DescentBB

Remember when after the DNC convention and Kerry got zip, zero, nada for a bounce?
Bye bye Kerry

From Newsweek:

Bush/Cheney Lead Kerry/Edwards 54 to 43 Percent; in a Three-Way Trial Heat, Bush/Cheney Receive 13-Point Margin Bounce

TIME Poll:

Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader

Sorry Ferny, I guess this prooves the RNC convention realy did knock the socks off the DNC. But then what did you expect with a cadaver like nominee the dems chose.

heh.. you actually thought I cared about this kinda stuff?

LOL

Polls can be rigged. And the only poll that matters is on election night.

Among likely voters

I am pretty skeptical of all polls this time around since the nation has become so polarized under Bush's watch. Voter turn out on both sides wont be what is predicted so I have a hard time believing that they really know who are "likely voters".

The way they poll "likely voters" is they poll a whole bunch of people, and ask "are you likely to vote?" along with asking who they'd vote for. The polarization won't make any difference there, except in making people in general more likely to say they'll vote. Polarization isn't going to hurt these types of polls at all. "Who do you like?" or "who do you think will be the best leader?" polls will be somewhat affected, but "who are you going to vote for?" is asking exactly what is going to be asked on Nov. 2. The "how would they know?" question you asked assumes they're predetermining who they think is "likely" -- but what they're doing is asking them on the spot. These people get paid big bucks to generate accurate polls; they know what they're doing.

Now, what does this mean? Historically, most candidates get a few point boost in polls right after their convention. After the DNC, Kerry barely held even (or possibly dropped -- there were jokes going around that the RNC wanted to hire the DNC speakers to help Bush's numbers again), while after the RNC Bush jumped 2-3 times the normal post-convention bounce. A lot of you want to ignore this, but doing so will only leave you surprised on election day. Simply put, what this means is that very few people were convinced by the DNC, while a ton of people were convinced by the RNC. These numbers will taper off in a week, but not all the way back down -- unless Bush does something monumentally stupid, or Kerry does something monumentally brilliant, Bush has this election.

If you watched both conventions, or even just the keynote speeches, this wouldn't come as a surprise. Especially if you saw Kerry looking half-drunk at midnight after the RNC (breaking with a longstanding tradition that you don't do anything public during or immediately after the other party's convention).

You are trivializing the polls. They are much more specific then that, they break it down regions and use their past voter turn out to then make random phone calls where they ask if you are likely to vote and who you will vote for.

The "they know what they are doing" has no bearing, especially after the last election. Polls are in the business of extrapolating data , they use a lot of past data to do so.

The nation is more polarized now under Bush's watch, so past data is now meaningless.

Polls also predicted that Gore would win by at least 10% of the vote 4 years ago. 'Nuff said.

Like it or not, the RNC convention was far better than the dems. Of course, neither addressed any specific issues so it really was: who can script a better movie?

It was the RNC. But that unfortunately has nothing to do with who can lead the nation better.

Stryker wrote:Polls also predicted that Gore would win by at least 10% of the vote 4 years ago. 'Nuff said.

dead wrong. i worked for the National Gallup Poll during the last election. i understand the polling process fairly well. I know of no polling agency who predicted anything near a 10 percent margin either way in 2000. In fact, for the first time ever, Gallup called the election "too close to call". How right they were.

Lothar has it right. The respondent is first asked if they voted in the last election, then if they plan to vote in this one, then who they will vote for in the upcoming election. There's no verbal trickery here. When the voter goes in the booth they pick one candidate or another. same thing in the polls. If the polls say bush is leading i believe them.

as far as polarization...

i don't think its really relevant. i think the polls will reflect the polarization. for instance, important demographics like 18-25 year olds likely to chose a liberal candidate since the respondent is asked if they intend to vote. In the 1992 election, more 18-25 year olds voted than in any previous election, so clearly when these demographics become polarized it is important. that was a big reason why Clinton won. the polls should detect the intentions of those in that demographic. hence, polarization won't fool the pollsters.

basically, the polls will detect, in each demographic, who intends to vote and for whom. The demographics are crucial because thousands of surveys may be completed and then only so many results used to reflect demos such as age, race, gender, income, etc. once a demographic is filled, those respondents screen out of the survey. each demographic is represented based on comparison to census info.

some may have heard me say this before, but the polls are accurate on the issue of the presidency, especially Gallup. if the polls weren't accurate then the trends would fluctuate wildly. they dont. there are consistent trends showing voter preference over time. also, gallup's ability to predict who would win is very impressive. afterall, they not only said that 2000 was "too close to call", they predicted truman would defeat dewey.

Re: goober's comments...

As far as looking at historical poll results...these are used to show the trend, but have no bearing on the results of any individual study. past voter turnout is not something used to derive sample (the phone numbers called). past voting may be used to predict if the respondent will vote in the upcoming election, but this is based on self reporting of past behavior, not data from the actual voting sites.

the sample is taken from a simple factor of knowing area codes and the socio-economics of where the phone prefix is located geographically. Then the last four digits of the phone number are randomly generated.

In sum, when you say "past data is meaningless" this is both true and false. Past data was NEVER meaningful in the sense that it changes the predictions made by the current study. In other words, no past data is used to "extrapolate" current data. Past data only shows the trend. The useful part of looking at past data is to view the trend over time.