Cleveland Plain Dealer poll has Bush ahead in Ohio done by Mason-Dixon (Bush 48 Kerry 45, 1500 LV)

AP Wire ^ | 10/30/04

[Rumierules]

Article says that 2% said they were voting for "other" even though Nader is not on the ballot.

[Big E]

I'm playing golf today with one of these undecideds, my old college roommate. He hates Bush, thinks he's dumb, but can't seem to commit to Kerry. Frankly, it really bothers me, because he's a good friend, but for some reason, he can't see the forest through the trees. Maybe I can turn him around. "If Osama Bin Laden is giving the John Kerry talking points, don't you think you should consider voting for Bush?"

[section9]

Screw Zogby. Mason Dixon is the one everyone was waiting for.

UBL's Kerry endorsement and the Arnold visit should help push GW over the top.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[section9]

One of the things you need to know is that Ohio tends to trend with the country. As we go into the weekend, the trend is towards Bush. It is a Republican state, and I suspect it will come home to Bush on Tuesday, just as New Jersey will probably remain Blue.

Our infantry in Ohio are the best we have anywhere. Common Tator has told of our phenomenal ground game, right down to the precinct captain level. You will see the results of that effort. You will also see the difference between unpaid volunteers and 527 mercenaries who pad voter registrations with "Mickey Mouse" and "Mary Poppins" so they can walk away with a quick buck.

That said, Mason-Dixon is a really well regarded state polling company.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Big E]

This is really great news. I did one of those do-it-yourself electoral maps. Bush has 259 votes in my scenario, and that's without Ohio. I gave him Florida, think that's wrapped up, based on these polls showing a 4-6 point lead. I also gave him New Mexico, same reason. He's down in New Hampshire, he'll probably not get that one this time around.

If Bush wins Ohio, it's over. Not only is it over, he's probably well on his way to 300 - 350 electoral votes. Even if he drops Ohio, there are still dozens of scenarios where Bush could get to 270. Yes, feeling much better after seeing this, I trust the Mason-Dixon polls.

[LS]

This is the poll I took Wed. night.

The question, though, is what happened to the Fox poll of yesterday a.m. (circa 11:00) that had Bush up 5% nationall Mb>AND 3% in OH?? No one seems to find their OH number now.

Did Fox unwittingly release internals of its own state polling, or did it unwittingly give out the results of the MD poll early?

[LS]

Well, I don't think you're right on a bunch of levels.

1) In most cases, the race HAS tightened in most states, even some of those strong Bush states like VA. So OH is not at all unique.

2) In American history, it is highly unusual for races NOT to be tight. In the 1880s, we had four out of five races decided by a few thousand vote differences in a handful of midwestern states.

3) None of these polls are accurate in the sense that they almost all trend left. Excluding 2000, where the polls split 5 for Bush and 6 for Gore, in the elections of 1996, 2002, and 2003, the pollsters were OFF BY A GALAXY!!! In 1996, every single pollster was off to the left (i.e., in Clinton's direction); in 2002, almost every major pollster missed the 5-6 close state elections (again, always in the Dems' favor); and in 2003, they ALL missed the margin of Arnold's victory (Field by close to 20% !!!!)

What this tells us is that for some unexplained reason all the major pollsters undercount or underestimate GOP turnout. In Colorado in 2002, for ex., ALL OF THEM had Allard losing, between 1% and 5%---yet he WON by 5%. That's a damn big swing.

So it's common sense that they are doing it again---overestimating Dem turnout, and vastly underestimating GOP support. Thus, add 2% to the Ohio number and you have the accurate number for OH, and that's certainly what I've been hearing around the state GOP for quite a while.

[bill1952]

That's good news, and I'm still confused.

Not two minutes ago, on a news station, the governors of Ohio and Pa. were both on.

When asked just what a poll watcher does to challenge a voter, he basically said, "Nothing, and since you don't need ID, they are just there to observe the process."

That doesn't sound good. Not at all.

Also when asked point blank, "governor, we hear recent reports that the Republican party is staring to think that Ohio is lost, and are now concentrating efforts in the Midwest," he answered: "We have a lot of energy and good rallies."

Now, he could just be playing it close to the vest, but I didn't hear a denial there.

[Quick Shot]

I have a reason for this. Was discussing this with my son who is taking college statistics now (one of my favorite classes). The problem is in the weighting that the pollsters are using, which also can explain the weekend bumps.

The pollsters are asking party affiliation and then who are they voting for. They then weight these to an assumed breakdown of Dem and Rep voters. The problem is that I don't know of one group of classic group of Dem voters that has not been eroded (at least none strenghtened). The military vote traditionally is just slightly GOP, but this year is 77-18, the black vote is usually 95-5 and now is closing in on 80-20, the veteran vote is heavy GOP this year.

