MyDD :: Big Bush Lead in New Poll

Big Bush Lead in New Poll

by Chris Bowers, Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:00:04 PM EST

Time Magazine has a three-way trial heat (which are worthless) among LV that shows Bush up 52-41-3. It was taken from 8/31 to 9/2, among 926 LVs, with an MoE of 4. This is the best showing Bush has had in any trial heat since early January.

I'll update this space when the two-way numbers are avialable for both LVs and RVs. This is certainly bad news, but it also appears to be an outlier. ARG from 8/30-9/1 had Kerry up 48-46 in a two-way RV trial heat, Rassmussen has it 49-45 for Bush two-way from 8/31-9/2 (48-46 Bush in a 1000 LV sample from last night), and last night Zogby had it 46-44 in a two-way LV trial heat from 8/30-9/2. For more information on how likely voters are separted from registered voters, see this post by Ruy Teixeira.

Oh yeah, and before anyone starts going on about how this is over, on October 27th, 2000 the CNN / USA Today / Gallup tracking poll had it Bush 52-39 Gore. We all know how that popular vote turned out less than two weeks later.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 70 Comments :: Post a Comment

The Time's poll was done by SRBI?? links to Rove?? (none / 0)

I just copied this over from a post on DU

Principals of SRBI
Mark A. Schulman, Ph.D., President and Partner
Mark Schulman is a founder and President of Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas, Inc. (SRBI). His work has spanned both market and public policy research for major corporations, banks and other financial institutions, insurance companies, the media, foundations, public transportation organizations and government. He is a frequent media commentator on polling and elections and has appeared on both CNN and Fox News.

http://www.srbi.com/who_we_are.html

Same tactics...this is another Rove move.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:09:18 PM EST

I don't think so (none / 0)

The Time results have not been all that different from other polls until now. In July before the DNC, they had Kerry up 50-45 in a two-way RV trial heat, and after the DNC they had Kerry up 51-43 in a two-way RV trial heat. They were all conducted by SRBI. I also don't see what your post shows to discredit the polling firm.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think so (none / 0)

The best example of this logic is the Rasmussen poll. For the last two months dairists were citing it to show Kerry with the lead. Now that it is moving in the other direction, we hear the cries of Republican poll and discredit. Polls are like fairweather friends to posters. If a poll looks consistent when in our favor, I say it is reputable the other way as well.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

copy of time poll methodology (none / 0)

Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 - September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters. The margin of error for registered voters is +- 3% points, and +- 4% points for likely voters. Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs conducted the poll, and more complete results are attached.

Contacts:
Ty Trippet, 212-522-3640
Jennifer Zawadzinski, 212-522-9046

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:11:13 PM EST

Re: copy of time poll methodology (none / 0)

Complete results attached to what, exactly? I can't seemt o find them.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: copy of time poll methodology (none / 0)

And careful with those pluses and minuses. For some reason they create italics. That is why I avoid using them.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

While I agree it's an outlier... (none / 0)

...the problem we now have is that it's going to increase the noise from the SCLM that Bush is inevitable. It will be the only poll discussed on the talk shows.

If it becomes CW that the race is already over, it may become a self fulfilling prophesy, even if the initial polling data was flawed.

OTOH, it may scare the you-know-what out of voters who don't want this to be over yet, and that would be a good thing.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:11:54 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Thanks Chris. You're a standup guy.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:19:57 PM EST

TIME POLL (none / 0)

this was taken after 3 days of kerry bashing. lets see what they show in 2 weeks if it`s still the same i would say the game is over.bush had a good convention, odds are against kerry now unless
events break his way.the republicans destroyed another mass. liberal. what a country!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:21:20 PM EST

Hah. (none / 0)

"over"?? This is a snapshot; nothing more. If the election had been held at virtually any time before this, Kerry would have won. And since the election isn't being held today, I think it makes little sense to call this "over", no matter what the polls say now, or even in two weeks.

Look, Bush's history in the polls is that of temporary bounces and long falls. I see no reason why that will change now.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TIME POLL (none / 0)

the game is over

I know you said "if", but still ... see this for my thoughts.

unfutz

by Ed Fitzgerald on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From the SilentWeb (none / 0)

Three possibilities:

This is an outlier. 1 in 20 polls will be outside the MoE and still be wrong, and it's been a while since we had a stinker this bad. Note that this poll likely doen't include the Bush speech, which was given too late for any sizeable number of respondents to have seen it.
LV problems. Time isn't saying what the RV numbers were. What's their screen? They had Bush up 46-44 last week, suggesting a persistent pro-Bush bias in the LV model.
Kerry is DOOMED. Note to Kausfiles: yes, you can panic now. Not that anyone will be able to tell.

I'm stickin with some of 1 and 2. We'll see after the weekend what kind of bounce Bush gets.

More at the SilentWeb.

by Silent E on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:28:07 PM EST

New Polls (none / 0)

Thanks for showing us the results of multiple polls. It's good to see a spectrum of numbers.

It will be interesting to see, when the other polling firms release their memos (assuming Time won't release theirs) if the right track/wrong direction question has moved at all. I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the President's actual support is not soft, and I think you'll find evidence of that in the top lines of the other questions.

It'll be fun to watch, that's for sure.

by Reid Wilson on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:45:38 PM EST

I won't panic yet BUT... (none / 0)

...to the extent there's any validity in reacting to the day-by-day or even hour-by-hour blow-by-blow of a campaign, this can be viewed only as bad news. I just hope the next few days bring us polls that show this one is an outlier. I expect Kerry to be behind for at least a week or two, but I would like to see him within the margin of error in national trial heats and still keeping it no worse than a dead heat in all the "expected" battleground states (and by "expected" I exclude states like Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee).

by DCCyclone on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:46:22 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

GORE was LUCKY he pulled the DUI B.S to win the PV

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 04:55:24 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

He was closing pretty damn hard before that ever happened.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Bounce for Bush???? (none / 0)

The Times poll is an outlier. Compare it to other polls here:

http://pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 05:27:40 PM EST

Re: Big Bounce for Bush???? (none / 0)

WARNING!!! Up here in Canada on June 28, we had an election. All the polls were pointing to a strong Conservative victory. Yet the incumbent Liberal Party won. Only one poll--the outlier poll--was right. Moral of the story--The only Poll that matters is Election Day!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrat Thugs Helped Bush ! (none / 0)

The Democratic Party seems to be run by
a bunch of thugs, bent on disturbing the
Republican Convention while our President
is talking. This is the same thug mentality
that disrupted Ralph Nader's attempt to
get on the Oregon Ballot by sabotaging the
Benson High School Nader Rally and intimidating
Nader petition gatherers.

What these thugs don't realize is that they
may have contributed to Bush convention bump with an 11 point lead
by President Bush just announced today by
Time Magazine. With Bush now leading 52 percent
to 41 percent, the nation is sending a message
loud and clear to the Democrats about their
antics.

With the Navy now questioning John Kerry's
Vietnam metals, his campaign is totally unraveling
to the point many Democrats probably are
wondering if he should have been nominated as
their candidate. Howard Dean looks better every day.

At least one Democrat is happy, Senator Hillary
Clinton is now probably licking her chops, in
anticipation of her run for the White House
in 2008 with Kerry likely to lose this election.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:08:18 PM EST

Re: Democrat Thugs Helped Bush ! (none / 0)

As opposed to the thugs who broke up non-violent protests, beat up non-violent protesters, detained both protesters and bystanders in a hazmat site, ignored habeas corpus petitions, etc., etc. As people filter back, thousands will tell of the great abuses, tens of thousands will tell of lesser abuses, and hundreds of thousands will tell of their strength and numbers.

In the 1850s a group of southern conservatives took power and forced their agenda (Fugitive Slave Act, Dredd Scott decision, etc.) upon the country. In 1860 they lost an election and soon lost a war as well. They created a political force with the strength and will to destroy them. In the last few years, the Bush administration has disenfranchized more and more American citizens. I am afraid ... and I admire Abe Lincoln but I also admire John Brown.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, please (none / 0)

Republicans ran their four-day Kerry hatefest, yet it's the Democrats who were the thugs?

You're an idiot sans clue, and virtually everything in your post proved it. Enough said.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, please (none / 0)

As an outsider watching your election in Canada I can't believe the double standards that the Democrats are guilty off. Hatefest? The DNC was nothing but hate against the Republicans and Bush. And then they announce that it's time to put differences aside and campaign. What? After they've had free reign to complain and bitch about Republicans!?!

Instead, the RNC rightfully fired back and addressed the hate of the DNC and also proposed an actual agenda for the next four years--unlike Kerry who perhaps didn't think that an agenda was an important part of an election campaign!?! For Canada and the world's sake, please vote for Bush in November!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even if this wasn't an outlier.... (none / 0)

...it doesn't mean Bush is ahead by much, if at all.

Take Kerry's numbers.
Add Nader's numbers.
Add the undecided.
Add +2 or +3 for increased GOTV from independent left groups, plus increased motivation by the left, due to the flawed LV model.
Add +2 to +5 due to the temporary nature of this bounce.
...and the total is more than what Bush has.

by Geotpf on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 06:45:54 PM EST

Re: Even if this wasn't an outlier.... (none / 0)

You numbers are WAY off buddy!

"Add Nader's numbers"? What, is Nader withdrawing from the race? Do you have insider information that you'd like to share with the rest of us? Off course you don't. Nader IS in the race for the long-haul. So, you CANNOT add Nader's numbers to Kerrys. (If so, then Bush 41 should have won in 92 because you just add Perots numbers to Bushs, right dumb ass!?)
"Add the undecideds"? You're not suggesting that 100% of the undecided voters are going to vote for Kerry are you? If you are, then Democrats are as stupid as they vote! To assume this you must be either incredibly faithful or incredibly stupid--my moneys on the latter!
"GOTV from independent left groups"? In every election there has been GOTV campaigns and in every election it has failed. And again, I hope you're not saying that only Democrats will benefit from GOTV campaigns. The faith I have in winning my bet on your level of stupidity is increasing by the second! Incidentally, did you hear that John Kerrys' daughters were boo-ed at there recent GOTV campaign at the MTV Billboard Awards. The audience was full of Democrats yet boos all-round! Now if this is what the Democratic faithful think about your candidate then you're in bigger trouble than you could ever imagine...
"Motivation from the left"? Hatred for Bush isn't going to do it for Kerry. Unlike Bush, who unveiled a fabulous agenda during his acceptance speech, Kerry has yet to unveil his. No one has ever won anything on hate--a lesson that Kerry still has to learn... And perhaps, God willing, he'll learn it the hard way!
"Temporary nature of this bounce"? Usually Republicans get a bounce of 2/3rds what the Democrats get. As John Kerry got a 0% bounce, Bush was also expected to get a 0% bounce (2/3rds of 0 is 0 for the vast majority of Democrats who, like this guy, can't do simple math). So even a 2-3% bounce for Bush would have been good but he got more, and from a left-wing media source (TIME) to boot! This speaks volumes and will speak volumes to mainstream America. To deny it is futile!

No, I'm afraid the Democrats are doomed to fail. The Democratic Party ran a catastrophic creeps-vs-weirdos primary contest, with the two chief creeps (Kerry & Edwards) winning in a breeze. John Kerry seems to suffer intensified versions of all the defects of Al Gore, with new ones thrown into the mix. Some of you Democrats have acknowledged this, but add indignantly that "Gore actually won in 2000, you know." You might as well just say, "Like fools throughout history, we have learned absolutely nothing from failure."

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:08:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Outlier (none / 0)

One man's outlier is another man's trend setter. Expect more of the same, the agenda is now framed around the war on terror, wherein we lose big. Zogby is the outlier, he has predicted a big win for Kerry for months. The fact he has adjusted his latest polling is his attempt to not look foolish now that the obvious is that much more. He did the same thing during NH when all the other polling showed a big Kerry win, he moved on the last night we very dubious polling to fall back in line. The scary part of this poll is that is was done prior to the end of the convention, you would expect the speech to have helped with the numbers. I predicted this bounce, no one cared to listen, echo chambers have that effect. The DailyKos is reminiscient of the Dean blog in January, this time I am not falling for it. Were in big trouble, now I have empricial evidence to tell my head what my gut has known for weeks.

This is not the end of the world, but make no mistake we need serious changes and soon before we are defined beyond repair. I thought Dean showed us how to fight, looks like we forgot again and went back to wimpsville, whilst our opponent carves and carves. We hit back, after the fact and then close ranks around the totem of denial. I am saddened that we repeat ourselves over and over.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 07:50:43 PM EST

Re: Outlier (none / 0)

Zogby got Kerry right in NH.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 08:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Zogby (none / 0)

Check the Zogby polling the five days prior to the vote. What you will see is Zogby on a limb three days out predicting big movement back to Dean, while the other polls showed slight recovery but Kerry still way out. The day before the primary, in a transparent move to not look like the outlier, Zogby states that Kerry had tracked exceptational high(many pundits found that curious). The next day Kerry wins big and Zogby looks accurate, but he just feel in line with the other polls. I have never had any doubt that Zogby skews his numbers, he has an element of media whore.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Zogby NH (none / 0)

Sen. John Kerry has a 13 point lead over Howard Dean in the last Zogby tracking poll in New Hampshire. Just yesterday, Zogby had Dean only three points behind Jan 27

A ten point change in one day, on a three day tracking poll? Are we really that stupid John?

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jesus... (none / 0)

And I thought I was one of the biggest pessimists around...

The media did this to us last time, and Gore defied all polls to win the popular vote and come within 537 votes of the EV. Beating an incumbent will be a lot harder, and we may not do it even with the popular vote this time.

But let's at least give 'em a good enough fight so that Ashcroft thinks twice about trying to round all of us up in Gitmo.

As for me, I hope Bush fails to renew the assault weapons ban. Our side is gonna need all the AK-47s we can get our hands on if he wins...

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:11:15 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Any marked change in right-track, wrong-track?
Any marked change in unfavorables?

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:11:17 PM EST

Kerry needs to attack, specially on Iraq (none / 0)

I was (and remain) very bothered by how long it took Kerry to counter the Swift lies. By the time the media got its act together and exposed the crap for what it was it was too late.

One thing that has surprised me enormously in the last few days is how little people seem to know of what's going in Iraq. Even in politically oriented websites, where most people are news junkies I have found many posters who were unaware of how much the insurgents control in Iraq. Many thought they were simply hidden in some mosques and when you tell them that insurgents control whole cities they just don't believe it.

Kerry needs to pound on this and make clear just how much of a screw up Fallujah, Ramadi and most of Iraq really is. He needs to make clear to voters the price in moeny and casualties that we are paying due to Bush's incompetence.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:31:28 PM EST

Re: Kerry needs to attack, specially on Iraq (none / 0)

Iraq is a disaster and noone hears about it. Shame on Kerry and his campaign for the silence. The American death toll (not to mention the ungodly Iraqi civilian death numbers) has risen progressively each month since the so-called handover...with 66 dying in August alone. The total is now approaching 1000, but to the average American, it is simply not on the radar screen or has become a "daily weather report"--we just don't pay attention. Bush and his twisted Rove have been extremely effective at distracting us all from the disaster he's created in Iraq and around the world...BUT KERRY HAS FAILED MISERABLY TO EXPLOIT THIS...he has allowed the conversation (with the help of the media)to focus on Swift Boats and fear tactics, in accordance with plan. It is so sad. Moreover, though we all know there were no WMDs, Bush has once again convinced a majority of the American public that somehow Iraq and the global war on terror are one and the same. This was so predictable. Kerry needs Carville, Begala, and the rest of Clinton's crew to twist through Rove's twisted mind, or this is over, my friends...and that is such a sorry sorry statement for our democracy. I am depressed!

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 02:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry needs to attack, specially on Iraq (none / 0)

"BUT KERRY HAS FAILED MISERABLY TO EXPLOIT THIS"

... And no who is politicizing the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers???? SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 12:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Rasmussen has Bush ahead by four, and approval rating at 54%. No state polls yet. I am waiting to see what happens with the Rasmussen Polls on saturday and sunday. Zogby had Bush ahead by two and ARG had it tied. I believe Newsweek should have something out late on Saturday. Zogby should come in with state by state polls on saturday as well.

This is my analysis of the Time Poll. Last time an election ended this way was back in 1980. Then, Reagan carried NY, IL, CA, MA, WA and MD the latter five by sizeable margins and NY by four points. For the Time poll to be accurate the following should be the state results:

NY: Too close to call
CA: Too close to call
MA: Leaning Kerry
RI: Leaning Kerry
ME: Strong Bush
WA: Leaning Bush
OR: Leaning Bush
IL: Leaning Bush
MD: Leaning Bush
NJ: Leaning Bush
CT: Likely Bush
VT: Too close to call
PA: Likely Bush
OH: Very Strong Bush
MI: Likely Bush
MN: Likely Bush
WI: Strong Bush
IA: Likely Bush

If indeed this has happened, it is more equivalent to a political earthquake and Bush would win 46 states (including CA) on November 2 and win by 11 points that Time is showing. I will let Larry Sabato and Charlie Cook discuss whether this is likely to happen or has indeed happened. If the Zogby and Rasmussen state polls indicate that the dynamics of the states have changed only marginally, ie., Bush is down in NY by 12 instead of 18 or Bush is ahead in FL by seven instead of a tie (I think Reagan won FL by 15 in 1980), then the Time Poll is flatout wrong. I am likely to believe that the latter has happened than the Reagan landslied scenario. But, Strategic Vision and Moore Associate State Polls, the GOP poll pushers are likely to show the Reagan scenario...and watch for them to "confirm" the TIME poll findings...and watch for Lake Snell and Perry to counter the GOP Poll Pushers!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 09:34:39 PM EST

Uh, no Peg (flush) (none / 0)

You are basing is on partisan index levels from the 1980's. If Bush were to win by ten, here is how these states would actually look:

NY: Kerry by 15
CA: Kerry by 2
MA: Kerry by 25
RI: Kerry by 20
ME: CD-2 to Bush, CD-1 toss up
WA: OK, you ae correct here
OR: Same here
IL: Kerry by 2
MD: Kerry by 6
NJ: Kerry by 6
CT: Kerry by 7
VT: Kerry by 3
PA: Bush by 5
OH: Ok, you got this one right
MI: Bush by 5
MN: you are correct here
WI: you are correct here
IA: you are correct here

Things have changed a lot since 1988. Check out the partisan index table on the President 2004 page for more info.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

IF THE TIME POLL IS RIGHT, this is what is likely to happen...as happened to Carter in 1980:

NY: Bush: 45.7; Kerry: 44.0
IL: Bush: 49.6; Kerry: 41.7
CA: Bus: 48; Kerry 46
WA: Bush: 50; Kerry: 42.3
OR: Bush: 48; Kerry: 40
OH: Bush: 54; Kerry: 39
MI: Bush: 51; Kerry: 40

Let us see when Rasmussen and Zogby release their polls, this is indeed the case.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:07:57 PM EST

Uh, no Peg. (flush) (none / 0)

New York has a partisan index of 24.5. Even if this poll is right Kerry would win New York by 12-15 points. Illinois and CA would be toss-ups, considering their partisan index rates (12 points). Bush would take Michigan and Washington by around 5 or 6 points. Your Ohio and Oregon estimates look about right though, at least in terms of margin. Also, what Perot like figure is gobbling up 8-15 points in every single state in your results?

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, no Peg. (flush) (none / 0)

I don't care what Polls say. Take it from an Illinois resident, even if the current lead in the time Poll is true (and the newsweek poll lends some credence) Kerry will win Illinois by at least 3-4 points.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 03:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

cant you tell its a planted poll - its obvious (none / 0)

This is nothing more than a Rove stratagy, get a poll ready for the end of the convention to show a big bounce and an 60 march to inevitable victory.

I dont think so.

It an out-liar alright.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:30:10 PM EST

Re: cant you tell its a planted poll - its obvious (none / 0)

D is for denial. Here is how you can see bias clouding reality, if the same poll showed Kerry up by 11 how would you react, what would you post? The answer is a key to the relative truth. Once you stop yourself, you are on your way.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Denial is powerful (none / 0)

But it is probably an outlier though. Just look at the other polls taken during the same time period.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:43:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True Enough (none / 0)

We will have a better idea by Sunday and Monday, but I must say when the dust settles I think we will see Bush firmly ahead, outside of MOE. That represents a seismic shift in an election where little movement has become the norm. Bush approvals will also rise above the magic threshold that weakens the precedent argument. My little prediction is unfolding, nice work on the independents breakdown by the way :) I also predict "Kerry is a great closer" will become the rallying cry to blunt unwanted numbers. I have a theory on this meme which I will flesh out at the appropriate junction.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not true enough (none / 0)

I don't see anything having happened in the past week, especially with a mediocre convention to push the poll numbers so far in favor of Bush, and several polls which showed Bush and Kerry fairly even did take into effect the Swift Boat campaign.

You giving us you opinion, and thats fine, but I just don't see the cause for the polls to move so substaintially this past week, or even over the past several weeks.

Just to give you my opinion in response, when people go to the polls in November, they will be thinking about their own situation and the general direction of the country in general terms, and favorably or unfavorably about Bush. The polling numbers from a number of sources on that trend is believable and leads away from your personal conclusions.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cant you tell it is a planted poll (none / 0)

No one is denying anything. If the TIME poll is the reality, New York and California are too close to call and Illinois is leaning Bush. If you deny this you and I are not living in the same America. Kerry leading by 8 points in the national poll after the convention was also nonsense...it was not borne out by the state polls. If Kerry was leading by 8, Bush's Texas lead would have been in single digits! More likely a poll done by incompetents rather than planted.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:44:26 PM EST

Wrong, wrong, wrong (none / 0)

New York has a +25 partisan index, and no GOP candidate has passed 35% there since 1988. It would take a 210-25 point lead nationally for NY to be too close to call.

Also, Illinois and California have exactly the same aprtisan index--12. If htis poll was accurate (which its not, since Nader is off both of those state ballots), Kerry would still be a slight favorite in both states. Either way, Illinois and California would certainly not be different from each other.

Also, Texas has a partisan index of over +22 GOP, so an eight point lead would still show Bush leading in the teens--which is what every poll out of Texas has shown.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh no, Peg (none / 0)

Chris Bowers:

Just as in the case of TIME poll, undecideds will account for the rest in the state by state case. I am only looking at it as a poll...if the elections were held today. However, I think there was a bounce of 4-6 points, putting Bush at 48 and Kerry at 43...possible even likely. I still think there would some movement in NY though!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:52:42 PM EST

Reply to This (none / 0)

There is a button that allows you to directly reply to comments of others.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reply to This (none / 0)

Chris Bowers:

I would like to get your take on my question below.

Thanks

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong Wrong Wrong (none / 0)

Chris Bowers:

When the state polls are released in the next 72 hours, if Bush is behind in CA by 8, NY by 15, IL by 9, MD by 7 and Kerry and Bush are even in WA, and Bush ahead by 3 in MI and eight in OH, would you agree with me that the TIME Poll is flatout wrong? Or am I wrong in this analysis?

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 10:58:36 PM EST

Re: Wrong Wrong Wrong (none / 0)

That's too many hypotheticals. For some (MD, NY) I would say the poll is right. For others, CA and IL, I would say the poll is wrong.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:25:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Ovuh (none / 0)

Kerry can't make this up. I have long held that 2008 is a better shot, but Hillary isn't the answer.

We need to get back to Dean approach--attack, stand for our values and priciples. It's very important to get a new organization in place for 2006. We have to make gains in Congress to set the stage. And I hope a fresh face will emerge in 2008.

The reality is Kerry was a very weak candidate who got there because Dean imploded.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Sep 03, 2004 at 11:35:06 PM EST

Re: It's Ovuh (none / 0)

Oh please.

It is NOT over. Haven't you heard of fluctuations in politics? Do you not remember that more people thought that Bush might win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote than the other scenario, which was what happened?

Things can change relatively instantly. There is a lot of time for this thing to switch back and forth several times before November 2.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Country of Zell Millers? (none / 0)

If the TIME poll is indeed right and IL and CA become too close to call, we have done a one-up on Zell Miller flip-flop. It took Zell Miller three years, exactly forty two months to flip flop. Read this about Zell Miller praising Kerry. It is still in his website...

http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm

and compare it to his GOP Convention Speech.

Perhaps Zell Miller and America deserve each other and perhaps he is indeed the typical American representative...a nation of flip floppers from CA to IL to NY.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:50:59 AM EST

Re: A Country of Zell Millers? (none / 0)

I have a theory.

It's a crazy theory and probably false.

I think once Bill Clinton heard about the Republicans using New York as thier convention to exploit 9/11, his New York, just a few miles from his office, where he had his 1992 convention, as thier convention, he was furious.

Instead of getting mad, he got even. Zell Miller was his keynote speaker in New York, too. He liked the irony if he could make Zell the Republicans' keynote as well. He knew Zell was a conservative Democrat, and, having the nickname "Zig Zag Zell", could be believable if he switched parties or otherwise acted oddly.

Bill Clinton convinced Zell Miller to take one for the team.

Zell Miller was a Democratic plant.

He gave a speech (and later interviews) that were so over the top, he did significant damage to the Republicans.

The timeline for this theory works-NYC was announced as the RNC site in January 2003, and Zell started to really shift rightward about that time. Zell announced his intention to endorce Bush about nine months later.

Plus, he's refused to switch parties-that leads credence that he really hasn't, and is in fact actually working deep undercover for the Democrats all the time.

Crazy theory, I know. Probably wrong.

by Geotpf on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 08:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Country of Zell Millers? (none / 0)

It's funny how you never mention Kerry in this list of flip-floppers... for he is the king of flip-floppers. Zell Miller only flip-flopped on John Kerry himself. Look at how many times John Kerry has flip-flopped. Kerry is nothing but an opportunist who flip-flops depending on what the poll numbers are showing.

A little bit more fairness in your reporting please....

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 12:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dont you know when your being propagandized? (none / 0)

The GOP meta-narative is;

1) Kerry got no bounce;
(in fact polls showed about a 4- 5 point bounce bout a week after the Democratic Party convention)

2) Bush got a huge bounce and its all but over
(just more lies and propaganda)

I do not believe that after living in the Bush economy for almost four years and seing what he has done to US foreign relationships and in Irag, that over the past two weeks, about 10 million un-decided have just now (and after hearing Cheney, Zell Miller and that idiot, GW Bush speak at their convention that they have now) all 10 million undecided have decided to vote for Bush.

The proplem with people in the US is that they don't know when they are being propagandized. They still belive in what they hear on the media, and they are so easily manipulated by a few carefully placed stories and polls.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 02:49:54 AM EST

Re: Dont you know when your being propagandized? (none / 0)

I remember a story in USA Today, one day after the DNC - convention bounce goes to Bush, not Kerry.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 02:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dont you know when your being propagandized? (none / 0)

"propagandized"? I think you mean brainwashed! As in: "The idiots in American civilization always vote for the Democrats because they've been brainwashed into thinking that they will actually do something good for America."

It seems that you have been misleaded by stories from those slanderous conspiracy theory websites. So let me inform you as to what you are missing...

"what he has done to US foreign relationships"? Are you referring to Bush who singlehandedly guided the USA through its most darkest and tumultuous time known to modern man. He has brought the USA closer to other countries more than any other US President before him. Countries included in this list are: United Kingdom, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, The Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Australia, Germany (Afghanistan), Canada (Afghanistan), among other nations. Kerry, on the other hand, wants France and the UN to decide the future role of USA... NO THANK YOU!!!!! For Christ's sake, I've even heard that Frenchmen want to be able to vote in the USA because the future of the world is riding on this election. My America doesn't include France!

"what he's done to ... Iraq"? It's called freedom. He also brought it to Afghanistan you know. Bush is the hero of the USA and you should remember it. Kerry is the idiot, not Bush! A flip-flopper who voted for the war before he voted against it--depending on the current polling results. WAFFLER! WAFFLER! WAFFLER!

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 01:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Impact of new voters and voter turn-out? (none / 0)

Where I volunteer (a newly-designated battleground state that was formerly solidly in the Bush colmn), we are signing up enormous amounts of newly registered voters for the Democratic ticket. Last week alone, the number topped 1,200 in our small- to mid-sized town (colleges are nearby). It has made me curious as to the impact of new voters (as well as voter turn-out) and how polls like these factors into consideration -- or if they do take them into consideration. I have not been able to find information on this anywhere. Could anyone here enlighten me?

Thanks.

by KatyM on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 10:34:15 AM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

I don't know how many of you have seen the news about a Time
Magazine poll putting Bush ahead of Kerry 52-41 percent. If you
have, please do not be alarmed. It is based on what is likely to be
a very biased sample. It is EXTREMELY irresponsible for Time to use
the methodology it has.
Here's the gist of it: Time conducted a phone poll DURING the
Republican convention to get these results. Well, tell me, who is
most likely to be at home during the Republican convention?
Republicans, right? Considering this, I would say that the results
are not very good for Bush at all.

