« Dead Heat in Maine | Main | Why the Race Is Closer Than People Think »

Fox Poll Shows Kerry Lead in Battleground States

The recent Fox News poll of LVs conducted Sept. 7-8 shows Kerry leading Bush by 5 points (48-43) in key "battleground states" (AZ, AR, FL, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, WV, WI).

Update: The above entry has been corrected from the original as per comments.

Comments

Don't you have it backwards? Kerry is leading by 2 points in battleground states in a 3 way race, and leading by 5 points in a 2 way race, in the Fox poll.

I read it the same way Dave does. I think you've got this backwards, Ruy. I think you may be confused by the way the info. is published. If I'm reading it correctly, it was a NATIONWIDE poll. They then broke out battleground states separately. Finally, they included both the nationwide and battleground stuff in the same document. It's confusing, but that's how it looks to me.

Dave and Timshel are both right. The battleground state results do show Kerry ahead by 2 in the 3 way race and ahead by 5 in the 2 man race. You have to keep reading past the main results to the specific battleground results.

Kerry is gonna win just about every battleground state...therefore bye bye bushie pooo jr awol ass

So are we OK with LVs now that the numbers are going Kerry's way?

I don't trust the LV counts. I have read a lot about them and I think they undercount Democrats, particularly in a year like 2004.

Keith,

The poll only reports LVs. Perhaps EDM should have mentioned that, but it's not hypocrisy.

So are we OK with Fox polls now that they are going Kerry's way? Back in June, you (Ruy) stated that you didn't trust Fox polls at all, and would take Gallup over Fox any day!


I'm also puzzled by the by-party support gap
in these polls - Bush has the support of 94/92 percent of Reps but Kerry of only 80/82 percent of Dems? And 9 percent of Dems support Bush?
I'm not sure I buy either of these, but even so, Kerry still comes out ahead.
That being said...I still firmly believe in the old
adage, "campaign like you're ten points behind."
And that goes for all of us - if you live in a battleground state, get out there and make it your goal to register 100 people to vote between now and election day. If you live in a "safe" state, go to a battleground state and do the same. If you know anyone who's not planning on voting, persuade them to vote - offer to give as many of them a lift (even if this means paying for their bus fare for a bus-riding-voting trip) as you can if they want one. And take along as many of your newly-registered voters, as well. Get out the vote! Thanks!

Sergei

Further to my above, Keith's comment leading me to read the poll's internals also inspired this post concerning the possible effect of a terrorist attack on the presidential election:

http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_thurgood_archive.html#109510253949310077

I've never seen so many picky criticisms of the good guys as I see in this blog's regular comment section. These guys bust their butts to shed some credible light through a window caked with mud and are rewarded with a few thank you's and a barage of sarcasm. You don't have to be a mindless groupie to accept the necessity of closing ranks against the rabid danger to our democracy. It's as if out-numbered at the Alamo, it was decided to shoot their own and defeat themselves so the enemy couldn't have victory by killing them themselves. Take everyone to task at the appropriate time, after the election, if you feel the need to register your pompous ignorance. But for now, give credit where credit is due and quit being so damned picky.

My comment wasn't a criticism - I just like consistency when the available data supports it.

If Ruy's earlier position is that RVs are more 'reliable' than LVs at this point in the election cycle, then let's not tout good numbers based on LVs *unless* they're the only numbers around. However, if that's the case (i.e., LV-only data is all that's available), point it out.

Believe me, I dearly want to believe that some of the recent polls are erroneous.

Eldon, I agree with Keith. We need to support the candidate, but I feel like we have our head in the sand about this. Ruy's an optimist, which is great, but he needs to be consistent. If he trashes the Fox poll in June, because it cuts against Kerry, he needs to be skeptical about it in September, even if it cuts for us. There is no question we are at least five points behind right now, and we are spinning around trying to trash Bush's National Guard record! I just read on Drudge that we are now going after some campaign brochure he put out in 1978 about being in the Air Force when he really wasn't. Who cares?????? Are our people stupid or what? That just gave Drudge the opening to produce a 1968!! document showing he was in the Air Force. We are screwed again (combined with the stupid Rather forged documents -- who needs friends like Dan Rather?) and Bush is now bullet proof on the whole National Guard issue, and we are not talking about any of the issues that we should be talking about! Wake up people!!

