The Newsweek Poll was conducted almost entirely on Friday and Saturday morning.

byrddroppings ^ | Sunday, October 03, 2004 | byrddroppings

[crushelits]

The Newsweek Poll was conducted almost entirely on Friday and Saturday morning. It didn't poll the Eastern and Central time zones on Friday night. Weekend polls like this usually undersample Republicans.

Are we to believe that in the last month there has been more than a 6% net switch in partisan identification? That is what happened when you compare the internals. Independents stayed the same at 28% but Republicans dropped by 6% and Democrats went up by 6%. The article states, The debate erased the lead the Bush/Cheney ticket has held over Kerry/Edwards in the Newsweek Poll since the Republican convention.
Did anyone at Newsweek think that just maybe the lead was erased by a different sample ??

While it is not problematic that it is 52% women and 48% men. It is problematic that the men who were surveyed support Kerry 47% to 45%. Not even Bob Dole did this poorly in 1996. This indicates that they undersampled Republican men. This would, incidentally, make sense in light of the fact that almost all of the sample was done on Friday. What are large swaths of Republican men doing on Friday nights in those red states in the fall? A. During the day they are working; B. During the evening they are at HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAMES!

This, my friends, is the reason Kerry is in the lead. He has an insignificant lead among women and Independents...but he also has a similar lead among men. This is unheard of.

The people who are sitting at home on Friday day and Friday evening are not a representative sample of the general American population.

All polls need to be filtered by common sense. This Newsweek poll is like that Pew polls from September. The first showed Bush up by 10, the second showed Bush up by 1, the third showed Bush up by 5. Now, do we really, honestly, truly think that the electorate has bounced around so much?

Similarly, with this Newsweek poll. Do we really, honestly, truly think that Bush is losing men and almost tying women? Do we really, honestly, truly think that the dynamic of the race has shifted by six points since September 10?

New Poll Internals

Old Poll Internals

 

[b4its2late]

Of course it's left. So left that it wouldn't know a righty if it saw one......

[Jackson Brown]

Here are the numbers (rather than percentages) of democrats Vs. Republicans. I think it tells the story better. (from another's post here, that I saved)

=============

Newsweek Poll: Stacked?

Look at the makeup of Republicans vs. Democrats in Newsweek’s poll from September 11, 2004: NEWSWEEK POLL: Campaign 2004.

391 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
300 Democrats (plus or minus 7)
270 Independents (plus or minus 7)


Compare against the same data from the new poll, which Newsweek is using to claim that Bush’s poll lead has “evaporated:” NEWSWEEK POLL: First Presidential Debate.

345 Republicans (plus or minus 6)
364 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
278 Independents (plus or minus 7)

[ambrose]

Enough on the Newsweak poll. Gallup happened. The race is closer now than it was on 9/30.

[AmishDude]

Gallup is a little weird. It looks like they pushed for an answer <2% undecided. You can poll the day before election day and you will get at least 2% who claim they're undecided. Battleground shows steady numbers.

Gallup's most recent numbers are very strange compared to their usual numbers vis-a-vis undecideds.

[Rumierules]

Do we really, honestly, truly think that the dynamic of the race has shifted by six points since September 10?

Unfortunately, there are quite a few extremely fickle voters out there.

[ambrose]

Gallup polled during the day on Sunday. Yes, Gallup is a little weird - but I'd suggest weird data and Sunday daytime polling may only account for a few points. This was an 8 point swing.

Yes, things really did change that quickly.

They really changed that quickly from Kerry's favor to Bush's in August.

The public IS fickle.

[bannie]

Drunks and hung-over people prefer Kerry? (Albeit, ever so slightly!)

[AmishDude]

How do you explain Battleground?

[AmishDude]

Sorry. Battleground is pre-debate. Still, I want to see a poll conducted starting on Monday.

[ambrose]

How do you explain Battleground?

I explain it by pointing out that it was taken before the debate.

I point this out not to upset you, but to quickly bring you to the "acceptance" phase.

Now, things may swing around back to Bush's favor just as quickly.

We're all going to be sea sick from the whipsaws before this is all over.

[Rumierules]

Battleground was pre-debate.

[AmishDude]

Again, I trust no weekend poll, no poll of adults, no Newsweek polls and no polls with <2% undecided. I usually trust Gallup, but that poll looks very very strange and inconsistent with its usual numbers. Rass is showing steady numbers, but he has a tight LV screen. So, waffling voters will not be found.

[ambrose]

Rasmussen has been rock steady for the entire year.

A good day for Bush falls off his sample tonight, and Sunday is usually Bush's worst night in the Rasmussen survey.

[AmishDude]

Rass has been inching Bushward since the conventions. Kerry almost never leads anymore.

[COURAGE]

if it was one poll, then i would agree, but Gallup shows now a tied race. This could be the biggest choke in history.

[Sooth2222]

2004: Gallup claims Bush has a 14 point lead, then Moveon.org places an ad complaining about that in the NY Times, then Gallup shows the race tied.....

[Sooth2222]

Just for FUN: Carter was ahead most of the time in 1980!

[StJacques]

You raise some interesting points crushelits, especially about geography. I put up my own blog in this section on it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1234337/posts

The Newsweek poll may actually show, using its own internal results, that Bush is still ahead, which you can see if you read the blog at the above link. There will be some more trustworthy polls released within the next couple of days.