What I'm trying to say is that the weighting factors that are being used are wrong under todays electors. All the errors that I see tend to overstate the Dem position.

Hope I' right.

[txrangerette]

You may be misreading me, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. In national polls - stick with that for a second - Bush is said to have opened a small lead in most, whether in or outside the MOE. Now for state polls, I referred to states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, which show Bush's position improving in most cases over a month ago. I am comparing Ohio to those nearby states, not to Virginia or others.

I'm not doubting a possible tight race overall(you said a tight race is natural in these times). I'm not going by the polls anyway in assessing Ohio, I'm going by reports on the ground(like yours). Nor am I crediting the polls with being all that accurate, and I agree with you we should add something to most of them on behalf of Bush and Republicans.

I only questioned why the same poll done now and back in Sept. would show clear erosion in support for Bush and an increase in Kerry's strength, when one considers what has gone on in comparable polls during that time, whether national or states nearby to Ohio.

Poster always right mentioned Kerry concentrating heavily on Ohio which might have given him modest gains. My previous post responded to that assertion. Again I brought out how the nearby states seem to have trended more toward Bush during the same period, and I was sure Kerry must be spending well in those, too, relative to what Bush is spending. And I mentioned how Kerry doesn't wear well over time as people see and hear him more and more. Except his saturation of Ohio seems to have endeared him more there, relative to the regional states, and I just don't get why that would happen.

My whole point was to put a ? over the Plain Dealer poll, done by Mason Dixon, that everyone was touting from its track record. The question mark is in my own head, based on the reasons I've given. And I mean both the Sept. and latest poll, because I don't know enough to sort them out.

The rest of you can form any views you wish of the poll. I merely expressed my own thoughts of why the poll results somewhat cofounded me.

[txrangerette]

Oops..."cofounded" = confounded.

[LS]

Well, I do think the race tightened some. My info told me we had an 8 point lead in Sept. That likely got down to about 4%---or roughly where Bush was in 2000 AFTER the DUI---in mid-Oct., after Kerry virtually lived here.

Remember, when someone dominates a local news cycle, one of the effects is to have the "last man standing" phenomena, which is when the pollster calls, a "fence sitter" or someone not paying attention will usually go with the last name they heard. I think a) not a lot of these people actually vote; and b) those who do vote, sometime around Mon. actually spend maybe five minute THINKING about their choice, they they stick with it no matter what. These are not people given to deep analysis of issues.

[faithincowboys]

God, I pray this is right.

[latina4dubya]

there was the first debate, which helped Kerry a little bit, and then add to that the fact that Bush didn't go to Ohio for 18 days... i still think that was a bad idea, especially after the first debate... had he continued to be in Ohio during that time, i believe he would up 8-10 there... and i would be very happy and a lot more calm...

[Diddle E. Squat]

My question is, do we really believe Kerry is somewhat surging in Ohio over the past month, while nationwide most polls are saying Dubya has opened a lead anywhere from slight to outside the margin of error??

Yes, believe it, though OH is still very much in play thanks to the solid GOP GOTV effort. The two primary reasons I am hearing are:

1) Most of the nation is not seeing the bombardment of ads that OH is. Negative ads work, and Bush is getting hammered from all sides(though the campaign is also fighting back) in the tightest swing states.

2) OH's unemployment rate

Right now it looks like Bush will take FL and NM to be at 259EV (or with Iowa 266), and need to take just 1 of these 3 states, OH(20EV), WI(10), and MN(10). It is very unlikely that he's going to win HI or NH or PA or MI without winning 1 of those 3. But the campaign is also facing current judicial rulings restricting the ability to challenge suspected fraudulent new registrants in OH and WI, and same day registration(that is ripe for abuse) in WI and MN.

So if OH slips any further we are likely facing 3 Floridas on Tuesday: OH, WI, and MN. But better to need to win just 1 or 3 than all 3.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Should be:

"But better to need to win just 1 of 3 than all 3."

[latina4dubya]

the thing is, if Bush were up 8 points in Ohio in September, at this point, we should have Ohio in our column--by a sound margin... it should not still be in play... that it's still in play is not good news... i believe we will win Ohio, but it should not have been this difficult, considering that Kerry is losing momentum in many states that should be solid blue...

[hobson]

This is my copy and paste post to all Ohio nail biters. Karl Rove absolutely knows what he's doing. You should read this: Theorizing about the OH Ground Game

Bottom line. The GOP in Ohio is a lean, mean counting machine. They KNOW, down to the person's phone number, who is voting for Bush. Dan Barlett told O'Reilly he guarantees Bush will win Ohio. Now, feel better?

[Diddle E. Squat]

There's a lot of things that should have happened, but Karl Rove proved to be a faux genius.