Posted on 10/20/2004 8:15:30 AM PDT by HardHat
Keep repeating what to myself? I am not sure what you mean.
Face it. No one has a good idea of who is going to show up and vote this year but most seem to agree that turnout is going to be much higher than in 2000 or 1996. Interest in the race is much higher. People are actually choosing to watch the debates over Championship Baseball Series. I dont think the old conservative way of defining likely voters is correct this year. I think we ought to treat these polls as entertainment and work like we were five points behind.
So, using the changing percentages, the numbers polled, and the different definitions between "likely" voters, I find that 8 Bush supporters said they were absolutely certain they were going to vote, but didn't bother to vote in 2000, whereas 53 Kerry supporters said they were absolutely certain they were going to vote, but didn't in 2000. It seems to me, this is more an indication of the honesty of the two parties than anything. If Bush supporters weren't sure they would vote, they said so, but a lot of Kerry supporters would say, "Yeah, I'm definitely gonna vote", but probably couldn't tell you what day of the week November 2 is.
For as long as I can remember, "likely voters" was deemed the most valuable predicter, portrayed as more accurate than "registered voters". And that made sense, didn't it?
This year for the first time, (unless I'm listening with my brain turned off), the talking heads seem to be putting more stock in "registered voters. I specifically heard Ed Henry of The Hotline doing it on C-Span the other morning, and Judy Woodruff as well. In both instances, the "likely voter" results they cited were more favorable to Bush, the "registered voter" results more favorable to Kerry.
I don't know the logic the MSM is using...my eyes glaze over at an article like this...but on the surface, it sure seems an effort to downplay Bush's lead.
Very possibly because they cant understand why so many polls can come out that are so different. One of the biggest differences beween the polls is how the define likely voters.
Bush Leads by Eight Points - or Two - Depending on...whether the "Likely Voter" is dead or alive.
It's weird because I have seen a numbers of polls where RV were more likely for Bush than LV. That is completely against the conventional wisdom. IIRC, the Ohio poll that showed Kerry up was that way and the Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday was also that way.
Bush can be doing better in the states that Gore carried in 2000, especially the large ones like NY, NJ, IL, and CA and be doing more poorly in states like Ohio which he carried last time. Rassmussen and others who have shown BAttleground state composite polls have shown them to be more tight than national polling. Even when Bush was up by four or five points nationally in Rassmussen he was tied in the Battleground states.
What no one is saying is that if this is real (I haven't seen it on Real Clear Politics yet)then:
1) Fox, Gallup and Newsweak look more and more like the real deal.
2) We've got us a major trend.
Harris is reputable and bigtime. As opposed to say, Newsweak.
I think Harris was the only one to predict Reagan would win big, and take over 50% of the popular vote, in 1980. Some say polling has gotten better since then. I don't know. With cell phones and caller ID I have to wonder if they can ever get an accurate reading.
No way Bush is up 8 nationally and down in the swing states UNLESS the majority of swing states are Gores. And just how small is that same??
Bush is up..and that is the trend
However you interpret this poll, there's one thing about it that's bad for us without question. It shows that in terms of registering brand new voters, the Democrats have us beat badly, so much so that it makes a 6 point difference when you include them. Whether these people show up to vote or not remains to be seen.
A 5% margin of error in a single state poll is suspect.
If Bush is up by 8, the swing states are Maryland and New Jersey...
A 6% MoE?????????? Gads this is a joke.
national poll = no matter
IA,FL,MN,NM,OH,PA,WI = polls matter (all of these have 1 or more polls showing a kerry lead)
that is where kerry has been campaigning, scaring the seniors, blacks, college kids, etc.
Bush should be ahead and has to be substantially ahead (6+ pts) on November 1st in those states if he is going to be able to overcome voter fraud, etc.
I agree 100%. Kicking butt in the popular vote won't matter unless we can firm up the president's Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin numbers. They need to wins out of the range to be affected by fraud and lawsuits.
The 'swing states' invlude states that I dont really think are swing states such as MI, WA and PA. Huge populations that skew the results of a swing state poll towards Kerry.
sorry :(
i guess i am a pessimist at heart.
BTW - i've been a loyal Freeper for years
The one thing I do not understand is how if Kerry had one, he could totally keep it secret for all these years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.