"If Ruy's earlier position is that RVs are more 'reliable' than LVs at this point in the election cycle, then let's not tout good numbers based on LVs *unless* they're the only numbers around."

It's not inconsistent, because the LV numbers seem to be systematically inaccurate and not randomly inaccurate, and inaccurate in one direction (ie, pro-Republican). The LV calculations methodically discount Democratic numbers and inflate Republican ones to correct for historic differences in turnout. The fact that this hasn't held up very well over the last several major elections doesn't seem to have made much of an impact. If you see LV numbers, you can rest assured that the RV numbers look better for Democrats.

If the differences between LV numbers and RV were all over the map and had a zero average, that would be one thing, but it's a systematic bias with no random component.

Sounded like a criticism to me.
How about they just say "We report, you decide".

Eldon,

These kind of negative posts are a very recent development here. In the spring and early summer there were fewer posts in each train, and they were generally well-informed and positive. But as we get closer to the election there's more interest from the less well-informed and the pessimists.

"Tout"? I read the posting five times, and I still don't see where EDM goes "Wooo! We're Going to Win This Thing! We Are In The Lead! Yee-haw!"

What I see is reporting of fact (after the correction): Fox's LV polls have Kerry in the lead in these states. Seems like a fairly neutral statement to me. And as there's no Registered Voter data in this poll, failing to mention the non-existant RV data seems reasonable.

Knowing what I know about such polls (and the source), I take 'em with a grain of salt. But still. This is a poll by a major media company, and EDM has reported it here so I don't have to look at Fox. It's very appreciated. Thanks, EDM!

You can thank Mickey Kaus for sending all these trolls here. I love it how these people shout "we need to" and "our people". Snore.... "our people" don't spend nearly that much time reading drudge.

I don't trust Fox polls either. But I believe that they consistently overstate Republican support for political reasons. Therefore, I have no problem citing a Fox poll if it is in our favor. Just add 5 more points for the Democrat.

Two things: first, reporting that a Fox poll of LVs says ... doesn't need to be qualified by noting the preference for RVs or other polls, so most of those comments waste space. HOWEVER, it would be good to include ALL the highlights of the poll, including the Bush lead of 47-43 nationally, narrowed to 2 points if Nader isn't mentioned. Also important are that Kerry's negative ratings remain higher than Bush's while Bush's positive rating remain higher than Kerry's. It is better to give a more complete picture of each poll, then highlight the info considered important, rather than reporting the 'best' news only
CLOUDY

Thanks for shedding a little light on this topic. Trying to figure out what's happening poll wise just makes my head spin.

How about the new Christian Science Monitor poll (9/12/04)?

LVs -- Bush 47% -- Kerry 47%
RVs -- Bush 44% -- Kerry 46%

How about the trend lines?

RVs only available

8/23 -- Bush 44% -- Kerry 44%
8/5 -- Bush 43% -- Kerry 49%

I hadn't heard about the Christian Science Monitor poll - that news is music to my ears! I assume that the results are nationwide.

In terms of the Fox News likely voter vs. registered voter back-and-forth in some of the postings here, I'm 99.9% certain that Fox News is only now publishing LV data. They stopped publishing RV info a few weeks ago (presumably to make their announced polls as favorable to Bush as possible.)

OK folks (progressive folks, that is, which back in the day used to be the only readers of this blog): Please remember that the "other side" has entire departments of institutions in which young Republicans scour the internet for opportunities to troll among the faithful. That's not a big secret, but let me give you a real one: I used to be a republican political dude, just before the Gingrich era, and I know how this particular crowd of Neanderthals think. Tactic 1B (right after 1A, which involves throwing all the shit you can gather against the wall to see what sticks) is to deliberately undermine the confidence of the Democratic side. They know -- or think they know, and it's usually true -- that Dems get disheartened and discouraged really easy, much easier than do Repubs. And when that happens, they tend to infect their less committed compatriots with the same attitude, and before you know it, lo and behold, Dems start not bothering to vote. *This is not an accident, nor a byproduct of their evil personalities. It is a strategy!!!*

We consistently miss that. Those of us who are rays of sunshine on this and other blogs are trying to deliberately counteract that disease. We know we're going to vote and who we're going to vote for. Others don't. Please be careful!

