Uechi-Ryu.com

Drum roll...

John Zogby wrote:Let me try to put it this way: It's close! It's close! It's close!

This slight increase in lead for Bush still keeps the difference small enough to make the lead not statistically significant.

However...

Check out the details. There's a 50% increase in Nader support to go along with that 1% drop in Kerry support. This may be statistical noise...or it may indicate a potential weakness in Kerry's support. The numbers are too small to tell.

Watch for similar see-saw support for Bush vs. Badnarik.

- Bill

ljr posted this interactive state-by-state poll earlier, which allows you to "what if" the electoral college count, along with the latest state poll results.

Generally I wouldn't trust this for three reasons. One, it's really had to do polling correctly, accounting for all your selection biases due to inability to access sectors of the population over phone. Two, most polls do not sample enough people to get an accurate assessment (Check out their published statistical margins of error. Zogby's is always the smallest because his polling numbers are the highest.) And finally, it's the LA Times. While they don't have quite the activist agenda of the New York Times, they still are pretty heavily left leaning.

However I've been following it lately. The source, BTW, is PollingReport.com. It seems to jive with the other polls, and also with Zogby who has the most hits. They don't give their sample sizes, so take the results with a grain of salt. But it's still interesting to look at.

Electoral Vote Tracker

Zogby was publishing his in the WSJ online until a month ago. Now you have to pay John Zogby directly to get it... Yep, you get what you pay for.

- Bill

here is another link that pulls in many of the different polls...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_v ... _sbys.html

cheers,
ljr

Excellent find! I've been looking for a meta-poll like that which will "post." (There's a great graphic-based poll on WSJ Online.) This gives you a real good feel for the "noise" in the estimates.

Beware of the dates on the various polls!!!

Here's another important poll to watch. Fifty percent approval rating is the magic number. Below that, Bush's fortunes are in the hands of fickle voters.

Approval Rating

Once again, beware of the dates when the information was sampled. This election is too close not to pay attention to such details. Also, see how much the numbers vary from poll to poll. (Not surprisingly, the CBS/NYT poll gives Bush the lowest approval ratings)

- Bill

Interesting link from Ian...

Looking it over, it appears that for the most part, the states are polling towards the party that they went to in 2000... with a few exceptions.

Look at those exceptions and it looks like the switches in those states balance each other out basically (IE, bush looses 20 electoral votes in one state, but gains 17 in a couple of others if things fall according to the polls) which means...

Just like 2000 it all comes down to Florida...

Very intersting and then there's the thing that no one has really brought up, which I know some people do...

When called on one of these polls, give out disinformation. Say you're voting for Nader, even though you're voting for Bush... or say you're voting for Badnarik even though you're voting for Kerry! People get fed-up with all of the polls and tracking and yadda-yadda and start making them meaningless by playing with the results as their own personal little way of messing with the system. It's happened before, especially with "exit polling"... people had cast their votes one way and were coming out and saying something completely different, which left more than one News outlet with egg on their face...

We saw some very interesting results like that in Virginia, Panther. Wilder was the first black governor in the state's history. Exit polls showed him way ahead. But he won on the slimest of margins.

Larry Sabato, a U.Va. professor and nationally reknown political analyst, had an interesting commentary on that one. He felt like people said the PC thing to people face-to-face at the exit poll, but they voted their "gut" behind the closed curtain.

In general you need to have a good reason to believe that misinformation is going to have a net effect in one direction. Otherwise you figure it all cancels out.

- Bill

John Zogby wrote:The election is four days away and we are right back where we started, in a toss-up.

Forget the top two candidates. Check out the combined stats for all third party candidates.

10/27 - 1.3 %
10/28 - 2.1 %
10/29 - 2.9 %

Do I detect a growing "None of the above" vote?

- Bill

I intentionally left out commentary on yesterday's polling results. I felt it reflected a trend that since has become irrelevant.

Kerry seems to have made a lot of political hay over a New York Times October story about missing weapons. He was dominating the headlines, and Bush was forced into a defensive mode. I felt this had an effect because:

1) Kerry's support remained constant

2) Bush's support was steadily dropping.

3) Voters were fleeing to third party candidates, with the effect peaking on the Friday results (reported Saturday).

This is a classic "negative campaigning" effect.

Enter Osama. Now the press is forced to follow this story, and Kerry lost control of the microphone.

Now:

1) Kerry made a slight gain.

2) Bush has made bigger gains.

3) Support of third party candidates is waning.

4) Undecideds have almost disappeared. And they did not "rush to the challenger" as the conventional wisdom dictates they do in the final days.

