« Kerry Leads in 10th Straight PA Poll | Main | Two New Polls Have Kerry Ahead by 1, Dead Heat in Florida »

Democracy Corps Poll: Kerry Ahead 2, Up 7 in Battleground

John Kerry Leads George Bush 49-47 percent of nation-wide LV's, according to a Democracy Corps Poll conducted 10/20-21. The Poll also found that Kerry leads Bush 52-45 percent of LV's in Battleground states and has a 50-41 percent lead among Independent LV's.

Comments

If I survive the anxiety bred by the uncertainty of this period and see John Kerry inaugurated as the 44th POTUS, it will be largely due Emerging Democratic Majority. Ruy Teixeira's sanity keeps hope alive.

But I continue to be confused and troubled over the disparities between polls. I LOVE the Democracy Corps Polls because they put Kerry ahead. Of course I accept their results as the true picture. Yet a rolling poll published by Zogby/Reuters this morning Reuters had Bush up by 2 points. I hate Zogby/Reuters! How can there be so such differences between polls?

I am confident that the discrepancies in the polls this year will be fodder for survey experts for years to come.

It's all a matter of mental toughness. Fellow Dems need to stay frosty and keep working. You don't see the Repubs getting all squirrelly when things get tight . . . we shouldn't either Be prepared for anything. As long as Bush's approval ratings stay low, Kerry is in good shape.

And help get out the vote!!

I wonder how much an impact Clinton can have.

Assuming Clinton can make a limited number of appearances, it is best for him to go to campaign rallies or would it be better for him to appear on Oprah, Leno or Larry King?

I'm not in a swing state, so I may be biased, but I would love to see the Big Dog on national television talking about his recovery and talking up Kerry.

But I would be satisfied if one of you fancy pollsters would explain why local news events in swing states can be more helpful than national appearances.

Remember... John Zogby outright predicted John Kerry would win the election last week. It's in an article posted on his website.

I used to wonder why everyone always said it had to be a southerner to win the election. Now I understand... the democrats have to be able to peel a couple of those southern states away to be competitive. Imagine how much easier this would be with some southern states in play. I hope the republicans don't wise up and start nominating NY Republicans like Guiliani or Pataki. Imagine trying to do this without NY.

As an aside I'd like to say it makes me mad that Bush is in this because of the "I'd like to have a beer with him" factor. Yea, I have a lot of friends I like to have beers with, but I wouldn't vote for any of them for president. I wish more people could see beyond this.

As another aside, I'd like to say as a New Yorker, this is the first time I've ever been rooting for the Boston Red Sox. Good win tonight!

Justin

Anybody know what's up with the Honolulu Advertiser poll out today saying Bush up by .7 in Hawaii?

There are always differences between the polls. This year the race is close and some show Kerry with a small lead and others show Bush with a small lead.

If one was comfortably ahead of the other, the polls would still differ with each other but they would point to the same "winner."

I am curious about something that I have seen in several polls, and in Democracy Corps polls more than once.

The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn't match what we know to be true.

Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?

I would be interested to know how Democracy Corps screens for likely voters. Because the Gallup Poll seven question screen effectively eliminates first time voters. According to Gallup if you didn't vote last time, don't vote regularly and don't know where your polling location is (just three of the seven criteria) you are ipso facto not a Likely Voter. Which effectively eliminates any non-anal voter under the age of 22. I remember my polling location because I voted there last time (see questions 1 & 2), but I have moved frequently and have never worried about the possibility of not finding it in my new location. Indeed I am not sure how a first-time voter could even find that information out weeks before the election without a trip to the County Courthouse.

LV vs RV never hit the radar screen until the Times/Newsweek double-digit Bush lead took the Blogosphere by storm. And the emphasis since then has been on Republican over-sampling. But I looked at the screening criteria and said "Man, they are pretending like Rock the Vote and Howard Stern don't even exist".

I firmly believe the long mythical young voter/new voter is going to show up this time. So if other polling outfits are using a screen similar to Gallup's for their LVs they are measuring waves in the lagoon and missing the breakers crashing on the reef.

It's been said before, but it needs to be said again. Kerry needs to squeeze in a visit to NC, which never makes the battleground state lists, but where he is closer to winning (down 3) than IA ( -6), CO (-7) and AR (-5), according to most recent polls. These three states all have less than half of NC's electoral votes (15) and they don't have a homeboy on the ticket. I suggest Kerry-Edwards work the Black turnout in Charlotte and/or Wilmington, maybe take along former tarheel Michael Jordan to generate some excitement.

As something to demonstrate the subjectiveness of "Likely voters" there's an article on Harris's website today that says "Bush up by 8, or 2, depending on your definition of Likely Voter".

Turns out if you include everyone who says they will "certainly vote", Bush leads by 2 points. If you discard people aged 18 to 24 who were old enough to vote in 2000 but didn't, Bush's lead is 8 points.

LVs can't be trusted as different pollsters have different definitions.

