Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Polls => Topic started by: ElectionAtlas on May 14, 2004, 01:33:31 PM



Title: Polls
Post by: ElectionAtlas on May 14, 2004, 01:33:31 PM
Hi,
I've created a new polls section that I would like to encourage you all to use (instead of forum threads - I think that it is more efficiently organized).  Its linked in on the 2004 page (titled "Polls") at

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php

Comments and discussion of the individual polls is supported.
I've also allowed for users to add to the polls database.  Currently, only Vorlon and Dave Leip are enabled to add polls.  If you would like to join this list, please contact me with an email.
Thanks,
Dave


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: California Dreamer on May 14, 2004, 01:51:00 PM
This is a very cool feature

One question...if a poll has various version (eg: Gallup poll has All Adults, Registerd, and likely for both with and withouit Nader, created 6 different possible entries) which should be used? of enter all of them?

RE: email
sorry if this is obvious and I just missed it. but how does one email you...your profile says 'hidden'


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ElectionAtlas on May 14, 2004, 01:53:18 PM
You can send me email via the "email" link at the top of every page (between Guestbook and Links).
Dave


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ilikeverin on May 14, 2004, 04:15:01 PM
You're the all great one dave!  Thanks bunches.  I'll follow this site :)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ilikeverin on May 14, 2004, 04:15:24 PM
Hey, cool!  It posts my prediction when I make a comment!

I like it :D


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 15, 2004, 06:46:08 PM
Great Job Dave,

Suggest everyone take a look at the results of the National Council on Public Polls Review Board with respect to the 2002 polls.

Zogby not only had the highest margin of error of the five polling organizations but also had far and away the highest error rate in predicting the winner!


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Beet on May 20, 2004, 11:00:03 PM
It's surprising that Louisiana has never been polled, given how close Arkansas turned out.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on May 20, 2004, 11:03:18 PM
It's surprising that Louisiana has never been polled, given how close Arkansas turned out.

Louisiana was polled at the end of March by "Southern Media."  The poll had Bush leading 52-38.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on May 21, 2004, 01:09:01 PM
LA is notoriously hard to poll.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: bergie72 on May 24, 2004, 08:48:14 PM
Has anyone else signed up for the Zogby online polling?   I did today, and already took completed my first poll.

It takes so little to make me happy some days...  :-)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: zachman on May 24, 2004, 08:51:03 PM
Has anyone else signed up for the Zogby online polling?   I did today, and already took completed my first poll.

It takes so little to make me happy some days...  :-)
No I haven't. How did you answer the poll?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: bergie72 on May 24, 2004, 08:57:53 PM
Has anyone else signed up for the Zogby online polling?   I did today, and already took completed my first poll.

It takes so little to make me happy some days...  :-)
No I haven't. How did you answer the poll?



Ugh..  that was a couple of hours ago, so I don't remember the exact questions, but here's a stab at it:
1)  Bush/Kerry  (A: Bush)
2)  Bush/Kerry/Nader   (A: Bush)
3)  Job Approval?  
a few more questions after that, then it was the background questions.  State?  Party registration?  Born-again Christian? (surprised at that one)..  Income, Education, and a few more.  Took less than 5 minutes.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: bergie72 on May 24, 2004, 09:01:14 PM
Duh!!   Found the link that has some of the questions.  If you live in one of the battleground states (NH, PA, OH, MI, WV, FL, MO, IA, WI, MN, WA, OR, NV, TN, NM or AR), you can be part of Zogby's online interactive polling.

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=212


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: MODU on May 24, 2004, 09:07:28 PM

I always find that it takes me 10-15 minutes to do a Zogby poll since their website is slow.  Anyone else have that issue?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 24, 2004, 10:38:40 PM
Do I have to pay to take the battleground poll?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: bergie72 on May 24, 2004, 10:49:46 PM
Do I have to pay to take the battleground poll?

No -- that is just a sample of the questions.  If you go to the home page, below or to the right of the US Map, you can sign up to be part of the Interactive surveys.

Or just click here:
http://interactive.zogby.com/battleground/indexweb.cfm

Sorry about that!


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: King on May 27, 2004, 01:22:11 PM
Dave do you think you can make another map of the tossup states and who is currently leading in the polls of them?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Lunar on May 28, 2004, 11:59:18 AM
Can you assume any states which have not been polled go to their 2000 victor?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 28, 2004, 12:06:26 PM
Can you assume any states which have not been polled go to their 2000 victor?

Almost certainly.

Some democrats think Virginia may be close, (A POS showed Bush +7 but that poll made almost Doomsday assumptions from a GOP perspective) but I don't think any of the other unpolled states have a ton of suspense left in them...

I think it is safe to put Wyoming in the GOP column and The District of Columbia to Kerry :D


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Lunar on May 28, 2004, 01:58:09 PM
I knew that, sorry for the miscommunication.

I was asking Dave to start assuming that in his model.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 28, 2004, 09:34:52 PM
I knew that, sorry for the miscommunication.

I was asking Dave to start assuming that in his model.

I put all the 2000 results in already.. every state has a result now...


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on May 28, 2004, 10:00:13 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys2.html

Hey that is a good state poll thing... if some one wants to send it to dave...


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: cognacXO on May 29, 2004, 12:02:16 AM
Bush is goin to lose the election by a landslide.  Trust me. hehe.  I'm a republican, but I cant stand bush.  He grew up with a silver spoon and had an easy life.  He was a deserter to.  Bush has gotten away with everything easy.  Bush is a moron also.  


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 01:40:04 AM
Bush is goin to lose the election by a landslide.  Trust me. hehe.  I'm a republican, but I cant stand bush.  He grew up with a silver spoon and had an easy life.  He was a deserter to.  Bush has gotten away with everything easy.  Bush is a moron also.  

One word for you....Troll.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 07:50:47 AM

You beat me to it ;)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 29, 2004, 09:28:05 AM
Several things I have seen in a number of polls (different organizations):

1. Bush support is firmer than Kerry's,

2. Bush support is primarily support FOR Bush while half or more of the Kerry support is merely ANTI-BUSH,

3. when the undecideds and leaners are asked to respond to a variety of issue questions they consistently score significantly closer to the core Bush supporters than they do to the core Kerry supporters (or more accurately anti=Bush people).


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 29, 2004, 11:14:04 AM
Several things I have seen in a number of polls (different organizations):

1. Bush support is firmer than Kerry's,

2. Bush support is primarily support FOR Bush while half or more of the Kerry support is merely ANTI-BUSH,

3. when the undecideds and leaners are asked to respond to a variety of issue questions they consistently score significantly closer to the core Bush supporters than they do to the core Kerry supporters (or more accurately anti=Bush people).

Correct on #1
Correct on #2

Please provide examples and links on #3

Please & Thank-you :)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Lunar on May 29, 2004, 11:18:15 AM
The trick is to find undecided, likely voters rather than just undecided.  I would be surprised if many had very strong conservative or liberal beliefs.

I see Vorlon finally has a Nov 2nd prediction.  You have Kerry doing better in the Southwest than I do.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 11:21:44 AM
I can't see the image of his Nov. 2 prediction...only te top half :(


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Lunar on May 29, 2004, 11:22:35 AM
It's like mine but Kerry picking up Nevada and New Mexico.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 11:26:29 AM
OK, thanks


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: khirkhib on May 29, 2004, 11:28:44 AM
Nevada and New Mexico well that's just gravy.  If Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia all go Kerry. The west coast might just go out and party.  I started a topic on how the media calling the states might affect votes on the west coast.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 29, 2004, 11:32:39 AM
The trick is to find undecided, likely voters rather than just undecided.  I would be surprised if many had very strong conservative or liberal beliefs.

I see Vorlon finally has a Nov 2nd prediction.  You have Kerry doing better in the Southwest than I do.

There is (number varies widely depending on what you look at) "about" 8% of the population called the "Good Citizen" block.

They almost always vote because they are, well, good citizens who think you should vote, but are weakly (if at all) associated with any party or cause.

They are... an adventure... to try to poll properly.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 29, 2004, 04:16:35 PM
Several things I have seen in a number of polls (different organizations):

1. Bush support is firmer than Kerry's,

2. Bush support is primarily support FOR Bush while half or more of the Kerry support is merely ANTI-BUSH,

3. when the undecideds and leaners are asked to respond to a variety of issue questions they consistently score significantly closer to the core Bush supporters than they do to the core Kerry supporters (or more accurately anti=Bush people).

Correct on #1
Correct on #2

Please provide examples and links on #3

Please & Thank-you :)

Unfortunately, the polls which have explicity differeniated between the beliefs of Kerry voters, Bush voters and undecided voters on the issues are not available for publication at this time.

The sources which have commissioned the surveys are more interested in used the data than in publishing it at this time.

The Kerry campaign is well aware of this which explains the waffling by Kerry.  His core supporters (actually mostly anti-Bush voters) agree with the stances he took on the issues during his Senate career.  He is backing off on those issues (attempting to obfuscate the issues) because his campaign is well aware of the fact that the undecided voters differ in their preferences from those earlier Kerry positions and prefer the position held by Bush.

I hope on of the reputable public pollsters (i.e. news media funded) will provide the data (they can easily correlate this).





Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on May 29, 2004, 09:18:59 PM
Just saw a Mason - Dixon Poll taken May 20 - 25 which shows Bush up 47 - 41 in Ohio (registered voters).  I'm really confused now.  I look at the national polls and see Bush running slightly behind in some polls and wonder how this can be.  I guess I'm looking for these state polls to be totally reflective of the national data.  I guess it just doesn't work that way always.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 29, 2004, 09:55:21 PM
Just saw a Mason - Dixon Poll taken May 20 - 25 which shows Bush up 47 - 41 in Ohio (registered voters).  I'm really confused now.  I look at the national polls and see Bush running slightly behind in some polls and wonder how this can be.  I guess I'm looking for these state polls to be totally reflective of the national data.  I guess it just doesn't work that way always.

link?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on May 29, 2004, 10:01:01 PM
http:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144542/posts


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 29, 2004, 10:16:16 PM
Too many people are too trusting of survey results.

First, there is a sample size error, which on national polls for total results, typically runs from more than two to four per cent.

That is to say that a 50-50 tie for the total sample could easily be 52-48, or 48-52 (just considering size alone).

Second, virtually all surveys are telephone polls.  Since federal law prohibits calling a person who might be charged for receiving the call (which is the case with some cell phones), this skews the results.

Third, with systems such as Call Intercept, many landline potential respondents are removed from consideration.

Fourth, a large number of persons answering the phone refuse to participate in the surveys, or do not complete the survey.

Fifth, there is an open question as to how many respondents lie in their responses.

Sixth, the screening of the sample is very important, and problematical.  The better surveys use past voting behavior as more creditable that self-proclaimed intent to vote.

Seventh, the phrasing of the question can change the result.  All to often what is reported is the analysis of the results, rather than the exact wording of the question.

Eighth, the horserace question answers can be affected by other questions preceding the horserace questions.

Ninth, the responses can also vary as to what candidates are included.  Is Nader included?

Tenth, the date(s) the survey questions were posed can affect the result.  Some of the surveys showing Bush doing badly were taken during the period when the liberal media was playing a 24 hours wall to wall coverage of the prison scandal in Iraq.

These are just a few of the matters which affect survey results.  

In short, view all 'poll' results with a jaundiced eye.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on May 29, 2004, 10:19:26 PM
Excellent points.  Your last point is particularly relevant.  What small variance that can be seen in the Rasmussen tracking poll seems to be a product of the news - the prison scandal is a prime example.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 29, 2004, 11:06:40 PM
Too many people are too trusting of survey results.

First, there is a sample size error, which on national polls for total results, typically runs from more than two to four per cent.

That is to say that a 50-50 tie for the total sample could easily be 52-48, or 48-52 (just considering size alone).

Second, virtually all surveys are telephone polls.  Since federal law prohibits calling a person who might be charged for receiving the call (which is the case with some cell phones), this skews the results.

Third, with systems such as Call Intercept, many landline potential respondents are removed from consideration.

Fourth, a large number of persons answering the phone refuse to participate in the surveys, or do not complete the survey.

Fifth, there is an open question as to how many respondents lie in their responses.

Sixth, the screening of the sample is very important, and problematical.  The better surveys use past voting behavior as more creditable that self-proclaimed intent to vote.

Seventh, the phrasing of the question can change the result.  All to often what is reported is the analysis of the results, rather than the exact wording of the question.

Eighth, the horserace question answers can be affected by other questions preceding the horserace questions.

Ninth, the responses can also vary as to what candidates are included.  Is Nader included?

Tenth, the date(s) the survey questions were posed can affect the result.  Some of the surveys showing Bush doing badly were taken during the period when the liberal media was playing a 24 hours wall to wall coverage of the prison scandal in Iraq.

These are just a few of the matters which affect survey results.  

In short, view all 'poll' results with a jaundiced eye.


If you see 2 or 3 or 4 saying more or less the same thing, there is a "decent" chance its true, but one poll by its self is always a bit suspect.

The quality of the firms doing polls also varies hugely.  They range from really excellent to pretty dodgy.  Take a look at a firms last 100 polls compared to actual results, and consider the source.

A few kinda scary polling stats:

Even assuming a "perfect" poll with no methodological errors of any kind (ya... right....) where the only source or error is random chance.....

A sample size of 500 has a 50% of being with 3% of the "true" value (ie if it says X leads y by 5%, there is only a 50% chance the "true" lead is between 2% and 8%

A sample size of 600 has a 53% of being within 3% of the "true" value

A sample size of 800 has a 60% of being within 3% of the "true" value

A sample size of 1000 has a 66% of being within 3% of the "true" value

A sample size of 1500 has a 75% of being within 3% of the "true" value

<<Sixth, the screening of the sample is very important, and problematical.  The better surveys use past voting behavior as more creditable that self-proclaimed intent to vote>>

Yes, very very true.

Gallup uses a total of 13 questions (some of them with more than 1 part) to sort out "likely" votersas an example.  Thes little 2 and 3 question screens a lot of 2nd teir firms use are better than nothing, but barely....

If you simply ask people if the are "almost certain" or "very likely" to vote, you get a projected turnout of typically 85% or so... as compared to reality which is 50 something...

Your point re cell phones is very important.  Currently about 3% of people have ONLY a cell phone, so they are systemically excluded for polls.  

They tend to be young and typically have low voter turnout so it is not a huge issue yet, but it is a growing and real problem for pollsters.  

It is also a issue I cannot see a solution for that does not involve some fairly aggresive assumptions that I would be pretty uncomfortable building into a poll.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 11:10:04 PM
The situation with the cell phones may well be resolved soon. A national cell phone book is in the works listing all cell phone numbers nationwide.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 29, 2004, 11:16:46 PM
The situation with the cell phones may well be resolved soon. A national cell phone book is in the works listing all cell phone numbers nationwide.

The issue is not availability - it is legal.

It is ILLEGAL under federal law for a polling firm to make a call to a line that may be charged for the call (ie many cell phones) We just simply are no allowed to call cell phones under current law.

NAPOR (the professional association for pollsters) is trying to get the big cell companies to try to find a fix (ie have the polling firm pay for the call) but till then the issue is legal, not technical.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 11:18:42 PM
The situation with the cell phones may well be resolved soon. A national cell phone book is in the works listing all cell phone numbers nationwide.

The issue is not availability - it is legal.

It is ILLEGAL under federal law for a polling firm to make a call to a line that may be charged for the call (ie many cell phones) We just simply are no allowed to call cell phones under current law.

NAPOR (the professional association for pollsters) is trying to get the big cell companies to try to find a fix (ie have the polling firm pay for the call) but till then the issue is legal, not technical.

Get me called and polled! I'd love to do a poll sometime! JeffHokie@msn.com if you have any way to get me on.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 29, 2004, 11:58:07 PM
Just saw a Mason - Dixon Poll taken May 20 - 25 which shows Bush up 47 - 41 in Ohio (registered voters).  I'm really confused now.  I look at the national polls and see Bush running slightly behind in some polls and wonder how this can be.  I guess I'm looking for these state polls to be totally reflective of the national data.  I guess it just doesn't work that way always.

A poll with a poorly sorted out screen for likely voters will show big, and not real, shifts in public opinion in reaction to events like the prison thing.

Remember that in a lot of these recent national registered voter polls, about 1/3rd of the people included will not be actual voters, and many of them when the "leaners" are pushed will just sway in the wind with the last news story they heard on the nightly news...

(The Mason Dixon is Likely voters BTW - MD's are NEVER registered)

The poll, conducted May 20-25 by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, is based on interviews with 1,500 registered voters who plan to vote in November. The poll, which has a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points, is the largest presidential poll taken in Ohio this year. [/i]

The typical "bounce" from the conventions is "about" 10% - after the first convention candidate X goes up 10%, then after the other convention candidate Y goes up 10%.

Is this swing of 10% "real"...?   of course not...

A bunch of folks who are not voting anyway are just swaying in the wind.

I a, not picking on Survey USA here, (just have a link handy) they are a loooong way from the worse firm out there, but their last Iowa poll talked to 879 people 794 of whom were deemed "likely" - I have no idea what Iowa turnout will be in 2004, but I happily bet you a reasonably fresh bag of donuts it will not be 794/879 = 90% !

1/4 to 1/3 of the people in that poll simply will not vote.  This makes the validity of the poll suspect.  And a lot of that 1/4 to 1/3 just sway in the wind based upon the last news story they saw.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Duke on May 30, 2004, 12:02:14 AM
Just saw a Mason - Dixon Poll taken May 20 - 25 which shows Bush up 47 - 41 in Ohio (registered voters).  I'm really confused now.  I look at the national polls and see Bush running slightly behind in some polls and wonder how this can be.  I guess I'm looking for these state polls to be totally reflective of the national data.  I guess it just doesn't work that way always.

A poll with a poorly sorted out screen for likely voters will show big, and not real, shifts in public opinion in reaction to events like the prison thing.

Remember that in a lot of these registered voter polls, about 1/3rd of the people included will not be actual voters, and many of them when the "leaners" are pushed will just sway in the wind with the last news story they heard on the nightly news...

The typical "bounce" from the conventions is "about" 10% - after the first convention candidate X goes up 10%, then after the other convention candidate Y goes up 10%.

