NEW electoral status...............more important than polls

[elf]

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


:toast:

[ladjf]

1. This is good news. Bush was ahead yesterday in this report.

[charlyvi]

2. Isn't this wonderful!

I can't help but think that this is finally the backlash. * has smeared Kerry's military service, his wife, his manhood. Now many more news articles (NYT, Boston Globe) have run stories telling the truth about *'s TANG service.....the backlash. To turn their own phrase back on them---Bush* brought it on himself.

[Frodo]

3. More important than polls, yes

But BASED on polls. And less-reliable polls as well.

[wtmusic]

6. electoral-vote.com backs up Zogby

sufficiently. Do you have some information they don't?

[Frodo]

8. They don't "back up" Zogby,

They are largely BASED on Zogby.

Take a look at Florida. Four polls out just before the Republican convention showed Bush leading there by two to four points. They obviously got some bounce at the convention and can be assumed to be slightly farther in the lead at this point.

But the state is a tossup because of ONE Zogby poll?

And Ohio is noe "solid Bush" based on one Zogby poll? It was tied in another poll just a few days ago. I admit Bush is probably up, but SOLID?

And California is a light blue???

I'd much rather look at a sampling of all the recent polls for a state than assume that the most recent polling firm is correct.

[wtmusic]

15. Read the fine print

below the map. Yes, they *do* back up Zogby. Granted, Zogby is only one poll but they also happened to be the most accurate pollster in the 2000 elections.

Numbers are changing very quickly these days. You lose as much in accuracy by being old as you gain in reliability of numbers.

[Frodo]

16. Incorrect.

I'm not sure how you mean they "back up Zogby". Since they are BASED on Zogby's numbers, they can't be used to SUPPORT his numbers. That's like saying Zogby supports himself.

And no, on a state-by-state level Zogby was NOT the most accurate pollster. Either in 2000, or in '94,'96,'98,or '02.

Zogby's state polling (especially this year when he has apparently changed his methodology) is highly suspect.

[wtmusic]

17. Tsk tsk...you're still not reading...

OK, if I have to spell it out:

"I have gotten e-mail from some people who don't trust Zogby, either because he uses a new technology (normalized Internet polling) or because they don't like his results or because he is personally a Democrat. The technology is indeed new, but telephone polling wasn't trusted when it first came out (sometimes with justification as in the 1936 Literary Digest poll), but it eventually became the norm. Like all pollsters, Zogby normalizes his results to make sure he has correctly weighted for first-time male voters, single white women 25-35, African-American grandmothers, etc. It was for precisely this failure to correct the raw data that Rasmussen chastised Time and Newsweek Monday."

"In 2000, Zogby was the most accurate pollster and the only one to predict Gore would win the popular vote. But the thing that makes me most confident of Zogby is that he is the Wall St Journal's house pollster. The WSJ is not some wacko leftist organization whose goal is to make Kerry look good. They are paying good money for Zogby's services (traditional polls cost around $15,000 per state but obviously the WSJ buys so many polls that they get a very large discount) and are staking their reputation as a newspaper on his results. To me, having a conservative Republican newspaper like the WSJ choose Zogby over all his competitors speaks volumes about his accuracy and professionalism."

"In the 3-day rolling average poll, Rasmussen now has Kerry and Bush exactly tied at 47.3% each nationally, with Kerry 1.2% ahead in the battleground states. If we compare this to the 3-day rolling average poll published Aug. 30, Bush is at exactly the same level he was then and Kerry is 0.9% higher. From these data, it appears that the postconvention bounce is already played out. In short, all the hand-wringing and cheering based on the Time and Newsweek polls was a bit premature. If you are a Democrat, you can stop crying in your beer; if you are a Republican, carefully try to pour the champagne back into the bottle. It is still very close."

Backs it up (the methodology, that is). Can you back up yours?

[Frodo]

20. I read it, he's wrong..

Paragraph one: "I know this is a new form of polling entirely, but I like Zogby - so it must be OK". This is not a scientific statement. Yes, new polling technology HAS been used in the past, and (as he reports) was WAY OFF. And we had another new technology used by Rassmussen in 2000. HE was WAY OFF. Addign Zogby's name to it does NOT make it accurate.

Paragraph two: 1) "Zogby was most accurate in 2000, so I like him." So? As I pointed out, he was NOT the most accurate (or even CLOSE) in the state polling. Which is ALL this site is based on. 2) "A RW paper hired him, so even though he's a Democrat I won't weight his results as if they are partisan." - I don't think Zogby cooks his books either. I just think he is often WRONG at this level. Time and Newsweek are ALSO further "left" than most pollsters... doesn't mean THEY were right.

Paragraph three: "Rassmussen now says it's tied 47-47 so Bush's bounce is already gone". 1)The problem is that Rassmussen DOESN'T say that - in fact has said precisely the opposite. He publicly reported a day of bad data on Saturday that will drop off with today's report. He stated that (as of Monday) they had seen several consecutive days of steady Bush leads with one "blip" in the data. I'm sure it's down under 4% now, but not a tied race. 2) Rassmussen is FAR LESS ACCURATE THAN ZOGBY. This guy is at the BOTTOM of my "accuracy" list. DUers are ONLY paying attention to him right now because his numbers look the most favorable. HIS polling methodology is still unproven. Especially at the state level.


And again. His words don't "back up" the Zogby methodology. They say "I agree with him so I'm using his numbers predominantly". Not at all the same thing.


Edit - If you want to pay attention to state-level polling. Get a firm with a history in that area.

[wtmusic]

4. Yeah baby -- going to Vegas this weekend

to help turn that white state blue!!!

[Inland]

5. You beat me to the post, here's the site I like

Now that the bad pollling or bouncy results have worked their way through the system in two days, back to substantial Kerry lead:



http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm

Strong Kerry and weak Kerry = 201

Strong Bush and Weak Bush = 182

Leaning Kerry = 106

Leaning Bush = 23

Other (no poll, tied) = 18

[9119495]

7. Thanks for keeping the focus where it should be, elf

People need to remember it is only these numbers that matter. Though I hope Kerry wins with a mandate, I can think of no sweeter justice for Bush than to go out a popular vote winner but an EC loser.

Be it known, I really hate the electoral college. I like that the candidates visit most states, but the fact is citizens in the open Western States get a huge advantage over heavily populated Democratic ones. WY=150,000 per EV, CA=611,000 per EV. Smart people (Dems.) get screwed by the EC.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

10. You're not one of them

The post you responded to says nothing about fly over people or hicks. It does mention repukes. I guess you missed that.

[blondeatlast]

11. Please tell Jim that he needs to send over a better class.

You're all very cute, but you're too damn easy.

[DancingBear]

12. These ARE the better class

That's the scary part.

"I liked 6th grade so much I stayed three years."

[9119495]

14. I'm in flyover country. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you know how the EC works, Merc19? Even if all voters were hypothetically equally smart, Republicans would win every election because Dems carry heavily populated states where there are more votes per EV. Reps. carry states where they get more EVs per popular vote cast.

Thus, all I need to do to be president, besides turn 35, is run how the South and the West want me to. I could get to 270 quite easily and not get a single vote from anywhere else. I could lose the popular vote huge and still win. That is undemocratic.

So...

[otohara]

13. Leave Ohio Now!

Looks hopeless according to this

[Jokinomx]

18. WooHoo... Great News... and I know after the debates it will be over

300 for Kerry...

:toast:

[Terran]

19. Their map shows California as "weak" on Kerry

That hardly seems likely.

[DaveinMD]

21. anything under 10 points

is described as week. That was based on the Rasmussen poll. The next field poll should Show California is the solid category.