Don't buy Drudge's Air Force lie. David Corn debunked that one 3 weeks ago.

http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1704

Question: this may have come up already, but I have the impression that Bush is leading by a lot, sometimes by more than 20 points, in many of the states where he does lead (Texas, Plains, Deep South). Kerry's votes seem better distributed. I may be mistaken, but if the election is very close, might not this pattern cause Kerry to win even if he has somewhat fewer popular votes?

Beware of "FOX" polls in sheep clothing. This is a stratagy to get people to trust them. JUst you wait one day soon they will lead in a big down turn for Kerry. This is all a gimmic trying to manipulate the undecided voter. Just think about it; why would a ultra right-wing shill for bush have Kerry in the lead?

GCochran, re your comment:

"I may be mistaken, but if the election is very close, might not this pattern cause Kerry to win even if he has somewhat fewer popular votes?"

yes, the distortion in voters' commitment among the various states could very well have Dubya winning the popular vote while losing the electoral college vote. The good news is that the Republicans' own actions in 2000 innoculate Kerry against any claim that he will not have won the election should that occur. Of course, it might not stop Dubya and the posse from taking extra-constituional action to cling to power, but only they know if they are that depraved.

>>>
I don't trust Fox polls either. But I believe that they consistently overstate Republican support for political reasons. Therefore, I have no problem citing a Fox poll if it is in our favor. Just add 5 more points for the Democrat.
>>>

Dave,

I've been tracking this all year and since mid-February the average pro-Bush bias in Fox News polls is more like 2% on the spread. That's Fox's spread vs. average of other national polls, using LV and 3-way race data wherever available and downweighting RV data to presumed LV levels (I want to see the worst case for Kerry).

But if I were using opting for 2-way, RV data where available as Ruy and Co say you should, you probably would be pretty close to assuming 5% average bias. Either way, a Kerry lead in any Fox poll is usually pretty good news.

-C

AS,

I always get the trolls a quick kick in the teeth, and refuse to debate any issue with them, other than to say "stick it," and continue talking to my peeps.

They should be beaten down for even showing up, and treated rudely in the process. I can't believe all the jack offs who try to argue with them. Don't they get it? If you argue substance with a freeper troll, you've already lost.

The rightwing is full of pasty faced white guys whose only life is being a turd online, and those guys all traverse the internet trying to avoid the pressing reality that their real life is an endless stream of wedgies.

Anecdotal evidence from down here in Georgia indicates a massive surge in confirmed Bush support amongst the usual suspects, i.e. white crackers. They are sportin' the bumperstickers and yard signs, big time. I mean sprouting like mushrooms. More support than I've ever seen for any candidate, ever, national state or local.

Kerry can win the Electoral College, but I'll be surprised if he wins the popular vote. Bush is just running up the score like crazy down here in crackerville.

Yeah, that's right. Technically Bush could win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college. In that case Scalia and Rehnquist would have to concoct a totally new reason why the electoral vote endangers democracy and Bush's rightful victory. You think I jest?

dosen't Georgia always vote Republican? or is this big time news?

If Bush gets every vote in the deep South, so what? It's the only part of the US that has ever produced terrorists and traitors to the US.

I love this blog and am an ardent Kerry supporter, but please don't cherry pick polls. We need as objective analysis as possible.

Gaby,

What an arrogant and untrue thing to say about the South. You're right about arguing with right wingers though, I've read your posts, and you ain't got the chops pal.

I wish we could meet so this pasty faced white guy could put a foot up your punk ass. Bitch.

4 More Years

I just read in USA Today that Bush is up 8 points in Wisconsin! How is this possible? I was getting the impression things were stabilizing for Kerry.

