CNN/USA Today poll: KERRY by a LANDSLIDE!

[HFishbine]

The current USA Today/CNN Poll (conducted by Gallop) has Bush winning 52% to 44%.

But the poll over-samples Republicans by 23% and under-samples Democrats by 21% compared to 2000 voter turnout. If, as in 2000, 91% of Republicans are voting for Bush and 86% of Democrats are voting for their nominee, then we can reduce Bush's total percentage by 21% and increase Kerry's by 18%.

THE RESULTS BALANCED TO 2000 TURNOUT:

Bush: 41.1%
Kerry: 51.9%


Now, dear reader, you can factor in your additional expectations about whether more or fewer Republicans are going to vote for Bush than did in 2000 and whether more or fewer Democrats are going to vote for Kerry than voted for Gore, and you can factor in your expectations of who has been more successful at registering new voters and the results?

How does "Kerry by a landslide" sound?

[mark414]

1. that's what i'm saying

people are PISSED

new voters are registering in DROVES to get bush out of office.

i think we will have record turnout among all age groups, and i predict over 50% turnout for young people 18-24

kerry is going to win with over 50% of the vote

not to say that i am settling down and becoming complacent, in fact i'm just going to work that much harder to ensure that kerry's margin is even more decisive than i think it will be

[kcwayne]

6. My 77 year old mother will drive through a snow blizzard to vote for Kerry

and she hasn't voted since she voted for JFK in 1960.


She's very, very pissed.

[marlakay]

19. my mom 77 feels same way althoough no blizzards in SAC! n/t

[Poiuyt]

40. You have a 77 year old mother in the Strategicic Air Command?

Is she a pilot or is she at the radars?

[SheilaT]

21. Your mother last voted when

she was 33? Why in the world has she sat out ten friggin presidential elections since then? Not to mention dozens of mid-term and local elections?

I mean, I'm glad she's this determined to vote for Kerry, but has she been in a cave? Living hundreds of miles from the nearest road?

I know, I shouldn't be so harsh. This is really no worse than talking to a well-educated (academic, actually) social progressive who told me her 30 year old daughter is finally registering to vote for the first time this year. The excuse for the past? "She's been really busy." No one is really that busy.

[kcwayne]

36. She was very apolitical

She thinks all politicians are hopeless liars. She hated LBJ for Vietnam. She hated Nixon for Vietnam, the economy, and Nixon, and then just gave up on participating in politics. Her excuse was always that her vote didn't matter.

Bush has totally changed her, because now when I talk to her she is the first to bring up the elections. So at least she'll go out fighting and flipping a bird to the Republicans.

[Minimus]

53. My 68 yo mother voting for the first time ever because of bush

She wants him gone! She also was apolitical(much to the dismay of the rest of the family), even though my father was in the Navy for 25 years. Now she has 3 grandchildren in the military, 2 Navy, 1 Marines.
1 is in Iraq, due home in November.

[SheilaT]

56. I'm glad she's finally voting

but it just infuriates me that so many people choose not to vote. And I really do believe that if you didn't vote you completely give up the right to complain. I mean it.

[kcwayne]

66. Sometimes you have to walk in others shoes to understand their viewpoint

For people at the bottom of the social ladder it simply doesn't matter
My mother grew up impoverished. Her family was on public assistance due to my grandfather's health problems. This was during the Depression before there was a safety net. She grew up humiliated by having to wear handout clothes and be rationed food.

She married my father who never graduated from high school and was an enlisted man in the Navy. We were not on social welfare, but we were on military welfare. We lived in substandard military housing, and bought food at the miltary commissaries, and there was rarely any extra money for nice things like eating out, vacations, nice clothes, furniture, you name it.

My parents were divorced in 1967 at she became the sole bread winner for a family with 6 kids. There was no such thing as equality in the workplace, and she was paid less than half what a man would make for the same work (she started as a keypunch clerk and eventually became a computer operator). She was treated like a whore in the neighborhood because she was the first one on the block to get divorced. Life was hard.

At 77, she finally retired, and not because she is economically prepared for it, but because she is old and tired and simply had to quit.

So what does all this have to do with voting? From the viewpoint of someone struggling to keep food on the table and get her kids through high school, the words of politicians are hollow, empty promises. The perception from this vantage point in life is that the government works for rich people, and the poor can go to hell. There is the idea that no matter what a politician says, your life is not going to change materially, and its all about what money gets exchanged at the top of the food chain.

Whether that perception is right or wrong is irrelevant because its the reality of how many people in her situation feel. They are disenfranchised from the economic system and become uninterested in politics since they don't see it as being a force that can better their lives.

My mother's only retirement income is from Social Security, and its preservation is critical to her. She sees Bush acting to take it away, and this is one of the key factors motivating her hatred for him. So in this case, she is engaged because the effect of the government policy on her life is very clear. That was not true of the key issues driving the elections from 1968 to 2000 in her mind.

