Pew Poll: Kerry 48, Bush 44

pollingreport.com ^ | 3.3.04

[ambrose]

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 24-29, 2004. N=749 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
"Suppose the 2004 presidential election were being held TODAY, and the candidates were George W. Bush, the Republican, or John Kerry, the Democrat. Who would you vote for?" If "Other" or "Unsure": "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more to [see below]?" Names rotated.
.
		George W. Bush	John Kerry	Other/ Unsure
		%	%	%
	2/24-29/04	44	48	8
	2/11-16/04	47	47	6
	12/19/03 - 1/4/04	52	41	7
	10/03	50	42	8

[KQQL]

National poll....Gore 49 - Bush 48 ..the Zog in 00

[ggekko]

Dukakis had a 20 point in George Bush Sr. at a comparable time in 1988. Kerry has only received fawning coverage thus far from the media. He will be scuffled up badly during the next several months. The Dems would have had a better chance with Jon Edwards.

Keery is a stiff and a turkey whose Senatorial record will doom him to a Dukakis-like performance in November.

[AntiGuv]

Incidentally, the current rolling average is: Bush 45%; Kerry 48%. Might I also add that Bush's lead has dropped the last couple days in the Rasmussen Poll to where it's now just 1%. Since it's a three day tracking poll that implies that Kerry will be leading again tomorrow in that poll.

These numbers are really so close, however, as to be rather meaningless. The only thing I would add to that, though, is that this mantra from some people that Kerry is leading or even just because the Dems are having their primary is laughably ridiculous.

[exit82]

They don't call it the "Pew" poll for nothing---P U!

[Dales]

And the rest of his 2000 polling? From my link above, what I wrote in 2000:

Contrary to common perception, Zogby was not particularly more accurate than other pollsters last November. Quite the contrary, actually.

Let me share with you a letter I wrote to Fred Barnes and Mort Kondrake after hearing them basically say the same thing that you just did:

The reason I am writing is because I believe that you both missed the ball, however, during the discussion of Zogby's polling. As a hobby, I analyze polls and polling data. Although nobody pays me to do my work, I am confident enough of my experience and abilities in this realm that I consider myself more of an expert on the field than most experts who appear on TV.

Specifically, my attention was drawn to this exchange:

HUME: Well, he was -- he did very well in '96. He did not do so well in 2000.

KONDRACKE: Oh, yes. Oh, he did...

BARNES: No, no. He's the guy -- he is the guy who caught the Gore surge at the end.

KONDRACKE: He did the...

HUME: And Fox News caught it, too, because we had them dead even on the last time out.

BARNES: Well, he caught it before anybody else. He had it in the beginning the week, before, better than anybody -- look, Fox -- I don't mean to disparage Fox. The Fox poll wound up very well, but Zogby was on that case first.

I have to agree with Mr. Hume on this one. Mr. Zogby gets a lot of credit for his work on the 2000 election due to his accuracy on the national popular vote numbers. Unfortunately for Mr. Zogby, a more detailed analysis of his polling during the 2000 election cycle shows that his work was extremely erratic, and not deserving of the accolades he gets; certainly, he does not merit compliments on his work from knowledgeable folks such as yourself.

Let me provide some details. If his polling methodology was superior to his competitors, this would have translated to success at the state levels (especially since to get a good national picture, one would have to have a good geographical balance in the sample). Mr. Zogby was all over the place on the state battles.

• Mr. Zogby totally had New York, his area of most expertise and experience, wrong. The following was reported on election day:

  "Lazio has been closing the gap since last Thursday," Utica, NY pollster John Zogby told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly. Zogby's Monday tracking poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a two point lead. But the polster said she's losing ground steadily in the final hours before the voting begins Tuesday morning.

  Mrs. Clinton absolutely crushed Mr. Lazio.

• In the largest state, California, Mr. Zogby's poll released Monday, November 6, 2000 showed Mr. Gore with all of a one point edge over Mr. Bush. As Mr. Goeas of the Tarrance Group pointed out, that is particularly nonsensical in light of the fact that Mr. Zogby had Gore up by a few points nationally at that time. This was not just an "outlier" (a poll that is just plain off, which is to be expected statistically about 1 in 20 times). Mr. Zogby had Gore up by only 3 in California on November 3.

  Mr. Gore won California by 12 percent.

• In the final Zogby national poll, which is the one which supposedly "nailed" the election, we see the following demographic breakdowns:

  "Gore continues to lead in the East (53% - 37%) while Bush is ahead in the Central/Great Lakes (Bush 50%, Gore 46%). Gore and Bush are in a virtual tie in the South (Gore 48% - Bush 47%), while there also continues to be a virtual tie in the West (Bush 47% - Gore 46%)."

