Posted on 09/24/2004 11:04:58 AM PDT by Tribemike
Rasmussen shows a 3 point erosion to Kerry today....
With Saturday ALWAYS being a big democRAT day, Bush could be trailing in his poll tomorrow.
Rasmussen's poll along with Zogby's are Kerry polls
If you do as Survey USA does....to the Rasmussen numbers...Bush gains another 5 points. Ras weights his polls 39D 34 R and 27 Ind....
we all know the Dems are not thrilled with Kerry so the chance the actual turnout will be 39-34-27 is a fantasy wish.
If you don't weight his poll Bush would have a 6 point lead
No reasonable person takes his polls seriously.
Ok, I'll accept that frenchie is catching up, IF you show me the state that he has made up ground in. He MUST be doing something right somewhere and must be making up ground right? Hee hee hee hee.
PulEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!!!
Just name one state, any state. Where is frenchie coming on?
"47% to 46%, with 7%"undecided". But the "undecideds" usually break towards the incumbent. Figure 2/3. So 47% + (2/3 x 7) = 51.67%. And the IEM vote share was last quoted as 51.8%!"
not true sadly
No the undecideds generally don't go to vote
Urban legend. So is the opposite claim that undecided voters usually break for the challenger. If you really want to know how undecideds will break, look at the President's job approval rating. It is the single best historical predictor of how he will actually poll on Election day.
Zogby will be on the Brinker finance show today.
Hmm...funny you would mention this. Bush's lead over Kerry averages about six points in the latest national polls -- which, if anything, may be slightly conservative (at least until Gallup says it's closer -- I trust Gallup over every other firm and have done so for decades).
As someone recently pointed out, Rasmussen had the race in New York closer than the race in New Hampshire. If that didn't set off a red alert about the reliability of his methodology, nothing will.
I've seen three claims (four if you count this thread.)
One: Undecided break for the challenger.
Two: Undecided break for the incumbent.
Three: Undecided break proportionally to the decided.
Four: (On this thread) Undecided don't vote.
Five: (My observations) Undecided break for the cutest canditate.
Six: (My observations) Undecided break for the taller candidate.
Seven: (My observations) Undecided break for the candidate listed first on the ballot.
I haven't seen the internals for the state polling data but if he uses the same weighting for NY then having a 39% Dem to 34% Rep may explain why so close. I would think NY would swing Democrat in turnout much more than the national average....with that being said he may be underrepresenting Democrats in New York and OVER representing them nationwide.
If you are really undecided...don't you think you are most likely going to stay home? When the majority of people do stay home...the undecideds by and large are the non-voters who get polled. It makes sense really. A lot of people are going to answer a poll saying they are registered and vote etc...makes them look like a better citizen to the pollster. In actuality they may have no intention of voting and say undecided to the pollster because they don't have a clue about those running and undecided is a safe response.
The problem with the "undecided", is the assumption they are a static group. Like the poor, people move from wealth to poverty and from poverty to wealth. People's opinions change over time. At any point, the undecides will include some truly clueless people and some people whose opinions are changing. So, attempting to create a rule about there ultimate vote is foolish because. One might be able to make assumptions based on trends and events that have just occured but to create a rule out of past elections and apply them isn't going to work.
The polls have to be fairly close, but remember they are designed to make news for the most part and not give us a truly accurate picture.
The problem with establishing a too strong test of who a likely voter is, you can end up with samples that contain very strong representation from either end of the spectrum and none from the middle. Imagine running a poll that was comprised of equal parts of Freepers and DU'ers each day. That sample would not fluctuate at all.
Six weeks will not come soon enough.
I've long suspected that too. And not just about Zogby's polls.
Btw, as a sidenote: I heard that Gallup explains its difference from other polls by its methodology. Gallup simply asks pollees, straight out, whom they're voting for.
Whereas Zogby et al ask a long list of leading questions first, before springing the 'Bush or Kerry' question at the very end.
It's like dieting and checking your weight every day.
It's like investing and checking your portfolio value every day.
What does the latest Gallup poll say?
Exactly right.
Lets say a pollster wanted to "influence" the election and didn't care so much about his accuracy. After all if he is successful in leading to vote for his guy..he will after all be accurate.
So lets say Zogby wants Kerry to win. Here is how he does it.
September Bush is up by 7 points
First of October Bush is up by 6 points
Mid October Bush is up by 3 points
Late October Bush is up by 3 points
Weekend before election KERRY LEADS NEW POLL BY 4 POINTS (John Kerry trailing President Bush for the entire election cycle has finally broken through and taken a slight but significant lead over President George W. Bush. Kerry has more than DOUBLED his lead in the gender gap by capturing the female vote and breaks even with Veterans....) blah blah blah. He will do it and because this still falls within the margin of error--Bush could win by 4 points and Zogby could still claim accuracy. Just be careful of the source of the poll. We never see the actual raw data so any of these polls could be cooked to any extreme.
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.