[tblue37]

42. Well,

have you heard that Jesse Ventura says he won't vote this year because he doesn't like Bush or Kerry?

People can come up with all sorts of excuses for not doing their civic duty, can't they?

Of course, we don't want them to vote if they haven't a clue about the issues or the candidates, and unfortunately that is often the case.

[Renew Deal]

31. Where does she live?

Alaska or North Dakota? I remember primary day in ND this year. It was -14 and -17 in some locations, but people came out.

[kcwayne]

38. She lives in Wisconsin near Duluth Minnesota.

[stevedeshazer]

68. My mom is 77

She says that Bush is a "beady-eyed little shit."

She votes in every election. Every one. That's where I got it from.

God bless all Democratic moms, regardless of age. :)

[wadestock]

48. Yes, of course...work that much harder....

I may have gotten 2 extra votes today alone....that's a GREAT DAY!!!

Remember ....deadline for voter registration is quickly upon us....4 Oct here in Jersey....I'm stopping everyone I can get my hands on and making a total fool of myself in the process.....

[cthrumatrix]

2. IF you & I can do the math...why can't CNN and Faux...?

or tweety?

[mac56]

8. "Can't"?!

Won't.

[City Lights]

18. Exactly.

These "news" organizations intentionally pass off bogus data as accurate, yet have the gall to ridicule Dan Rather. They make me :puke: and have zero credibility. They can KMA.

[durablend]

10. Ratings and

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[cthrumatrix]

25. I don't think it's for ratings...there are more dems than repugs

[drdigi420]

52. pretending that it's close makes for better ratings

[leftchick]

They are being paid not to....

chimpy* can't steal one if the polls aren't a little realistic for him. It is very frusrtating to have AmeriKan State run Media!

[Mistress Quickly]

3. All polls suck

except the one on November 2.

[Lex]

4. Adjusting the polling percentages to reflect actual voting percentages

actually makes the numbers seem far more believable.

[Vincardog]

9. The fact is it has to be a landslide to keep the Fascists from stealing

it AGAIN, We have to work now harder than ever.

[gasperc]

5. they also over weighted the GOP by 5 points, and Dems under by 6

Gallup, for example, is now normalizing its samples to include 40% Republicans, even though the 2000 exit polls

Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat

Exit Poll Results - Election 2000
(Source: Voter News Service via CNN.com)


Party Id All Gore Bush Buch. Nader
Democrat 39 % 86 % 11 % 0 % 2 %
Republican 35 % 8 % 91 % 0 % 1 %
Independent 27 % 45 % 47 % 1 % 6 %


More at leftcoaster.com

[tritsofme]

22. It doesn't assume anything in terms of Party ID

Gallup uses a random sampling and does not reweight its results for Party ID.

[Lex]

32. So it has no idea if it has polled 75% Republicans in any given poll?

Wonder how they make sure the poll is reflective of the voting public then?

[tritsofme]

35. Basically no,

They say a truly random sample should be representative of the voting public.

They do however weight for factors that you can check against census data.

[Nancy Waterman]

Thanks for doing the math here

Do you have the number of GOP versus the number of Dems polled?

[HFishbine]

15. The Numbers

Thanks to DUer kstewart33 who cites http://www.theleftcoaster.com.

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs – Poll of September 24-26
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 758
GOP: 328 (43%)
Dem: 236 (31%)
Ind: 189 (25%)
------

2000 Exit poll results here: http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

[Nancy Waterman]

47. Thanks for those numbers!!

eom

[txindy]

7. I agree with you

Kerry by a landslide. I'm slightly worried about fraud changing the final outcome, but I think the true result will be Kerry by a landslide.

[Nite Owl]

11. Sounds more like reality.

But the question is can they pull off another coup that Gallup, CNN et al are helping them with?

[yellerpup]

12. Sounds just right!

I have no doubt. People do not register in droves to support the sorry status quo. Landslide!

:kick: :kick:

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Be careful and don't get cocky. As Michael Moore has said. . .

polls are all over the map like diarrhea.

:kick:

[HFishbine]

16. Oh, no cockiness here

Still going door-to-door to register new voters. The crap I see being pulled has simply further inspired me.

[AverageJoe]

14. Yep

If we'll all just go vote!

[WI_DEM]

17. I can't understand why these polling organizations think GOP

turnout will be so much higher than dem turnout. In the primaries it was all about, "an energized democratic party" wanting to get rid of Bush.

[Lex]

23. The Dems will AT LEAST be as energized as in 2000 sooooo . . .

it just seems to make sense to use the percentages from 2000 to weight the polling breakdown among Dems, Repubs, and Indys.

If that methodology is used, then Kerry wins in every poll currently going on probably.

[HFishbine]

24. Right!

I remember a near-record turnout in Iowa. And there's this:

Exit polls confirmed the widespread anger at the Bush administration. The figures were so stark that the Washington Post—a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq—headlined its analysis of voting patterns: “Rising Anti-Bush Sentiment Driving Democrats to Polls.” The Post wrote: “The Democratic presidential contest went national yesterday, and what was true in Iowa and New Hampshire proved true coast to coast: Voters in these elections are deeply dissatisfied with President Bush, and defeating him in November is their prime issue, according to exit polls.”

The vote in South Carolina was a record for a Democratic primary, while the turnout in Arizona doubled the total of the 2000 primary. The most striking result was in Oklahoma, where 300,000 voted in the Democratic primary in a state where only 470,000 voted for Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 general election. Primary turnout is normally a fraction of the general election vote.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/elec-f06.shtml

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I don't even look at polls until the week of the election

[napi21]

26. Polls will be even iffy then.

I think the polls are deliberately being skewed now to maintain interest and energy in the campaigns. If they showed a runaway election, most people would "go to sleep" as far as watching anything involving politics.

I believe this is very evident in the wide range of poll results! It's not logical to see swings of 9-11% within 5 weeks of the election.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Agreed. they are playing fast and loose with the numbers to set up

another theft.

[napi21]

41. Naww, I don't buy that. I believe they would if they could.

But there's been so much publicity about fraud, and BBV, I doubt even the pubs are dumb enough to do something that obvious. That's why you're hearing about all these stupid ploys now, like Absentee ballots not being submitted on the right paper stock, re-checking lists of people claimed to be fellons but they're not, and Jimmy Carter saying Fla will have the same or worse problems as in 2000.

Too many eyes are on the ball.

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. I am too cynical to believe that, but

deeo in my heart there is a teeny place that hopes and prays you are right!

*hugs*

[Sparkle]

27. Why would Gallup do this?

Wouldn't they want a 50/50 panel?

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

28. They are getting us ready for the election steal. nt

[GmoneyOwnsYou]

61. Really, there's no need for comments like this...

it's getting real annoying and its just as wrong as the republicans trying to surpress the vote. Comments like this are only depressing, go away with stuff like that. People are already fed up enough with whats going on, we dont need your pessimism. Dont have anything encouraging to say, then dont say anything at all.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

63. You go away, punk.

I think it's important that we be mentally prepared for what is obviously going to happen, as well as make an effort to stop it.

Finally, it is worth getting the word out that Gallup is apparently conspiring.

So, stuff it.

[Lex]

30. Because voters don't vote in numbers that are 50% Dem 50% Republican.

The pollsters are trying to predict how the election will turn out, so they have to try to figure out what the turnout will be like.

Then they have to figure out what the people within that turnout will be doing--who they will actually vote for.

[tritsofme]

29. Reweighting Gallup results to 2000 exit poll numbers make it

bush 48.93% to Kerry 47.21% among registered voters.

Here is the partisian data from the latest poll.

Kerry Bush
R 6% 93%
I 46% 48%
D 85% 10%

[TexasSissy]

33. Unrealistic.

[Lex]

37. Based on?

[HFishbine]

44. Why

Because the polls tell you differently?

[npincus]

39. The current Gallup poll has a 12% GOP bias not 23%.

I still think that may put Kerry ahead. Can you recalculate? My math is suck-i-poo. Maybe I should run for president.

[HFishbine]

45. The math (it's 23)

12 POINTS more than the dem sample, but not a 12% GOP bias.

In 2000, 35% of all voters were Republican.
The poll allows the GOP 43% of all respondents.

The difference between 43 and 35 is 8.

What percentage greater than the 2000 35% is the poll's 43%? It's 8/35 or 23% greater.

[LisaL]

50. There are actually more democrats than republicans that

voted in 2000, so the bias is more than 12 %.
Are you calculating to make number if democrats and republicans even to get 12 %?

[dennis4868]

46. GREAT ANALYSIS....

but what about the Washington Post/ABC poll that had Bush with a 6-7 point lead and they interviewed more dems than repubs? That polls scares me some because ti does not seem to be like these other fraudulent polls that interview way more repubs than dems.

[HFishbine]

49. What was the percentage

of dems and repubs? I can't find those details.

[dennis4868]

51. here....

according to internal data they interviewed more dems then repubs:

dems = 38.6%
repubs = 36.3%
indeps = 25.1%

[w4rma]

55. Where

can I see the internal data, also?

[cthrumatrix]

54. we can't trust polls...keep recruiting....and get many people to vote

[robbedvoter]

57. Working to create the "inevitability" aura for Dufus like in 2000

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i24inevitable.htm

meanwhile, Kerry's numbers are probably much better than yours if you factor in the new registrations.

