Asymmetrical Information

I may be misunderstanding you, but weren't all of the polls that the map is based on taken prior to the debate? And wouldn't that explain why all three of the following claims were true: (a) Kerry won the debate, (b) Kerry did better in the national polls, and (c) the map shows Kerry losing by a wide margin?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Yes, for example, I know Kerry now has an eight point lead in NJ, but none of the electoral vote maps show it yet because the numbers were just released. I suspect we will have a better sense of how the map is colored by Wednesday or Thursday. In additio, I find the above electoral map much better, as it is updated daily.

Several points which may clear up some of your confusion (or at least leave you with different points of confusion):

1. The RealClearPolitics average of national polls was Bush +4-5% before the debate, which may not be as high as you're thinking Bush's advantage was. The average as of this writing was Bush +2.7 -- a shift within the margin of error, but probably reflective of Kerry's debate win (and subsequent hype thereof).

2. The state polls are pre-debate polls.

3. The Newsweek poll is flawed. The Thursday night sample was drawn from the Mountain and Pacific time zones only (thereby excluding regions like the South, which favor Bush). Moreover, as noted at The American Thinker, fewer than half of all registered voters saw the debate, but 74% of Newsweek’s survey group did. Plus, the Newsweek sample thought Kerry won by a margin much larger than that reported by CNN, CBS, etc. in their post-debate flash polling.

Some on the right have complained about the change in party ID in the Newsweek sample. I've posted here on that subject before and won't rehash it here, as I think the issue with the Thurday night sample is the real problem with this poll.

Finally, the Newsweek poll is of registered voters, which is a bit unusual this close to election day. Usually, polls of registered voters favor the Democratic candidate. That has not always been true this year, as Bush has polled pretty well among younger voters. However, I do not know whether the recent draft scare by some on the left (promoted uncritically by some in the media, e.g., CBS) dropped Bush's numbers with the young; there hasn't been any analysis on this point, afaik.

4. The post-debate polls from Newsweek and CNN/USA Today/Gallup (which has it dead even) inherently involve weekend polling (and presumably the same will be true of the ABC News tracking poll to be unveiled tonight). As I've noted before, weekend polls for some reason have historically tended to favor the Democratic candidate.

5. Democracy Corps, the unit run by Carville and Stanley Greenberg had Bush +4 before the debate and +2 afterward (among likely voters) -- roughly in line with the RCP average noted above.

The most probable conclusion is that over the past two weeks or so, the race has gone from Bush +4 or 5 (as I had surmised in a prior thread), to the Bush +1 to 3 that you had thought it was. However, as with the small bump Kerry got from his convention and the larger one Bush got from his, the numbers will probably shift back a bit as time lapses from the event, leaving Bush with a modest advantage. The caveat to this is that if Bush turns in a trio of bad debates, as Gore did in 2000, we may be looking at another knuckle-biter in November.

So many of these polls are absurd. There are only a handful of polling organizations worth taking seriously: Gallup, Mason-Dixon, Zogby, maybe Rassmussen, maybe a couple of others.

Look at the Newsweek poll closely. It was a weekend poll (always undercounts Republicans), it was weighted toward Democrats and included people who were polled in the immediate aftermath before they had time to reflect.

In other words, utterly meaningless.

It may be that Kerry utterly trounced Kerry, but there will be no reliable polling on the matter until samples are taken Monday thru Wednesday, or thereabouts.

Er... "It may be that Kerry utterly trounced Bush" is what I meant to say above.

Must! Use! Preview!

This post brought to you by the letter </b>. ;)

It is also possible that viewers have disconnected "winning the debate" from "being a great president". By analogy, Kerry would more than likely win a "presidential egg race", but that would not change many voters minds about who was/would be a better president.

The problem with polls in general is that they are just not as reliable as they were ten years ago. They miss people with cell phones. They miss people who use caller id to screen calls. They miss people who hang up on surveys. People are so much more skeptical of a phone call into their home that asks for information about them than they used to be.

Does anyone really believe that Bush went from winning by 11 to trailing by 3 due to one poor debate performance? The Gallup polls are especially all over the place this time and in 2000. Gallup's negative bump for Kerry from his convention was not a credible poll. Gallup had Bush up by 13 over Gore with two weeks to go, and Gore ends up getting 48.8 to 48.6 on election day. Did things swing that radically, or was the poll flawed? The latter seems more credible.

The average trend in the polls is worth considering, but Bush had a 3 point lead in 2000 based on the average polls, and it didn't turn out that way on election day.

And throwing out the polls doesn't mean the race is tied, which seems to be the media CW when they lose faith in the polls.

