Rasmussen - Kerry + 4.5% / +1.7% / +1.6%
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:37:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Rasmussen - Kerry + 4.5% / +1.7% / +1.6%
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Rasmussen - Kerry + 4.5% / +1.7% / +1.6%  (Read 3879 times)
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 29, 2004, 11:47:10 AM »
« edited: March 30, 2004, 04:27:04 PM by The Vorlon »

Senator John Kerry Leads President Bush by 4.5% in the latest 1 day sample, by 1.7% in the rolling 3 day sample, and by 1.6% in the rolling 7 day sample.

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

Exact daily percentages are posted below.


                 I Day              3 day            7 day   
            Kerry   Bush   Kerry   Bush   Kerry   Bush
      
24-Mar   49.7   43.3   47.0   44.3   45.8   46.0
25-Mar   47.6   43.2   48.2   43.5   46.1   45.3
26-Mar   44.0   46.1   47.1   44.2   46.0   45.6
27-Mar   47.6   45.1   46.4   44.8   46.2   45.3
28-Mar   43.4   45.3   45.0   45.5   46.2   44.7
29-Mar   47.6   43.1   46.2   44.5   46.4   44.8
30-Mar   49.1   45.1     46.7   44.5   46.7   44.5
 

The margins of error associated with purely statistical sampling variation are:

One day sample +/- 4.38%, 19 times out of 20
Three day sample +/- 2.53%, 19 times out of 20
Seven day sample +/- 1.66%, 19 times out of 20

In addition, methodological errors beyond purely statistical sampling errors may influence the survey results.

In addition, the day on which a survey is conducted will have a marginal effect on the outcome, with surveys conducted on weekends tending to produce a result modestly more favorable to a Democratic candidate, while surveys conducted during week days produce a result modestly more favorable to a GOP candidate.


Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2004, 11:50:57 AM »

How would you analysis this Vorlon, your good with polls...  
Logged
Nation
of_thisnation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,555
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2004, 11:58:57 AM »

I'm liking that 7-day sample. 95% confidence interval for a pretty small margin, and a dead heat between kerry/bush. What I'd expect for a national poll. I want to see more Ohio-Florida polls though, :-o
Logged
klrbzzz
Rookie
**
Posts: 127


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2004, 12:07:45 PM »

The last Ohio poll I saw was Kerry 48%, Bush 46%, but that was 2 days ago.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2004, 12:33:55 PM »
« Edited: March 29, 2004, 01:04:04 PM by The Vorlon »

How would you analysis this Vorlon, your good with polls...  

Firstly, a few notes on Rasmussen.......


Rasmussen does things very much the same as other pollsters, except for one change.. they use machines, not humans, to do their surveys.

They have a professional announcer read the survey questions, record the voice into a computer, and the person being surveyed hears the recorded voice and responds accordingly...

This approach, obviously, is far cheaper than having pay dozens of operators to run your calls.

It has the following advantages:...


Rasmussen can run a larger sample size.  

A larger sample size, contary to popular belief, does NOT make a poll inherently more accurate, it does, however reduce statistical margins of error, so you get less raw statistical "noise"

To explain this point a bit further, imagine that a pollster decided to sample only people who owned a BMW to include in his.her poll of presidential voters, and sampled 10,000 BMW owners.

The margin of error STATISTICALLY would be very small (+/- 0.98%, 19 times out of 20) however limiting your sample to BMW owners would likely skew your sample from a METHODOLOGICAL point of view.

A big sample cuts down on statistical error, but has no effect at all on methodological errors.

A second advantage of the Rasmussen method is the every person who gets surveyed hears EXACTLY the same voice, inflection, tone, etc. - This should make the trendline (as opposed to the absolute value) of Rasmussen polls pretty accurate.

The effects of the voice doing the actual survey are pretty substantial actually.

To cite but two examples, if you conduct a poll on the Pro Choice / Pro Life issue and use female operators you get a result that is about 8 or 9% more pro-choice than if you use male operators.

If you use operators with a southern accent, you get a result about 4% for favorable to the GOP than of you use a midwestern accented group of opoerators...

Questions about Rasmussen....??...