[Raster]

59. Just Say NO to gee-dumbya's inevitability aura. I don't buy it.

[GmoneyOwnsYou]

58. My parents...

are life long democrats, but have never freakin registered to vote in their lives. Well they are this year. I just turned 19 so this is my first time to vote. Three new democratic votes here in a very republican neighborhood in middle TN. But if my lazy parents are registered, I can only imagine how many others have been motivated to do the same.

[Lex]

60. Good for you, Gmoney! And welcome to DU!

Yes, I think a LOT of previously disinterested voters have registered and will be voting in November.

Smirk & Cheney & Rumsfeld have scared the crap out of people.

[AnIndependentTexan]

62. MoveOn.org everyone needs to make flyers of this and posters.

http://www.moveon.org/content/pdfs/Final-Gallup-Ad.pdf

[lanparty]

64. I'll pull a Bush here ...

All these polls are too much "fancy talk".

The equation is VERY simple.

99% of 2000 Gore voters will vote for Kerry in 2004. We'll lose a few Zell Miller/Dennis Miller/Ed Koch/Ron Silverbergs out there who are still snow-dozed by the Bush's mirage war against terrorism.

30-40% of 1999 Swing voters who voted Bush in 2000 will vote for Kerry in 2004.

3-5% of 2000 Republican voters will switch AWAY from Bush and TO either Kerry or Nader in 2004

50% of 2000 Nader voters will not vote for Kerry in 2004 realizing that there really IS SOME DIFFERENCE between Republicans and Democrats especially when it comes to foreign policy, the environment and gay bashing.

Bush is running on his record, and his record SUCKS. This is NOT a race between Kerry and Bush, it's a REFERENDUM on Bush's performance. And guess what Bush SUCKS!!!!!

Once you figure in the new voter registration rate, you end up with "Kerry in a Landslide". But after you figure in all the Democratic votes that Republicans manage to throw away or prevent from casting PERIOD, you end up with a dead heat.

THIS, may be the BIGGEST aberration in the 2004 polling process. To this date, the Democrats have been fairly tolerant of vote spoiling and registrant scrubbing because they play the same games in some locations. But this time out, the Democrats realize that we are playing for KEEPS. We will have thousands of poll watchers armed with cameras and hordes of lawyers armed with pre-formulted strategies and ready to execute a carefully prepared game plan (like the Republicans in 2000).

The only Republican ace in the hole seems to be the electronic voting boxes. But thanks to Bev Harris many state secretary generals have been scrapping the boxes in favor of paper. Those that remain will be closely watched by exit pollers and poll monitors.

The other vote stealing technique is registrant scrubbing. This year, many states will employ provisional ballots. That means you can STILL vote if your scrubbed by clerical error. Any recount would include provisional ballots and voting rights would be restored by an army of Democratic lawyers.

No doubt that Democratic parties will have road patrols (preferably on motorcycle) out as well armed with video cameras there to document any road-block hanky panky or "you'll be arrested if you vote" nonsense. A call to a crew and a helicopter news-crew should be enough to vacate the Sheriffs from setting up road blocks.

Bush didn't even win the last election. The polls saying he'll win THIS one have SERIOUS problems when the president is a certifiable fuckup who is running on the WORST intelligence failure in modern times!!!!!

[Mike L]

65. good analysis of the flawed Gallup methodology.

[bigpathpaul]

67. And, in the end, the media loves the underdog.

It plays well for them to have Kerry so far behind. Interesting to see if the media turn anti-Bush in the last couple weeks (like they did to Dean) or least more pro-Kerry.

The more of a horse race it is, the more money they make.

[Dancing_Dave]

69. Interesting reasoning.

That's an interesting way to try to correct for a polling bias that occured for whatever reason. John Zogby has pointed out that the kind of telephone polls he and others have used are now subject to a tricky problem: cell phone numbers are not used because they don't have info such as an Area Code which pollers rely on. But most college students these days have ONLY a cell phone. So they just aren't being counted at all by this polling method! And by all college-centered polls, the students will be voting against Bush by a large margin. :)

No doubt, these supposedly "scientific" polls have a lot of bias problems. And the public mood is so volatile now it would hard for pollsters to gauge it even if they had better sampling methods.

[BamaGirl]

70. Interesting, but

call me stupid, wouldn't it be more accurate to look and compare the 1992 election instead of the 2000 election? I remember the feeling in 1992 was "get this idiot Bush out of office at any cost". Kinda like now lol. The same kind of "defeat Bush" attitude was just not there in 2000. I think the Dem turnout is going to far surpass estimates.

~~BamaGirl

[VOX]

71. "Kerry by a landslide" sounds terrific!

Thanks, HF -- :toast: