Its time for Bush to get worried
By Frank Luntz
October 15, 2004

The big story of the US presidential election up to Thursday was how few undecided voters there were. Now the final presidential debate is over, these voters have essentially made up their minds - and it is George W.Bush who should be worried. If John Kerry is elected the 44th president, it will be because of a single night in Miami, Florida, when he came to debate and Mr. Bush came to - well, no one is quite sure. The double-digit lead that Gallup polls, long considered an authority for presidential polling, gave Mr. Bush after the Republican convention was fully erased by that fateful 90-minute confrontation.

Step by step, debate-by-debate, John Kerry has addressed and removed many remaining doubts among uncommitted voters. My own polling research after each debate suggests a rather bleak outlook for the Bush candidacy: many who still claim to be “undecided

Yup that's why bush has a 8 point lead

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Yup that's why bush has a 8 point lead

He is down by 3 in Democracy Corp poll. Gallup has a history of oversampling Republicans and that is why Zogby has moved past them in the industry.

UCBearcats1125 Wrote:Yup that's why bush has a 8 point lead

This is from an article from USA Today about Gallup sampling practices.

At issue: Whether too many Republicans end up being counted as "likely voters" in Gallup's polls. In the past six USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls this year, about 40% of the likely voters in the surveys said they considered themselves to be Republicans. By one measure, that's higher than might be expected: Exit polls after the past three presidential elections showed that about 35% of voters in those years said they were Republicans.

Peter Schurman, MoveOn.org's director, said Tuesday that Gallup "should admit its mistake and correct it by using samples that more closely reflect" likely turnout.

Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, said the critics don't understand the science behind the polls. "This issue has been the subject of intense scholarly discussion and years of research. We're confident in what we're doing," he said.

Actually, it's what Gallup doesn't do that is at the heart of the debate. The polling firm does not adjust its "pool" of voters to add or subtract Republicans or Democrats in an effort to mirror those parties' estimated make-ups.

Among the reasons Gallup doesn't try to do that:

• It believes there are no reliable data on which to estimate exactly how many Republicans or Democrats there are in the country. Some states, for example, don't require voters to register by party affiliation. Basing an adjustment on previous year's exit polls, "means you're 'weighting' one poll based on the results of another poll, which has its own built-in sampling error," Newport said.

• It believes party affiliation "is an attitude, not a demographic trait" and that voters can change their minds about which party they identify with more than once during an election year, Newport said. That would explain, he said, why the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans went down during this year's Democratic primaries — when Kerry and his competitors were in the news.

Most polling firms use the same methods as Gallup when identifying party affiliations. Among those are the surveys done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Andrew Kohut, the center's director, said in a statement last week that "important shifts in voter sentiment" could be missed if pollsters tried to apply rigid party formulas to results.

But not all pollsters agree with Gallup's approach. John Zogby is CEO of the independent polling firm Zogby International.

He adjusts the voter pools in his surveys to mirror party affiliations expressed in earlier exit polls. "I am one of the heretics in the polling industry," he said Tuesday. He maintains that "there are variations in people's party affiliations, but they aren't changing much daily, weekly or even monthly."

<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-28-gallup-defense_x.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...p-defense_x.htm</a>

Is this the same Gallup poll that had Bush DOWN last week?

Thought so.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Is this the same Gallup poll that had Bush DOWN last week?

Thought so.

It is the same Gallup poll that had President Bush ahead by 14 when every other poll had it between 4-6.

Maize Wrote:Peter Schurman, MoveOn.org's director, said Tuesday

:roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

Like his opinion matters......... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The next quote............'This same tool said on Wednesday that he is partial to sheep and wears women's underwear because he "likes the way the fabric feels against his skin"'.

RandyMc Wrote:

Maize Wrote:Peter Schurman, MoveOn.org's director, said Tuesday

:roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

Like his opinion matters......... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The next quote............'This same tool said on Wednesday that he is partial to sheep and wears women's underwear because he "likes the way the fabric feels against his skin"'.

His opinion doesn't matter but this does matter.

"At issue: Whether too many Republicans end up being counted as "likely voters" in Gallup's polls. In the past six USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls this year, about 40% of the likely voters in the surveys said they considered themselves to be Republicans. By one measure, that's higher than might be expected: Exit polls after the past three presidential elections showed that about 35% of voters in those years said they were Republicans."

I find it interesting that, according to Maize, the more reliable polls are the ones that show Kerry in the best of situations.

Fair enough. I think this guy is just saying that Bush can't coast.

I can see the concern over the "likely voter" category. There is plenty of room for interpretation on these things. Bias can be hard to overcome.

As a Bush supporter, I don't want to assume too much. There is only one poll that counts.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I find it interesting that, according to Maize, the more reliable polls are the ones that show Kerry in the best of situations.

No just showing that Gallup is kind of flawed. Here is their samples over the past couple of months. Remember most elections the breakdown is Dems 36-38%-Reps 33-35%-the rest Independant. This is the Gallup breakdown of the sample in their past few surveys. BTW you can't dispute that both Zogby and Democracy Corp have been more accurate then Gallup.

