« New Economist Poll Shows Race Nearly Tied | Main | Kerry, Bush in Statistical Tie in New Ohio Poll »

Bush Has Narrow Lead in Democracy Corps Poll

A poll of nation-wide LV's conducted Sept. 6-9 by Democracy Corps has Bush at 50 percent, Kerry at 47 percent with 1 percent for "other."

Comments

I'm not sure if this is the place to post it, but a Survey USA poll, Sept. 6-8, shows Bush with only a 3% lead in Ohio. Given Zogby's 10.9% and Gallup's (weird LV) 9%, I figure this to be good news. They also show North Carolina only up 4% for Bush.

Also, Zogby's latest state poll shows that Kerry is up by a percent in Colorado. Are they actually in play? If Kerry can turn Colorado and New Hampshire, and hold the Gore 2000 states, that would do it, even if he were to lose 2 of the 3 of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

Survey USA is typically pro-Bush as well.

Good news indeed.

After learning so much on sites like this I'm beginning to wonder if polls are even relevant this year. Appears that the pollsters assume everything is status quo in voting patterns, habits, etc in America. But there are so many different variables this year - in the technology of polling (cellphones, ie, uncountable votes) to unprecedented GOTV with newly registered votes (more uncountable votes)...

gail,

it's not even status quo they're depending on. It's the idea that more Republicans will vote than Democrats.

But here is some more information for you.

According to exit polls of the last three elections:

In 1992 - 31% of all voters were Dems. 31% were Repigs. 38% were independant (Perot had a good showing)

1996 - 36% were Dems. 34% were Repigs. 30% were independants.

2000 - 40% were Dems. 36% were Repigs. 24% were Independant.

Do you see a pattern here?

Democrats are increasing the plurality of their vote vis-a-vis the Republican vote.

Now, look at the 1990 and 2000 census. I read this in Time magazine about two or three weeks ago.

The number of protestants (especially evangelical) have decreased (in terms of total US population) from 62% in 1990 to 51% in 2000.

Protestants (especially evangelicals) vote primarily for Republicans.

Yet, minorities (especially hispanics, muslims, and Asians) have increased in that same period to make up a larger share of the population. They now make up 26%.

This group typically votes Democratic. With the exception of muslims - who used to vote Republican - but in this election have said they will vote Democratic.

African Americans make up about 13 to 15% of pop. Will stay Democrat.

Catholics make up 26% of population. Voted for Gore by 1%; this time Kerry leads them by 10%+.

Young voters (30 and under) voted for Gore by 2 or 3% and now Kerry leads them two-to-one.

What is the point of all of this?

It is to demonstrate that the reason the Republican vote is actually shrinking and has been for some time now. Just as the Democratic vote is increasing.

In fact, an analysis of the 2000 election and the 2000 census showed that if the same demographics voted the way they voted in the 2000 election in 2004, Gore would win by 4%. Why? Because of Demographic changes.

Let's look at history.

Since 1952, whenever the Republicans won the majority of southern states and 92% or more of their base - they won landslides:

Eisenhower - 1952.
Eisenhower - 1956.
Nixon - 1972.
Reagan - 1980.
Reagan - 1984.
Bush - 1988.

Yet, George W. Bush won 94% of his base and carried every single southern state in 2000 and only won 271 electoral votes (only one more than needed) and lost the popular vote. Why? Because the Republican base is shrinking and the Democratic base is growing.

Now this leads me to my point.

The problem with these polls is not only do they "expect a status quo" they also believe that about 10% more Republicans will vote than Democrats.

This is just impossible.

You saw the trend above: Dems and Repubs were tied in turnout in 1992. Dems had a 2% lead in 1996. Dems had a 4% lead in 2000.

In 2004, the Democratic "base" is larger than it was in 2000. The Republican "base" is smaller than it was in 2000.

So how on God's green Earth can the GOP possibly have a 10% advantage?

Answer: they can't. It's all bullshit.

We are going to win this election.

I second Jeff's personal observation(s)....there are just a lot of variables..everything is fluid...One telling fact with Democracy Corps internals:

What racial group best describes you:

White 80 %
Black 10%
Hispanic 07 %
Others 03%

Whom did you vote for in the 2000 Pres Elections?

Al Gore (D) 42%
George Bush (R) 51%
Ralph Nader (I) 03%
Others or refused to answer 04%

As we all know the breakdown of the 2000 polls are roughly as follows

Gore 48%
Bush 48%
Nader and others (including abstained or did not vote) 04%

VARIABLE, INDEED!!!

Zogby's new phone survey is out. Bush is up by 4% in the three-way, 2% in a head-to-head.

Zogby notes that Kerry is right now losing too many Democrats and Catholics.

Still, I'll take down 4% at this point. And that seems to be about the middle of the range of polls this week.

The above shows, that this supposedly REPRESENTATIVE sample of the electorate is BUNK...there seems to be a pattern of REPUG overrepresentation in polls...if adjusted accordingly, I believe, John Kerry is leading.

Hello Fellow Polling Addicts,

I am about to ask you to do something so vile that I am afraid you will skip this post. Dick Morris, take a breath, has an interesting editorial in the NY Post, more breathing. While I know he is a duplicitous political player, he does bring up some interesting thoughts about the polling variances.

Take a look:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19281.htm

"How big is Bush's lead? Don't believe the surveys that show it in the 5- to 7-point range. Believe the surveys of Time and Newsweek, which show a lead in excess of 10 points.

The difference is because pollsters disagree about whether or not to weight their results to keep constant the ratio of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in their sample. Some polling firms treat party affiliation as a demographic constant and, when they find that their sample has too many Republicans, they weight down each Republican interview and assign an extra weight to each Democratic response.

But other polling firms and I disagree. We feel that political party is not a demographic, like gender or race or age. If the survey finds more Republicans than usual, we think it's because the country has become more Republican, so we treat the result as a indicator of national mood, not of statistical error.

Time and Newsweek both picked up major moves toward the GOP in the wake of the convention. Likely the other firms did too, but they treated the finding as a mistake and weighed down the Republican interviews, making the race appear to be closer than it really is."

What do you guys think? I know I should consider the source but this guy does know the system. Are we only seeing what we want or is he?

We're getting trounced! How are we going to stop this? Dan Rather and his forged documents might have been a knockout blow! We have to get off the Vietnam thing now because everyone has made up their minds about Bush's record. Actually, Dan Rather might have changed a few attitudes toward Bush because his report on 60 Minutes is getting thoroughly debunked so Bush might get some sympathy points and permanent immunity from anything that really does show up. Thanks Rather! :( Think Rove is so smart that he could be behind this?

Thanks, Jeff, for all that research - empirical evidence to support my informal observations. It just seems counterintuitive to accept the "fact" that Bush is way up. From the personal file: my college going son - a major Democrat - has no landline phone - none of his friends do. My mother - another major Democrat refuses to answer pollsters questions - says it's none of their business. BTW, my son is urging his dorm friends to absentee ballot.

I wonder if Kerry himself is as depressed as some of us can be.

This morning C-Span had as a guest Curtis Gans to talk and take calls on his current predictions for the turn out and demographics of this year's election. What was interesting to me was his prediction that turn out will be way up this year -- perhaps as high as 57% (as compared to 50 in 2000). Given his demographic groups, the increase in participation he pointed to were mostly Kerry favorable.

Apparently Gans has a good record predicting things of this sort -- but also of interest, one caller suggested that people shouls lie to pollsters -- and Gans amplified that by reminding that the late Mike Royko of the Chicago papers had always recommend this tactic. Gans thinks exit polls are fine -- afterall that is his bread and butter -- but he thinks we've lost our soul on all the polls we have to digest now.

Any others have comments on Gans take on these matters?

Regarding hte Democracy poll -

1. Their sample had a 51% - to 42% to 3% vote in 2000 for Bush, Gore and Nader, respectively. 9% more for Bush when the actual voters in 2000 were slightly pro-Gore.

2. 80% were white, only 10% black, 7% Hispanic. I think we are much more minority oriented than 80% white, even among likely voters.

3. 22% of sample aged between 45-54 years old (a 10 year span); only 20% between 18-34 years old (a 17 year span). Granted, fewer young people have historically voted, but in my talking to younger voters, they are highly motivated to vote in this election (and recruiting their friends), and strongly for Kerry over Bush.

Even if one takes only the 51-42% Bush to Kerry sampling anomaly and norms it to even, it would make a 3% Kerry deficit turn into a 6% Kerry lead. This does not include the other biases noted above.

george,

The other biases are probably the reason it was 51% Bush to 42% Gore.

But good post.

As far as Dick Morris.

He is an idiot.

He's almost always wrong.

Incidently, lets remember that almost every poll was wrong in 2000.

Most had Bush ahead between 4 to 7% the day before the election.

That jerkoff Frank Luntz (GOP/MSNBC pollster) was on the Charlie Rose show - the day before the election - saying, (direct quote) "it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to lose the popular vote. The only way Gore can win is in the electoral college." Well, we all know how that turned out.

The reason these pollsters were wrong in 2000, was the exact reason they are wrong today: they overcounted Republicans and undercounted Democrats.

So don't worry too much about it.

Dick Morris seems to change his mind with the wind. One minute he says Bush is unbeatable - he thought the gay marriage issue was his trump card - then he says Kerry is unbeatable. Now it's back to Bush.

Give him a week and he'll change his mind again.

all kudos to Dan rather and CBS news for standing up to his fellow reporters when questioned about the Bush service record. He said the report is true , he knows it's true and rather than ask him where he got the report ask the President why he lied?

For those interested in the forgery/real question, here's a site that has some pretty compelling analysis rejecting the computer argument:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

I hope this doesn't lead to too much of a digression. But they present good evidence for the plausibility of an appropriate typewriter being available at the time and trash several other points made in the argument that the letters were a forgery.

I'm still inclined to think this will be a distraction, but maybe just maybe it will blow up on Bush.

I have never seen Dan Rather so sure and quick to speek-up. He told the reporters interviewing him that he was absolutely sure the report was correct and stood behind it 100%. He said a lot of other stuff that put them in there place also but I can't remember them right now.

And to return to the polling news...The AP poll is out. Among LV's, Bush leads by 5. Among RV's, it's 8. The reverse pattern of other polls...

I found this particular quote from their article interesting:

"For example, those in the GOP-leaning South narrowly favored Kerry in early August but now support Bush 58 percent to 38 percent. "

If this is where Bush is getting his boost, I think he can have them. I'd be interested in hearing more about this sort of analysis. This was conducted from Sept 7-9.

In light of Ruy's "Sept. 6" post, it's worth noting that from the Real Clear Politics list, the three samples starting Sept. 7 or later (after Labor Day) have an LV lead for Bush of 4, 4, and 5 points. Perhaps the Labor Day weekend noise contributed to Bush's "bounce."

Jeff,

The good news is that the race is probably closer than the polls show. The bad news is that Bush's rout of Kerry is on! C'mon, did you guys really think you could bait & switch the voters with this loser. You really thought the novelty of a liberal with a war record would carry the day when in 1992 you all argued that military service was irrelevent.

Keep hope alive but when the smoke clears, take a good look around and realize conservatives are in the ascendancy and left wing liberalism will die with the baby boomers.

4 more years!

Yes, keep hope alive...

None of us are sure what the polls are saying but one thing we are sure of, is that the race aint over yet.

Also, the polls are showing Bush with a small lead, so then, there is no need to despair. Some folks are running helter skelter again but the polls aint that bad.

It cant be such a mountain to overhaul 4 points. Kery was doing a good thing this week by linking the domestic issues with Iraq and I hope he continues to pound that path to success.

It will be interesting to see the poll figures for next week, mid week in particular.

I dont think they need to get caught up in these new Bush documents, they need to find a way to drive the media away from that story and start to zero in on Kerry's messages... whatever they are.

The press, in the meantime, needs to call Cheney to account for his "clean up the story" story.

Cheers

Tim is exactly right. The "w=wrong" slogan is just moronic. Kerry needs to find an emotional hook (remember "morning in America") that's going to help people understand what he stands for, even in an abstract form.

Bel,

Gosh that didn't take long to smoke you out my old friend. Don't worry, I won't try to engage you, you put the cross in that but I do want to agree with one thing you said. "zero in on Kerry's messages...whatever they are."

That is priceless and so illustrative of most Democrats... I start with the premise that I will support Kerry, now gimme some reasons, please!

It is over. The Dems overreached trying to nail Bush after Kerry was exposed by the Swifties and have now compromised one of their most effective operatives, Dan Rather and CBS News! Forged documents shall be your undoing and oh how sweet it is!

Too bad, so sad, but so it goes. When will you ever get another shot?

Maybe in...4 more years!

Hey All,

I am new to this discussion. However, I am poll obsessed. And a very dedicated Democrat.

I subscribe to the Rassmussen Service.

Today, in the daily tracking poll for the five states they watch:

Florida
B - 48 (with leaners) 49 K - 46 (with leaners) 48

Pennsylvania
B - 46 (with leaners) 47 K - 50 (with leaners) 51
and in Pennsylvania a pal of mine (a nominal Republican says no way Pennsylvania will vote for Bush)

Ohio
B - 46 (with leaners) 46 K - 49 (with leaners) 49

Michigan
B - 45 (with leaners) 47 K - 47 (with leaners) 49

**a pretty exciting read**

I am not so concerned as the week winds down. I think Kerry/Edwards will pull this off - if, and this is a big if, there are few if any pranks. I have every belief that the Bush/Cheney folks will do what ever needs to be done. I believe they believe they are "chosen" for the jobs.

