Bush +4 Nationally (Marist) Kerry +19 in NY (Siena Research) Kerry +1 in Oregon

[The Vorlon]

Marist Uni- Bush +4 Nationally

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--presidentialpoll-0426apr26,0,6941325.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

Rasmussen - Kerry +1 in Oregon

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Oregon_April.htm

Kerry +19 in New York (Siena Research)

http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=20334

Pretty much the same number as the Daily Rasmussen Track

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

[California Dreamer]

Marist poll is tied without Nader, I think all polls here should note if they are with or without or show both

[Lunar]

That poll still has Nader going at 5.  They really should fix their models to ones that have him going at 1-2%.

[The Vorlon]

Marist poll is tied without Nader, I think all polls here should note if they are with or without or show both

You have read the poll incorrectly.

It is Bush +4 with Nader, +3 Without Nader

ALBANY, N.Y. -- President Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry are running neck-and-neck nationally and in key battleground states, an independent poll reported Monday.

But the poll, from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, also found that regardless of who they planned to vote for, 52 percent of voters said Bush would be re-elected while 37 percent said Kerry would win in November.

Bush +3 without Nader

The poll had Bush favored by 47 percent of registered voters nationally with Kerry the choice of 44 percent and 9 percent undecided.

Bush +4 with Nader

With third-party contender Ralph Nader in the mix, the national view was Bush, 47 percent; Kerry, 43 percent; Nader 5 percent; and undecided, 5 percent.

..ie the pretty much standard 1 point drop for Kerry with Nader.

This is also registered, not likely voters, most of the Nader 5% just won't vote if history is a guide...

9% undecided without Nader, 5% undecided with Nader.

Most Nader is just undecideds who wanna have an asswer to the question...

[opebo]

Encouraging poll.  I think Kerry ahead in states like Oregon, Iowa, and Minnesota by only a point or two does not bode well for him.  

[Lunar]

The number you were looking at was this:


With third-party contender Ralph Nader in the mix, the national view was Bush, 47 percent; Kerry, 43 percent; Nader 5 percent; and undecided, 5 percent. In the battleground states, it was Bush, 45 percent; Kerry, 45 percent; Nader, 5 percent; and undecided, 5 percent. [/b]

However, any number for "Battleground" states lumped together is irrelevant.

[StevenNick]

I guess Oregon will be a state to watch if this poll is any indication.

[California Dreamer]

RE: 'tied with Nader'
Yes...i skimmed it and saw this and didnt note the 'battleground' part.

In the battleground states, it was Bush, 45 percent; Kerry, 45 percent; Nader, 5 percent; and undecided, 5 percent.

also of note is:

In 17 states considered key battlegrounds, the Massachusetts Democrat was favored by 47 percent of voters to 44 percent for Bush, again with 9 percent of voters undecided.

These results are similiar to the recent ABC/WP poll that showed Bush winning Nationally, but Kerry winning in BG states.


So another headline for this poll is: Kerry +3 in Battleground States

[Lunar]

Who cares about the % winning in battleground states?  It's like combining Indiana and Illinois to get a feeling of how the Midwest is going to vote.  If you include Delaware or Maine in the "Battleground States" then it's going to skew it, just like including Arizona and Arkansas will.

[The Vorlon]

RE: 'tied with Nader'
Yes...i skimmed it and saw this and didnt note the 'battleground' part.

In the battleground states, it was Bush, 45 percent; Kerry, 45 percent; Nader, 5 percent; and undecided, 5 percent.

also of note is:

In 17 states considered key battlegrounds, the Massachusetts Democrat was favored by 47 percent of voters to 44 percent for Bush, again with 9 percent of voters undecided.

These results are similiar to the recent ABC/WP poll that showed Bush winning Nationally, but Kerry winning in BG states.

So another headline for this poll is: Kerry +3 in Battleground States

Re: Odd Battleground Numbers

ABC News "kinda" does their polls like Zogby. (and kinda not, Zogby is his own unique animal)

Both Zogby and ABC break the population down into demographic groups (I think ABC uses 78 categories, but that is from memory, so it may be wrong) and then have a "quota" system when they collect data - ie they need this many rural white people, this many city blacks, so many with kids, etc...

While this, at least in theory, produces a good national sample, the regional samples can be really, really weird.  

You tend to get your "easy" quotas (Elderly, women, unemployed) in the early time zones, and then the "hard" quotas (Empty nesters, etc) in the later time zones, which really skews the subsamples.

For example in the last Zogby, Bush was up only 4% in the south, while being up 6% in the Central/Great Lakes area. - Clearly a bit off I am sure you will agree...

Finally, in the ABC poll, they talked to +/- 1000 people which equates to about 400 in the "Battlegrounds" ie +/- 5% or so.

Regarding the Marist Poll, I do not know enough about their inner workings to even suggest why... If I see any breakouts, I will let you know

The polls (aproximately) break into two groups..

Among those who do not weight/construct samples, the regional breakouts should, bearing in mind the big MOEs of subsamples, be fairly good.

In this category would be:

Gallup
TIPP
Fox (kinda sorta, they semi-constrain their samples)
CBS (although CBS is just so fundementally bad, I'd just toss the whole poll anyway)

If any of these 4 has "crazy" subsamples, toss the whole poll, as they clearly just had a bad sample (If Gallup gets weird internals they just throw the poll away and do another one BTW)

Among those who do weight, regional breakouts are very. very iffy..

In this category would be:

Zogby
Battleground
Teeter/Hart
Rasmussen
ABC

Neither the "weighters" or the "non-weighters" is "better" there are excellent firms in either camp,  they just have different characteristics.  And one of the characteristics is that the non-weighters can (subject to huge MOEs) produce semi-useful subgroups, while the weighters/constructive samplers cannot as a rule.

Hope that is a helpful explanation!

[Umengus]

This polls are not very interresant because the election is not for today or tomorrow but we like polls and we want always polls...

Polls polls polls, that's the way I wanna rock n roll...oh yeah...(sorry vodka is not good for the health...)