My quick analysis of the poll numbers, if you're interested

[WilliamPitt]

For an upcoming special release:

Editor's Note | It has been a wild week for numbers. Immediately after
the Republican Convention, Time and Newsweek released poll numbers
indicating a significant bounce for George W. Bush, and an 11 point lead
over John Kerry. A few days go by, however, and the air appears to have
been let out of the tires.

The new Rasmussen poll has the two Presidential candidates tied 47.3% to 47.3%. This
leads to an inescapable conclusion: If all these numbers are correct -
Time, Newsweek and Rasmussen - then Mr. Bush has suffered an historic
cratering in his poll numbers within 100 hours of the close of his party's
convention.

But perhaps the ballyhooed post-convention lead enjoyed by Bush never
existed at all. Pollster John Zogby says, "I have Mr. Bush leading by 2
points in the simple head-to-head match up - 46% to 44%. Add in the other
minor candidates and it becomes a 3 point advantage for the President -
46% to 43%...it simply is not an 11 point race. It just isn't."

The 'Bush bounce' after the convention has either disappeared completely,
or never existed at all. Neither bodes well for the incumbent. Gallup,
which has on many occasions appeared to be working as a PR arm of the Bush
election campaign, paints an interesting political perspective: "Bush's
two-point convention bounce is one of the smallest registered in Gallup
polling history, along with Hubert Humphrey's two-point bounce following
the 1968 Democratic convention, George McGovern's zero-point bounce
following the 1972 Democratic convention, and Kerry's "negative bounce" of
one point among registered voters earlier this year. Bush's bounce is the
smallest an incumbent president has received." - wrp

[prodigal_green]

1. check your history on this

The new Rasmussen poll - which has never, not once, shown Kerry with a lead

Rasmussen has shown Kerry in the lead several times and for several days at a time.

[ArkDem]

3. You are right. They have been showing Kerry in the lead most

of the time.

[billbuckhead]

2. The reason for the Gallup and Newsweek numbers were

that they polled more Republicans on a percentage basis than the actual voting electorate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Rasmussen has indeed shown Kerry with a lead

unless I am mistaken, in his tracking polls. (+ 1 or 2)

[Goldmund]

5. "The new Rasmussen poll - which has never, not once, shown Kerry with...

...a lead"

I'm not sure what you mean here. Rasmussen has had Kerry in the lead many times before, though not as much as some other polls; a 3-point lead is as high as I can remember.

[WI_DEM]

6. It's good

but only thing I would point out is that you mention that Rasmussen has not "once" given Kerry the lead is not accurate. Up until a couple of weeks ago Kerry was routinely leading Rasmussen since the time he emerged as the prospective nominee. But the most I think he ever led was by four--49-45.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Will fix

[PCIntern]

8. It is just all about lying, Mr. Pitt.

We have reached a Hitlerian, Orwellian nadir wherein projection of one's own faults onto others and lying about anything and everything is de rigeur.

It is a disease - a sociopathy - which must be expunged from American Politics on November 2nd. It is the worst kind of lying: a transparent, translucent lie which everyone knows is pure untruth, but half the people enjoy it, as it is their philosophy which is promulgated, and the other half are so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude that they had stopped responding appropriately. Another Marxist, Groucho once asked, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Now it is time to recognize all of this for what it is- Goebbles-like lying propaganda. We used to poke fun at Pravda - by our new standards, they were higher-order truth-tellers.

[pmbryant]

9. That lead never existed

Such wild swings in a matter of days in a normal electorate, much less an extremely polarized one like we currently have, are simply not believable. Sampling error no doubt explains the wild swings.

My only other problem with this is your reference to Gallup: "Gallup, which has on many occasions appeared to be working as a PR arm of the Bush election campaign ..."

Which is it? Is Gallup credible or are they a PR arm of the Bush campaign? Sounds like you're trying to have it both ways, which weakens your argument dramatically.

--Peter

[acmavm]

10. I never did believe that 'bounce' nonsense. The Pukefest in New York

City was so shrill and hateful that it had to scare the hell out of anyone with functioning brain cells and a tracable brainwave pattern. And it also highlighted that bush* has no successful record on anything, nothing at all. The economy, jobs, health insurance, whatever. All he did was scream terror, terror, terror. Well they've hyped the terror factor for so long and so often that it's like the colored alert code. Nobody is paying attention anymore. If your whole convention is based in smears of the other candidate, terror, and advising everyone to go shopping, it's pretty apparent that you don't have a whole hell of a lot to offer.

