Numerical Analysis: Newsweek polls - March to October, 2004.

Newsweek - PR Newswire release ^ | October 3rd, 2004 | dvwjr

[dvwjr]

Here are the 'Rep/Dem/Ind' breakdowns and supporting internal data for the last seven Newsweek/PSRAI presidential preference polls, including the September 30 - October 2, 2004 poll which was just released. I am publishing this information in one place for easy trend comparison versus looking at each Newsweek/PSRAI poll via PRnewswire links. Also included is a re-weighting of the Newsweek/PSRAI polls to the year 2000 presidential election 'Rep/Dem/Ind' partisan affiliation (from VNS exit poll data) results, for comparison purposes only.

[reformedliberal]

Ping

[labard1]

Thanks for the ping.

I've read elsewhere that the Newsweak poll also was taken ONLY in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. If true, that's slightly better than a poll of Newsweak personnel, but VERY misleading.

[gilliam]

so the bottom line is that there is not much fluctuation really in this poll and it has always favored Kerry?

[petercooper]

Click the logo to donate to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!

[ride the whirlwind]

Thanks. The American Thinker has a good take on this (Polls, propaganda and prevarication) at

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3895

and so does Power Line (The Comeback Is Launched) at

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008037.php

[italianquaker]

I posted yesterday that this poll is correct if they were polling in france
w2004
ciao

[Numbers Guy]

Excellent work as always. I smelled a rat given the sudden shift in slant on the peripheral questions (right track/wrong track, etc). Sampling is half the game, and given that it was a weekend, the demographics was a big issue.

[G.Mason]

Poll ping thanks ...

FWIW ... John Kerry's denunciation of the research into "nuclear bunker busters" was one of four major mistakes on his part in Thursday's debate, the others being his "global test" remark, "his proposal to sell nuclear reactor fuel to Iran", and his demonstration of a "very limited grasp of the nature of the terror network".

[Dave S]

I guess my question would be why are their more self identified Democrats in this poll? Is it because evil Newsweek went out of their way to show a bounce or is it because Democrats who for over a month have been sick and depressed at the performance of their candidate have lacked energy? I think the later. I think Kerry reenergized his base and know when a Democrat is called by a pollster they dont immediately hang up because the call reminds them of something they would rather forget. On the other hand, how many Republicans after watching Bush's abysmal performance want to take the pollsters call and admit they want to vote for Bush? According to the numbers we are talking 5-6% of the sample. I would wait until early next week for real polls where people have had a chance to reflect on what they have seen and talk to others at the water cooler about the debate.

[Dave S]

if Kerry won the debate so convincingly and the sample for the poll included such a shift in the numbers of Republicans and Democrats from the prior poll, should Kerry be WAY up? My point is, it can't be both, can it?

Of course it can. I admit that Kerry creamed Bush in the debate but there is no way Im going to switch my vote to Kerry.

I think the increase in Democrats in the poll is do to Kerry reenergizing his base. Given that they now have a reason to vote for Kerry and not just against Bush, they are more willing to take the pollsters call and complete the interview. Republicans following the abysmal debate performance of the President might not answer the call or hang up when they realize its a pollster.

[Dave S]

John Kerry's denunciation of the research into "nuclear bunker busters" was one of four major mistakes on his part in Thursday's debate, the others being his "global test" remark, "his proposal to sell nuclear reactor fuel to Iran", and his demonstration of a "very limited grasp of the nature of the terror network".

Unfortunately, our "debater in chief" only called Kerry on one of the four gaffs and there were plenty other statements that Bush could have hit homeruns on if he had Karl Rove whispering in his ear during the debate.

[G.Mason]

"Unfortunately, our "debater in chief" only called Kerry on one of the four gaffs and there were plenty other statements that Bush could have hit homeruns on if he had Karl Rove whispering in his ear during the debate."

Sob ... sob ...