JR

Thank you Jody for providing that data - I don't subscribe to the service. "Chosen" ? Don't know what you mean - thinking of Dana Carvey doing the Church Lady thing...

BJ

I agree, you are going thru a phase of wishful thinking and.... you are basing your wishful thinking on current polls but thats a mistake.

Its hard for you to accept.... but Kerry will win. Its not a good thing to lay too much stake in the polls this time around. I dont accept them as any real guide.

I am trusting in the common sense of the average american to remove bush from the white house. You are right in that this elections is not about electing Kerry, its about removing Bush. This guy does not depict the true quality of the american people nor the country.

Bush is a disgrace locally and internationally and ought to be replaced by anyone who can bring a sense of decency, integrity, pride, honesty and other such values back to the white house and to the country. This guy stays too far away from truth and simply lacks any qualities which would qualify him as a semi decent person. As such, the white house needs better and can do better by anyone else.

In this case, Kerry is the next in line and hence he has my support. Bush has too many issues in his pocket which shows him to be a bat straight from the pits of hell. There is not a single decent value which he has not destroyed in the last four years.

I am sorry BJ, I understand your repub stance and hence you have to support your repub people even if they have a pitch fork in one hand and a tail. You guys can support the devil with ease, unfortunately, there are others out here who believe in the better qualites of life..

Sorry but Bush does not fit that mould.. vote for kerry BJ, so that you can sleep better at night.

Nice seeing you again.

BJ, I really resent it when people who are not Democrats try to speak for "most Democrats." I know damn well why I am voting for Kerry.

I am votng for Kerry because he has a plan for the economic future of this country that does not involve tax cuts as a panacea. Let the record show that the country was in better shape under the last Democrat than the present Republican and there's not a darned thing you can do to spin that fact in another direction. I am voting for Kerry because I want my children to breath fresh air not the atmosphere of a polluter's paradise. And that goes to another fact, I like a president who believes in science rather than faith based notions. I am voting for Kerry because I like a president who analyzes the facts before he goes to war rather than believing that God told him to do so. I am voting for Kerry because I think George Bush has made the world less safe and I have 100% confidence in Kerry's ability to fight terrorism (as opposed to optional vanity wars.) I am voting for Kerry because HE is a man of honor and integrity who stepped up to serve his country (while your boy Bush was going aWol.) I am voting for Kerry because I LIKE the fact that he has complex and multi-layered understandings of issues. For the idiots of the universe, that command of compexity is reduced to "flip flopping" and every time I hear a Republican use that term, it is a clear indication of their less-than-optimal intelligence. Simplicity, after all, is for simple minds.

Of and for all you Republicans who think that Bush is great because he is "consistent" and "stands for something." Well so was Mussolini.

I have no idea if John Kerry will win. What I do know is that i will proudly cast a vote for a REAL American hero on November 2.

Great stuff Delilah..

Delilah,

My, my are we cross? Actually, I can respect the rare Dem who is voting affirmatively for Kerry as opposed to against Bush (Bel...the devil? Really, that is sad). Too bad you have to recycle all those simplistic, one dimensional stereotypes about Bush and Republicans in general. We want air pollution, we want children starving, we want old people eating dog food, and on, and on, and on!

Get off it. Kerry began calculating a for a future presidency in college. He volunteered for service to get it on his resume (never believing he would see combat), took his camera to 'Nam to record his exploits, slammed his fellow vets to gain national exposure, and voted straight liberal for 20 years in the Senate to insure Dem support today.

You guys would rather have someone that will tell you sweet lies than someone who you know will tell you the truth even if it makes you mad.

So be it, that's what makes it a contest. But don't kid yourself. If Kerry believed he could gain more votes by selling out his liberal principles, he would do it in a New York minute. Why do you think he voted for authorization for this war when he voted against the 1st Gulf war. I guess he likes this coalition better than that one. Yeah, right!

This is your site so go ahead and line up at the delusional buffet and stuff yourself silly.

Anyone who wants to wager on the election outcome, I'm taking ALL bets.

4 more years!

Bel -

You are nuts. I've seen you post many comments to this site. I've even seen you reply to your own comments. I can't take anything you write seriously.

Your rhetoric doesn't resonate with the American people. Bush is the devil? Please.

Kerry is dwindling. You are losing. Just a few months ago, polls came out from these same organizations that showed Kerry with a lead. You trumped them up then. Now you say they are a bunch of bull this time around.

So many opinions on the same issue -- you're starting to sound like Kerry.