The use of machines is, frankly, an unknown.  

I can't really say if it is good or bad.  

Remember, 25 years ago when polling firms started using the telephone as opposed to face to face interviews using the telephone was considered voodoo..

With human operators the response rate for a good polling firm with good operators is about 25 or 26%, ie.. about 1 in 4 people you contact will agree to do your survey.  Rasmussen reports that he has a response rate of about 20% or so..

Does getting 1 in 5 versus 1 in 4 make a difference... I think the jury is still out.

Rasmussens Methodology....


Other than the use of machines, Rasmussen is pretty darn by the book actually.  He buys his actual list of numbers to call from the same people that Gallup uses (A firm called "Survey Sample Inc"... what a creative name...)  

Rasmussen belongs to the "weighting" school of pollsters, so he applies a number of subtle adjustments to his actual results to make compensations for self identified party affiliation, projected voter turnout, etc. The weights he applies are fairly cautious, no where near as radical as say Zogby does.

Rasmussen's Track Record....


Genrally speaking his record is very good, with one huge glaring exception...

In 2000 he was the most accurate pollster calling the Presidential primaries.  he was the 2nd most accurate calling the 2004 Presidential primaries.

In 2000 he did 19 state by state presidential polls and got 17 right.  This was second only to Mason-Dixon who actually had a perfect record in 2000.

(Mason-Dixon has a smallish 600 person sample, (+/- 4%) but other than that are absolutely first rate in every way)

Rasmussen did, however, utterly crash and burn on his 2000 Presidential poll - he had Bush at +9 in his final 3 day sample prior to the 2000 vote.

Untill about a week to go in 2000, Rasmussen's Presidential tracking poll was right in the heart of the range suggested by the other polls, but went totally off the rails in the last week.

To his credit, Scott Rasmussen was very open about what he did wrong, the assumptions he had made about voter turnout, etc.  He has also detailed rather extensively the changes he has made.

His version of events in 2000 is that about half of his error was methodological - he had modeled a lower turnout than others had, a choice which typically favors the GOP, and about half was just a plain old fashioned "freak" sample.  

Remember, when you do a three day track, and 1 out of 20 samples is outside the mormal +/- range, you have about a 1 in 7 chance than any 3 day sample will have one freak result...

Rasmussen has adjusted his turnout model for 2004.  In my humble opinion he actually went a tad too far, and I expect his polls now structually leans about 1.0 to 1.5% towards the Democrats, but again, that is PURELY my opinion...

Where does the race stand right now...?

I think Bush took a modest, but lasting and enduring hit from the Clarke/Against All enemies matter. - maybe on the order of 1-2% or so.

If you look at the "number's behind the numbers" Bush has lost  a bit of ground on a number of "trust" measures.

I thought, however, the GOP did an excellent job is damage control.  

The Bush team learned it's lessons well from Bill Clinton.  

When Paula Jones and her story came out, Clinton and company trashed her very badly ("drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, it's amazing what you'll come up with" - James Carville) - and just as the Paula Jones matter essentially "imunized" Clinton from other similar scandals, I think the Clarke matter similarly imunizes Bush from the no doubt similar attacks that will be forthcoming in the future.

I continue to think this race is very close, with a modest Bush advantage.

Bush's suppport is VERY solid.  Even with everything that has happened his support has never dropped below a base line of 45% - he only needs 48% to win the election.

To me the most overlooked, and to my knowledge utterly amazing and unprecedented polling number is the "right track / wrong track" question.

Right now, about 55% of so of Americans think the nation is on the "wrong track," while only 42 ish % think it is on the "right track".  Normally with those types of numbers the incumbant is "dead, gone, done, stick a fork in 'em, it's over..."

The fact that Bush is still (very modestly) ahead is thus all the more amazing to me.

We will get a very key economic number this Friday - the Jobs report. - If the economy generated say 125,000 or more jobs, I think Bush may start to pull away a bit, if the number is another disappointment, things will stay very close...





Logged
Rococo4
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2004, 12:39:13 PM »

thats some great poll analysis - keep up the good work.  I agree with you, as I posted elsewhere here, that PA is being taken for granted by Dems......a little early for that.
Logged
HoopsCubs
Rookie
**
Posts: 188


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2004, 12:40:43 PM »

Senator John Kerry Leads President Bush by 4.5% in the latest 1 day sample, by 1.7% in the rolling 3 day sample, and by 1.6% in the rolling 7 day sample.

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

Exact daily percentages are posted below.


                 I Day              3 day            7 day   
            Kerry   Bush   Kerry   Bush   Kerry   Bush
      
24-Mar   49.7   43.3   47.0   44.3   45.8   46.0
25-Mar   47.6   43.2   48.2   43.5   46.1   45.3
26-Mar   44.0   46.1   47.1   44.2   46.0   45.6
27-Mar   47.6   45.1   46.4   44.8   46.2   45.3
28-Mar   43.4   45.3   45.0   45.5   46.2   44.7
29-Mar   47.6   43.1   46.2   44.5   46.4   44.8

The margins of error associated with purely statistical sampling variation are:

One day sample +/- 4.38%, 19 times out of 20
Three day sample +/- 2.53%, 19 times out of 20
Seven day sample +/- 1.66%, 19 times out of 20

In addition, methodological errors beyond purely statistical sampling errors may influence the survey results.

In addition, the day on which a survey is conducted will have a marginal effect on the outcome, with surveys conducted on weekends tending to produce a result modestly more favorable to a Democratic candidate, while surveys conducted during week days produce a result modestly more favorable to a GOP candidate.




Thanks for tracking this.  This is definitely the Clarke/Rice stuff factoring in.  Right or wrong, by not letting Condi Rice testify publically to the 9/11 panel, some independent voters are beginning to think that President Bush is hiding something.

I, for one, think Richard Clarke lacks some credibility, but he is asking enough questions and saying enough things to swing some folks.

The President is really in a tough spot now.  There are enough Republican leaders begging for Rice to publically testify.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2004, 12:48:47 PM »

How would you analysis this Vorlon, your good with polls...  

Firstly, a few notes on Rasmussen....

Rasmussen does things very much the same as other pollsters, except for one change.. they use machines, not humans, to do their surveys.

They have a professional announcer read the survey questions, record the voice into a computer, and the person being surveyed hears the recorded voice and responds accordingly...

This approach, obviously, is far cheaper than having pay dozens of operators to run your calls.

It has the following advantages:

Rasmussen can run a larger sample size.  

A larger sample size, contary to popular belief, does NOT make a poll inherently more accurate, it does, however reduce statistical margins of error, so you get less raw statistical "noise"

To explain this point a bit further, imagine that a pollster decided to sample only people who owned a BMW to include in his.her poll of presidential voters, and sampled 10,000 BMW owners.

The margin of error STATISTICALLY would be very small (+/- 0.98%, 19 times out of 20) however limiting your sample to BMW owners would likely skew your sample from a METHODOLOGICAL point of view.

A big sample cuts down on statistical error, but has no effect at all on methodological errors.

A second advantage of the Rasmussen method is the every person who gets surveyed hears EXACTLY the same voice, inflection, tone, etc. - This should make the trendline (as opposed to the absolute value) of Rasmussen polls pretty accurate.

The effects of the voice doing the actual survey are pretty substantial actually.

To cite but two examples, if you conduct a poll on the Pro Choice / Pro Life issue and use female operators you get a result that is about 8 or 9% more pro-choice than if you use male operators.

If you use operators with a southern accent, you get a result about 4% for favorable to the GOP than of you use a midwestern accented group of opoerators...

Questions about Rasmussen....??

The use of machines is, frankly, an unknown.  

I can't really say if it is good or bad.  

Remember, 25 years ago when polling firms started using the telephone as opposed to face to face interviews using the telephone was considered voodoo..

With human operators the response rate for a good polling firm with good operators is about 25 or 26%, ie.. about 1 in 4 people you contact will agree to do your survey.  Rasmussen reports that he has a response rate of about 20% or so..

Does getting 1 in 5 versus 1 in 4 make a difference... I think the jury is still out.

Rasmussens Methodology.

Other than the use of machines, Rasmussen is pretty darn by the book actually.  He buys his actual list of numbers to call from the same people that Gallup uses (A firm called "Survey Sample Inc"... what a creative name...)  

Rasmussen belongs to the "weighting" school of pollsters, so he applies a number of subtle adjustments to his actual results to make compensations for self identified party affiliation, projected voter turnout, etc. The weights he applies are fairly cautious, no where near as radical as say Zogby does.

Rasmussen's Track Record.

Genrally speaking his record is very good, with one huge glaring exception...

In 2000 he was the most accurate pollster calling the Presidential primaries.  he was the 2nd most accurate calling the 2004 Presidential primaries.

In 2000 he did 19 state by state presidential polls and got 17 right.  This was second only to Mason-Dixon who actually had a perfect record in 2000.

(Mason-Dixon has a smallish 600 person sample, (+/- 4%) but other than that are absolutely first rate in every way)

Rasmussen did, however, utterly crash and burn on his 2000 Presidential poll - he had Bush at +9 in his final 3 day sample prior to the 2000 vote.

Untill about a week to go in 2000, Rasmussen's Presidential tracking poll was right in the heart of the range suggested by the other polls, but when totally off the rails in the last week.

To his credit, Scott Rasmussen was very open about what he did wrong, the assumptions he had made about voter turnout, etc.  He has also detailed rather extensively the changes he has made.

His version of events in 2000 is that about half of his error was methodological - he had modeled a lower turnout than others had, a choice which typically favors the GOP, and about half was just a plain old fashioned "freak" sample.  

Remember, when you do a three day track, and 1 out of 20 samples is outside the mormal +/- range, you have about a 1 in 7 chance than any 3 day sample will have one freak result...

Rasmussen has adjusted his turnout model for 2004.  In my humble opinion he actually went a tad too far, and I expect his polls now structually leans about 1.0 to 1.5% towards the Democrats, but again, that is PURELY my opinion...

Where does the race stand right now...?

I think Bush took a modest, but lasting and enduring hit from the Clarke/Against All enemies matter. - maybe on the order of 1% or so.

If you look at the "number's behind the numbers" Bush has lost  a bit of ground on a number of "trust" measures.

I thought, however, the GOP did an excellent job is damage control.  

The Bush team learned it's lessons well from Bill Clinton.  

When Paula Jones and her story came out, Clinton and company trashed her very badly ("drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, it's amazing what you'll come up with" - James Carville) - and just as the Paula Jones matter essentially "imunized" Clinton from other similar scandals, I think the Clarke matter similarly imunizes Bush from the no doubt similar attacks that will be forthcoming in the future.

I continue to think this race is very close, with a modest Bush advantage.

Bush's suppport is VERY solid.  Even with everything that has happened his support has never dropped below a base line of 45% - he only needs 48% to win the election.

To me the most overlooked, and to my knowledge utterly amazing and unprecedented polling number is the "right track / wrong track" question.

Right now, about 55% of so of Americans think the nation is on the "wrong track," while only 42 ish % think it is on the "right track".  Normally with those types of numbers the incumbant is "dead, gone, done, stick a fork in 'em, it's over..."

The fact that Bush is still (very modestly) ahead is thus all the more amazing to me.

We will get a very key economic number this Friday - the Jobs report. - If the economy generated say 125,000 or more jobs, I think Bush may start to pull away a bit, if the number is another disappointment, things will stay very close...







Good analysis Vorlon, I agree with much of what you say, however I would nitpick with your calling both PA and OH for Bush both states have only produced polls where Kerry is ahead and Bush is yet to take the lead in any polls from these states (however I would imagine this will change as the race gets into higher gear and in these states in particular become closer... primarily Ohio)... I would wait for the next set of reputable state polls to come out from OH and PA but if those where to show Kerry in the lead I would say that you might want to call those states for JK... but apart from that your prediction map is very good (still not sure about Dems winning MN, WV, IA and NM despite recent polls but i have little to base that on) an once again great analysis!...
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2004, 01:00:18 PM »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, a Quinnipiac poll on March 17th had Bush +4 in Pennsylvainia

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x10604.xml

But I agree with you fundemental points that Ohio and Pennsylvania are very close, and that there is not enough reliable data to make a firm judgement.

8 months out state level polls frankly just don't work very well either.  That's not a knock against the polling firms, but simply a reality.

The polls are designed to predict an election at a time very close to the actual election.

8 months out is not close enough for these pools to even have a chance of working right - they are simply the wrong "tool" for the job.

A screwdriver makes a lousy hammer when you are working in the woodshop.  

This isn't an "attack" on a screwdriver, a screwdriver is a great tool for driving in screws.. it just simply is not a hammer...

This far out I go much more on voter registration trends and other less fluid data.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2004, 01:12:36 PM »
« Edited: March 29, 2004, 01:13:26 PM by The Vorlon »




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree Bush needs to get Rice up there.

The text book example on damage control is still Reagan and Iran/Contra.

On day one the Reagan people announced that..

A) A rogue Lt. Cornel (Oliver North) was selling arms to the Iranians and diverting the profits to the contras
B) The President Knew Nothing
C) Col North has been shot/killed/excommunicated/fired/resigned

The Democrats spent 6 months and $60 million and points 1,2,3 never got changed.  Reagan defined the story.

Put Rice up there, let her take her hits, get it done and over with.  It's the "drip..drip...drip" that kills you, never the "big" story...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2004, 01:51:58 PM »

Actually, a Quinnipiac poll on March 17th had Bush +4 in Pennsylvainia

I don't trust Quinnipiac... or any other poll done by a Uni for that matter...
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2004, 01:59:24 PM »

Actually, a Quinnipiac poll on March 17th had Bush +4 in Pennsylvainia

I don't trust Quinnipiac... or any other poll done by a Uni for that matter...

Generally speaking... that's good advice ... Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2004, 02:04:21 PM »

Actually, a Quinnipiac poll on March 17th had Bush +4 in Pennsylvainia

I don't trust Quinnipiac... or any other poll done by a Uni for that matter...

Generally speaking... that's good advice ... Smiley

I'm a cynic when it comes to polls anyway (I blame Yes Minister for that), but Uni polls are even worse than normal polls... (not usually as bad as "internet polling" though...)

They usually either seriously exaggerate trends... or are just plain wrong...
Logged
lidaker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 746
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: 0.88, S: -4.67

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2004, 03:13:41 PM »

Vorlon, why do you think the dems will win NH and WV? And why does FL lean GOP?

Keep up the good analyzing, it's greatly interesting to read it.
Logged
CTguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2004, 05:29:58 PM »

The dems will not win WV, there are too many rednecks there.  They will win Florida though and New Hampshire.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2004, 05:53:19 PM »

Vorlan,
I enjoy your input on these polls.  I followed Rasmussen's tracking poll for months in 2000.  Woke up election day feeling pretty good seeing Rasmussen's overnight numbers.  Obviously, they were off and what I was hoping would be a comfortable win became a nail biter.                                                                  
         
Your earlier explanation of what Rasmussen had to say about his 2000 poll was enlightening.  Based on the fact that Rasmussen's numbers seem to be very much in line with most other polls it seems maybe he has fixed his problems from 2000.  In fact, his numbers, if anything, seem to show Bush running slightly behind the Bush numbers from other polls.  Am I just imagining this?
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2004, 07:04:37 PM »
« Edited: March 29, 2004, 07:08:07 PM by The Vorlon »

In fact, his numbers, if anything, seem to show Bush running slightly behind the Bush numbers from other polls.  Am I just imagining this?


Rasmussen has adjusted his turnout model for 2004.  (in 2000 he more or less used the same model as "Battleground") In my humble opinion he actually went a tad too far, and I expect his polls now structually leans about 1.0 to 1.5% towards the Democrats, but again, that is PURELY my opinion...
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2004, 07:37:12 PM »
« Edited: March 29, 2004, 10:24:34 PM by The Vorlon »

Vorlon, why do you think the dems will win NH and WV? And why does FL lean GOP?

Keep up the good analyzing, it's greatly interesting to read it.

West Virginia

WV is a naturally Democratic state -Heck Dukakis even carried West Virginia.

Also, in 2000, Gore was, to put it mildly, a total and complete idiot when it came to West Virginia.  I think the Gore campaign book was entitled "Coal is bad, lets throw all the West Virginia coal miners out of work and then publically shame them for contributing to global warming" (ok.. that's a mild paraphrase, but I got the spirit right..

I still have West Virginia close, but I have to believe that in a real close race it goes for Kerry.

New Hampshire

Has been trending Democrat for a while.  Bush only won by 1.5% (or so) in 2000.

In 2002 a GOOD GOP senate canidate (Sununu) only won 51/47 against a marginal Democratic candidate on a strong GOP election night

New Hampshire is in Kerry's back yard.

New Hampshire has been hit quite hard by high tech out sourcing

Bush got pounded for 4 months during the Democratic Primary.

New hampshire goes for Kerry, write it down.. Smiley

Florida

I just do not buy this "angry democrat" argument.

Firstly, Donna Brazille (Gore's 2000 campaign manager) did an AMAZING job at voter turnout in 2000 in Florida.  

Sometimes you just have to take your hat off and say "well done!"  Donna.."Well done!"

On the downside, I just don't think there is any more Democratic turnout to be had.  Put bluntly, Kerry's people an 2004 are just  not as good as Brazille is at get out the vote

Secondly, what about 2002..?

Were these angry democrats also not going to sweep Brother jeb from the Governors office?

Granted, a Governors race is not a Presidential race, and Jeb is a better Governor than George is a President, but Jeb won by a semi-landslide of 13%..

You just can't ignore 13%+ GOP margin in a governors race.

Finally, there is the Seniors issue.  Bush actually won Florida seniors 50/46 in 2000.

Older, government dependant seniors (say 70+) break more for the Dems than any other group - this group is also the group that is dying off the fastest.

Younger, affluent seniors (60-70) break modestly for the GOP, and their relative percentage in Florida is growing as it becomes more and more a retirement location for affluent, GOP leaning seniors.

The Kerry strategy seems to be targeting Ohio rather than Florida.  Gore decided to go toe to toe, dollar for dollar with Bush in 2000, and if essentially bankrupted his campaign in a bunch of other states - Arkansas, Tennesse, New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri - I think Kerry realizes that even a few of the many millions spent in Florida might have won any one of a number of other states for the Democrats.

I would not be at all surprised if Bush ends up carrying Florida by maybe +5 or 6 actually...
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2004, 08:19:17 PM »

What do you think about Ohio?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2004, 08:58:42 PM »

I hear that Clinton and Gore will be testifying. That will be interesting.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2004, 09:46:35 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you get DC bureaucrats leaping over the DC suburbs to live in rural state with a shrinking population 50 miles away from their workplace? WV does not border DC. Dukakis also carried a lot of industrial and farming counties that Gore did not carry. Dukakis even won Oregon more easily than Gore. For a guy trying to beat a popular President's VP in a year with an expanding economy, Dukakis even ran a better campaign than Gore did.

New Hampshire

In 2002 a GOOD GOP senate canidate (Sununu) only won by about 1.5 against a marginal Democratic candidate on a strong GOP election night

How is a popular former governor a marginal candidate?
Logged
classical liberal
RightWingNut
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,758


Political Matrix
E: 9.35, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2004, 09:53:20 PM »

Front Royal, VA counts as a DC suburb, as does Hagerstown, MD and they're both like 50 mi away.  I agree that Charleston is a bit of a stretch, but the eastern edge of WV and the panhandle are DC suburbs.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2004, 09:55:32 PM »
« Edited: March 29, 2004, 09:57:48 PM by Beet »

Actually nevermind about the biggest town but the panhandle itself is 67 miles away.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2004, 10:09:07 PM »

Vorlon I need some websites w/individual state polls! I am helpless to find one myself. Thanks.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2004, 10:09:14 PM »


How is a popular former governor a marginal candidate?

Ok... let's say Shaheen was a GOOD candidate.... the argument still stands...

Re West Virginia, ok a bit of a brain cramp there.. Smiley

Was thinking Virginia, not WV geographically..., but the rest of the argument is valid...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.