  Mr. Gore did not carry a single southern state, and in most he did not even come close. And while Mr. Gore did win four western states (California, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico) so as to make it likely that he did cause the west to be a push overall, since Mr. Zogby was overstating Mr. Bush's support by about 11% in California, this means that he was understating Mr. Bush's support by a comparable amount in the rest of the west in order to get to that virtual tie.

• On 11/3, Mr. Zogby had Ohio showing a lead for Mr. Gore. On 11/5, Mr. Zogby had Ohio showing a 10 point lead for Mr. Bush. That is a tremendous swing, one that defies credulity, especially when one considers that nationally, Mr. Zogby was showing the trend moving away from Mr. Bush and towards Mr. Gore. Mr. Bush won Ohio by 4 points.

  Not a single other poll showed any major change in voter sentiment in Ohio during this timeframe.

• On October 31, 2000, Mr. Zogby had Mr. Gore leading Florida by 11 points. Mr. Gore campaigned non-stop in the last few days in Florida while Mr. Bush did not. The race in Florida, as we all know all too well, was a dead heat.

  Not a single other poll showed the swings in Florida voter sentiments that Mr. Zogby was showing.

• From 10/29 to 10/31, Mr. Zogby showed Mr. Bush increasing his lead in the national level, from 3 points to five points. But what was he showing on the state level? Here is a chart to demonstrate:

  State        10/29    10/31    Change
  Florida      Gore +5  Gore +11 Gore +6
  Tennessee    Bush +11 Bush +5  Gore +6
  Pennsylvania Bush +7  Gore +3  Gore +10
  Michigan     Tied     Gore +1  Gore +1
  Missouri     Gore +2  Bush +1  Bush +3
  Ohio         Bush +3  Bush +5  Bush +2
  Wisconsin    Gore +6  Gore +8  Gore +2
  Illinois     Gore +7  Gore +7  No Change
  

  In other words, while his national poll was showing movement towards Mr. Bush, nearly every one of his battleground state polls were showing movement towards Mr. Gore. His own polls were inconsistent with each other.

• Mr. Zogby gets credit for being the first to show the late movement towards Mr. Gore. In reality, Mr. Zogby's polls showed a big change from Mr. Bush leading on 11/5 to Mr. Gore leading on 11/6. Since his poll was a rolling sample, to get such a marked change in one day, either a very good day for Mr. Bush had to fall off the rotating sample, or a very good day for Mr. Gore had to be added. Since Mr. Zogby's numbers had been pretty steady for the week preceding, we can infer that the former was not the case. In order for a four day tracking poll to make a 4 point swing in one day when the day falling out of the sample was not an outlier, the day coming into the sample must have been tremendous for Mr. Gore, on the order of a 10 point lea for that day's sample. Unlike the Gallup poll, in which the one day sample sizes were so small that days where the numbers would jump that much were statistically feasible, Mr. Zogby was sampling over 400 people per day, which makes such swings difficult to explain by statistical chance.

Did Mr. Zogby get the correct gap between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore on the national level? Yes. But a review of his polling during the days leading up to the election shows that he was wrong, and in some cases tremendously so, as often as he was correct, and that his own polls were inconsistent with each other from day to day and even on the same day.

[familyop]

"We're about to descent into hell in a handbasket folks"

 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 11-16, 2004. N=1,149 registered voters nationwide.
.
"Suppose the 2004 presidential election were being held TODAY, and the candidates were [see below]. Who would you vote for?" If "Other" or "Unsure": "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more to [see below]?" Names rotated.
.
		George W. Bush	John Kerry	Other/ Unsure
		%	%	%
	ALL	47	47	6
	Men	54	41	5
	Women	41	53	6
	East	40	55	5
	Midwest	45	51	4
	South	52	42	6
	West	47	46	7

There are several million divorced dads who are far more socially conservative than mainstream "conservatives." What have they received for their Republican votes so far? ...unconstitutional Stalinism laws like the VAWA and Child Support Act to imprison them for nothing more than accusations from their ex-wives and for debts.

Yet the Party goes on ignoring them and instead, getting on its knees to the Million Divorced Mom March (soon to march on D.C. again to take away the 2nd Amendment rights of all).

...real smart, folks. Just keep it up. Millions of dads are finally about to give up and drop the vote out of disgust for the Official Feminazi Socialist Party (both parties).

Singles, for the most part, vote socialist/Democrat. Singles are in it for themselves. Make more divorced and cohabiting singles by making divorce enticing to one half, and what do you get? You get socialism that's entrenched and won't go away, eventually.

We need a real morally conservative party. Until then, just know that Hillary is coming. She's already had her way with dads, thanks to the horde of ignoramuses. Now she's coming for those who are solely fiscal conservatives.