Is this swing of 10% "real"...?   of course not...

A bunch of folks who are not voting anyway are just swaying in the wind.

But he says its a Mason-Dixon poll.  You have a very high opinion of Mason-Dixon, I thought.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 30, 2004, 12:12:01 AM

But he says its a Mason-Dixon poll.  You have a very high opinion of Mason-Dixon, I thought.

Mason-Dixon - absolutely a VERY good firm.  At the state by state level easily[/b] the best firm out there.  Frankly, compared to a lot of the other firms, it's not even close.

MD is the only firm in the public domain I actually trust from here to September that does state polls. (Maybe Ipsos too actually)

I was talking "generically" in this post.

Mason Dixon's record speaks for it's self.  In 2002 they publically polled 23 races and got 22 right.  Their average candidate error was 1.8%.  (If you limit it to polls published in the last 7 days of the campaign they did even better) The other 70 or so private polls they did in 2002 had a comparable success rate.

The only firm with lower average candidate error was Gallup, and there is certainly no shame in coming in 2nd to Gallup.. :)



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on May 30, 2004, 08:12:33 AM
So does this particular Ohio poll seem to have any validity to you given the fact that it doesn't seem in sync with other Ohio polling?  Also given the fact that it seems to come at a time when Bush has hit bottom in job approval and given all the $$ Kerry has spent over the last 3 wks in television ads?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on May 30, 2004, 08:19:50 AM
Seems that Mason Dixon went all out on this poll given the size of this sample.  Isn't it bigger than the usual Mason - Dixon sample size?  Some of their Southern state senate race samples in 2002 were a little more than half that size if I remember correctly.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 30, 2004, 08:31:00 AM
So does this particular Ohio poll seem to have any validity to you given the fact that it doesn't seem in sync with other Ohio polling?  Also given the fact that it seems to come at a time when Bush has hit bottom in job approval and given all the $$ Kerry has spent over the last 3 wks in television ads?

One poll is, well, one poll.  My "map" had Bush up a couple as of yesterday, so this is not a shock to me at least.

I was serious when I said if a summer poll doesn't say Mason Dixon you should burn it.

Most 2nd teir (or worse) firms will underpoll the GOP in the summer which explains a few of the odd results if late. (See a few posts back re likely voters and turnout)

That being said, it basically agrees with two othe private polls showing Bush +3 and +4. so I wouldn't take it a the gospel truth, but I would not toss it either.

A Mason-Dixon with a 1500 sample size simply cannot be ignored :)

The sample size of 1500 was the choice of the newspaper that sponsored (ie paid for) the poll, not M/D.

If somebody want to pay the bill, M/D and any other firm would love a 10,000 sample size :)

Let's give the Post Dispatch a brownie point for stepping up with the big bucks to pay for both a good firm and a big sample.

I hope the way they rather proudly proclaimed the sample size will prompt other papers to step up to the plate and bump up their samples too..





Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on May 30, 2004, 08:40:06 AM
Ok, one more question if you don't mind and I'm really curious about this.  How much would a polling firm charge a client such as a newspaper?  I gather from your comments above that it depends on how much polling (size of sample of course).  Are we talking 5 figures here?  Now about a national poll such as Gallop CNN or any national poll commisioned by CBS or one of the news magazines?  Thanks.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 08:45:52 AM

But he says its a Mason-Dixon poll.  You have a very high opinion of Mason-Dixon, I thought.

Mason-Dixon - absolutely a VERY good firm.  At the state by state level easily[/b] the best firm out there.  Frankly, compared to a lot of the other firms, it's not even close.

MD is the only firm in the public domain I actually trust from here to September that does state polls. (Maybe Ipsos too actually)

I was talking "generically" in this post.

Mason Dixon's record speaks for it's self.  In 2002 they publically polled 23 races and got 22 right.  Their average candidate error was 1.8%.  (If you limit it to polls published in the last 7 days of the campaign they did even better) The other 70 or so private polls they did in 2002 had a comparable success rate.

The only firm with lower average candidate error was Gallup, and there is certainly no shame in coming in 2nd to Gallup.. :)



First, welcome back.  Hope you had a good vacation.

Second, thank you for your observations on the previous post to me.

Third, I agree on MD being a quality firm, I have my doubts about ISPOS (they seem to do ok in Canada but, IMHO they tend to overstate the liberal and Democrat support in this country).

Fourth, while the numbers aren't "hard," and aren't kept on official record, it appears that in the battleground states (which I define as being a state which either Bush or Gore carried with a margin of less than ten per cent) the "refuse" to participate in the surveys is highest among males whose age group is estimated to be 45-64 (without noticable accents).  

While you can (eventually) get enough 45-64 year old males to meet quota, I maintain that those responding do not necessarily reflect the views of those who refuse to participate.  

I believe that the exit polls should be funded by a consortium of existed reputable pollsters, who could use the data base to adjust their future polls.  This would probably be able to either confirm or deny my suspicion on this matter.

Fifth, also, please note that even when reading the questions verbatim to the respondents, the accent of the questioner appears to have some impact on the responses.  This is particularly important as firms do not pay particularly well for the questioners and tend to hire the less affluent (and more prone to regional accent) segment of the population.  


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 30, 2004, 08:54:01 AM

But he says its a Mason-Dixon poll.  You have a very high opinion of Mason-Dixon, I thought.

Mason-Dixon - absolutely a VERY good firm.  At the state by state level easily[/b] the best firm out there.  Frankly, compared to a lot of the other firms, it's not even close.

MD is the only firm in the public domain I actually trust from here to September that does state polls. (Maybe Ipsos too actually)

I was talking "generically" in this post.

Mason Dixon's record speaks for it's self.  In 2002 they publically polled 23 races and got 22 right.  Their average candidate error was 1.8%.  (If you limit it to polls published in the last 7 days of the campaign they did even better) The other 70 or so private polls they did in 2002 had a comparable success rate.

The only firm with lower average candidate error was Gallup, and there is certainly no shame in coming in 2nd to Gallup.. :)



First, welcome back.  Hope you had a good vacation.

Second, thank you for your observations on the previous post to me.

Third, I agree on MD being a quality firm, I have my doubts about ISPOS (they seem to do ok in Canada but, IMHO they tend to overstate the liberal and Democrat support in this country).

Fourth, while the numbers aren't "hard," and aren't kept on official record, it appears that in the battleground states (which I define as being a state which either Bush or Gore carried with a margin of less than ten per cent) the "refuse" to participate in the surveys is highest among males whose age group is estimated to be 45-64 (without noticable accents).  

While you can (eventually) get enough 45-64 year old males to meet quota, I maintain that those responding do not necessarily reflect the views of those who refuse to participate.  

I believe that the exit polls should be funded by a consortium of existed reputable pollsters, who could use the data base to adjust their future polls.  This would probably be able to either confirm or deny my suspicion on this matter.

Fifth, also, please note that even when reading the questions verbatim to the respondents, the accent of the questioner appears to have some impact on the responses.  This is particularly important as firms do not pay particularly well for the questioners and tend to hire the less affluent (and more prone to regional accent) segment of the population.  

You point regard respone rates is also valid, and touchs on a big question re sample stratification.

You eventually meet your quota, you have enough whites, blacks, young, old, rich poor, etc...

I looks like a ramdom sample.  Does that mean it is a random sample?
Regarding


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 09:04:21 AM
I think you got cut off before you could complete your post.

I'd be interested in what else you have to say.

In addition to exit polls to serve as a partial corrective to existing problems, some firms on the qt also compare their data to University of Michigan SRC data (when it eventually, long after the fact becomes available).


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 30, 2004, 10:14:33 AM
Vorlon. Why doesnt some rich financier come up with the funds to have a 500,000 person sample? With todays modern technology that would be more then possible. Put some of those telemarkters who lost their jobs because they have been outsourced to work!


Vorlon, that wasn't a joke. It's a serious question.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on May 30, 2004, 10:33:59 AM
Why does the poll page on this site show MI, WI, and NH as tossups when there is a 9-10 point Kerry lead according to the lastest polls posted for each state?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 10:45:37 AM
While waiting for Vorlon to reply, let me suggest two reasons.

First, sample size is not usually the biggest error built into polls.

For example, a poll with 900 respondents would have a sample size error of approximately 3.33% whereas a poll with 1600 respondents would have a sample size error rate of approximately 1.66%.  Even if you got up to a poll with 6400 respondets you would still have a sample size error of approximately 1.25%.  Increasing the sample size beyond a certain point yields verly little in reducing error.

Second, even thought there are a lot of people doing polls, the cost of doing a decent poll (one without a lot of inbuilt problems) is very high!

There is one advantage to doing a supersize poll , namely that (if correctly done) it would provide valid information on small subsets.

For example, the subset on a typical poll for Jewish voters is so small that the sample size error rate exceeds ten per cent.  This means that a poll that shows Jewish voters favoring Kerry over Bush  by say 65 to 35 could easily actually be 50-50, or 80-20, or anywhere in between.

The same holds true for other groups (farmers come to mind).


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 30, 2004, 11:06:45 AM
But a 500k person poll would give you a better idea of how the people actually felt, right? Much better then a 800 person poll. Meaning, I would put my faith in a 500k person poll more then a 800 person poll.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 11:18:08 AM
Lets take a case of an 800 respondent poll versus a 500,000 respondent poll.