Electoral-vote.com has talked about the cell-phone issue in depth. Namely that the pollsters do try to take these sampling errors into account via normalization (which has its own issues, of course).

Does anyone know somebody whose mind was actually changed from the debate, or even an undecided person who made up his/her mind from the debate?

... me neither

I intuition is that the polls stayed pretty much the same

Attention All Kool Aide Drinkers!

Kerry didn't win the debate, You can't win a debate by using lies, mis-statements and by not answering the questions.
As for the ones he actually did answer, his long held convictions bubbled out and they showed us all who the real John Kerry is. It wasn't pretty.

That is even without addressing the insipid questions asked by the moderator. Where do they get these guys?

The first blush judging by the talking heads and even by (sorry, I don't remember his name, Dem names all sound alike to me) the Dem guy who got caught un-aware by the camera, all thought it was at best a draw for Kerry. But before the debate they all thought Kerry would get his butt kicked and, by comparison, the pundits convinced themselves, that, by not being a disaster --- "He Won"

Sorry GWB won, he delivered the six perfectly placed blows of death. Kerry is dead (figuratively) it's just that he and the press and probably you, don't know it yet.

Daddy, is that why even people like Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan are saying the Kerry helped his cause? Is that why the Gallup poll, which had Bush up 8 is now even?

“Sorry GWB won, he delivered the six perfectly placed blows of death. Kerry is dead (figuratively) it's just that he and the press and probably you, don't know it yet.”

I’m a afraid he just looked dead, apparently getting rid of the pumpkin look just in time. In debating, one of the best qualities ascribed to him by a former rival was his ability to “shape shift” with impunity. Oddly enough a focus group that listened over the radio had the opinion that GWB clearly won. Polls now show that GWB lost some ground but still has a substantial electoral lead. As I understand, many of the polls were taken during the weekend in the western and Pacific Time zones with about a 6% republican participation. In my few years of caring about the method of polling, this election cycle seems to favor polling in non-traditional methods, i.e. on weekends, in areas of less than unbiased participants.

A cynic could suspect that organizations, like CNN, are playing politics with polling data, like showing GWB way up before the debate and way down or even after the debate, knowing that many mugwamps are very swayed by the opinions of others.

Oddly enough it was observable that the “glib” Mr. Kerry had pulled something out of his pocket and appeared to many to “unfold” it. My guess is it was a note from Mom to remind him of which opinion he had to use for the debate. Since I’ve watched him enough to know that staying on track is not a strong suit, that's my guess. Whether it was a pen, as claimed or a cheat sheet, he just can’t play by the rules.

See my XLS spreadsheet on the current electorial status

The debate itself was probably a straight draw. Kerry did help himself, though, by not coming off as an arrogant stiff. Bush looked tired and cranky, as well he might (you try working at a high-stress job all day and then go on worldwide TV at nine at night, only to be attacked by some clodhopper.)

In the end, does it matter? Naah. Bush still wins this thing, possibly by a large margin.

When did Bush actually WORK at a high stress job.

Bush won what counted, forget the "debating points":

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/10/read-em-and-weep-usual-suspects.html

The internals show Bush to be more trustworthy, more believable, more likable, and stronger (by 17 points!). It's over.

When did Bush actually WORK at a high stress job[?]

He's the President of the United States. There's a war on; thousands, perhaps millions of lives hang in the balance. Untold numbers of people want to kill him, his wife, his children.

Try to keep up.

RMc,

Is that why this President has taken more vacation time than any other President in history?

--Cobra

Is that why this President has taken more vacation time than any other President in history?

If there's a man in this country who deserves a vacation, it's Bush -- hell, even if the worst happens and Kerry wins, at least W will be able to take this awful burden off his shoulders. (Of course, there will still be people who'll want to kill him and his wife and his daughters, but never mind.)

Besides, being followed around everywhere (even on "vacation") by a guy carrying nuclear launch codes isn't exactly a recipe for relaxation...

"Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan are saying the Kerry helped his cause?"

So what, as far as I am concerned THE PUNDITS GOT IT WRONG (including them), Can't you read?.

"it's just that he and the press and probably you, don't know it yet."
Just keep on drinking that Kool Aide, I am enjoying the show and will be, until the grand finale. You know -- the French Toast scene.

RMC,Bush had the job but doesn't seem to work hard at it. He has taken more vacation time than any president in history, admits he doesn't like to read anything longer than five pages, unless its a children's book in a time of crisis and has someone summarize the newspapers for him. I would tell to read more if I didn't think it would tire your lips so.

I would tell to read more if I didn't think it would tire your lips so.

And I'd tell you to watch another Michael Moore film if you weren't already blind.

Next!

Comments are Closed.