ABC/WP Redux-Kerry +4 in Battleground States

[California Dreamer]

Recently the ABC/WP poll showed Bush +1 (+5 with Nader) amongst registered voters.

But looking a little deeper and just focussing on the Battleground States the poll shows Kerry +4 (+2 with Nader)

The BG states are defined as the 17 with a margin of less than 7% victory in 2000

Otherwise the data in the BG states doenst differ greatly on the issues, probably the most significant is that the economy is rated more imporant in BG states (Economy as most important issue: BG States: 31% / Other States: 24)


Reward for Most Ironic Statistic:
Agree with the phrase "Bush Unites":50%
Agree with the phrase "Bush Divides": 48%
(all states)


CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

[VHSRupert]

Interesting numbers there, I want to see a pole that has numbers on WV.  WV did put Bush over the top with our small number of 5 electoral votes.  

[Sibboleth]

Interesting numbers there, I want to see a pole that has numbers on WV.  WV did put Bush over the top with our small number of 5 electoral votes.  

Due to the complex turnout patterns in WV, I wouldn't trust *any* of them:

ARG, had a dead heat
Rasmussen, had a small Bush lead
---
Both had small samples (and probably are not worth the paper they were printed on... but it keeps political junkies talking...)

[howardpearlman]

Kerry Is Going to WIN,

and then we can Try Bush for WAR CRIMES

against both man and nature.

[classical liberal]

War Crimes is a stupid concept thought up by people who don't want to accept how vile and debauched human's are by nature.  War is horrid, disgusting, barbaric, debased, anamalistic, painful, and putrid; the liberals of Earth really need to get over it.

[opebo]

17 battleground states?  Sheesh, that's way too many, no wonder this poll is biased pro-Kerry.

And yes, the concept of 'war crimes' is absurd.

[Lunar]

Arkansas, Arizona & Missouri would weight it Republican.

Maine, Washington, & Michigan would weight it Democratic.

With Minnesota and Nevada also possibly weighting it.

Lumping all of the Battleground states in one lump sum and presenting that number is meaningless.

[angus]

Rightwingnut, I think it exploits the moralistic consciousness of the public in order to lend an air of legitimacy to persecuting one's enemies, or a group of enemies.  A way to get that last lick in after the battle is long over.

CaliforniaDreamer,  I like the paradox.  Also, maybe economic considerations are no more important in the battleground than in any other states, but the effect is magnified there, since candidates actually have to spend time and money and so the folks who see the personal attack ads (and those are concentrated in the battleground markets) have become desensitized to the process, and have achieved a higher level of pragmatism.

[classical liberal]

Rightwingnut, I think it exploits the moralistic consciousness of the public in order to lend an air of legitimacy to persecuting one's enemies, or a group of enemies.  A way to get that last lick in after the battle is long over.

There was an interesting section in a Carl Sagan book about that.  He was saying that humans tend to lower their enemies to be subhuman before any war.  An example is the recent war in Afghanistan,  the enemy arent Human beings who reside in the mountains of Afghanistan; the enemies are the evil, corrupt, fundamentalist, taliban terrorists.

[angus]

Rightwingnut, I think it exploits the moralistic consciousness of the public in order to lend an air of legitimacy to persecuting one's enemies, or a group of enemies.  A way to get that last lick in after the battle is long over.

There was an interesting section in a Carl Sagan book about that.  He was saying that humans tend to lower their enemies to be subhuman before any war.  An example is the recent war in Afghanistan,  the enemy arent Human beings who reside in the mountains of Afghanistan; the enemies are the evil, corrupt, fundamentalist, taliban terrorists.

Was it Contact?

[angus]

I ask only because that's the only Sagan work I've read cover to cover, but I don't remember that part.  I have read quite a few of his non-fiction essays, including the one in the early nineties, in which he wrote that our government operates very scientifically, identifying problems (observing), taking expert testimony about the cause of the problems (trying to find a hypothesis), proposing and debating legislation (experimenting), and further redefining legislative action (concluding and re-experimenting, depending on the result).  I'll try to see if I can find the source of that particular article later, when I'm not so drunk, as I think you'd find it stimulating reading.

[classical liberal]

It was Billions and Billions, a wide spectrum of topics with some interesting viewpoints.

[angus]

Yes, well he's correct, as usual.  That's how we do it in Western Civilization, especially since the Great Experiment in Democracy has turned out to be so lucrative for its benefacors.  I'm still looking for that article, which was given to me back in my early days in grad school, around 91, by a Hungarian-born American scientist who really believed in our system.  Now I'm on a quest through boxes.  arrgh.

[The Vorlon]

Recently the ABC/WP poll showed Bush +1 (+5 with Nader) amongst registered voters.

But looking a little deeper and just focussing on the Battleground States the poll shows Kerry +4 (+2 with Nader)

The BG states are defined as the 17 with a margin of less than 7% victory in 2000

Otherwise the data in the BG states doenst differ greatly on the issues, probably the most significant is that the economy is rated more imporant in BG states (Economy as most important issue: BG States: 31% / Other States: 24)


Reward for Most Ironic Statistic:
Agree with the phrase "Bush Unites":50%
Agree with the phrase "Bush Divides": 48%
(all states)


CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

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 Correction! 48 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!

[angus]

rightwingnut,
 check out Carl Sagan's Baloney detection kit

[opebo]

Like many geeky boys in the 1970's and early 1980's I was a great admirer of Carl Sagan.  Inspiring fellow.  

[classical liberal]

"observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);"

The opposite happens here; the state boasts OJ and Peterson, not Bush.

[angus]

"observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers);"

The opposite happens here; the state boasts OJ and Peterson, not Bush.

Of course OJ is more exciting than JEB.  But that's more a statement of the moral deterioration of our society.  Jay Leno plays this game where he goes out into the streets of New York and quizes people.  Can you name the vice president?  maybe one in seven people can.  Can you name Ross' sister on Friends?  Then you get like five in seven.  Sad but true.

[classical liberal]

It's Monica right?

In any case, how is killing immoral?  Isn't morality defined as the basically agreed to code of conduct of a society? Therefore, isn't any uniform deviation from that code simply the evolution of that code of morality?

[angus]

It's Monica right?

In any case, how is killing immoral?  Isn't morality defined as the basically agreed to code of conduct of a society? Therefore, isn't any uniform deviation from that code simply the evolution of that code of morality?

perfectly logical, assuming your definition of morality is correct.

But is it?