If the 800 repondent poll said half the respondents prefer apple pie to cherry pie, and half prefer cherry pie to apple pie, its likely that (based on sample size) somewhere between 47-53 per cent prefer either.

While the 500,000 respondent survey would reduce this to 49.8-50.2% swing, the cost is not worth the small improvement.

The built in problems with polls (irrespective of sample size) would dwarf the sample size improvement resulting in negligible improvement for a vastly increased cost.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 30, 2004, 02:49:41 PM
Vorlon. Why doesnt some rich financier come up with the funds to have a 500,000 person sample? With todays modern technology that would be more then possible. Put some of those telemarkters who lost their jobs because they have been outsourced to work!


Vorlon, that wasn't a joke. It's a serious question.

A poll has two types of error - pure random error due to statistical fluctuation, and methodological error.

Unless you are talking a VERY good firm, methodological errors are typically larger than statistical ones.

A big sample will reduce the random statistical error, but does nothing about methodological error.

If you toss a coin 100 times, it might come up 50/50 heads/tails, but usually 51/49, or 52/48 or there abouts.  Once in a blue moon it comes up 80/20.  This is statistical or random error.  Nothing you can do about it.

To extend my example, let's say I have a problem with my coins and 80 of the have a head and a tail but 20 of them are two headed.

Over time, the 80 normal coins will tend towards 40/40, but the 20 two headed coins will always be 20 heads.

I can have an infinite sample and flip the coins a zillion times and I will typically get 60/40 rather than 50/50.  This is a methodological error.

For example if I was to make some crazy assumption and say weight my poll so that Republicans made up 50% of the sample or that there were 7% more Democrats than Republicans for example, I could talk to 10 million people and still get a garbage result.

The reduction in statistical error is proportional to the square root (not exactly but damn close) of the sample size, so you get to the point of diminish returns pretty fast.

For example, a sample of 1000 has an error of 3.1%
A sample size of 2000 has an error of 2.2%

You have doubled your costs to pick up 0.9%

A sample size of 10,000 has an error of 1.0%

I have made my sample 5 times bigger to get another 1.2%

A sample of 100,000 has an error of 0.31

Compared to 1000 size, we had to make our poll 100 times bigger to get 10 times more accurate.

A huge sample also does NOTHING to get rid of methodological errors - problems in how you have worded your question, how you select people, etc....

To take an extreme example, lets say I polled 10,000 "likely" voters.  In this case I defined "likely" as owning a BMW. (it's a silly example but it makes my point)

My sampling error on 10,000 is only 1%, but my methodological error due to a silly sampling method would render the poll likely to be waaaay out because 10,000 BMW owners are not a representitive sample of actual voters.

In 1936 Readers Digest (I think?) Magazine did a poll of 3,000,000 (?) Americans - all of whom susbscribed to Readers Digest and had telephones.  Sampling error should have been pretty close to zero.  Unfortunately in 1936 both telephones and magazine subscriptions were luxury items so the 3,000,000 polled looked very little like America.  In this poll "President" Alf Landon beat Rossevelt by about 15% if I recall corectly.

To use a recent example, here is Mr. Zogby's results from his 2002 senate tracking polls.

()

Clearly sample size is NOT the issue, the errors are just too many and too big to be statistical bad luck.

Something in they way he weighted/sampled/worded was just plain wrong (and hopefully corrected for 2004)

A bigger sample would NOT have corrected these problems.

Bottom line - a bad poll with a big sample is still a bad poll.

Regarding the cost of a poll.

A sample of 1500 from a good firm doing it totally absolutely by the book costs in the neighbourhood of $30,000 to $40,000.

If you poll is all of America or a state or just a city, the cost varies fairly little actually.

There are firms that change a heck of a lot less.

You get what you pay for.





Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 30, 2004, 04:35:59 PM
It was Liberty Digest and it went out of business shortly afterwards.

Thank-you.

 I knew it was xxx Digest, could not quite recall the name.

:)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on May 30, 2004, 06:32:31 PM
Thanks for the info. I am not to good at math but I get the jist of what you are saying.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 07:06:38 PM
It was Liberty Digest and it went out of business shortly afterwards.

Thank-you.

There is an interesting paper by Brown & Chappell (University of South Carolina) called Forecasting Presidential Elections Using History ahd Polls.

One of the interesting things they found looking at the Gallup Polls was that there was "a tendency for polls to overstate support for Democratic candidates" (page 8).

P.S. It was the Literary Digest.

 I knew it was xxx Digest, could not quite recall the name.

:)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Andrew on May 30, 2004, 08:25:05 PM
It was Literary Digest.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 09:02:13 PM
Glad to see someone else caught this.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 09:10:55 PM
Hey, we all make mistakes.

Actually Vorlon was partially mistaken about the source for the Literary Digest poll.

They sent return mail ballots to subscribers, and to people who had telephones (even if they weren't subscribers).  

This was as much a gimmick to gain subscriptions as it is to being a genuine poll.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 30, 2004, 09:42:54 PM
Hey, we all make mistakes.

Actually Vorlon was partially mistaken about the source for the Literary Digest poll.

They sent return mail ballots to subscribers, and to people who had telephones (even if they weren't subscribers).  

This was as much a gimmick to gain subscriptions as it is to being a genuine poll.



Yes that sounds right.  I knew the sample was huge but really flawed.

Good memory you have there!


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 30, 2004, 09:47:26 PM
Hey, we all make mistakes.

Actually Vorlon was partially mistaken about the source for the Literary Digest poll.

They sent return mail ballots to subscribers, and to people who had telephones (even if they weren't subscribers).  

This was as much a gimmick to gain subscriptions as it is to being a genuine poll.



Yes that sounds right.  I knew the sample was huge but really flawed.

Good memory you have there!

I find that I can remember the substance of matters, but sometimes have trouble dredging up a citation of source.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 31, 2004, 11:27:27 AM

3. when the undecideds and leaners are asked to respond to a variety of issue questions they consistently score significantly closer to the core Bush supporters than they do to the core Kerry supporters (or more accurately anti=Bush people).

*************************

Unfortunately, the polls which have explicity differeniated between the beliefs of Kerry voters, Bush voters and undecided voters on the issues are not available for publication at this time.

The sources which have commissioned the surveys are more interested in using the data than in publishing it at this time.


Boy, theoretically speaking I suspect it's barely conceivable that a Public Opinion Strategies poll from May 17th-23rd of 1137 likely voters nationwide (which may have been oversampled in 7 key states to provide better breakouts) could have hypothetically shown something similar to that.  

But that's just a totally random guess of course. ;)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on May 31, 2004, 11:36:09 AM
I can give you one issue which can be fairly well checked, Kerry voters are pretty closely divided on the death penalty (which Kerry opposes), while both Bush and swing voters overwhelmingly favor it.

Notice how neither side has raised this issue yet?

Kerry is afraid of it (as well as others) while Bush is saving it.

BTW, Public Opinion Strategies is NOT, in MHP, one of the better survey research firms.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Gustaf on May 31, 2004, 05:32:12 PM
Hehe...Vorlon, once again I explained something in a much shorter post and without images... ;)

A way bak on another thread, but I made teh same point on marginal returns. :)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on May 31, 2004, 05:35:20 PM

That sounds like a good magazine ;)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Gustaf on May 31, 2004, 05:36:19 PM
Hehe...Vorlon, once again I explained something in a much shorter post and without images... ;)

A way bak on another thread, but I made teh same point on marginal returns. :)

Here we go:

It's not worth it. The increase in accuracy becomes less and less cost-effective, simply. So you'd pay a lot of money and get very little for it. You would always have the MoEs anyway.  


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on May 31, 2004, 05:59:56 PM
Hehe...Vorlon, once again I explained something in a much shorter post and without images... ;)

A way bak on another thread, but I made teh same point on marginal returns. :)

Here we go:

It's not worth it. The increase in accuracy becomes less and less cost-effective, simply. So you'd pay a lot of money and get very little for it. You would always have the MoEs anyway.  

ok, I admit it.  you are the literary xxx Liberty Reader Digest version of things.

But I make prettier diagrams than you do... ;)

Damn swedish punks... always making fun of the dyslexic, forgetful, long winded old guys with bad reading and typing skills....


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on June 01, 2004, 10:23:30 AM

The 2000 results on the Polls page for Mississippi are not correct...Bush won by 16%, not 8%.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 01, 2004, 10:28:19 AM

The 2000 results on the Polls page for Mississippi are not correct...Bush won by 16%, not 8%.

Corrected & Thank-you!


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on June 01, 2004, 10:35:02 AM
The polls page map doesn't line up with the most recent polls.  I assume that the map is supposed to reflect the latest results, however a 3% lead in MN is a lean but a 9% lead in MI is a tossup according to the map.  What's up with that?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 01, 2004, 10:36:30 AM
The polls page map doesn't line up with the most recent polls.  I assume that the map is supposed to reflect the latest results, however a 3% lead in MN is a lean but a 9% lead in MI is a tossup according to the map.  What's up with that?

I "think" dave has something in there that averages a number of polls - I do not know the fomula he is using.

