few days later i received a letter stating the purpose of the interview and asking me to phone the interviewer at my convenience. i liked that idea and was quite willing to participate. but cold calls get a cold shoulder ! hbg

0 Replies

My favorite poll, and the one that Democrats seems to investing with all of their hope is the one that asks respondants how they feel about the direction in which the country is going.

I think the percentage of respondants that believe America is heading in the wrong direction is about 62%, proof positive, to them, that Bush is ripe for the taking.

The problem with this conclusion is that there are quite a lot of people in this country who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and that is precisely why they intend to vote for Bush.

I heard Ron Silver on the radio today and made an interesting comment about the polls.

He pointed out that whenever a poll is taken of white people about their feelings for a black politician, there is a need to trim back the positive responses because the pollsters know that many people will not answer truthfully for fear of being perceived as a racist.

Silver believes that there will be quite a few avowed Kerry supporters entering the voting booth and pulling the lever for Bush.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

He [Ron Silver] pointed out that whenever a poll is taken of white people about their feelings for a black politician, .... the pollsters know that many people will not answer truthfully for fear of being perceived as a racist.

Silver believes that there will be quite a few avowed Kerry supporters entering the voting booth and pulling the lever for Bush.

Kerry isn't black.

So what the heck are you and Silver talking about?

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

That is what I think this Fox post convention poll amounts to.

hail, yond wizard of kelt...

thou hast failed to perceive the unyielding wisdom of the fair and balanced oracle, thine fox royale.

forsooth, thou art a varlot. hensewith, thine life, and utterings are rendered moot. for, if thou knowest not the truth of all matters, devined, as they must surely be, by our most esteemed and true fox, much revered, ye must surely be made to penetance. longly, loudly and without succour from yonder elite scribes, liberalis in totum.

doubt thee, that, from on high, doth come the true and wisdomatic word of all men of good and faithful heart. shueing blood and soil in the highest domain of kinship with they who be right? nay, fortseine, should thee now, choose the way of wayword thought above the proven, almightily bestowed, nay, omnipotent and righteously appointed sayers of all thing sooth, thou should mostly surely come to an end of unending sorrow...

on the other hand... you could continue on living in the real world and vote for kerry.

0 Replies

DTOM: Thanks for the reminder of why we are so glad that the Rennaisance Pleasure Faire was mercifully transplanted out to East Jesus and now we don't have to suffer stoned hippies in velvet greeting Spring in ersatz Elizabethan patois.
But wait a minute! Hark! Who Goes There? Is That Varlet hiding behind the Heinz57 Cod-Piece non other than the Vaunted Swift Boat Captain, Johnnee Kerry?

0 Replies

man.. ya just don't get sarcasm when it catches ya in the ass, do ya??

0 Replies

Keltic, I think you're focusing too much here.

First, re: the Fox poll, I didnt find it either. I suppose Sofia heard a story about either the Time or Newsweek poll reported on Fox News, and thought it was a Fox poll. Can happen to any of us, doesnt need to be any big conspiracy.

Second, you're right about the inconsistency with the Time poll, that showed a 11-point lead before Bush spoke and thus undermines the theory about that having made the difference.

But nevertheless, what we have here is a Zogby poll that showed a moderate swing to Bush, a Time poll that started a day later and ended the same day and showed a huge swing to Bush, and a Newsweek poll done later that also showed a huge swing to Bush. There can be random discrepancies from poll to poll, so its better not to go into too much detail reading them, but the theory that some kind of role here was played by a Convention momentum growing over time doesnt seem all too outlandish.

With that in mind, if I were you, I'd go a little bit less fierce on this one Zogby poll. You've touted it now in half a dozen posts - but you never know what the next Zogby poll will show, and you might end up looking a little silly if it, too, shows a further sizable Bush bounce! Lucky for you, it'll be a while before the next one appears, I presume, so who knows what might not have changed (back) again by then.

