It’s intersting, if the Dems are counting on MO. We just passed a “sanctity of Marriage”(no gay weddings) ammendment by 71% to 39%. The incumbent Dem Gov Holden was defeated in his primary by 52% to 48%.(the first time this has ever happened in MO.) Holden was a very unpopular Gov and has left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. The republican Challenger won his primary by 88% over several others. It’ll be an interesting fall in MO.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 5, 2004 11:46 AM

Zogby is an Arab and is notoriously pro-Democrat.

I am NOT a professional pollster and I have a Republican bias.

However, for fun I have been taking MSNBC’s Poll on who I would vote for in November for at least 90 days. I would suggest that some of you may want to track it for your self. It has surprised me and it MAY SURPRISE you?

MSNBC is partisan in writing anti-Bush and anti-Republican stories in ALL of their articles. They even talk about it. They also PROMINENTLY say their online poll is unscientific. They are at least very truthful about that.

What amazes me is that when I started watching this, the Numbers for President were 63% for Kerry and 31% for Bush! Their POLL has ALWAYS FAVORED Kerry in all ways.

Today’s Poll (August 5th) (after the convention, etc.) is as follows:

George W. Bush

42%

John Kerry

55%

That is a 19% swing in Bush’s favor in 60 days.

It is unscientific, of course! Is it a True statement of the Race ??? Of Course Not!

However, take their Poll yourself for the next 60 days! There may or may not be any swings like that again, but I have noticed that pattern trending toward Bush for at least a month or longer. You can see what happens on your own in this simple exercise.

I suspect that as more people learn about Kerry then this pattern trending toward Bush will continue. Time will tell.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 5, 2004 01:28 PM

This Zogby Poll can not be trusted what so ever. I barely even got started in researching this when I read the following off the Zogby Poll Page:

“Please note that this chart reflects the race based on the premise that the 34 states not included in the poll will fall to the candidate of the same party to which they fell in 2000. “

Lest we all live in a cave, it appears that Todd left out the above information. I question why Todd would leave this out? I also wonder if Alan would accept having contributers that won’t tell the truth about their news stories and conduct ‘snippets’ much like Michael Moore’s 9/11 Film?

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 5, 2004 03:03 PM

Let me put this Zogby Poll into further perspective.

Adding in the ‘sentence’ I wrote above omitted by Todd in this news article along with the highlighted sentence included by Todd and we have a grand total of 38 states that were NOT polled.

That means that Zogby is giving John Kerry a margin of 291-215 based off of its polling of whopping 12 states in America out of 50.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 5, 2004 03:12 PM

Jeff,

I think the post very clearly identifies that the poll is only based on 16 states that are deemed battleground states by Zogby, once in plain text and a second time in bold text, which also points out four are not included in the electoral total. You don’t need the sentence from the full article to do the math that the electoral tally only includes polls from 12 states. I wasn’t trying to hide anything, just trying to keep the post to a reasonable length, and hence the link to the full article.

Are you suggesting that every poll posted on this site must also give the pedigree and analysis of it’s methodology? If that is the rule, I apologize for not following it. However, I have not seen it done that way before, nor did I read it in the posting guidelines. Are you suggesting a standard that any post that does not give each and every material detail of the full article is untruthful? Or are you simply trying to squelch debate by impugning my integrity and, by implication, Alan’s?

Posted by: Todd at August 5, 2004 03:49 PM

That means that Zogby is giving John Kerry a margin of 291-215 based off of its polling of whopping 12 states in America out of 50.

This is not completely truthful. The margin of 291-215 is based on polls of 12 states and assumptions about 34.

This is an interesting assumption. I have been trying to find information about which of these 34 “assumption” states (Zogby isn’t the only one, mind you) that may actually be in play after the convention and possibly be added to the battleground list (not Zogby’s). I’ll let you know what I find out.

Posted by: Todd at August 5, 2004 03:56 PM

Todd,

I just mean you need to be a little more nuanced.

If the readers don’t see that sentence that you omitted then they won’t understand that Zogby did not poll any of the 34 states or base its information of those 34 states on any recent polling.

They won’t know that Zogby is taking statistics from 2000 election and assuming that the votes for Al Gore will go to John Kerry and the votes for Bush will go to Bush.

This whole poll is not a representation of anymore than 12 states of America and yet it expects you to believe this is a poll that fairly represents the entire United States of America.