The truth is that this seemingly "good" performance by Kerry, (according to many here in Freeper Land) is simply a typical weak-kneed reaction, typical of those who look at style over substance.

In time, I suppose, these doubting Thomases will begin to understand why they aren't making a living being advisors to political campaigns.

In the meanwhile, the rest of us will just have to suffer these fools.

[Dave S]

The truth is that this seemingly "good" performance by Kerry, (according to many here in Freeper Land) is simply a typical weak-kneed reaction, typical of those who look at style over substance.

The voters have to grasp the substance before it can triumph over Kerry's style. Bush certainly did little in the debate to make any persuadable voters aware of his arguments. Most Americans watched the debate on TV and it was painful to watch. I heard part of a replay of it on radio and Bush actually made sense if you didnt have to watch him as he searched for each word in his talking point. But still a Bush who was anywhere as good as he was with Gore in 2000 would have finished off Kerry Thursday night. He had many openings, he just failed to attack.

[Prost1]

Any time Kerry says "colossal error in judgement" shouldn't Bush ask about Kerry's voting record attempting to gut Intelligence and the Military?

Any time Kerry says "failed leadership" shouldn't Bush ask what Bill has Kerry's name on it after 20+years in the Senate? What leadership has Kerry shown in 20+years that the voters can all of a sudden expect from him now?

It is an easy list and it goes on....

[G.Mason]

" ... Bush certainly did little in the debate to make any persuadable voters aware of his arguments ... "

There are "locked in" Bush and Republican voters, there are "locked in" Dimocrat and Kerry supporters.

Then there are the "undecideds", who at best are only possible voters, who are at this late date, unmoved by world events, the economy, our countries moral climate, our border problems, etc. etc., to have made up their small and feeble minds who best will remedy those problems, either percieved or real.

I know GWB wasn't the knight in shining armour to all of us, but he has never been an orator.

He looks you in the eye and tells you what he thinks. Which, by the way, is the truth.

The only thing that I see as unfortunate was Jim Lehrer's framing of the majority of the questions so as to place GWB on the defensive the entire night, and it did seem that Bush got quite tired of fielding the ball for 90 minutes.

JMHO

[Mad Dawgg]

Ping for great reference

[Dave S]

It is an easy list and it goes on....<P. Yes Bush certainly blew many clear opportunties to inflict real damage. Any average debater could have sliced and diced Kerry.

[Dave S]

I know GWB wasn't the knight in shining armour to all of us, but he has never been an orator. He looks you in the eye and tells you what he thinks. Which, by the way, is the truth.

Unfortunately, he didnt look us in the eye and tell us what he thinks. He had at least twenty zingers he could have hit Kerry with in response to what Kerry said. He also could have brought up Kerry's Senate record in response to any number of questions. Face it, the President was AWOL. The body was there, but that was it. He scored two or three good points all night and even on those he could made it clearer so the viewer could understand his point. It is the speakers responsibility to do the communication, not the viewers.

The only thing that I see as unfortunate was Jim Lehrer's framing of the majority of the questions so as to place GWB on the defensive the entire night, and it did seem that Bush got quite tired of fielding the ball for 90 minutes.

That is part of being an incumbent. You have a record. He could have defended himself and then easily took the debate to Kerry. Note Kerry didnt let a question get in the way of his talking about what he wanted whether it answered the question or not.

[G.Mason]

Have you ever had the thought that you just wasted your time?

I have.

By the way, that's a rhetorical question.

[Hank All-American]

I think you misunderstand my point. If Kerry creamed Bush, like the media is saying, AND the new poll included a much higher ratio of democrats to republicans than the prior poll, shouldn't Kerry's numbers be much higher? I don't think you could have Kerry win so convincingly that he changes peoples' minds and at the same time start sampling a signficantly higher proportion of democrats and then NOT have Kerry be WAY up. The fact he isn't much ahead of Bush in this poll, despite the sampling ratio, tells me he hasn't really moved up in the "polls" much at all.