A Cold Splash of Reality
Jay of the Horserace Blog poses the following question/resolution:
"If the polls are no good...what do we do? I'll tell ya what we do...we look to where the candidates are spending their time. It is very telling, as a matter of fact!"
Do read the article. It is somewhat revealing of what each campaign is thinking and strategizing, and what each thinks its most pressing needs are.
But I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the premise: "If the polls are no good..." That's the kind of thing that supporters of the losing candidate in a race are want to say.
Here's another example.
Today Captain Ed wrote:
"I remain highly suspicious of both Zogby's methods and results. Reuters reports one of the reasons; the new Zogby poll shows Bush with just a 35% job-approval rating, far below that of all other polls. This skewed result indicates a poor sample resulting from the on-line methodology used by Zogby. Most other polls have Bush's job-approval rating around the 50% mark, meaning that Zogby overpolled Bush haters by at least ten points. And yet the best Kerry can get is a tie."
First of all, the Cap'n makes two mistakes: (1) the 35% Bush job approval rating, as one of the ensuing reader comments indicates, was among undecideds, not the whole sample; and (2) this is a conventional (i.e. phone-driven) three-day tracking poll, not Zogby's loopy state-by-state internet cybermasturbating. But that's really beside the point.
The fact is John Zogby called both the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections closer to the pin than any other pollster, period. He bullseyed Clinton's 49%-41% popular vote win over Bob Dole, and he was the only pollster to catch the post-DUI surge toward Al Gore in 2000. He has the prestige and credibility that every other survey organization lacks for very good reason: he has the track record to back it up.
Yes, I'm aware of his godawful handicapping in the 2002 mid-terms, but those were by definition state-by-state surveys, not national ones. And yes, I know that after 9/11 the Arab-American Zogby's bias toward the President is undisguised, as when he called this campaign John Kerry's to lose over six months ago. And yes, it is more than a little disspiriting to log onto realclearpolitics.com on your day off and see Zogby credit that gigolo dullard with a three point lead over Dubya. And no, I don't go soley by Zogby, though I give his poll the heaviest weighting in my polling composite (along with Fox/Opinion Dynamics and Harris).
But numbers and track record don't lie. And when it comes to that, Zogby is Da Man.
Contrary to Jonathan Rothenberg's laboring optimism, the polling trend is moving away from the President, not toward him. And it isn't just Zogby that says so. The fact is that from the four-point lead that Bush held in my composite on the day of Debate I, he steadily declined to the 1.5-point lead posted yesterday. Today was the first day that showed movement back toward GDub, and one day does not a trend make.
If the election were tomorrow (bearing in mind the rampant Democrat fraud and violence across the country) and I had to call it, I would designate John Kerry as the next President of the United States.
Fortunately (perhaps), the election isn't tomorrow. But Debate III is, and because of his perceived pratfall in Debate I, the President has to do at least as well as he did last Friday in St. Louis. If he matches or exceeds that performance, I think he'll eke out a two or three point popular vote win and scrape by similarly in the Electoral College.
If we get the Coral Gables Bush, you can stick a fork in him.
And the poll numbers that reflect it won't be wrong.
Not even Zogby's.
UPDATE: Look at this (hat tip to the KerrySpot):
"Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, citing vote-fraud concerns, is publicly balking at a City of Milwaukee request for almost 260,000 additional ballots in anticipation of high turnout for the November 2nd presidential election.
"Mayor Tom Barrett blasted Walker's stance, and Common Council President Willie Hines Jr. immediately joined in, saying it was an attempt to suppress the central-city vote.
"'I'm going to lay this at the footsteps of the county if there aren't enough ballots in the city,' said Barrett.
"Barrett said that the 679,000 ballots the county had agreed to print were less than the amount prepared for the presidential election in 2000 as well as for the the gubernatorial race in 2002. He and the city's top election official said that the city requested 938,000 ballots from the county, which, by law, pays for and prints ballots.
"In a letter sent to City Elections chief Lisa Artison, Walker said that he had 'serious questions' about the need for that many ballots when the city reported having 382,000 registered voters in September.
Wisconsin radio show host Charlie Sykes observes:
"The total population in Milwaukee: 596,974 in 2000 and 593,920 in 2004 The total number of people who are of legal voting age in Milwaukee in 2004: 423,811
"Total votes cast in 2000 fall election: 245,670 Total votes cast in 2002 fall election: 141,351 (pre-registration of 335,889)"
So Milwaukee city officials are in essence demanding that the county provide them with 260,000 additional fraudulent Kerry votes. This would be, by my estimates, 12% of the probable Wisconsin vote.
I've been using 2% as my vote fraud discount.
If this is any indication, that is a vast, naive underestimate.
If this is any indication, Democrats and Republicans are playing two entirely different games in this campaign - the latter playing conventionally and honestly, the latter playing for keeps.
If this is any indication, George W. Bush doesn't have a prayer and never did.
