LA Times Poll - "Debate Watchers Shift 1% Toward Kerry"

LA Times ^ | Oct 2, 2004 | Ronald Brownstein

[zeestephen]

LA Times Poll

Conducted Thursday Night-Friday (Sept 30-Oct 1)

1368 Registered Voters

725 Watched Debate (53%)

"Pre-Debate Watchers"

Kerry 48%-Bush 47%

"Post-Debate Watchers"

Kerry 49%-Bush 47%

I cannot find a Bush-Kerry number for all 1368 respondents in the article.

Last week's LA Times poll was Bush 49%-Kerry 45%.

The LA Times acknowledges that "Debate Watchers" in this new poll might be misleadingly skewed to Kerry supporters.

My Personal Opinion:

I voted for Bush in 2000 and will do so again in 2004.

However, Bush's debate performance was shockingly bad.

It was also inexcusably bad.

We are at a pivotal moment in history, and Bush, the man who took us to war, was incapable of presenting a coherent and spirited defense of his actions.

There is little reason to believe that he can hold his own against Kerry on domestic issues in the next debate.

Kerry will slap Bush's face for 90 minutes with, "Tax cuts for the rich...Trillion dollar deficits...No jobs created...," and on and on and on.

Although there are solid, factual rebuttals to all these false claims, Bush's prior efforts to defend himself against this line of attack have been pitiful.

I am very, very depressed at this completely avoidable turn of events, and I am deeply pessimistic that Bush has the political skills to halt a long, deadly slide into defeat.

[madison46]

Must have extra Dems...since their poll before had Bush up pretty large..51% to 45%. This new poll had Bush starting from behind already.

Having said that, I would expect a 1% bump, but that's about it IMHO

[sarasotarepublican]

Something stinks in here. Smells like kerry doo doo.

[linn37]

I'm depressed too ,this weekend off is going by to fast.

[dawn53]

I cannot find a Bush-Kerry number for all 1368 respondents in the article.

Well that should tell you something!

[Tarpon]

Every team has bad innings, bad plays, bad days. Time to buck it up and make up the lost ground. No options.

[Howlin]

Lots of "cooking" going on this weekend.

[conservativecorner]

This is also interesting.

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)


Did Newsweek choose a lower percentage of Republicans for the first debate to set up Kerry’s “comeback,” or did they stack the deck with more Democrats in the second poll?

(Hat tips to all who emailed about this.)

UPDATE at 10/2/04 6:54:49 pm:

The loons at Daily “Screw Them” Kos are watching this topic: LGFers moan about Newsweek poll.

[dawn53]

And if they have to "cook", rig polls by oversampling, and leave out data to come up with headlines, things can't be all that bad!!!

[madison46]

Kerry left a lot of ammo for Bush. Bush left none for Kerry. Well see if Team Bush can make hey with it.

[Dog Gone]

I am very, very depressed at this completely avoidable turn of events, and I am deeply pessimistic that Bush has the political skills to halt a long, deadly slide into defeat.

You are a girlieman.

[dawn53]

Here's how I feel about the debates.

Kerry gave the President LOTS of ammunition, and jabbered out (smooth jabbering as it was) so that we all know exactly where he stands on Iraq!

The President gave Kerry NOTHING but a few smirks to make a silly little ad out of.

Bush was Bush, and that's why his numbers rose when Gallup asked who could lead the country better.

So under those circumstances, it's not about "winning" the debate, but about "winning" the election.

[Tarpon]

There is plenty of fodder. I am sure Bush will use it. I heard part of a stump speech tonight and Bush had 3-4 of Kerry's gaffs in it. The big one was the Global Test. That drew load responses.

I think now that Bush knows he is up against a liar, he will handle it better. I thought I saw steam coming out of Bush's ears a couple of times :-}

[tirednvirginia]

"However, Bush's debate performance was shockingly bad. "
It was also inexcusably bad"

You sound a lot like Joe Scarborough.

[Paleo Conservative]

Wonder if the LA Times cooks its polls?

Publisher & Editor ^ | September 26, 2004: L.A. Times May Break Tradition, Make Choice for President

[DrDavid]

I thought I saw steam coming out of Bush's ears a couple of times :-}

I think there was probably more coming out of my ears. Compared to me I though Bush was as cool as a cucumber.

[kesg]

Must have extra Dems...since their poll before had Bush up pretty large..51% to 45%. This new poll had Bush starting from behind already.

It isn't as bad as that. What happened is that in their last poll (Bush 51, Kerry 45 or 46), their pollster asked some of the respondents if it could call them back after the debate. Of the people the pollster called back, 725 actually watched the debate. Of this group of 725, it was K 48, B 47 before the debate, K 49, B 47 after the debate.

There has been some confusion about this, but their article about the poll explains this pretty clearly. The idea was that they would measure any change in attitudes by monitoring an evenly divided group whose attitudes were already known prior to the debate. The good news is that this poll, like five or six other polls, has shown virtually no movement in the overall horserace numbers.

[DrDavid]

It seems that the MSM needs to do all it can to make this a close race. They think a close race will sell newspapers.

Wonder what would happen if they printed the real news instead of fiction? I bet it would help them sell tons more newspapers.

[zeestephen]

You missed the Newsweek poll, which shows Kerry taking a 2 point lead.

[cripplecreek]

I don't believe there are enough undecided voters to cause a bump either way.

I didn't watch the debate but it sounds like there was no meat to it. Sounded like political ricecakes to me. Certainly nothing to sway voters much.