Dave...?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on June 01, 2004, 05:42:18 PM
Vorlon-

How do you rate Garin-Hart-Yang?

They have a new poll from 10 days ago showing Bush-Kerry 49-43.

http://www.drdan2004.com/site/DocServer/Poll_Memo_5.25.04.pdf?docID=221


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 01, 2004, 10:40:41 PM
Vorlon-

How do you rate Garin-Hart-Yang?

They have a new poll from 10 days ago showing Bush-Kerry 49-43.

http://www.drdan2004.com/site/DocServer/Poll_Memo_5.25.04.pdf?docID=221


Peter Hart's firm A++

That said, the sample of 504 makes me think is was a "fundraising" poll versus an actual poll.

Often a poll (especially a small sample) will be done with, um,  favorable assumptions re turnout/etc to rally the troops, drive fundraising, etc.

This one was also done for Senate candidate.

If Peter actually wanted to do a state, I can guarantee you it would not be 504 sample size.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: agcatter on June 02, 2004, 07:11:25 AM
Just a side note - Zogby's final poll in the SD congressional race had the Dem up 11 points.  Hmmm.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 02, 2004, 11:39:16 AM
Just a side note - Zogby's final poll in the SD congressional race had the Dem up 11 points.  Hmmm.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=4306&start=0 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=4306&start=0)

Side Note - Mason-Dixon Poll May 18th of "100% Certain" voters - Dems by 3 versus actual of 1.2%.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: MODU on June 03, 2004, 08:42:17 AM

I have a new addicition.....

I LOVE POLLS!!!  Gimme more.  PLEASE!!!  I need them now!!!  hehehe

It's odd.  I find myself checking the composite map based off of current polls about once an hour these days, and we're still 5 months away from the election.  hahaha . . . man, I can't wait till this election is over.  I'll be able to get back to my normal web-browsing habbits then.  hahaha

Take care all, and keep up the poll research!  I need to keep feeding my addiction.  hahaha . . . especially you, Vorlon, my "poll pusher."  :)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: MODU on June 03, 2004, 02:47:14 PM

Vorlon,

Found one for you which you may or may not want to rip apart:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8387

"49.7 per cent of respondents would vote for the prospective Democratic nominee, while 44.3 per cent would support Republican incumbent George W. Bush."

"Independent candidate Ralph Nader garners the support of 2.9 per cent of respondents. The presidential election is scheduled for Nov. 2."

Odd how just two weeks ago, the polls showed Bush ahead 44% to 39%.  Anyway, for your info.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 03, 2004, 04:12:22 PM

Vorlon,

Found one for you which you may or may not want to rip apart:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8387

"49.7 per cent of respondents would vote for the prospective Democratic nominee, while 44.3 per cent would support Republican incumbent George W. Bush."

"Independent candidate Ralph Nader garners the support of 2.9 per cent of respondents. The presidential election is scheduled for Nov. 2."

Odd how just two weeks ago, the polls showed Bush ahead 44% to 39%.  Anyway, for your info.



It is an INTERNET poll.  Enough said :D


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: WMS on June 07, 2004, 10:46:53 PM
Oh wise Vorlon, I have a question for you:

Are there ever going to be more NM polls? I mean, the last one was an ARG(h) poll done over two months ago! And you gave ARG a B-, so that's not really Vorlon Approved, is it?

Just wondering where all the pollsters went...


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: MODU on June 08, 2004, 07:48:25 AM

WMS,

Maybe you can find something here:
- http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004
- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/opinion/main620748.shtml
- http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=2876

Just a quick search online.  Didn't read them too carefully, but they seem to be current.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: WMS on June 09, 2004, 12:29:25 AM

WMS,

Maybe you can find something here:
- http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004
- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/opinion/main620748.shtml
- http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=2876

Just a quick search online.  Didn't read them too carefully, but they seem to be current.

Thank you very much! :) The first and fourth links are the best ones, and dealt with the one poll that's been done...

...unfortunately, it's a Zogby Internet Poll! Aaaaah! See below...

Polling Data

What candidate would you vote for in the 2004 U.S. presidential election?
John Kerry (D)
 48.4%
 
George W. Bush (R)
 43.3%
 
Ralph Nader (I)
 2.9%

Source: Zogby International / The Wall Street Journal
Methodology: Online interviews to 454 New Mexico voters, conducted from May 18 to May 23, 2004. Margin of error is 4.6 per cent.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Reds4 on June 09, 2004, 12:38:20 AM
The latest zogby internet poll out earlier today has Bush up .4 over Kerry in New Mexico.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Lunar on June 09, 2004, 01:35:17 AM
Zogby internet polls are almost worth discussing, heh.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: WMS on June 09, 2004, 11:26:25 PM
The latest zogby internet poll out earlier today has Bush up .4 over Kerry in New Mexico.

That's quite a dramatic swing... :P


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Lunar on June 10, 2004, 01:58:10 PM
FOX poll out has a lot of interesting questions being asked:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: khirkhib on June 10, 2004, 04:54:08 PM
FOX poll out has a lot of interesting questions being asked:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Wow.  Fox News has Kerry ahead +5 in battleground states the same week that the most popular republican president of the 20th century dies.  That is impressive.

Also check out http://www.newdem.org/newmajoritycoalition/ They have Kerry +8 points in battleground states.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 10, 2004, 07:20:00 PM
FOX poll out has a lot of interesting questions being asked:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Wow.  Fox News has Kerry ahead +5 in battleground states the same week that the most popular republican president of the 20th century dies.  That is impressive.

Also check out http://www.newdem.org/newmajoritycoalition/ They have Kerry +8 points in battleground states.

Point 1:

Polls are bad for Bush right now.

Point 2:

Battleground sample size in Fox (and most other national polls) ranges from about 240 in Gallup, to about 360 in Fox.  So the margin of error for the quoted "lead" in these subsamples varies from 11% to 14%

Two weeks ago when Bush was up 4% in the Fox "Battleground" it was statistically meaningless, this week when Kerry is up 5% it's just as meaningless.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on June 11, 2004, 07:03:54 PM
If nobody minds me going back to somethign eariler, a poll of 500k peopel would pass the law of diminishing returns on MoE, but would really boost the confidence level in the poll.  A problem would be that it would be very hard to do a sister poll or two  to confirm the confidence.  It would be much more cost effective to sponsor 3 polls of 10,000 or even 5,000 voters and get a similar MoE and have checks to confirm your confidence in the poll.

A lot of polsl you see released with 1200 respondents are 3 polls of 400 merged.  The the 400 polls are taken and if they are all in MoE to each other, they are released as one poll.  If 2 are similar and one not, you can eithe rget anothe rsample of 400 or release it as 800 and lower your MoE and confidence a bit.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: zorkpolitics on June 12, 2004, 12:23:13 PM
Polling firms uses different standards (like the questionable Zogby internet polls or the current LA Times un-weighted poll), which makes it difficult to compare them or decide which will be most reflective of the voters opinions.
 I think the Rasmussen daily polls (really three day polls released each day) maybe one of the most useful.  Every day he uses the same methodology, polls the same number of voters, applies the same weighting.  Thus although his absolute numbers may or may not be correct, any real change in the voters preferences from Bush to Kerry or vice versa should be very reliably detected by him.
The amazing thing is that since early March, there has been no significant change, its been a statistical dead heat:  on any given day Bush and Kerry bounce around 44-47%.  There is no evidence that any of the advertising, campaigning, or Iraq events have substantially changed either candidate&#8217;s support.  For June Bush has been ahead on 4 days, Kerry on 3, and both tied on 5 days.
This poll is updated every day at noon:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on June 12, 2004, 12:33:21 PM
Polling firms uses different standards (like the questionable Zogby internet polls or the current LA Times un-weighted poll), which makes it difficult to compare them or decide which will be most reflective of the voters opinions.
 I think the Rasmussen daily polls (really three day polls released each day) maybe one of the most useful.  Every day he uses the same methodology, polls the same number of voters, applies the same weighting.  Thus although his absolute numbers may or may not be correct, any real change in the voters preferences from Bush to Kerry or vice versa should be very reliably detected by him.
The amazing thing is that since early March, there has been no significant change, its been a statistical dead heat:  on any given day Bush and Kerry bounce around 44-47%.  There is no evidence that any of the advertising, campaigning, or Iraq events have substantially changed either candidate&#8217;s support.  For June Bush has been ahead on 4 days, Kerry on 3, and both tied on 5 days.
This poll is updated every day at noon:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm


I watch it every day and it appears that the undecideds are becoming decided. This is the second day in a row its been Bush 47 Kerry 44. Bush is about to break out IMHO and take off with it. Barring another scandal.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: muon2 on June 12, 2004, 09:32:22 PM
Polling firms uses different standards (like the questionable Zogby internet polls or the current LA Times un-weighted poll), which makes it difficult to compare them or decide which will be most reflective of the voters opinions.
 I think the Rasmussen daily polls (really three day polls released each day) maybe one of the most useful.  Every day he uses the same methodology, polls the same number of voters, applies the same weighting.  Thus although his absolute numbers may or may not be correct, any real change in the voters preferences from Bush to Kerry or vice versa should be very reliably detected by him.
The amazing thing is that since early March, there has been no significant change, its been a statistical dead heat:  on any given day Bush and Kerry bounce around 44-47%.  There is no evidence that any of the advertising, campaigning, or Iraq events have substantially changed either candidate&#8217;s support.  For June Bush has been ahead on 4 days, Kerry on 3, and both tied on 5 days.
This poll is updated every day at noon:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm


I watch it every day and it appears that the undecideds are becoming decided. This is the second day in a row its been Bush 47 Kerry 44. Bush is about to break out IMHO and take off with it. Barring another scandal.
The interesting feature is that the preference poll is also clearly lining up with improved polling for Bush on other masures - Job approval, foreign policy, and the economy. If all these hold for the rest of the month that would bode well for Bush.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on June 12, 2004, 09:39:04 PM
Polling firms uses different standards (like the questionable Zogby internet polls or the current LA Times un-weighted poll), which makes it difficult to compare them or decide which will be most reflective of the voters opinions.
 I think the Rasmussen daily polls (really three day polls released each day) maybe one of the most useful.  Every day he uses the same methodology, polls the same number of voters, applies the same weighting.  Thus although his absolute numbers may or may not be correct, any real change in the voters preferences from Bush to Kerry or vice versa should be very reliably detected by him.
The amazing thing is that since early March, there has been no significant change, its been a statistical dead heat:  on any given day Bush and Kerry bounce around 44-47%.  There is no evidence that any of the advertising, campaigning, or Iraq events have substantially changed either candidate&#8217;s support.  For June Bush has been ahead on 4 days, Kerry on 3, and both tied on 5 days.
This poll is updated every day at noon:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm


I watch it every day and it appears that the undecideds are becoming decided. This is the second day in a row its been Bush 47 Kerry 44. Bush is about to break out IMHO and take off with it. Barring another scandal.
The interesting feature is that the preference poll is also clearly lining up with improved polling for Bush on other masures - Job approval, foreign policy, and the economy. If all these hold for the rest of the month that would bode well for Bush.

I predict a Bush runaway after the Democrat conventions. My below map will probably show more red on it then I have now. A landslide is still possible.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on June 14, 2004, 12:24:36 PM
FOX poll out has a lot of interesting questions being asked:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Wow.  Fox News has Kerry ahead +5 in battleground states the same week that the most popular republican president of the 20th century dies.  That is impressive.

Also check out http://www.newdem.org/newmajoritycoalition/ They have Kerry +8 points in battleground states.

Point 1:

Polls are bad for Bush right now.

Point 2:

Battleground sample size in Fox (and most other national polls) ranges from about 240 in Gallup, to about 360 in Fox.  So the margin of error for the quoted "lead" in these subsamples varies from 11% to 14%

Two weeks ago when Bush was up 4% in the Fox "Battleground" it was statistically meaningless, this week when Kerry is up 5% it's just as meaningless.

As I noted some time ago, private surveys which I am prohibted by confidentiality from citing indicate that the Kerry supporters are broken into two approximately evenly divided groups, one of which I call the Deaniacs and the other the traditional Democrats.  

While Bush supporters overwhelmingly agree with him on just about every issue (his support for immigration reform being a notable exception), the traditional Democrats are largely ignorant of and in disagreement with many of Kerry's historical positions (I say this because he appears to being trying to change his positions now).

I am a little surprised that none of the public polls I have seen to date have really probed this matter.

Are you familiar with any which you can cite?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Fritz on June 15, 2004, 02:52:13 AM
I watch it every day and it appears that the undecideds are becoming decided. This is the second day in a row its been Bush 47 Kerry 44. Bush is about to break out IMHO and take off with it. Barring another scandal.

StatesRights, I'm sure you already noticed this, but today Kerry pulled back into the lead on Rasmussen.  So much for your theory.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: muon2 on June 15, 2004, 08:11:48 AM
I just read this morning that pollster Robert Teeter died. He's been one of Vorlon's top rated pollsters, and works with Hart for the WSJ poll. Will his death have an impact on that poll's performance?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ?????????? on June 15, 2004, 09:01:55 AM
I watch it every day and it appears that the undecideds are becoming decided. This is the second day in a row its been Bush 47 Kerry 44. Bush is about to break out IMHO and take off with it. Barring another scandal.

StatesRights, I'm sure you already noticed this, but today Kerry pulled back into the lead on Rasmussen.  So much for your theory.

My theory is not dead. Some one will break out in 2-3 more months.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on June 15, 2004, 12:00:04 PM
I just read this morning that pollster Robert Teeter died. He's been one of Vorlon's top rated pollsters, and works with Hart for the WSJ poll. Will his death have an impact on that poll's performance?

Yes, I noticed that also.  I worked with Mr. Teeter for 1 election cycle in 1994 and he was truly a wonderful man as well as a great pollster.

He had an absolute dedication to "getting it right" and making sure all the tiny details of how you did things were all done properly - it was annoying at the time, but in retrospect he was just about always correct in what he said.

Bob has taught so many people over his life that I don't think the accuracy of his firms polls will go down, he has many many proteges who will carry the torch.  

More than perhaps any other, he will be remembered as "teacher" as much as a pollster.  You can look at many of the top firms today on the GOP side (Ayres McHenry, POS etc) and they all have direct links back to Bob.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20244_20040614.htm (http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20244_20040614.htm)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on June 27, 2004, 12:55:28 AM
Don't place too much credance in polls between now and labor day.

Summer polls typically give Democrats a few extra points for a number of technical reasons.

Polls which use registered voters typically also have a Democrat bias.

Polls which base their 'likely voter screen' based on following the election (prior to labor day) also have a Democrat bias.

National surveys with fewer than 800 respondents should also be discounted.

I could go on, but, Vorlon has made many of the same points, and could probably give you even more.

I would in conclusion suggest that you need to take polls between now and labor day with more than a pinch of salt.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: phillies on June 27, 2004, 10:10:08 PM
The process you are describing will skew in odd ways some polling data.  The correct process would be always to merge three four hundred person polls into a 1200 person poll, on an overlapping basis if it is a time series, even when the sets differed,  recalling that part of the time the data sets are supposed to be outside the margin of error of each other.  Rasmussen does this.  If the data sets are always within the MOE of each other, and enough sets have been taken, the data is very likely to be wrong.

If nobody minds me going back to somethign eariler, a poll of 500k peopel would pass the law of diminishing returns on MoE, but would really boost the confidence level in the poll.  A problem would be that it would be very hard to do a sister poll or two  to confirm the confidence.  It would be much more cost effective to sponsor 3 polls of 10,000 or even 5,000 voters and get a similar MoE and have checks to confirm your confidence in the poll.

A lot of polsl you see released with 1200 respondents are 3 polls of 400 merged.  The the 400 polls are taken and if they are all in MoE to each other, they are released as one poll.  If 2 are similar and one not, you can eithe rget anothe rsample of 400 or release it as 800 and lower your MoE and confidence a bit.




Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on June 28, 2004, 12:01:07 AM
The process you are describing will skew in odd ways some polling data.  The correct process would be always to merge three four hundred person polls into a 1200 person poll, on an overlapping basis if it is a time series, even when the sets differed,  recalling that part of the time the data sets are supposed to be outside the margin of error of each other.  Rasmussen does this.  If the data sets are always within the MOE of each other, and enough sets have been taken, the data is very likely to be wrong.

If nobody minds me going back to somethign eariler, a poll of 500k peopel would pass the law of diminishing returns on MoE, but would really boost the confidence level in the poll.  A problem would be that it would be very hard to do a sister poll or two  to confirm the confidence.  It would be much more cost effective to sponsor 3 polls of 10,000 or even 5,000 voters and get a similar MoE and have checks to confirm your confidence in the poll.

A lot of polsl you see released with 1200 respondents are 3 polls of 400 merged.  The the 400 polls are taken and if they are all in MoE to each other, they are released as one poll.  If 2 are similar and one not, you can eithe rget anothe rsample of 400 or release it as 800 and lower your MoE and confidence a bit.



You are describing a tracking poll, I am describing an internal check method.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: khirkhib on June 30, 2004, 07:22:37 PM
The Poll map is better but it still needs to be improved.  It states that the toss up, slight or lean status of each state is determined by the average of the last three polls.  Slight is between 2-5% and lean over 5%.  Oregon, Iowa and New Hampshire though are all labeled as toss-up states now though Kerry has an averaged lead of 2.6 in Oregon, 2.3 in Iowa, and 3.3 in NH (if you counted the Zogby poll).  

I feel that there has been more than 2 polls out of Nevada.  Looks like you didn't include any of Zogby's last three there because if you had Kerry would have the average lead of 1.6 and the state would be a toss up.  Even if you had just averaged Zogby's last three and put it against the Mason Dixon and  even if you just used Zogby's most recent which had Bush at a 2.5 lead the average would be 4.8 and make the state just slight Bush Lead. Which seems to make sence since the poll that is pushing the three, the Mason Dixon, gave bush an 11 point lead but was done back in March, doesn't seem to be a timely measure.

The other toss ups checked out.  It doesn't seem like all the polls that are being put out are being integrated into the equation either.  What are one of those good poll compilation sites?  It'd be nice to see.    ISome polls seem to get entered in really quicky and others not at all.  Just trying to keep it honest.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on June 30, 2004, 07:36:50 PM
Zogby's Internet polls are a bad joke and including them would invalidate the entire point of the polls page.  I'm pretty sure the only Zogby polls included are his traditional polls.