Too many of our strategists lack objectivity. They propagandize in favor of their own desires and lifestyles instead of doing so for all in their Party. And others listen too much to emotional anecdotes about individuals or generalized, dishonest vilifications against fathers.

...want a few million more votes for our Party? Do something for dads and for families. Repeal the VAWA and so-called Child Support Act. Outlaw abortion instead of attacking families through fathers.

 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 11-16, 2004. N=1,149 registered voters nationwide.
.
"Suppose the 2004 presidential election were being held TODAY, and the candidates were [see below]. Who would you vote for?" If "Other" or "Unsure": "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more to [see below]?" Names rotated.
.
		George W. Bush	John Kerry	Other/ Unsure
		%	%	%
	ALL	47	47	6
	Men	54	41	5
	Women	41	53	6
	East	40	55	5
	Midwest	45	51	4
	South	52	42	6
	West	47	46	7

[AntiGuv]

Umm.. No, that is incorrect.

Bush has Election Day lead in 2 polls

At the start of Election Day, according to the Portrait of America poll released this morning, Bush leads Gore by a 9-point margin, 49 to 40 percent.

I know what I am talking about, and the final POA poll was indeed after the DWI.

[Dionysius]

Dukakis was 14 points ahead in 1988 and the tanked. Kerry is the Duke with less personality and more baggage. Fear not.

[Dales]

Since it's a three day tracking poll that implies that Kerry will be leading again tomorrow in that poll.

I suppose that is possible, although looking at the data series, I think that is very unlikely. More likely is that tomorrow is the same as today.

[Torie]

The dicey part of a pollster's job is deciding relative turnouts among cohorts. That is where the real error pops up. Maybe Zog decided based on his responses that blacks would turn out heavily, and gave that cohort greater weight at the end. Maybe.

[TonyInOhio]

Nationwide Presidential Preference polls mean squat, especially in March. Why?

Because an election of a President is not a national referendum; it is the aggregation of 50 state elections. That 'ol debil Electoral College elects the President, as we all remember so well from 2000 ("he didn't win the popular vote").

The only accurate Presidential poll will take place in November, when the tallies of polls of the several States will be counted.

Plus, see my tagline for historical illumination.

Tony

[Dales]

The dicey part of a pollster's job is deciding relative turnouts among cohorts

That is why I prefer RV polls. Just limit things to that, and then let random distribution give you your sample. Let the people reading the poll use other information to make their estimates as to how the measured numbers will play out in the end.

I haven't done any study on this in a while, but I don't believe that there is sufficient (if any) gain in accuracy in going to a LV poll from a RV poll to justify the cost or to justify the additional point of bias into the measurement.

[wilmington2]

We have a duty to do in Iraq and it is make it a free nation and this action will do more for freedom from terrorism than 1000 meetings at the UN. This has to be made clear as a challenge that we should be willing to fulfill.As to the job loss; jobs are the last thing added as the economy recovers. This can be proven and illustrated. The Dems, who are the internal enemy, should be shown to be fainthearted and deliberately trying to cover up the positives of the recovery.

[oceanview]

all true.

but most americans are not plugged into politics enough to know any of that, and the national media won't breathe a word of it.

[AntiGuv]

You're probably about right. I did some calculations and it appears that the past four daily tracking numbers were about something like this:

Day 1: Bush 49% Kerry 48%
Day 2: Bush 43% Kerry 42%
Day 3: Bush 49% Kerry 48%
Day 4: Bush 49% Kerry 48%
Day 5: Bush 49% Kerry 39%
Day 6: Bush 46% Kerry 48%

All Rasmussen is showing is a basically tied race with a fluke poll five days ago. If the actual apparent trend holds then tomorrow they should be tied or within a point either way.

[HiramAbiff]

"We're about to descent into hell in a handbasket folks"

Keep thinking like that and we will.

Look at the facts folks - Bush is going to eat this guy alive.

[AntiGuv]

Make that the past six daily numbers, not four (I added a couple dates to the post after writing that first part b/c the anomalous date was further back than I'd assumed before I did the calculation)..

[Eva]

So what? What would you expect when the Democrats have been hitting Bush hard for six months and no one has yet to take a swipe at Kerry. Just wait.

[Dales]

I don't recall you being around last time around, but we went through many exercises attempting to figure out through various statistical regression techniques what Rasmussen's daily numbers were (knowing full well that the MoE on the daily sample would be huge).

Then I had the pleasure of exchanging mails from someone within his outfit, who explained to me that they do some scaling downwards of certain overreperesented cohorts, but they do it on the total 3 day sample rather than each day. The implication of this is that it becomes impossible to try to figure out the individual days' numbers.

Besides, just looking at your series there, it looks to me like your calculations were going down the wrong path. That repeating low number for Kerry every three days is a hint.