Part of the fun of being a Democrat is that the Democrats are always fretting over blips in the polls during the election. The latest round of anxious hand-wringing was over the post-convention "bounce" for Bush.
Ruy Teixeira is keeping cool: Gallup Poll Gives Bush Only a 2 Point Bounce 09/06/04
I think those of us who have expressed skepticism about the results of the Time and Newsweek polls can consider ourselves vindicated. The new Gallup poll, conducted entirely after the GOP convention and therefore the first poll that truly measures Bush's bounce, shows Bush with a very modest bounce indeed: 2 points, whether you look at RVs [registered voters] or LVs [likely voters]. His support among RVs has risen from 47 percent before to 49 percent after the convention, so that he now leads Kerry by a single point (49-48) rather than trailing by a point. ...
So that's the big story, right--Bush got a disappointingly small bounce and the earlier Time/Newsweek polls got it wrong about the bounce and how well Bush is doing. Nope, not if you're writing stories at USA Today. You dasn't contravene the current CW about the campaign (Bush surges ahead!) no matter what your own data says.
Yet another reminder that trying to process the problems of today's American political media through the conservative dogma/mantra/myth of "Liberal Media, Liberal Media, Liberal Media" will make you miss what's going on.
The Gallup Poll Teixeira refer is reported in more detail here: Bush Gets Small Convention Bounce, Leads Kerry by Seven by Jeffrey M. Jones The Gallup Organization 09/06/04
Gallup's write-up at their Web site gives emphasis to the ratings among "likely voters." Gallup's Jones explains:
The difference between Bush's lead among likely voters and the statistical dead heat among registered voters underscores the importance of voter turnout. Kerry does better among the larger pool of registered voters, suggesting that a very high (but probably unrealistic) voter turnout would benefit Kerry if the political conditions remain as they are today.
I won't really be ready to chew over elaborate details of polls until after the election. But Teixeira's analysis is in line with what Steve Gilliard has been saying in his particular forceful way (i.e., a little more profanity than he needs) about how Democrats shouldn't be panicking now. A recent example: Before you panic, think: where are Bush's new voters 09/05/04. In this quote, when he refers to "internals," he means the detailed findings of the polling numbers that show the candidates' strengths and vulnerablilities among voters of different regions and segments of the voting population:
It will take a miracle for Bush to win, and he has been short of them lately.
Personally, I think [Bush's long-time political strategist Karl] Rove and his team are desperate to find anything to get Kerry on, and they aren't finding it. Their internals are nightmarish, which is why Bush's strategy has been to play up the war. But the Rove team has so lost their touch, they vetted, then humiliated Zell Miller within the span of 24 hours. Nothing has moved the numbers. Nothing. Not the Swift Boat lies, not Bush's trial balloons, nothing. The current post convention bounce is probably illusory and Rove knows it.
3 comments:
To add to your story, both Rasmussan and Zogby's polls have the race just as close if not closer.
Zogby is showning a two Bush point lead. I think the last I hears, Rassmussanhad it tied.
Anyway, you feel as I do about polls. As soon as the Newsweek and Time Poll came out, I knew it was a bunch of hooey. I think Time was the one who said last year Gore couldn't lose. Anyway, you'd have thought the election was already over the way some people were moaning and groaning about it. I think I even chastized the writers on one site.
One thing that seems to be happening, too, is that the margin of error on polls may be going up. One big reason is telemarketing. People have gotten so annoyed at getting so many sales calls at home that they often quickly hang up, don't answer the phone or just refuse to participate when a pollster calls. Phone polling has been critical for the random samples that pollsters use.
According to the blogger Hesiod, who seems to follow these things more closely than I do, the Gallup poll has been showing a heavier pro-Bush bias than other independent polls. - Bruce
I don't like national polls. The election isn't a matter of the popular vote. I keep track on "Electoral Vote Predictor" (http://www.electoral-vote.com/). The past week went from Kerry far ahead to Bush ahead by a small degree back to Kerry ahead but not by enough to win. I'm sure it will round back up to Kerry in the lead for good by election time. Especially after the debates which Bush will try to duck.
That Happy Chica,
Marcia Ellen
Post a Comment