Rasmussen has Kerry with only a two point lead in New Jersey.

Is there a way to delete the last post? This is not acceptable.

I meant the post by BJ Clinton. It smells like Nazism. Is that what you guys have in mind for our country in the next 4 years (and further on)?

A word on Fox polls: The station sucks, but the poll is conducted by a well respected pollster and is usually in the middle of the pack. Kind of like how the WSJ Ed Board sucks but their reporters are first-rate.

They're as good as any of the orthodox polls: Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, Gallup. What I'm beginning to wonder is whether the unorthodox polls (Zogby, Economist, SUSA, Rasmussen) which have begun to create their own little mini-group at around dead even or with Kerry even a little ahead, are really way off or in fact on to something. It used to be the unorthodox polls would be all over the place, and therefore easy to write off. But right now, at least, they're all in the same place and significantly separate from the traditional ones. Wonder what's up?

Dear Mr. G. Staley, or "BJ Clinton" as you like to call yourself:

I don't approve of your announced sex preference, i.e., feet. Please find some appropriate web site for your fantasies. As for political debate, clearly, you ain't even close, bub.

The following are recent polling results. The first percentage is for Bush, the second for Kerry. The results are from "likely voters."

Rasmussen 9/13 47 46

IBD/CSM/TIPP 9/12 47 47

Zogby 9/9 47 45

Time 9/9 54 42 12

Democracy Corps (D) 9/9 50 47

FOX/Opinion Dynamics 9/8 47 45

I just read that poll and this is just about the only good news in there for Senator Kerry. And it does not attempt to break the votes down by individual states, so I don't know how much it really means, if anything.

www.electoral-vote.com projects a 269 to 233 lead for Kerry in the electoral college. www.electionprojection.com puts Bush ahead 285 to 253.

Some candy ass chickenhawk wrote:
==============================
Gabby,

You're right about arguing with right wingers though, I've read your posts, and you ain't got the chops pal.

I wish we could meet so this pasty faced white guy could put a foot up your punk ass. Bitch.

===========================

It's a date. November 3rd. Where do you live? I'll come there and personally kick your ass. We can pick a gym. Boxing fine with you? 16 oz gloves? Three minute rounds, or until I knock you out, which will be about 35 seconds.

I'll be there.

If you live in some hick town like Charlotte or Orlando, you're going to have to come to a big city. I'm not coming to some dipshit town just to kick your ass. You'll need to come to a city large enough to have a library and a professional team, which means Atlanta is the only Southern city that qualities.

Where do you want to fight, Zell? Unlike you and your heroes, I'm NOT a chickenhawk, and I'll be glad to prove it.

I don't trust the polls of any of the media companies anymore. Not Time, Newsweek, LAT, Fox, WaPo... any of them. I used to trust them but that was before they all took a dive on the lead up to war in Iraq.

Further, they all work in such a competitive environment that if subordinating the integrity of the poll will give them a leg up on the competition in readership, timeliness or audience share, they would do it in a heartbeat.

I see Rasmussen as a basically Repub leaning pollster but he has a certain consistency that makes his poll worth following. Zogby also has integrity while being a Dem leaning company (in my opinion). There are others who are also worth following who do not indulge in commercial pursuits that make them suspect; e.g. Quinnipiac, Marist, etc.

To the point that Kerry might win the Electoral College but not the popular vote, I agree that it might be possible. Wouldn't it be delicious! Revenge always tastes better when eaten cold.

BJ, Amazing how you can prove Gabbys point more effectively than he ever could.

To the rest, the disconnect between the national polls and the electoral college is a direct result of the different strategies each side is employing. Bush has been energizing his base. They think that getting a larger turnout from those committed will be the most important decision to win.

It's a losing strategy, unless you can also get the middle too. Kerry has not been trying to build bigger margins in New York, Illinois, and California.

It would be ironic if Bush loses the Electoral Vote while winning the popular. But it certainly could happen. Frankly, I thik the mess in Iraq is going to cost Bush support, and the popular vote will also go to Kerry.