So disregard this poll, don't lose heart, and keep fighting. It is
unfortunate that Time, which is usually pretty reasonable, has
jeopardized its credibility with what is either a serious mistake or
a political stunt.

by Orsurgeon on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 11:36:51 AM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Hey Buddy, sorry to put the kibosh on your idiotic theory but it's Republicans that go to work, not Democrats! Democrats are at home on their fat asses waiting for their weekly checks from my bank account (with the Government acting as the "income redistribution network", re: the thieves).

Besides, all the die-hard Republicans were at the Convention, so they wouldn't be able to answer their phones. All the rest of us were at work. In fact, the ones at home who were at home presumably either because they lost their jobs recently or they are just welfare bums--they're more likely to support the other guy, not Bush! I'm afraid your logic just doesn't fit.

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 01:22:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

NEWSWEEK POLL

Bush is supported by 54 percent of the 1,008 registered voters surveyed Thursday and Friday, compared with 43 percent support for Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator. Independent candidate Ralph Nader polled 3 percent. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points, Newsweek said.

Link

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:17:59 PM EST

Time pollsters manipulated the methodology? (none / 0)

This post over at Daily Kos raises some questions about the methodology of this poll. It appears Time's pollsters biased toward male respondents during the convention and pushed undecided LVs, which was not done in the earlier Time poll. Apples to oranges?

by adaplant on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 01:49:07 PM EST

Re: Time pollsters manipulated the methodology? (none / 0)

Problems with your theory:
1) Time's pollsters biased toward male respondents

Most men working during the day. Therefore are not at home to be polled. The men who are have recently lost jobs and are more likely to support the Dems in anger over losing their jobs.

2) Pushed undecided LVs

What's wrong with that? If an undecided LVs say they prefer Kerry over Bush, then its a vote for Kerry and vice-versa.

...Still apples to apples!

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 01:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think so (none / 0)

The link you posted shows the October 27, 2000 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll with Bush at 47 and Gore 44, so I don't know where you get your claim that it was "Bush 52-39 Gore".

Additionally, the Pew Research/Newsweek polls out today shows Bush with a 13 point bounce and an 11 point lead just like the Time poll did.

However, Rasmussen only shows a 4 point lead for Bush.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Remember Kerry's bounce did not peak for about a week after the Democratic Convention so we will have to wait and see what the result will be from the GOP convention.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 02:38:43 PM EST

Bush leads among RVs in Newsweek Poll (none / 0)

The Newsweek poll shows the Time poll is no outlier, and may have even understated Bush's bounce. In the Newsweek poll, Bush leads by 11 points among RVs and 53% of RVs think Bush should be reelected. Democrats can't ignore or rationalize these numbers. The Kerry campaign made a critical blunder in focusing so much on Vietnam and foreign and defense issues, and his speech Thursday night shows he hasn't learned his lesson. The Newsweek poll shows that Kerry still leads when it comes to health care. Make this a race about health care and Kerry can still win this. But the Edwards picks has turned out to be a real disaster. Just imagine if Kerry had picked Gephardt. Gephardt would be out there hammering away at the Republicans and fiercely defending Kerry. And he would be just what Kerry needed in swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Missouri. Plus, Gephardt would've appealed more to the real swing voters in this race -- blue-collar white males who see their economic prospects crashing and burning but who are culturally conservative. If (as it looks now) a pro-choice Republican is the Republican nominee in 2008 (Guiliani is the most likely), the Democrats will have to put a pro-life or at least not down-the-line pro-choice Democrat (Evan Bayh, Harold Ford, Tim Holden, Bart Stupak, Brad Carson) on the ticket if it hopes to have a shot at the White House.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2004/0002244238& ;EDATE=

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 02:51:50 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Once Kitty Kelly book comes out, Kerry will get a big bounce back.

Link

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 02:59:57 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Wasn't Gore way ahead after the Convention as well. I mean bad shift, but it can be overcome.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 03:33:29 PM EST

Re: Big Bush Lead in New Poll (none / 0)

Yeah, but firstly Bush is an incumbent. And secondly, Gore is a moron.

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 01:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

November 2 (none / 0)

Stop reading polls and statistics. The real test comes Nov 2 , when the "silent majority" of people that never voted before, cast their votes. I personally know of 23, and none have ever been polled. No polls can predict this movement!

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 10:22:39 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.