Kerry 46% Bush 43% (Rasmussen Daily Reports)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 5/4/04 | Scott Rasmussen

[NYC Republican]

For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry with 46% of the vote and President George W. Bush with 43%.

This is the first time Kerry has held a three point edge in nearly a month (since April 7 and 8). He has not held a three point advantage for three consecutive days since March.

For Rasmussen Reports Premium Members, we have just released new composite data for the battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. To sign up for our Premium Service, click HERE. If you'd like more information, please click HERE.

Related survey data released yesterday shows that 27% of American voters now believe terrorists are winning the War on Terror. That's up from 24% a week ago. Also, the number of people who see President Bush as a better leader than John Kerry has declined over the past week.

The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern.

[NYC Republican]

SKerry continues his strong showing the past couple of days.

My individual dailies are

5/03 Bush 45 Kerry 45

5/02 Bush 41 Kerry 46

5/01 Bush 43 Kerry 47

President Bush's job approval, which is the most important stat in these daily polls, stays fairly steady at 51%

Look for Kerry to be up by 1 or 2 tomorrow

By the way, Rasmussen states that these figures will be up by 12:00 each day, he's been slacking the past 2 days. I post this within seconds of his post.

[NYC Republican]

Rasmussen was way off four years ago

Come on now, give the guy a break. He was only off by 9 points (Bush 49%, Gore 40%). What's a few points among friends???

[Mr. Jeeves]

SKerry continues his strong showing the past couple of days.

Those pictures from Iraq apparently undid the effects of millions of dollars worth of Bush campaign ads. Back to the drawing board.

[NYC Republican]

Exactly... although the bleeding seems to have stopped- yesterday they were even at 45%

[MHGinTN]

Well this ought to envigorate Fat Teddy and the dnc leadership to focus more speciously upon the mistreatment of terrorist captives, to indirectly attack the administration by inferring the Bush people must get us out of Iraq immediately least the rest of the 'wise world' begin to 'really' dislike us. Sick Teddy and his butty McCain are already raising the cry ... and Sen. Warner has been duped into marching over the cliff with them! Question is, will Americans see this democrat exploitation --that falsely impugns our Soldiers in general-- for what it is, shameless exploitation of a wrong with no concern for the consequences to our Soldiers but focused solely upon attacking the administration for political leverage? Johnson's 'great society' educational diminuation has succeeded in dumbing down the populace to the point that I don't have hope the American voter will see this democrat sh!tfeeding for what it is.

[Marathoner]

Well, at least the 5/3 daily looks better.One thing I wonder about with these polls, what is the effect of caller ID on these phone polls. I know that we just won't answer the phone unless the ID indicates a person/number we're familiar with.

[NYC Republican]

what is the effect of caller ID on these phone polls. I know that we just won't answer the phone unless the ID indicates a person/number we're familiar with.

As per the Pew poll, only 1/3 of all folks (that are called) actually take part in these surveys, so... the fact that Rasmussen polls are 100% automated clearly makes you question any results they produce.

Being a political junkie, I enjoy this nonetheless.

[NYC Republican]

Excellent post. We all know they will exploit this to their advantage, no matter how much additional risk there is to our soldiers, and to our credibility as a nation.

[KJacob]

The one problem I have with polls is the tiny numbers that are actually polled. What is it about .001% of the population? No matter how honest you poll, it is still such a minuscule number compared to the entire population that I simply cannot have that much confidence. I mean if you polled a mere 10,000 additional people the results may change dramatically. Yet this would still be a tiny number.

[NYC Republican]

If you poll 1,500 people (as this does, over 3 nights - 500 per night), the margin of error is +/- 3%. If you increased it to 10,000, or 100,000, it doesn't decrease the MOE that greatly...

[Marathoner]

Johnson's 'great society' educational diminuation has succeeded in dumbing down the populace to the point that I don't have hope the American voter will see this democrat sh!tfeeding for what it is.

Man, you've got that right. Unfortunately, W hasn't exactly been a shining light in this area, either, what with the No Child Left Unbrainwashed (er I mean Behind) legislation.

I fear we are rapidly reaping the legacy of free public education, one of Marx's ten great ideas in his Manifesto, in this country,

[NYC Republican]

FYI - long text, take what you want out of it.

Best Estimates: A Guide to Sample Size and Margin of Error

There are about 209 million adults in America, of every imaginable background and circumstance. So how can a survey of only 800 or 1,000 adults reflect what the entire country is thinking? How can a thousand voices speak for us all?

Public opinion researchers liken it to making a big pot of soup — to taste-test the soup, you don't have to eat the whole pot, or even a whole bowl's worth. You only have to try a bite. The same is true of public opinion. You don't have to ask every single person in America to find out what Americans think; you only need to ask a few to get the flavor of public opinion.

