Harris Poll Bush Lead By 8 Depending on Likely Voters

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-20-2004/0002289475&EDATE= ^

[Raycpa]

Using this definition but excluding all those who were old enough to vote in 2000 but did not do so, President Bush has a commanding eight-point lead (51% to 43%). This second definition has proved more accurate in the past

All right then. Why raise the issue ?

[Petronski]

That Robertson quote is not going to be an issue: he undoubtedly has 'misremembered' it.

[dfdemar]

How the hell can Bush have an 8 point lead but be tied in the swing states?

[KJacob]

I do not believe he lists them.

[demlosers]

How many nervous ding-a-lings will show up on this thread?

[Raycpa]

but there are some indications that in this election many people who did not vote in 2000 will turn out to vote, in which case it would be wrong to exclude them.

And there are some indications that many people who did vote in 2000 are not going to vote this time, in which case it would be wrong to include them.

[IndianPrincessOK]

I don't see any Harris Poll listing on RealClearPolitics.com ????

[Question Liberal Authority]

Frankly, nobody knows how to define "likely voter" this year. There are a crapload of Michael Moore zombies out there that are flying under the radar. OTOH, there are a lot of ticked off security voters as well.

In the Democrat primaries, the Deaniacs made a lot of noise on the internet, but when it came to actual votes, they stunk up the joint. Hopefully, the same thing will happen in the general election but nobody really knows.

[clintg]

I find their explanation on defining likely voters very informative. It could explain why their are wide differences between polls. For example, Zogby probably uses a likely voter scale differenly than Fox.

[Novel]

I've said since the day the Dems handed Kerry the nomination that he is not going to inspire his base to show up at the polls, and in my mind he's done nothing to make me change my position. The vocal few in the Bush hating crowd have taken over the Dem party. They're loud and get a lot of media coverage, but Joe and Jane Dem are just kind of shrugging their shoulders. I still don't think they're going to make it to the polls on Nov. 2 to vote against Bush, and I damn sure don't think they're going to show up and vote for a guy they just feel so-so about. Bush has devotees. Kerry has none.

[Pete]

The basic message of the article is "here is why you shouldn't believe our poll that shows Bush up by 8".

An alternative message is "Even though Bush is up by 8, don't worry, even though it is a stretch and the margin of error is huge, it is possible, although definitely not certain, that Kerry just might be doing OK in the battleground states."

[babaloo]

We have one already who signed up of the 15th of October. They are swarming on the poll threads and pretty easy to spot.

[sinkspur]

Statistical precision for the likely voters in swing states samples (319 and 293) is plus or minus 6 percentage points.

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA!! Nobody takes a poll with a 6 point margin of error seriously!

I heard Frank Newport of Gallup on O'Reilly say that any poll that includes fewer than 500 respondents is worthless.

[ironmike4242]

I hate these pollsters hedging their bets. Regardless of the outcome the Harris pollsters get to say "See? We got it right!"

That's all this is. They want to get picked up by more outlets in 2008 based on their "accurate polling" this time around. So they make the numbers say whatever you want them to say.

[unspun]

Kerry up so far, against the national trend, in swing states, eh?
Where are the DNC instructions, telling their fans to make sure they answer polls?

[IndianPrincessOK]

sorry people but i smell defeat :(



How do you come up with that??? Bush has been leading throughout this campaign...and smell defeat>>>???

[Question Liberal Authority]

Likely Voters (1): Adults who are registered to vote and say they are "absolutely certain" to vote (n=820). Likely Voters (2): Adults who are registered to vote and say they are "absolutely certain" to vote and that (if they were old enough) they voted in 2000 (n=755).

Does this mean that voters are not excluded if they were not old enough to vote in 2000? If so, it is oversampling people who are 18-22 years old, and automatically disqualifying anyone over 22 who did not vote in the 2000 election.

[RightthinkinAmerican]

Present!

[Wyatt's Torch]

Against George W. Bush 40

That sentiment does not bring voters out in droves. People want a reason to vote and being against something drives ambivalence...

[wireman]

How the hell can Bush have an 8 point lead but be tied in the swing states?...

He can't. A poll with a 6% MOE is very likely B.S.