Strategic Vision Polls from Ohio, Iowa, Penn, "Cheesehead Land", Jersey

[handler]

No, but he's the best at what he does in presidential elections.  His presidential record speaks for itself.

[handler]

Look it up.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think Ohio will be competitive to the end though I'd say while Bush will probably carry it, Kerry can possibly carry it.

I think Pennsylania, along with New Jersey, will stick with the Democrats.

Iowa's going down to the wire, could very well produce one of the closest results come November.

Although, Wisconsin is looking like Republican-country these days, I think the state's progressive tradition may serve Kerry well - but I'm far from confident about that!

Dave

[Sam Spade]

Zogby nailed Florida??

From November 1, 2000:

A year ago, the fourth largest state was considered safe for the Republicans, but Gore has apparently managed to close the gap. An MSNBC-Zogby Florida Poll released Tuesday showed Gore with a 51-40 percent advantage. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader got 4 percent and 4 percent were undecided.

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-11/11012000Florida.asp

Troll.

[Giant Saguaro]

For the record, I have acknowledged that Zogby's internet state polls are baloney.  However, his state telephone tracking polls in 2000 were dead on.  (except California which was waaaay Bush friendly for all of you who have the mistaken view that Zogby is a partisan Dem)

He NAILED Florida  -  more accurate than Mason-Dixon.  I know you all worhip at the alter of Mason-Dixon.

Do you really think a professional pollster like Zogby would risk his credibility making the statements he's made if he wasn't absolutely positive that Bush was finished?

Handler, you are right to be suspicious of polls with a D or an R next to their names. However, there are decent partisan polls. I think, for example, on the Dem side, Democracy Corps is generally regarded as a pretty decent poll. Maybe not 100% the most reliable, but not bad. How about if we give Strategic Vision a chance, huh? I don't think they have a track record and are generally new.

Newsweek, for example, is clearly biased, yes. Maybe strategic vision is biased, who knows, we'll see; but their polls generally meet with what's close to consensus.

[handler]

Check his FINAL day Florida number.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Also note that these polls represent a uniform gain of 2 points for Kerry since their last round of polls, except for NJ, where Kerry has gained 5.

[Democratic Hawk]

Also note that these polls represent a uniform gain of 2 points for Kerry since their last round of polls, except for NJ, where Kerry has gained 5.

Well if Kerry's gaining a bit of ground according to (R) pollsters, it can't be too bad?

Dave

[MODU]

Check his FINAL day Florida number.

Careful what you ask for.  Vorlon may flood you with statistics and results, and the election might be over before you are through reading it all.

hahaha

[Shira]

Strategic Vision gets the big (R) next to their name, however for most of this year the bulk of their polling has been more or less consistent within MOE of others.

I think PA and Jersey might be a few points too kind to Bush in this bunch - nothing horrible, within MOE

I "think" Ohio is actually about right (IMHO), but I really want to see another poll to confirm or deny till I get a firm opinion on that state.

Iowa ? - not sure actually.

Wisconsisn is consistent with other polls.

Y 'all spin away on these.

OHIO
Bush 51%
Kerry 45%

IOWA
Bush 49%
Kerry 47%

PENNSYLVANIA
Bush 46%
Kerry 46%

WISCONSIN
Bush 49%
Kerry 45%

NEW JERSEY
Kerry 47%
Bush 41%

And what about your regular stuff of sample breakdown?

"Ohio is actually about right". Do you sincerily buy this?
OH now IMHO is anywhere between Bush --> -2 to Bush --> +2.

[TheBulldog]

Far too Bush friendly.  Bump Kerry up one or two percent in each of those polls

[handler]

Ha.  I'm still waiting.

[MODU]

And what about your regular stuff of sample breakdown?

"Ohio is actually about right". Do you sincerily buy this?
OH now IMHO is anywhere between Bush --> -2 to Bush --> +2.

I would say it is more like Tie --> Bust +3.  All the polls for the most part (all but one) show a decent Bush lead in Ohio, with only Survey USA showing a Bush lead (ARG is constantly slanted Democratic by 2%, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and calling it a tie).

[The Vorlon]

Look it up.

Zogby had Kerry GORE  +2 in Florida in 2000

Mason Dixon had Bush +2, MD also finished their poll 3 days before the actual vote.

Zogby also had BUSH rapidly gaining ground in Florida the last week.  1 week out Zogby had Gore up by 11% on October 31st, 2000 which was just non-sense.

Look it up

[A18]

Anyone who thinks Bush +5 in Ohio is not a realistic situation needs to take his/her medication

The only polls that showed a Kerry "surge" in Ohio are ARG (total trash) and SurveyUSA.

