Preaching to the choir?? Hey, you're preaching to yourself.
I looked at the Pew link. Look at that first graphic. How much did the Dem-GOP difference change in those periods? Individuals moved around, sure. But the overall numbers stood rock-steady. Except for the 1988 numbers, where the change was within the MOE.
Second graphic: winter/spring of 2003, GOP party ID bouncing between 30-33%. In spring/summer of 2004, bouncing between 31-34%. Yes, party ID can change by a point over 15 months. This isn't contested. And there's noise - partly poll MOE, partly momentary event-driven fluctuations. News? No.
Third graphic: GOP post-convention uptick. Yep, there's that noise again.
George Gallup's an evangelical Christian and big GOP donor. He's got an axe to grind. That happens with people. But pollsters, like mathematicians, are supposed to put that aside when practicing their profession, otherwise they produce shoddy work. Gallup can't seem to do that.
I dunno - it finally explains what's happened with Gallup. And about time!
As a born-again Christian myself, it means I can add George Gallup, Jr. to the list of Nine-Commandment Christians who will unhesitatingly bear false witness against their enemies, rather than love their enemies, as Christ commanded.
In this case, he's bearing false witness about this country and its people - saying they're something substantially different from what they really are.
At any rate, that's the key. As Ruy Tiexeira (sp?) says, party ID is a variable, but very slow-moving; over a period of a few months, it's effectively a constant.
Polls that normalize by party ID might actually tell you what's going on; those that don't are GIGO.
BTW, ARG has Bush 47, Kerry 46, Nader 1 nationally, but in EVs, it's Kerry leading in states with 270, Bush with 253, and tied in WI and WV.
If it's a split decision along the lines of 2000, it would appear that Bush would win the popular vote and Kerry the electoral vote this time. (Turnabout's fair play.) The reason is that there's 9 states with 66 EVs where Bush has leads of 22% or more, and only 3 states with 19 votes where Kerry's similarly ahead. There's 4 more states with 29 EVs where Bush's ahead by at least 15%, and only 1 more state with 7 EVs where Kerry leads by 15+. So Bush has a lot of excess popular support where it can't do him any more good than it's doing him already.
Good thing that, as a reporter, she has journalistic standards, huh?
Wilgoren. Tool. Mrs. Atrios nailed it.
Wonder if any of the big media outlets - the TV networks, CNN, the NYT, the WaPo - have ever done a story about the crowds the two candidates have drawn? I know that Kerry's been drawing absolutely huge crowds. But I know that from reading those standardless blogs, who for some reason think such things are important. I read the WaPo every morning, and if there's been anything about the size of the crowds Kerry's been drawing, I've missed it.
In this example, Wilgoren mentions the numbers in passing, as if they were no big deal. But seems to me they are.
If SC goes for Kerry, I'll return there to dance naked in the streets (Five Points in Cola. for me - doctorate in math from USC). It's possible, just a longshot. Last poll I saw had Bush up, 51-44%. It'll be tough to move those numbers.
If Montana goes for Kerry, I'll move up there and start raising dental floss. Seriously, that'll never happen. Clinton took the state in 1992 only because it was split 3 ways, with Perot grabbing a big chunk of normally GOP votes.
I hate it when the party thinks short-term like this. Regardless of where we're talking about, nurturing a network of activists is important everywhere. That way, when a real opportunity comes up, we'll be ready to take advantage. Anywhere, anytime.
Another thing: all this GOP gerrymandering in TX and CO. Unless the Dems outpoll the GOP nationally in House races, we lose the fairness argument - hell, we can't even make it. The GOP will just gonna say, "See? You got less votes than we did, you shouldn't have more congresscritters than we do." Game over.