Obsessives (self included),

At some point you "just need to believe" - we all know we can find information on the web to assure or assail our desires. Someone mentioned "having a beer with Bush" -- Yikes! First, you would need to be prescreened and agree to drink Coors - not on your life.

I too have had some peptic upset with Zogby, however, I am certain he will provide assurances as we move forward. I suspect today's numbers will have us all a twitter. Relax and make sure to work on GOTV. Sanity will win out over Bush.

Jody

RE: I hope the republicans don't wise up and start nominating NY Republicans like Guiliani or Pataki. Imagine trying to do this without NY.

The world has not yet created a Republican who has won a statewide race in NY and could still make it through the nominating process. Zell Miller's convention speech spoke volumes about what it takes to be a leader not just from the Republican south, but for their national party. The core of Zell's message is that the south is the only part of the country in touch with the USA and the rest of us better get ready to tow the line!

Long story short - the primaries would kill a Republican from New England! I mean, if Pataki spoke at Bob Jones University it just would not seem believable and you know his opponent from AZ, TX, SC, or AL would be ready and wiling. In fact one only need look at George Bush Sr. as an example he was a New England Republican and he was punished for it.


Honestly, Id worry more about a Republican from OH, MI, or IL than from New England, but even say a Engler or Voinovich would have to run to the right during the primary and even if the ex-gov. won, I doubt theyd be able to inspire the hard core base enough to get a victory in a face to face run with a Dem.

So steel yourself my friend.

JOHN KERRY ONWARD TO VICTORY

You are assuming MJ is a Democrat. Do we know this to be true? Frankly I would tend to doubt it. He loves his money too much.

Good article on front page of LA Times today about newly registered voters and how they might (or might not) affect the election.

I haven't seen anything on what's happening in the Colorado referendum on the allocation of electoral votes. The outcome could mean a crucial 4 EVs for Kerry. Does anybody have any info on how it's looking?

Well, I don't think that the Republican party as it is now could nominate a Pataki or a Guliiani. Those guys are too centerist for the right wing core.

DemDude :

I list polls from latest to earliest and do not count any from earlier than the 17th.
Also, I try to look more heavily at the ones that depict the situation of Nader being on or off the ballot accurately for the state.

Iowa:

Strategic Vision (GOP poll) shows Bush with a 1 point lead there (48-47)
Zogby with Nader shows Kerry up (48-51)
Mason Dixon shows Bush up 6 49-43.
M-d has been leaning heavily to Bush.

CONCLUSION. BUSH ISN'T UP 6. Look at the first number in each of these 49,48,48. That's bad for the incumbent. Even M-D shows a bad # for Bush. Up 6 just doesn't jibe. They've played with the definition of "Likely Voter" here most likely undersampling Kerry voters) Had they had Bush over 50, I might trust the up 6 a bit more.

Of the polls without Nader we have
Rasmussen Bush up 2 48-46
Central Surveys Kerry up 1 45-46
Strategic Vision Tie 46-46
Zogby Kerry up 48-51
(I dropped a Susa poll because even SUsa has changed it's numbers 3 times.)
But even counting Susa's poll Race.com projects Iowa within 5,000 votes. It's definitely IN PLAY AND TOO CLOSE TO CALL.

Arkansas:
Polls with Nader (he's on the ballot)
Opinion Research. Tie 48-48
Zogby Bush 50-48
Only polls this week with Nader on the ballot.
Usually 50 is the magic number. This appears a bit harder than Iowa.
Polls without Nader
Zogby Tie 49-49
Susa 51-46
Race 200's projection model at the moment there has it within 300 votes!!! 300 votes!!! Send the Big Dog Boys!!! But given Bush over 50 in a couple polls, this one is actually going to be a bit harder than Iowa IMO.

Co: Cirulli Bush 48-42
Zogby Bush 49-48
Rasmussen Bush 50-45
Gallop, 51-45

Colorado is clearly an uphill fight but there's some close races downticket there that are really close that Kerry can have an impact on. Plus, he can hit Nevada (Polls show the race closing there and New Mexico, pretty safe for Kerry, on the same trip.)

As to NC.
Rasmussen 51-45 Bush
Zogby 51-47 Bush
Susa 50-48 Bush
Only polls this week The Race.com model projected about a 200k Bush lead.

Not that Polls or Projections are completely accurate, It's all about GOTV, GOTV, and NC is worth some effort, but the indication here is that NC will be a more difficult target than any of the other states you listed.

But I'd like to see him come down south. I'd make the drive over to R/D/CH just to see him. It really wouldn't hurt to make a whistle stop in his travels between Florida and Ohio Would it???

The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn't match what we know to be true.

Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?

Posted by James E. Powell at October 24, 2004 04:06 AM
==========================

oversampling Bush 2000 voters

IMO

"The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn't match what we know to be true."

Obviously, people don't like to admit they voted for the "loser" (even when the "loser" actually won).

Bush has been in the White House for the last 4 years, so many people remember voting for him who didn't.

Jim J:

Michael Jordan publicly supported Bill Bradley in 2000. I don't have any other information on his past and current political activities.