SurveyUSA has had Kerry +1 in California before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, I know we all hate Zogby, but if they had KERRY +2 in 2000, this guy's insane

[The Vorlon]

Anyone who thinks Bush +5 in Ohio is not a realistic situation needs to take his/her medication

The only polls that showed a Kerry "surge" in Ohio are ARG (total trash) and SurveyUSA.

SurveyUSA has had Kerry +1 in California before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, I know we all hate Zogby, but if they had KERRY +2 in 2000, this guy's insane

<<hides head in shame and humiliation>>

That would be Gore +2 in 2000

..and according to Zogby Bush GAINED 9% in the last 7 days to make it close in florida...

Gore 48 / Bush 46 / Nader 6 said Zogby in Florida 2000

[handler]

Ok, BUT....

Mason Dixon was no more accurate than Zogby and people on this board seem to think Mason - Dixon hangs the moon.  Can we at least agree that in presidential years, Zogby is right there with Mason Dixon on state polling.

[Rococo4]

No

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Anyone who thinks Bush +5 in Ohio is not a realistic situation needs to take his/her medication

The only polls that showed a Kerry "surge" in Ohio are ARG (total trash) and SurveyUSA.

SurveyUSA has had Kerry +1 in California before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, I know we all hate Zogby, but if they had KERRY +2 in 2000, this guy's insane

<<hides head in shame and humiliation>>

That would be Gore +2 in 2000

..and according to Zogby Bush GAINED 9% in the last 7 days to make it close in florida...

Gore 48 / Bush 46 / Nader 6 said Zogby in Florida 2000

Wouldn't really be any worse than some of the swings we've seen in Gallup this year.

These Strategic Vision polls seem pretty good, but generally a point or two favorable to Republicans.  But I think ARG has also been pretty good, just a couple point favorable to Dems.

[MODU]

Ok, BUT....

Mason Dixon was no more accurate than Zogby and people on this board seem to think Mason - Dixon hangs the moon.  Can we at least agree that in presidential years, Zogby is right there with Mason Dixon on state polling.

No, because though the final figure might have been off, MD was (and is) more consistant and accurate in their polling than Zogby.  Zogby is all over the place and has a higher rate of error than many of the national pollsters.

[The Vorlon]

"Ohio is actually about right". Do you sincerily buy this?
OH now IMHO is anywhere between Bush --> -2 to Bush --> +2.

Re Ohio:

Firstly, I have been something less than "stomping on the ground" adament that Bush is up 5ish.

I "think" Ohio is actually about right (IMHO), but I really want to see another poll to confirm or deny till I get a firm opinion on that state.

All the stuff I am seeing on Ohio is really mixed.

I just am not sure.  Bush by 4-5 is my "gut" but I am open to being conviced one way or the other.

Firstly,  I did leave it "light blue" in my "Map". (Bush 0-2%) becasue I just an not really sure.  I have discribed this as "a gut feeling"

That being said... a common sense argument to me always works...

1)  Bush lost PV by 0.51% in 2000, but won Ohio by 3.51% => Bush is 4% better in Ohio than his national number - and "the trend" is pretty even in Ohio - no big shift.

If we say, to use your number Shira, that Bush is up 1% Nationally then this implies:

1% + 4% => 5% or so...

Also:

Rasmussen's Mini-bot track (less than "investment grade" polling I freely admit) has Bush up 5%, and now Strategic Vision, whose polls have been "in the game" this year also says 5% or so.

One poll is a blip...
Two polls is a maybe..

We are at the "maybe" stage...

We will see

[The Vorlon]

Ok, BUT....

Mason Dixon was no more accurate than Zogby and people on this board seem to think Mason - Dixon hangs the moon.  Can we at least agree that in presidential years, Zogby is right there with Mason Dixon on state polling.

NO

20 of the least 45 Zogby telephone polls - going back to and including 2000 - have missed the MOE.

In 2000, the year you love to quote...

Hillary Clinton by 3 in New York...? (actual was 12%)
California TIED...? (actual was 12%)
Santorum by 18 in Pennsylvania...? (actual was 8%)

In the Presidential race he missed New York by 6%
In the Presidential race he missed Pennsylvania by 5%
In the Presidential race he missed Illinois by 5%

And the less said about 2002... the better....



  To be fair to Zogby, this graphic was based on Zogby's own website data, he did not have posted the Florida Governors race where he did get Jeb Bush within 3%

[Light Touch]

For the record, I have acknowledged that Zogby's internet state polls are baloney.  However, his state telephone tracking polls in 2000 were dead on.  (except California which was waaaay Bush friendly for all of you who have the mistaken view that Zogby is a partisan Dem)

He NAILED Florida  -  more accurate than Mason-Dixon.  I know you all worhip at the alter of Mason-Dixon.

Do you really think a professional pollster like Zogby would risk his credibility making the statements he's made if he wasn't absolutely positive that Bush was finished?

Zogby in 2000 was a fluke.  Zogby in 2004 will be the laughingstock of the election.