<< October 14-16

GOP 38%

Dem 35%


October 9-10

GOP 38%

Dem 34%


October 1-3

GOP 35%

Dem 39%


September 24-26

GOP 43%

Dem 31%


September 13-15

GOP 40%

Dem 33% >>

Maize Wrote:No just showing that Gallup is kind of flawed. Here is their samples over the past couple of months. Remember most elections the breakdown is Dems 36-38%-Reps 33-35%-the rest Independant. This is the Gallup breakdown of the sample in their past few surveys.

If I'm not mistaken those weights assume a higher democratic voter turn out. I think Gallup is taking into account the fact more the republican base is excited about voting than the dems.

Quote:BTW you can't dispute that both Zogby and Democracy Corp have been more accurate then Gallup.

Actually, I can. In 2002 he picked wrong winners in something like 3 or 4 states, and missed them by a good bit. He also weights his samples based on predictions about voter turn out. He admitted himself in 2002 that he underestimated the get out the vote campaign the republicans put together.

The fact is the Republican base is far more excited about Bush than is the democratic base about Kerry. Zogby hasn't changed is weighted sample to reflect that and is basing it on past voter turnouts, a mistake he made in 2002 and showed him wrong in several states.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Maize Wrote:No just showing that Gallup is kind of flawed.  Here is their samples over the past couple of months.  Remember most elections the breakdown is Dems 36-38%-Reps 33-35%-the rest Independant.  This is the Gallup breakdown of the sample in their past few surveys.

If I'm not mistaken those weights assume a higher democratic voter turn out. I think Gallup is taking into account the fact more the republican base is excited about voting than the dems.

Quote:BTW you can't dispute that both Zogby and Democracy Corp have been more accurate then Gallup.

Actually, I can. In 2002 he picked wrong winners in something like 3 or 4 states, and missed them by a good bit. He also weights his samples based on predictions about voter turn out. He admitted himself in 2002 that he underestimated the get out the vote campaign the republicans put together.

The fact is the Republican base is far more excited about Bush than is the democratic base about Kerry. Zogby hasn't changed is weighted sample to reflect that and is basing it on past voter turnouts, a mistake he made in 2002 and showed him wrong in several states.

So you will just throw out the historical Presidential turnout. History doesn't back you up on Presidential turnout. We can both agree turnout is going to be huge. Another key factor is all the new registered voters in this election.

Maize Wrote:So you will just throw out the historical Presidential turnout.&nbsp; History doesn't back you up on Presidential turnout.&nbsp; We can both agree turnout is going to be huge.&nbsp; Another key factor is all the new registered voters in this election.

No, what I'm saying is 2002 bucked the historic trend because of the get out the vote drive the republicans had. I would expect their effort to be twice as intense this year.

History is just that, history. 2002 proved that. I also believe 9/11 has changed the dynamic for many voters who now watch elections much more closely.

Same people that think Kerry won the third debate when a 80% liberal focus group said Bush won? Alrighty then.

Call me cynical, but fudged close polls flooding the news claiming a nail bitter = TV ratings.

What's that? TV stations wouldn't lie like that?

If you thought that, the burning smell you caught a whiff of was the back of your brain burning up trying to fire the words "Dan Rather" out of your subconscious.

Turnout will still be well under 65% I betcha... which is absolutely sad.

Furthermore, I expect a shocking number of ballots will be cast for third party candidates. Typically in a "close" election year for President such as this one, third party candidates get squeezed down to 1% of the vote. I think they'll get closer to 3-5% of the vote. If it weren't so close, I'd think the 3rd parties would muster 7% or so. The number of people laughing at third parties keeps going down. People are sick and f'n tired of voting for the person they hate least, and having this nation abused by the two party system. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are growing. We're not talking leaps and bounds, but we are talking noticeable gain.

The other potential party is the constitutional party, but most of their issues are covered by the Libertarian Party.

Socialist/Communist/Reform/"People's Party" et al ... fringe groups. Feel free to truly laugh at those. However the Green/Libertarian Parties do carry a very real agenda and message that resonates with many. Many more people if they weren't locked out of the media / big time political debates. I would have loved to have seen Michael Badnarik mop the floor with Kerry/Bush on fiscal issues.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Maize Wrote:So you will just throw out the historical Presidential turnout.  History doesn't back you up on Presidential turnout.  We can both agree turnout is going to be huge.  Another key factor is all the new registered voters in this election.

No, what I'm saying is 2002 bucked the historic trend because of the get out the vote drive the republicans had. I would expect their effort to be twice as intense this year.

History is just that, history. 2002 proved that. I also believe 9/11 has changed the dynamic for many voters who now watch elections much more closely.

No I just see off year elections and Presidential year elections as apples and oranges. And you can also bet that the Democrats will have their stuff together just as the Republicans will.

Maize Wrote:And you can also bet that the Democrats will have their stuff together just as the Republicans will.

I'm sure they will. I'm sure they've got their fraud efforts and voter intimidation lies ready for action.

Keep this in mind..............the silent majority.

rickheel Wrote:Keep this in mind..............the silent majority.

Keep this in mind, the pissed off minorities.