Bush deserves to lose big time in a big way. He has done so much to damge the country, he needs to be an object lesson for future generations. You do NOT make the USA an agressor and give up the moral high ground. You do NOT add massive deficits to the Federal Debt. You do NOT destroy our environment, and add arsenic to the water. You do NOT send more jobs overseas than are created here. And you do NOT get us into Wars that you can't get us out of!

I'm not letting him fight me until after the election because it would be a distraction.

There's always time for a Democrat to teach a Republican troll manners AFTER we get Kerry elected.

I'm here to talk to Democrats about what is taking place. I'm here to read about and think about the polls, their biases, their meanings, and their impact to the race.

I'm not here to talk to bored wannabe Democrats who want to engage in sophomoric banter. Some people aren't here to further a campaign objective, but to while away time with gossip and point-counterpoint.

If you're not on Kerry's side, I am not interested in your opinion about anything. If you are on Kerry's side, I am not interested in your opinion if you spend your time parsing analogies. It's an analogy. Make one of your own. Have an original thought. Then type it.

Gabby,

Dallas big enough for you?

We don't need gloves and we don't need to wait until Nov. 3rd. As far as where, for your sake, I suggest the parking lot at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

You need to bring a friend, you won't feel like driving.

4 More Years!

"I'm here to talk to Democrats about what is taking place."

and you do a great job Gabby keep up the good work.

Great, BJ Bush. Nothing but steers and guys like you in Dallas.

See you on November 3rd. I'll set it up at a gym in Dallas that has a ring, and I'll post it here. You'll need to sign a release ahead of time, and I'll sign one, too. I'll even hire a legit ref to officiate.

Flabby Gays,

I believe the actual line is "steers and queers" but of course you would put the politcally correct twist on it. I don't know, maybe that twist is in your walk as well.

You know where I live.

Game on.

4 More Years!

Bwahhahaaaaahhaaaaahaaaaa!
BJ dipshit finally got his bluff called. Now watch him slink back to Kaus's cesspool where he can bully some cretins like himself. What a piece of work. Hang around boy, I wanna see how this turns out for ya.

I'm a Progressive Liberal from the South (Dallas, in fact) and yes, we have more than our share of redneck reactionary Conservative assholes - but so do a lot of other places (see Utah, Wyoming, even Indiana!) Please don't dis the entire South as uneducated Freepers:

If you live in some hick town like Charlotte or Orlando, you're going to have to come to a big city. I'm not coming to some dipshit town just to kick your ass. You'll need to come to a city large enough to have a library and a professional team, which means Atlanta is the only Southern city that qualities.

Um . . .not a big sports fan here, but I believe Charlotte does have a professional football team (the Panthers?) and quite a good library (and university). Orlando has a great library and an NBA team. While not huge cities, they are probably comparable to, say, Buffalo. Nashville, New Orleans, Houston, and Dallas would be other Southern cities that seem to meet the criteria.

Liberals may be in the minority in the South, but the whole region does not deserve to be lumped in with backwaters like Mississippi and Alabama! By the way, the major cities in Texas vote overwhelmingly Democrat and the state is divided about 55% Rep vs. 45% Dem.

Then you would know my old buddy Ron Kirk.

Don't get in the middle of me smacking the Bushie around.

Fredo, don't ever take sides against the party again.

Warp resident,

I was getting tired of this site, but since you invited me to stay, I think I'll hang around.

If you really want to see how it turns out for me, you could bring your weak ass to Texas, as well. Or would you rather just keep calling people "turds" from the safety of your one bedroom apartment (I'm right aren't I)?

Flabby won't show. Charles can tell you, we know his type. "All hat and no cattle". He knows what's waiting for him... the same thing Kerry is getting the day before.

4 More Years!

Just a word of caution on the "battleground" numbers.

The NATIONWIDE sample was 1000 respondents. No mention of the size of the battleground state subgroup, but it had to be a LOT smaller, say half maybe?

Whatever it was, the bottom line on that is that the margin of error for the "battleground" numbers is huge, nowhere near the respectable 3% for the nationwide numbers. Margin of error increases dramatically as sample size drops below about 900-1000.