And a new dark age is about to begin.
"If the polls are no good...what do we do? I'll tell ya what we do...we look to where the candidates are spending their time. It is very telling, as a matter of fact!"
Do read the article. It is somewhat revealing of what each campaign is thinking and strategizing, and what each thinks its most pressing needs are.
But I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the premise: "If the polls are no good..." That's the kind of thing that supporters of the losing candidate in a race are want to say.
Here's another example.
Today Captain Ed wrote:
"I remain highly suspicious of both Zogby's methods and results. Reuters reports one of the reasons; the new Zogby poll shows Bush with just a 35% job-approval rating, far below that of all other polls. This skewed result indicates a poor sample resulting from the on-line methodology used by Zogby. Most other polls have Bush's job-approval rating around the 50% mark, meaning that Zogby overpolled Bush haters by at least ten points. And yet the best Kerry can get is a tie."
First of all, the Cap'n makes two mistakes: (1) the 35% Bush job approval rating, as one of the ensuing reader comments indicates, was among undecideds, not the whole sample; and (2) this is a conventional (i.e. phone-driven) three-day tracking poll, not Zogby's loopy state-by-state internet cybermasturbating. But that's really beside the point.
The fact is John Zogby called both the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections closer to the pin than any other pollster, period. He bullseyed Clinton's 49%-41% popular vote win over Bob Dole, and he was the only pollster to catch the post-DUI surge toward Al Gore in 2000. He has the prestige and credibility that every other survey organization lacks for very good reason: he has the track record to back it up.
Yes, I'm aware of his godawful handicapping in the 2002 mid-terms, but those were by definition state-by-state surveys, not national ones. And yes, I know that after 9/11 the Arab-American Zogby's bias toward the President is undisguised, as when he called this campaign John Kerry's to lose over six months ago. And yes, it is more than a little disspiriting to log onto realclearpolitics.com on your day off and see Zogby credit that gigolo dullard with a three point lead over Dubya. And no, I don't go soley by Zogby, though I give his poll the heaviest weighting in my polling composite (along with Fox/Opinion Dynamics and Harris).
But numbers and track record don't lie. And when it comes to that, Zogby is Da Man.
Contrary to Jonathan Rothenberg's laboring optimism, the polling trend is moving away from the President, not toward him. And it isn't just Zogby that says so. The fact is that from the four-point lead that Bush held in my composite on the day of Debate I, he steadily declined to the 1.5-point lead posted yesterday. Today was the first day that showed movement back toward GDub, and one day does not a trend make.
If the election were tomorrow (bearing in mind the rampant Democrat fraud and violence across the country) and I had to call it, I would designate John Kerry as the next President of the United States.
Fortunately (perhaps), the election isn't tomorrow. But Debate III is, and because of his perceived pratfall in Debate I, the President has to do at least as well as he did last Friday in St. Louis. If he matches or exceeds that performance, I think he'll eke out a two or three point popular vote win and scrape by similarly in the Electoral College.
If we get the Coral Gables Bush, you can stick a fork in him.
And the poll numbers that reflect it won't be wrong.
Not even Zogby's.
UPDATE: Look at this (hat tip to the KerrySpot):
"Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, citing vote-fraud concerns, is publicly balking at a City of Milwaukee request for almost 260,000 additional ballots in anticipation of high turnout for the November 2nd presidential election.
"Mayor Tom Barrett blasted Walker's stance, and Common Council President Willie Hines Jr. immediately joined in, saying it was an attempt to suppress the central-city vote.
"'I'm going to lay this at the footsteps of the county if there aren't enough ballots in the city,' said Barrett.
"Barrett said that the 679,000 ballots the county had agreed to print were less than the amount prepared for the presidential election in 2000 as well as for the the gubernatorial race in 2002. He and the city's top election official said that the city requested 938,000 ballots from the county, which, by law, pays for and prints ballots.
"In a letter sent to City Elections chief Lisa Artison, Walker said that he had 'serious questions' about the need for that many ballots when the city reported having 382,000 registered voters in September.
Wisconsin radio show host Charlie Sykes observes:
"The total population in Milwaukee: 596,974 in 2000 and 593,920 in 2004 The total number of people who are of legal voting age in Milwaukee in 2004: 423,811
"Total votes cast in 2000 fall election: 245,670 Total votes cast in 2002 fall election: 141,351 (pre-registration of 335,889)"
So Milwaukee city officials are in essence demanding that the county provide them with 260,000 additional fraudulent Kerry votes. This would be, by my estimates, 12% of the probable Wisconsin vote.
I've been using 2% as my vote fraud discount.
If this is any indication, that is a vast, naive underestimate.
If this is any indication, Democrats and Republicans are playing two entirely different games in this campaign - the latter playing conventionally and honestly, the latter playing for keeps.
If this is any indication, George W. Bush doesn't have a prayer and never did.
And a new dark age is about to begin.
posted by JASmius at 10:00 PM
<<< Home