This fact is reflected by a survey's margin of error, or sampling error. When public opinion researchers report the margin of error for their polls (usually expressed as something like "plus or minus 3 percentage points") they are stating their confidence in the data they have collected. The lower the margin of error, the more accurately the views of those surveyed matches those of the entire population.

You must also remember that every margin of error has a "confidence interval," usually 95 percent. That means that if you asked a question from this poll 100 times, 95 of those times the results would be within 3 percentage points of the original answer. Of course, this means that the other five times you ask the question, you may get answers that are completely off the wall.

For example, if 50 percent of a sample of 1,000 randomly selected Americans said they favor recycling laws, in 95 cases out of 100, 50 percent of the entire population in the U.S. would also have given the same response had they been asked, give or take 3 percentage points (i.e., the true proportion could be 47 percent or 53 percent).

The bigger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but once you get past a certain point -- say, a sample size of 800 or 1,000 — the improvement is very small. The results of a survey of 300 people will likely be correct within 6 percentage points, while a survey of 1,000 will be correct within 3 percentage points, a lower margin of error. But that is where the dramatic differences end — when a sample is increased to 2,000 respondents, the margin of error drops only slightly, to 2 percentage points.

Despite this, some surveys have sample sizes much larger than 1,000 people. But why ask two or three thousand respondents when 800 will do? Well, it sounds more impressive, but that's hardly worth the cost of interviewing all those additional people. Usually when a study has a large sample, it is so certain subgroups — like parents or the elderly — can be teased out and compared to each other or to the whole. If you want to compare retired people to the general public, for instance, a sample of 1,000 might yield only one or two hundred people who are no longer working, which may not be enough to get a solid grasp on the views of that group. A sample of 2,000, however, will probably yield a larger group of retired Americans, and provide a more accurate picture of their views.

Sometimes increasing the sample size is not enough, if the subgroup you are examining is rare or particularly hard to find. Young black men, for example, make up only a small percentage of the U.S. population. In a standard random sample, you would have to interview an enormous number of people before you had a large enough subgroup of young black men. In this instance, you would take an "oversample," purposely seeking out members of the particular group you are interested in, and comparing the results to the main sample.

Of course, in both general samples and oversamples, who is asked is as important as how many are asked. Reputable survey organizations go to great lengths to make sure their interview sample is random and representative of whomever they are surveying, be it retired people, young black men, or all Americans. For more information on random sampling techniques and other important aspects of polling, see 20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results.

The convention for survey researchers is to report sampling errors that are based on a 50 percent split, where the margin of error is largest.

[Williams]

Uh, everyone was swearing by Rasmussen when it was the only one with Bush in the lead. I am NOT a pessimist and predicted an easy Bush win last time. I think demographics and constant left wing media are tilting us dangerously to the left. You know, you can only flood the country with so many moslems who want to go easier on Islam, and Third Worlders who are automatic democrats. We are not what we once were.

[Marathoner]

I think demographics and constant left wing media are tilting us dangerously to the left. You know, you can only flood the country with so many moslems who want to go easier on Islam, and Third Worlders who are automatic democrats. We are not what we once were.

Sadly, I gotta agree. Man, I sure do miss the Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984. Now that was fun.

[funkywbr]

It's 46% Voting AGGANIST Bush and 43% Voting for Bush!

NOBODY is voting for Kerry!~}

[B Knotts]

Zogby came pretty close nationwide after he added his famous Special Sauce, but he missed pretty badly on some of the state-specific polls, if I recall correctly.

[KJacob]

Right now roughly 15% if the population lives in NYC, Chicago, or LA. If your poll is random then wouldn't these areas be over represented? Do the pollers take this into consideration when calling? Do they try to match the demographics of the sample with the demographics of the country?

[NYC Republican]

These 3 cities actually represent just under 5%, not 15% (NY = 8 mill, LA and Chi about 3 mill).

[TomEwall]

100,000 would increase it by a lot, but not nearly proprotionate to the cost. Plus there's a larger issue in play, which practically renders the MOE moot. That is the weighting that's done.

Rasmussen is making assumptions regarding who's a Likely Voter and what the LV will do. He is assuming the turnout will be large, hence there will be a lot of casual voters. Secondly he is assuming Nader will not be a factor. Even if the MOE were 0, the poll could still be wrong if these factors are in error. If Nader is a factor (takes 5% of the vote say) and turnout is not strong (e.g., say people aren't excited about Kerry, or the economy is going well, so they're apathetic), his poll could easily show Kerry up by 2 or 3 when actually Bush is ahead by that amount.

His state polls appear to be pro-Kerry (compared to the national polls) by 7%, most likely because of the LV assumptions.