SLight requires a 2-5% lead AND to have won all 3 of the last polls.  The sates you cite fail the last requirement.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: khirkhib on July 01, 2004, 03:34:59 AM
Well in doesn't seem right that both Survey USA polls be used in Iowa when the only one that gives Bush a lead is the hypotetical, if Vilsack was president this is not the case and unlikely and with out that survey Kerry would have all three wins and a 4.3 averaged advantage.  You could count this survey if Kerry did pick Vilsack.

And in Florida Bush did not win all of the last three but he is still painted as lean there.  It still seems somewhat arbitrary which survey's are counted and which are not and the system should be standardized so it will be honest.  

In Dale's Electoral College Breakdown the blogger decides off the cuff if he will consider the survey or not.  He generally doesn't change the Surveys in Kerry's favor.  http://home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/

Where as www.electionprojection.com showed Kerry with a huge lead and winning Missouri and Arizona etc and than 2 weeks Bush took back a big lead and not jut becauseof the Regan funeral but because the blogger had changed the calculation that he had been using and when more in favor of state polls.  Just trying to keep things honest here.

Here is one site I remembered for pollig info.  www.realclearpolitics.com.  
____________________________________________________

Your right it is www.electionprojection.com

The complaint still stands though, but what are the other best poll and projection sites that people use.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Akno21 on July 01, 2004, 08:18:10 AM
Well in doesn't seem right that both Survey USA polls be used in Iowa when the only one that gives Bush a lead is the hypotetical, if Vilsack was president this is not the case and unlikely and with out that survey Kerry would have all three wins and a 4.3 averaged advantage.  You could count this survey if Kerry did pick Vilsack.

And in Florida Bush did not win all of the last three but he is still painted as lean there.  It still seems somewhat arbitrary which survey's are counted and which are not and the system should be standardized so it will be honest.  

In Dale's Electoral College Breakdown the blogger decides off the cuff if he will consider the survey or not.  He generally doesn't change the Surveys in Kerry's favor.  http://home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/

Where as www.electionprojection.org showed Kerry with a huge lead and winning Missouri and Arizona etc and than 2 weeks Bush took back a big lead and not jut becauseof the Regan funeral but because the blogger had changed the calculation that he had been using and when more in favor of state polls.  Just trying to keep things honest here.

Here is one site I remembered for pollig info.  www.realclearpolitics.com.  

Those sites are pretty good.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: stry_cat on July 01, 2004, 09:10:17 AM
Try http://www.electionprojection.com/  The .org link doesn't work for me


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Nation on July 02, 2004, 10:50:33 AM
New Quinnipiac (the only worthwhile University poll) poll of LVs in Florida shows the race there still essentially tied -- good news for Kerry, I suppose. Better to be tied than to be behind, especially in a state where he's not expected to win.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on July 02, 2004, 11:49:43 AM
One more note on the polls page:  If you win 2 of 3 polls but still have an average of 5% or greater, it will show the candidate with a slight lead.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: khirkhib on July 02, 2004, 01:22:10 PM
Do you know the rules of the polling section for sure or you explaining your observations of them.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on July 02, 2004, 01:24:05 PM
Do you know the rules of the polling secetion for sure or you explaining your observations of them.

As best I can figure out.  Only Dave knows exactly how they work, Vorlon has said he is pretty sure it uses only the three most recent, and I number crunched the states when questions came up.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: opebo on July 09, 2004, 03:51:34 PM
I just clicked on the poll map and it has Kansas as a tossup.  Little mistake there?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ijohn57s on July 12, 2004, 11:21:01 PM
Has anyone else signed up for the Zogby online polling?   I did today, and already took completed my first poll.

It takes so little to make me happy some days...  :-)

Yes, I participate in those Zogby online polls as well.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: khirkhib on July 13, 2004, 03:32:33 AM
I just wanted to express my joy that Oregon is no longer a toss-up in the polling section.  Yeah.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: stry_cat on July 15, 2004, 10:50:04 AM
By the way, is anyone wondering about why the Libertarian vote is so high on the Mock Election Page?

'Cause we're everwhere ;)

I would actually guess that Libertarians are more politically active and would be more interested in finding a place like this than the average joe.  Plus there are a large number of Libertarians in geekdom so an online poll might be just a tad skewed.  

Now isn't there a thread else where for the discussion of the mock election?  Oh yes here it is: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=3972


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on July 15, 2004, 02:16:12 PM
The only poll in Nevada taken in the past 3 months shows the race at a 1 point margin.  Why is the state listed as a lean?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Floridude on July 18, 2004, 08:27:37 PM
Why isnt Florida listed as a toss up on the board on our page?  A very recent poll from strategic vision shows Bush up by 2.  It has not been put up.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: muon2 on July 20, 2004, 06:51:31 PM
I've noticed on the polls page the national Rasmussen is slipping further down the list. It's a tracking poll, and updated every day. It would be useful if Rasmussen was updated on a somewhat regular basis on the polls page as well, perhaps monthly.

This will probably become a greater concern as more pollsters turn to daily tracking after Labor Day.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on July 20, 2004, 07:04:30 PM
The Rasmussen tracking poll should be updated weekly, with his weekly numbers.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Floridude on July 20, 2004, 09:40:27 PM
Has anyone heard of the strategic vision company?  They have been doing some polls of swing states.  Does anyone know if they have party affiliation, how reliable they are, et cetera?  Their polls seem a little bush positive but not outlandish.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: kevinatcausa on July 22, 2004, 03:35:21 PM
Strategic Vision seems to be a firm whose primary purpose is to provide "Political Consulting", "Campaign Message", "Opposition Research", "Polling", "Media Training", etc. for their clients.

Their website is at http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/index.html .  I looked at their list of clients and every name I checked was a Republican.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ATFFL on July 22, 2004, 03:55:25 PM
Strategic Vision is one of the better pollsters that are aligned with one party.  Their independent polls (the ones they do on their own and not for a candidate) are usually decent.

Look at some of their recent polls:

Wisonsin: Kerry +3
Michigan: Kerry +2
Florida: Bush +2
Georgia: Bush +11

None of them are way off.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on July 22, 2004, 04:18:52 PM
The polls aren't WAY off, just slightly.  Maybe a point or 2 on each stated figure, ie Bush at 446-47 instead of 48 and Kerry at 44-45 instead of 43.  All within the margin of error, but on the rightwardly slanted side of the margin.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on August 06, 2004, 06:08:19 PM
There have been no new polls added to this site's polls page since 7/28.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on August 08, 2004, 03:37:26 PM
When will the polling section be updated?

I would do it if tohers are to busy, but I'm not allowed too, and I'll, be away for a good portion of Asugust.  But starting in sept. I could update it almost daily.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on August 08, 2004, 03:40:17 PM
When will the polling section be updated?

I would do it if tohers are to busy, but I'm not allowed too, and I'll, be away for a good portion of Asugust.  But starting in sept. I could update it almost daily.

Just e-mail Dave, he will give you a password :)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on August 08, 2004, 03:42:23 PM
I used to e-mail him about 7 times a day so now he ignores my e-mails, and I would do the same thing.

We'll see.  But I would like to have that section updated daily after Labor Day and I would use 30 mins of my time daily to make sure of it.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on August 08, 2004, 03:49:44 PM
Well try to get the battlegrounds done first I'd say.

And I'm excited to see what your site looks like.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on August 08, 2004, 04:04:40 PM
Image doesn't work but I have seent he breakdown before anyway.

Thanks for FL.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on August 08, 2004, 04:05:40 PM
OK I see it now.

But will the website be graphics like that, or is that graphic just a preview of what the text will look like?  I hope you understand my question, it is hard to word correctly.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on August 08, 2004, 05:37:18 PM
The page doesn't respond.

Plus are number domain names free?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: classical liberal on August 09, 2004, 04:47:37 PM
A domain is the alphanumeric replacement for the IP that a DNS can reroute to the IP.  You get an IP anytime you connect to the internet.  If you have broadband that IP is a constant number, with dialup it changes with each time you connect.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 11, 2004, 01:38:14 PM
Came across info indicating the the May South Dakota poll released by KELOLAND/Argus Leader was done by Mason-Dixon.  Posted the info ine page for that poll, but since it may affect the perceived reliability of that poll, I wanted to make certain that interested people were aware of its true source.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: muon2 on August 16, 2004, 11:07:54 AM
It looks like state polls are getting into the polling section regularly, but national polls are way behind. There was some discussion awhile ago about putting in the weekly Rasmussen, it hasn't been updated since May.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on August 21, 2004, 01:06:04 PM
It looks like state polls are getting into the polling section regularly, but national polls are way behind. There was some discussion awhile ago about putting in the weekly Rasmussen, it hasn't been updated since May.

I believe this link to National poll averages it right up to date.

Link to poll averages (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/IMAGES/PollAveragesAugust21st.htm)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: muon2 on August 21, 2004, 01:24:41 PM
It looks like state polls are getting into the polling section regularly, but national polls are way behind. There was some discussion awhile ago about putting in the weekly Rasmussen, it hasn't been updated since May.