When all is said and done, some folks will wonder if Osama wasn't slipped a few bucks by Republican Special Forces in Afghanistan.

In any case, here is the Sunday result, with the last bar chart representing the average of Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. If there was a "turn around" effect with Osama, this would be the inflection point.



Lots of ways to spin the effect (Bush's way, Kerry's way, no way Jose...), but most think it would help Bush because polls show him stronger on those issues. Whenever the subject of the campaign can be changed away from the post-9/11 economy and Iraq and to national security and terrorism, Bush has the edge.

We shall see...

Furthermore, it has been said that the candidate who takes 2 out of 3 of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will win the election. And the most recent result? Bush is statistically ahead in Florida. Ohio and Pennsylvania remain statistical ties, with Bush a nudge ahead in Ohio and Kerry in Pennsylvania.

How close can you get?

Details here.

- Bill

Here's a piece on politics in Ohio:

"Homosexuals are hellbound!"
Churches in Ohio are rallying their massive flocks behind the most strident anti-gay marriage amendment in the nation -- and the Republican National Committee is in heaven.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... index.html

"Issue 1 is only two sentences long, but there's a world of uncertainty in it. While the first sentence simply decrees that marriage is between a man and a woman, the second says, "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Like many gay couples, Reeves and Mamlin have a whole raft of documents designed to "approximate" marriage, and they have no way of knowing which ones the courts will decide that Ohio can't "recognize." Will agreements that allow them to visit each other in the hospital still be valid? Will their wills?"

Support is at 60% for the measure.

It's worth noting that black americans are being polled as substantially more likely to vote republican this cycle than previously. Why? One theory is that they're liberal on a great many issues--but more religiously conservative and siding with W on gay marriage. Perhaps Bush CAN turn an election that ought to be about economics and foreign policy, among other things, on a nonissue he's used to divide the nation.

I can understand your concerns, Ian. But remember what part of the country you are talking about. This area is adjacent to the bible belt.

However you might find it interesting that I had some fairly interesting conversations this weekend with some folks (who happened to be gay) about Cheney's support of States deciding the gay marriage issue themselves. As I've said before, this candidate has skin in the game. Change takes time, and this man is the ticket to make it real in this lifetime.

I need to take issue with a statement you have made.

It's worth noting that black americans are being polled as substantially more likely to vote republican this cycle than previously. Why? One theory is that they're liberal on a great many issues--but more religiously conservative and siding with W on gay marriage. Perhaps Bush CAN turn an election that ought to be about economics and foreign policy, among other things, on a nonissue he's used to divide the nation.

This really bothers me. Why? Recognize these people?




Oh yea we forget...they're (gasp) black!!

Bush has managed to make being black and successful so normal in his administration that people don't even bloody notice any more. Amazing...

One thing that REALLY bugs me is that sector of the black community that assumes all blacks will vote Democrat and assumes Republicans are anti-black. Except of course for these annoying blacks in Bush's administration.

I guess they are "the wrong blacks."

BTW, ask Don King who he supports this election. Yep...

So...what was the reason why you said blacks were more likely to vote Republican this round? What kind of role model do you want for YOUR kids? Do you steer them to achievement, or continued dependency on government?

And just where is the bigotry here?

- Bill

Bush has managed to make being black and successful so normal in his administration that people don't even bloody notice any more.

You mean the Secretary of State, who has been marginalized for four years?

Gene

Gene DeMambro wrote:

Bush has managed to make being black and successful so normal in his administration that people don't even bloody notice any more.

You mean the Secretary of State, who has been marginalized for four years?

You mean the man who has the highest likelihood of becoming the first black President? (Because it isn't about race, it's about ideology...)

Or, how about Condi Rice for VP?

Rich

VP, Pres, I'll vote for her for either office.

This woman has been a stallwart on the Sunday morning political talk shows. She knows her stuff, and she cannot be tripped up. I love listening to her, George Will, and a few others every Sunday morning. Their command of the facts and clarity of thought are amazing.

I learned about Don King the hard way. I keep taking these AOL quizzes about current events and such, and usually nail them. On a recent one, you were supposed to choose which candidate each of these various folks supported. I got Don King wrong. I prejudged him...

I got to thinking about it, and what an amazing business man he has been through the years (to a fault, in the eyes of some). Then it made sense...

And then of course I should have guessed it from his Republican hairdo...



- Bill

Inflection point indeed. My hypothesis holds...




But where will it settle? And have there been significan polling selection biases due to new registrants, cell phones, etc.?

It all comes down to a state by state battle, and (gag) who has the most lawyers.

- Bill