Lando 
Posted on 10/20/2004 9:37:09 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
The Harris poll I linked to earlier had some interesting pieces of information in it. Here is the relevant section of the writeup again:
Using one definition of likely voters, those who are registered to vote and are “absolutely certain” to vote, the poll shows President Bush with a modest two-point lead (48% to 46%). 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, 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.
This effect may be sufficient to explain the differences in many of the national polls. There are many national surveys out right now that have results that are quite similar to each of the two different results in the Harris poll. The question that pops into my mind is, how feasible is it that that many voters who were of voting age in 2000 and did not vote will turn out to vote in 2004? With this in mind, I decided to play with the numbers a little bit.
In 2000, according to the Census Bureau, there were 186,000,000 citizens of voting age. In 2002, the voting age citizenry had grown to 193,000,000. The Census Bureau has not provided estimates of the 2004 VAP (Voting Age Population), but if we use the growth rate from 2000 to 2002 and apply it to the 2002 numbers, we can estimate the 2004 VAP as 200,300,000.
In 2000, 105,417,258 votes were cast, which represented 56.68% of the estimated voting age citizenry. Assuming the turnout to be the same as 2000, the estimated turnout in 2004 would be approximately 113,500,000 (which is 107.7% of the 2000 turnout). By comparison, the 2000 turnout was 109.4% of the 1996 turnout, so the estimation seems to be sound for a normal turnout scenerio.
The Harris poll produced two different results. One is when likely voters are determined using the method that has proven accurate in the past (Harris had the 2000 election nailed accurately). This method showed President Bush winning, 51%-43%. Saying this method has proven accurate in the past is basically saying this method works during normal turnout scenerios, so I applied these percentages to the estimated turnout rates calcuated above. Under this scenerio, President Bush would tally 57.9 million votes to 48.8 million for Senator Kerry– a 9.1 million vote margin.
Harris, however, states there are indications that many of those who fit the description of having been of voting age in 2000 but did not vote then may actually vote this time. As such, they provided a different likely voter screen, which removed the restriction that those who were of voting age in 2000 had actually voted. History has shown that people fitting this description are much less likely to vote, even if they say they are certain to vote; this is why the likely voter screen that omits them has proven to be accurate in the past. The revised Harris likely voter screen treats them just as likely to vote. From the writeup, I note that there were 820 respondants in the likely voter sample using the revised method, as compared to 755 in the traditional method. If the traditional method works for normal turnout, then the implication is that these other voters, the delta between the samples, represent voters who may turn out above and beyond the normal turnout. Under this turnout scenerio, the turnout will be 108.6% of the normal turnout. That 8.6% works out to 9.8 million voters above normal turnout. (Please note that Kerry would, according to the Harris data, get most, but not all, of these voters.)
How feasible is this?
The highest turnout in recent memory was in 1992, thanks in part to Ross Perot’s appeal. If we assume the normal growth rate in turnout from one election to the next, then given the votes cast in 1988, in 1992 there should have been about 98.6 million votes cast. The actual count was 104.4 million. That difference, 5.8 million, was above what would normally be expected. It represented 5.56% of the total vote that year. By comparison, if there really is going to be 9.8 million voters above normal this year, the additional voters would be 7.93% of the total vote.
Maybe there are nearly 10 million people, aged 22 and over, who did not vote in 2000 but are going to this year. Maybe there is such antipathy towards George W. Bush that will bring voters out even more than the candidacy of Ross Perot did. We’ll know in less than two weeks. If there are, then the Harris poll suggests that Kerry is in the ballpark. If these votes do not materialize, the Harris poll suggests that it will be a short night a week from Tuesday.
Lando
I am getting tire of polls -- it is time to work hard to make sure Bush voters get to the polls. Since we are in Oregon we have already voted -- it was a landslide for Bush in our house.
Mr./Ms. Penny,
Could you repeat the above? Not sure my gray matter can stay with you?
Tried.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041019-103119-7584r.htm
Interesting WT story. From this morning, more Bush friendly. From Rush's website.
Republicans, OTOH, tend to keep rather than kill their young, which is why the WSJ claimed Gore lost because of the abortion issue.
If you believe there are 10 million new voters who will actually vote, then Kerry is withing 1 or 2, if you don't, it should be short night for kerry.
Dean's 'mobilized' youth may provide the answer...by the way, what happened to Dean ;-)
Now I know why I took that Stats crs 20 yrs ago,(Havn't had the need for it since) somebody up there knew I would have to read your posting. Thank you, I do understand it, but I need a handfull of Tylenol or something, let me see what I have on hand, maybe a beer would be better or a shot even! Ididn't think that crap stuck this long !
I'm gettin old. Sorry, didn't comprehend your post either!
"withing 1 or 2" ???
Time for bed for the old Kahuna.
Where the hell is this 72 hour plan that is supposed to be starting?
Nice analogy on the first generation of aborted liberals; note that while they have had the right to choose to kill thier own babies, they have taken the right away from us to educate our children with the same values that allowed our children to be born in the first place. Maybe liberals recognize superiority in the gene pool and therefore have choosen to cull the undesirables from the socialist herd and try to start their socialist culture with a better strain. I'm strained just thinking about the possibilities:)
What the holy hell is a "undfun"? It may be bedtime for Kahuna, but someone has to watch the perimiter trip wires.
I would imagine the 72 hour plan is going to start about 72 hours before election day. Wouldn't you think?
Red Dog Leader..we need flares at 200 meters
Redstate said 2 weeks before election day the wheels would start rolling into place but it dont matter as long as its there at the end
I think they're far too bloated on self esteem to understand their inferior status. Gore called us "extra chromosome" Republicans and liberals constantly berate Bush's intelligence.
Sounds great to me and so happy you're working your "butt off". Keep your eye's on your fries and try not to be soo dramatic.
Let KR move the troops and keep your head up. It'll be okay; I promise.
INCOMING!
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.