I believe this link to National poll averages it right up to date.

Link to poll averages (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/IMAGES/PollAveragesAugust21st.htm)
Thanks.

It would be handy if the polls page on the forum used that as a link instead of the out-of date listings that are currently there.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: The Vorlon on August 21, 2004, 04:12:03 PM
It looks like state polls are getting into the polling section regularly, but national polls are way behind. There was some discussion awhile ago about putting in the weekly Rasmussen, it hasn't been updated since May.

I believe this link to National poll averages it right up to date.

Link to poll averages (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/IMAGES/PollAveragesAugust21st.htm)
Thanks.

It would be handy if the polls page on the forum used that as a link instead of the out-of date listings that are currently there.

That "link" is actually just a web page from my site, I uploaded a copy as part of a post in the discussion area.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on August 24, 2004, 07:20:40 PM
I expect many of the polls to inch toward Bush because the pollsters don't want to be embarassed by the actual results.



Title: Re:Polls
Post by: MODU on August 30, 2004, 07:22:04 AM

Would love to see how all the polls that came out this weekend affect the overall projection on our poll page.  


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Floridude on September 08, 2004, 05:06:50 PM
I did notice one mistake on the polls section.  In missouri, the SUSA polls is reported as Bush 47 Kerry 48, while I believe it was Bush 48 Kerry 47

Thanks


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ElectionAtlas on September 10, 2004, 12:09:42 PM
Thanks... took til today, but I fixed this.  Please point out any others.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on September 12, 2004, 04:36:09 PM
Why is it that every poll showing NC +10 for Bush is not put on there. But the ones showing NC close is put on there. I think someone is bias towards Kerry.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: © tweed on September 13, 2004, 02:21:14 PM
Why is it that every poll showing NC +10 for Bush is not put on there. But the ones showing NC close is put on there. I think someone is bias towards Kerry.

Vorlon and Leip don't care about Bush/Kerry so it's silly to call them biased.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: GOPman on September 17, 2004, 02:19:28 AM
Why is it that every poll showing NC +10 for Bush is not put on there. But the ones showing NC close is put on there. I think someone is bias towards Kerry.

Hey fellow-GOP'er, the same goes for Missouri and Wisconsin. I agree.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Nym90 on September 17, 2004, 08:47:16 AM
Why is it that every poll showing NC +10 for Bush is not put on there. But the ones showing NC close is put on there. I think someone is bias towards Kerry.

Hey fellow-GOP'er, the same goes for Missouri and Wisconsin. I agree.

Yes, it's all The Vorlon's fault. He's a left wing hack, as everyone knows.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: MODU on September 17, 2004, 09:31:10 AM

Wow.  A ton of new polls yesterday and today.  I hope whomever does the updating of our poll section on this site has some ice for the sore fingers they'll have after keying them all in.  :)


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: opebo on September 18, 2004, 06:28:38 PM
I was surprised to see Pennsylvania light blue for slight Bush when the last poll posted shows a 48% to 48% tie.


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: rockhound on September 21, 2004, 03:58:39 PM
I just noticed that Survey USA is showing MD in a tie.   I find that hard to believe.  Anyone know anything about their methodology?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: ElectionAtlas on September 24, 2004, 09:04:01 PM
I added a new capability for 50-state polls.  The recent ARG 50-state poll from September is on-line.
Dave


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: jdmoore on October 07, 2004, 06:45:26 PM
There's a new national poll from the AP/Ipsos.

944 likely voters
50-46, Kerry over Bush, 3% M.o.E.

Unknown number of registered voters
47-47, 2.5% M.o.E.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/presidential.poll.ap/index.html


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: classical liberal on October 08, 2004, 09:57:32 PM
There have been no post-debate polls posted for IL.  I've seen 2:

a SUSA released 10/7 showing Kerry +16 (http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/IL041007pressen.pdf) and a R2k released 10/5 showing Kerry +17 (http://week.com/election/election-read.asp?id=5843).


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: classical liberal on October 09, 2004, 10:52:40 AM
I haven't seen this posted:

http://actforvictory.org/act.php/truth/articles/new_swing_state_polling_from_america_coming_together/

polls from FL, NM, MN, IA, and WI released 10/7


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: opebo on October 16, 2004, 12:27:21 AM
Why is it that Pennsylvania has been moved to tossup because of a tied poll, while Colorado has a tied poll in one of the last three but remains 'Leans Bush'?


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: ATFFL on October 16, 2004, 12:48:23 AM
Why is it that Pennsylvania has been moved to tossup because of a tied poll, while Colorado has a tied poll in one of the last three but remains 'Leans Bush'?

Colorado still averages over 5%.  If the average is over 5% it will show lean despite ties, or even the candidate losing in one poll.


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: Siege40 on October 19, 2004, 03:30:12 PM
I just checked the poll section of the forum, looks like a huge Kerry surge... maybe. According to my excell chart (ya, I have my own chart to determine the winner, leave me alone) there's 17 EC Tossups (Minnesota + Iowa), 112 ECs within reasonable margin of error ( equal to or less than 4%). And for states with over 5% support in the latest poll the Dems have 213 ECs and the Reps have 196. I'm checking my numbers but it looks pretty good.

Siege


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on October 20, 2004, 10:21:34 AM
Recently there has been a rather significant divergence between polls from different pollsters as to the present intent of the voters.

While there are a number of possible explanations for this divergence, one which seems to me to explain much of the variation is in the way the particularly polling firm handles the 'likely voter.'

Lets take a concrete example of two radically different approaches.

Potential voter A is 50 years old, and has voted in the 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988.1984. 1980, and 1976 presidential elections.  He says he's leaning to vote for Bush.

Potential voter B is 23, has never voted in any election before in his life (was just registered) and declares that he hates Bush and will vote for "the other guy."

Some firms will look at the history of the voter to determine whether they are likely to vote this year, others will look at the 'intensity' expressed by the respondent to determine whether they will vote this year, and some consider both factors.

Those firms that use (at least primarily) historical voting to project who is more likely to vote, are more likely to give weight to voter A. than voter B.

Contrawise, those firms that use (at least primarily) 'intensity" to project likely voters, are more likely to give weight to voter B.


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: Colin on October 20, 2004, 07:08:57 PM
I find Rasmussen polls to be the most fair and the most accurate. They also do EV calculations and their site is very informative.


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on October 20, 2004, 07:40:54 PM
Rasmussen generally does a good job for the money, but he does have two signficant problems.

First, he weights his polls with a four point Democrat edge.  My data suggests that a one point Democrat edge would be more accurate.

Second, his state polls are often just subsets of his national polls, such that the data for his state polls can be from a two week period (not too reliable).


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: Kevinstat on October 21, 2004, 06:55:06 PM
Here's an interesting Maine poll from SurveyUSA.com:

http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/ME041020pres2q.pdf

In this poll, Kerry leads Bush by 6 points statewide (up from a 2-point lead in the last SurveyUSA poll), but by 9 points in the 2nd district (reversing a 9-point deficit in the last poll) and only 3 points in the 1st district (down from a 10-point lead in the last poll).  The second district is the one Bush came closer to carrying in 2000, and is the one pundits seem to expect he has a better chance of carrying this year.  So the results of this poll are a bit of a surprise.  This poll didn't seem to include candidates other Bush and Kerry in the question, but did leave an "other" option open.

The statewide result of the poll was Kerry leading Bush 51% to 45%.  In the first district, Kerry led Bush 49% to 46%.  In the second district, Kerry led Bush 53% to 44%.  Kerry polled best among those voters most likely to vote, although that bloc of voters was a far larger sample of the vote than the other bloc so that isn't saying a whole lot and may indicate that that bloc is inflated.

At the conservative web site AsMaineGoes, one poster commented that while he generally doesn't take much stock in polls, he found this polling organization particularly unreliable.  Another poster agreed, and it was discussed how the same polling firm overestimated support for a school funding initative by 19 points shortly before the election.  That was a primary election, however, and there weren't any top-ticket congressional primaries this year, and one poster pointed out that the low turnout in that election made it a very difficult one to poll.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau


Title: Re: Polls
Post by: alcaeus on October 25, 2004, 03:15:54 PM

   Kerry moved ahead in the Rasmussen poll today 48- 46 percent.   Rasmussen uses a five percent margin of error for states, and therefore has more tossup states than other polls.

     Most national polls are tracking even with greater frequency.   The national polls look identical to the '00 election at this stage.  However Bush is getting more votes in Bush states and Kerry is holding onto more states than Gore.

     


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: A18 on December 10, 2004, 06:58:44 PM
Bush is goin to lose the election by a landslide.  Trust me. hehe.  I'm a republican, but I cant stand bush.  He grew up with a silver spoon and had an easy life.  He was a deserter to.  Bush has gotten away with everything easy.  Bush is a moron also. 

So Bush is going to lose by what again?


Title: Re:Polls
Post by: Alcon on December 15, 2004, 06:03:04 AM
Bush is goin to lose the election by a landslide.  Trust me. hehe.  I'm a republican, but I cant stand bush.  He grew up with a silver spoon and had an easy life.  He was a deserter to.  Bush has gotten away with everything easy.  Bush is a moron also. 

So Bush is going to lose by what again?

Wow...May 28th. Reaching a bit there, Philip?