Meantime, let us all wait another day or two, and I'm sure we'll have a couple more polls out to doublecheck these two drastic outcomes of the Time and Newsweek ones. Dales' warning about polls taken during a Convention still holds, so the next ones might be more moderate. Then again, with the Dem Convention Kerry's numbers actually rose a bit further still the week after the Convention, so they might not. And neither the Time nor the Newsweek poll have been particularly favourable, compared to other polls, for Bush thus far.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Keltic, I think you're focusing too much here.

A better situation than not being able to focus at all. Laughing

nimh wrote:

First, re: the Fox poll, I didnt find it either. I suppose Sofia heard a story about either the Time or Newsweek poll reported on Fox News, and thought it was a Fox poll. Can happen to any of us, doesnt need to be any big conspiracy.

Actually, I'm being kinder to Sofia than you. You say she garbled the report she heard on Fox about Bush's 11% lead in the Time and Newsweek polls into a belief that Fox itself had a poll giving Bush an 11% lead.

On the other hand, I said it was mostly likely that several people garbled the story before delivering it to her.

I'm being nice. In your version, Sofia is an active garbler. In my version, she is an innocent victim of other people's garbling. Very Happy

nimh wrote:

Second, you're right about the inconsistency with the Time poll, that showed a 11-point lead before Bush spoke and thus undermines the theory about that having made the difference.

Thank you. :wink:

nimh wrote:

But nevertheless, what we have here is a Zogby poll that showed a moderate swing to Bush, a Time poll that started a day later and ended the same day and showed a huge swing to Bush, and a Newsweek poll done later that also showed a huge swing to Bush.

Right. And my point is that it is therefore one poll against two. And the one which shows a modest Bush lead has a better record predicting presidential margins than the two which show a huge Bush lead. Which should cause most any sane person to pause a bit before accepting any notions of a Bush juggernaut.

nimh wrote:

With that in mind, if I were you, I'd go a little bit less fierce on this one Zogby poll. You've touted it now in half a dozen posts - but you never know what the next Zogby poll will show...

You are right. I have touted it, and I have no idea if the next Zogby poll will be good or bad for Kerry. But in real life, we do not count the advice we get from other people equally-we weigh it against the record the advice-giver has of being right on the issue. And that is what I am asking people to do here. As we saw in the last election, all polls are not created equal. Am I wrong to point this out?

I don't think I am being unkind toward Sofia. She said the two polls which show a big Bush lead are more accurate because the polling ended a day later-only one was. And she added a poll-Fox-to increase the number of polls showing a big Bush lead. Even assuming the Fox thing was an accident-and I admit it can happen to anybody-she used it in her argument that Zogby is being swamped numerically by other polls.

Zogby has gotten a rep among people who follow these things as being the most accurate pollster. He has earned it. His reputation is such that a person might well still give more weight to Zogby than two other polls together. However, if three other polls all show startlingly different results from Zogby, that might be another story. I feel I was well within my rights, and the bounds of decorum, to counter Sofia's strategy, even if the mistake she made was accidental. I feel I went to some effort to make clear that I thought it was accidental on her part.

As for my UFO remark, we are allowed a little bit of fun on this board, aren't we? Laughing

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

He [Ron Silver] pointed out that whenever a poll is taken of white people about their feelings for a black politician, .... the pollsters know that many people will not answer truthfully for fear of being perceived as a racist.

Silver believes that there will be quite a few avowed Kerry supporters entering the voting booth and pulling the lever for Bush.

Kerry isn't black.

So what the heck are you and Silver talking about?

Apparently it's difficult for you to wrap your mind around the concept of analogy. How can that be with someone who, surely, professes to see the world in shades of grey rather than black and white?

Silver believes that there are quite a few high minded Democrats who publicly profess to loath the swaggering, inarticulate, and anti-intellectual Bush, because they think that is what is expected of them, but that once in the privacy of the voting booth, they will vote with their heart or their gut and pull the lever for Bush.

For such Democrats, an admission of voting for Bush is similar to an admission of voting along racial lines.

It isn't too subtle, but if your still having trouble, you might try and e-mail Ron Silver. He seems to be very eager to air his views.

0 Replies

The upcoming Republican Party convention

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know