Sadly, I think that makes the battleground numbers next to useless. (Look for example at how wide the swing has been since the August battleground numbers. Do we really think that many people have changed their minds so quickly?)

Ha . . .I think this thread has turned from a political debate into a cockfight.
I'm as anti-Bush as they come, but I think Gabby is just anti-Southern:
"It's the only part of the US that has ever produced terrorists and traitors to the US"
Hmmm . . .what about those Michigan militia boys who blew up the Federal building in OKC? What about the nice Rosenberg couple from New York? Slamming an entire region of the country doesn't help your cause any. It's just silly. You all know the saying: "arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
Politics aside, I'm pretty sure BJ would whoop your ass in a boxing match.

Then you're a moron, too, Charles.

Like I said before, there are some jackoffs here on the left, and you're quite obviously one of them. It's called satire, oh ye of little education. Stop being such a pussy about being from the South.

I'm not here to explain things to you or people like you, so if you don't like what I have to say, I don't care. Why should I?

If it's satire, it is not very good satire. As for having little education, I feel quite secure in havinging earned two B.S. degrees, a J.D. from a top 20 law school, and a PhD, thank you.

Its hard to believe that we allow BJ to come on this site and create such a distraction. This is exactly what the swift boat guys did... this is exactly what the bush campaign is seeking to do everyday.

BJ is a bush clone and hence he too runs away from the facts and creates smoke screens so that he can run and hide. He is just like the bush team, creating distractions to divert attention from the issues..

Please get back on point and do the analyses. Forget about BJ and whoever else shares his "views" on anything.

Back to regular programming.

If it's satire, it is not very good satire. As for having little education, I feel quite secure in havinging earned two B.S. degrees, a J.D. from a top 20 law school, and a PhD, thank you.

Posted by Charles at September 14, 2004 03:19 AM

---------------------------------------
Looks like my resume, except mine's better. Top ten law school, not top 20, and if you're claiming top 20, you're probably from one of the 40 schools that all claim to be in second ten.

By the time I got my doctorate, I knew how to spell "having." Can we call you doctor blowjob, the bad spelling storyteller from south Dallas?

Charles, run along and play with your buddy, the freeper troll. You're worse than worthless in a campaign. Morons like you eat up the time of real workers. Like now.

Take your prissy little PC attitude and stuff it boy. I'm busy here.

Flabby,

You're a piece of work. "Busy here"? Is this a job for you or your only form of entertainment? You showed your true nature when you viciously turned on Charles (and he's on your side) because he took offense to your anti-South slur.

What are you going to do when the election is over and you have no outlet for your hate?

Bel, I agree, back to regular programming. I never meant to hijack the site but simply create a little dissonance in the echo chamber so some of the more discerning lurkers might put the koolaid down, take a hard look at Kerry, and reconsider their solemn duty.

It is not your team vs. my team.

I agree with another poster that Kerry seems not to have a set of issues he wants to promote. He is reacting to any bad news on the economy, Iraq, assault weapons ban expiration, etc. to try and find a club with which to hit Bush.

I'll never convince some here that the Swifties had an honest beef with Kerry, but I think the polls are showing pretty clearly that the undecideds are not digging Kerry's chili.

4 More Years!

On the subject of the South.

When the Democrats figure out how to crack the Republican majority in the south, and particularly in Texas then the Democrats can return as the party of power in America.

Until the Democrats figure out how to regain Texas, Florida, maybe Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Virginia even, they leave the control of US democracy to the Republicans.

Texas was the heartland of the Democratic power base from the New Deal to 1964. It is the land of LBJ, Lloyd Bentsen, Bob Strauss. Texas is the key: they need a Democratic Karl Rove.

PS on the subject of rednecks and the South. While it is true in my travels in your country I have encountered many such, I have also encountered a disproportionate number of Phds there And very well mannered and polite people of all stripes, in the South.

The enthusiasm with which religion is embraced there is strange to an Englishman, but one should not stereotype all of the South as being rednecked. After all, the poorest and least educated people are largely black.

nov 3rd troll
Dallas