I just mean that when you have such a confusing poll like this the readers need to know ‘ALL’ of the caveats… not just one or two of them.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 5, 2004 04:08 PM

To all:

Be careful about zinging Zogby. In 2000 his polls supported Gov. Bush as seeming to have an advantage and he predicted that he would win. I found then that the Zogby polls were more inclined to generate numbers more supportive of Bush than the other polls. He has always been more willing to break new polling ground in his techniques and sometimes gets criticized by the other more traditional polling outfits.

I am not sure why he came out as early as he has predicting a Kerry win (which he did this past spring I believe) because I would think it damages his credibility in what is by all accounts a very tight race so far.

I tend to consider all the polls in the aggregate and find that so far, there is very little difference on the broader aspects of the race.

I try not to get too excited at this time one way or the other… but come mid September, things should be a different matter and the polls will indicate certain trends that bear watching. As far as I know, I do not think any polls are taken nor allowed among the troops in the combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even finding a way to incorporate that into a scientific sample is probably difficult at best. Same probably goes for the overseas expatriates who tend to vote Democratic.

(Todd, seems we had this same dialogue between us awhile back, right?)

Posted by: steve at August 5, 2004 04:16 PM

Todd,

I completely understand where you come from.

But, without the sentence I provided the readers don’t know HOW the result of this poll was created.

That’s my complaint. Without knowing how the 34 state electoral counts were calculated then readers will not know how this poll is conducted.

Traditionally, Command Post contributers just write the results of a poll and then show a linkage. I think that would be smarter than to try and figureout a newfangled polling system and end up omitting a key point in your article.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 5, 2004 04:19 PM

“Be careful about zinging Zogby. In 2000 his polls supported Gov. Bush as seeming to have an advantage and he predicted that he would win.”

I don’t trust Zogby and so what that he was correct once? A psychic can guess 1,000 guesses and end up being correct once in awhile.

I too predicted a George W. Bush victory and did it without conducting a single poll. Talk about that as a polling scheme:-)

I predicted Bob Dole would lose and was right about that. So what? I did not poll a single person.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 5, 2004 04:24 PM

“Want to know what Real People are thinking?

Zogby International has been tracking public opinion since 1984 in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe… “

John Zogby’s group hasn’t been around long enough to receive any accolates from anyone. What with at least 2 out of the grand total of 4 elections covered being landslides. Ronald Reagan’s Re-election and Clinton vs. Dole.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 5, 2004 04:42 PM

Jeff,

Your points are well taken, and I believe exactly what the comments section is for.

There was a lot of talk about polls after the convention, but they all seemed to present the aggregate popular vote. I wanted to get a sense of whether the convention had any effect on the electoral vote.

There are several sites that are tracking the electoral battle, but they all have their own methodology about putting states in Bush, Kerry, or Battleground columns.

As I have said before, the only poll that really matters is the one on Nov. 2.

Posted by: Todd at August 5, 2004 04:44 PM

One question? Can we really trust any polls. I mean, look at the Newsweek polls. Newsweek has had Kerry’s face on it the last 4 weeks. With glowing oratory both in the articles and in the editorials. How could Kerry not get some bump with this much warm glowing media attention showered on him? And all they can call Cheney is Dour? Come on , they could at least appear unbiased. Polls in MO showed the gay marriage ammendment would likely fail, but it passed at 71%, so much for the polls. Polls showed Gov Holden would wim, but he lost by 4 points.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 6, 2004 09:17 AM

“Are you simply trying to squelch debate by impugning my integrity, and, by implication, Alan’s?”

Forgive me for jumping in here - I have nothing to offer the conversation regarding polls, which I think are mainly junk food for lazy journalists (nothing personal) - but that statement strikes me as thin-skinned and childish, as if to say Challenge me and I’ll tell on you; then you’ll be sorry!

Moreover, how does challenging someone’s assertions squelch debate? That makes no sense at all. If everyone agrees, where’s the debate?

Just my two cents, take it or leave it.

Posted by: marymcl at August 7, 2004 03:17 AM

marymcl,

With all do respect, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

Jeff’s initial comment suggested that I was not being truthful in my comment and implying that I should not be allowed to post and that somehow the host of the site, Alan, was complicit in this. I found this statement incorrect, so I countered it. I did not suggest that Jeff’s attempt to counter my arguments squelched debate; I question whether his implication that I should not be allowed to post struck me was an attempt squelch debate. Read the thread to understand how it worked itself out. It’s clear that was not his intention.

I didn’t threaten to “tell” on anybody. So I think you are mistaken. Reread the entire thread and I think you will see what I mean.

Posted by: Todd at August 7, 2004 10:20 PM

Thats “all due respect”

Posted by: Todd at August 7, 2004 10:20 PM