Then there was the Zell Miller episode. He was their KEYNOTE speaker for goodness sake. And all he did was make such an ass out of himself that the republicans, starting with Laura Bush no less, had to distance themselves from him the next day.

A deflated ballon will not bounce.

[blue neen]

20. That's a very astute statement: "A deflated balloon will not bounce."

[kstewart33]

11. Rasmussen explained the tie

He said that the tie is due to very unusual polling numbers on Saturday which he believes has skewed the 3 day tracking average. Once Saturday is removed from the average and that will happen tomorrow (Wednesday), the numbers should be different. Expect a Bush lead tomorrow.

Zogby also said in the same report that you quote from that
"Kerry is on the ropes."

There's no doubt that the convention bounce is much less than 11 points. But Kerry has a long way to go.

[zanana]

12. I think common sense told us the polls were bogus.

I think it's still possible to have common sense about numbers when you're partisan. Just by looking around and looking back at the past three and a half years, those 11 and 13-point leads were impossible.

[donkeyotay]

13. Sure the phantom bounce bodes well for bush

Time and Newsweek just produced purposely skewed polls so that republican media could hype a bounce in an attempt to produce a bandwagon effect for bush. Second best, even if they can't produce an actual bounce, they are promoting the meme that bush could win, thus paving the way for a Diebold steal. The media is, once again, working hard for a republican win, just as in 2000.

[maxsolomon]

14. no one ever polls me

therefore all polls are invalid.

bush = LOSER.

[Zan_of_Texas]

15. About polling. And, about the elusive "swing" voter.

About polling.

Dr. Marc Sapir, who runs an alternative polling outfit, says that only about 30% of those polled answer. There is a stubborn problem for pollsters in that there is an underrepresentation of ethnic minorites. Reasons have to do with suspicion, and many other reasons - socioeconomic status, who has a phone, who is working two jobs. Also, some people have caller ID, some have only cell phones.

Pollsters are stuck with multiplying the numbers of those who DO answer, to represent those who don't. It may not be representative. Sapir says that those little numbers pollsters attach to their polls, + or -2%, give a false sense of accuracy.

To check out what his group does, and some of their results (they ask VERY different questions than the usual suspects):
www.RetroPoll.org

About the "swing" voter:
Why it's delusional to try to appeal to the elusive "middle"

The media and campaigns would have us believe that somewhere, in a swing state, there are a few hundred voters who need to make up their minds. And, the conventional wisdom seems to go, candidates should rush to the middle to court them. (And, of course, the media would have the candidates spend $200 million for this courtship.)

But, this pursuit of the middle is delusional. Because in the last election, apathy beat both Gore and Bush -- clobbered them!

Only 51.3% of the voting age population voted at all in 2000. The "None of the Above" vote was 48.7%.

If you look at the entire pool of the voting age population, here's how the vote went:

24.8% Gore
24.6% Bush
1.4% Nader
0.5% Other
51.3% Total who voted

+ 48.7% Total who didn't vote ("None of the above")
100.0% Total voting age US population

Roughly twice as many people "voted" for None of the Above as for either Gore or Bush. (48.7% to 24+%).

Let's say one-quarter of the 48.7% non-voters can't vote -- felon, not a citizen, whatever. That still leaves a potential voter pool of 37%, enough to defeat either candidate's 2000 total by a landslide! Why wouldn't a candidate try to appeal to them, rather than the illusory middle voter?



Sources for numbers:
<> percent of entire population figures: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763629.html
<> percent of vote that went to each candidate: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/2000-01/01cib09.htm
<> new percentages, based on total voting age population: my calculator

[Rabelais]

16. if Kerry had listened to you rabid optimists

He would still be down 10 points and Cahil would still be in charge.
The numbers are up because he made a change and you never wanted it so who care about your "analysis."

[arbusto_baboso]

18. Except that Bush's "up" numbers were bogus to begin with...

Other than that your analysis is flawless. <sarcasm off>

[MoonRiver]

17. Democratic Strategist told us

that our greatest foe in this election is the media. The TIMES and Newsweek polls definitely support his conclusion. We are now under the iron fist of a far rightwing corporate media monopoly. At least we still have some voices of sanity left, including Air America and Zogby. But if the reichwing engineers another "win" for * we can write off any dissension from the holy Repuklican agenda.

For the sake of every living thing:

Goooooo Kerry!!!! :kick:

[DinahMoeHum]

19. Well, well, well. Seems like the 'Pukes have been trying to inflate

a tire with too many punctures in it. Looks huge at the start but the air blows out pretty quickly. Tee hee.

Thanks again, Will.

:evilgrin: