anchor link to jump to start of content

The Seattle Times Company NWclassifieds NWsource Home delivery Contact us Search archives
Your account  Today's news index  Weather  Traffic  Movies  Restaurants  Today's events

Between the Lines

October 04, 2004

Polled today, gone tomorrow

All year various talking heads have been telling us that we're seeing the most polarized electorate in years. The underlying subtext of this is that there aren't many undecided voters. But if that's so, how come we're seeing such big swings in poll results over relatively short periods of time?

I haven't had the opportunity yet to look at the so-called "internals" of the latest polls, but I expect there are a couple of things at work.

One, pollsters have been having a harder time getting good, representative polling samples. Some of it is personal: It seems that more people don't want to be bothered to take polls or don't participate because of some suspicion about the polling process itself. Some of it is technological: The proliferation of cell phones, for example, makes it harder to get the right demographics for a sample (you can't tell for sure what ZIP code, or codes, a cell phone might be located in). And so forth. Since good samples are critical to reliable results we face the possibility of a) polling models that could leave us quite surprised on Nov. 2, or b) tinkering with sampling methods that can adversely affect trend-tracking, which is really where polls are most useful.

Second, most polls ask some version of this question:

Suppose that the presidential election were being held today, and it included John Kerry and John Edwards as the Democratic candidates, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as the Republican candidates, and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo as independent candidates. Who would you vote for?

You'll notice that there's no option for saying you're undecided, though if a respondent says he has no opinion this will be noted. So basically, the question pushes respondents into a position, even if they are undecided. As a result, the real number of undecided voters is somewhat higher than the 2 or 3 percent reported in stories about the polls.

Which brings us to the first post-debate polls. In the aftermath of the Republican convention, you'll recall, President Bush jumped to a lead of several points (variously reported at 5 to 14 in the polls I saw) over John Kerry. In the wake of Debate 1, that lead has vanished.

Kerry now leads very narrowly in the latest Newsweek poll (they call it a statistical dead heat, which is true in that it is within the poll's margin of error):

With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

The new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows the two men tied:

Favorable public reaction to his performance in the first presidential debate has boosted Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and narrowed the contest with President Bush to a tie, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Bush's lead of 8 percentage points before Thursday's debate evaporated in a survey taken Friday through Sunday. Among likely voters, Bush and Kerry are at 49% each. Independent candidate Ralph Nader is at 1%.

As always, read these results with caution. They were valid (if ever) over the two or three days they were taken following the debate and no doubt will change in the next four weeks. Or, as the car people say, your mileage may vary.

Nonetheless, while we won't know a real number until Nov. 2, both campaigns are acting as though the race is a dead heat again. That may make tomorrow night's vice presidential debate tomorrow night more important than it might otherwise be (more about that tomorrow) and raises the stakes for presidential Debate 2 on Friday.

Posted by tbrown at 01:02 PM

Debate 1 mop-up

Wait – DO forget Poland

Kerry: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.
Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That‘s not a grand coalition. We can do better.

Lehrer: Thirty seconds, Mr. President.

Bush: Well, actually, he forgot Poland [which, with 2,500 troops is the fourth-largest contributor to the coalition effort in Iraq]. …

Sadly, today we have this news:

Polish troops will start to withdraw from Iraq in the New Year and all will be out by the end of 2005, the country's president has promised.

The 'global test'

Like most conservative bloggers, blogger Tom Maguire is having fun with Kerry's assertion that U.S. wars ought to be able to pass a "global test." Taken in context, I don't think what Kerry was trying to say should unduly tax anyone's understanding:

Lehrer: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry. What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

Kerry: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. …

Seems straightforward to me, but not to Maquire and others.

Maybe they can comprehend this suggestion from Mark Kleiman, who proposes that Kerry clarify what he meant this way:

The President isn't criticizing me. He's criticizing the signers of the Declaration of Independence. They proposed the first global test. They called it "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." The test is not whether other people like what we're doing. It's whether we're doing it for reasons we're prepared to explain to the world.

Posted by tbrown at 12:55 PM

 October 2004
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003

Polled today, gone tomorrow
Debate 1 mop-up


Blogs to watch

Abu Ardvark
Andrew Sullivan
Atrios Eschaton
Best of the Web
Drudge Report
Joe Conason (subscription required)
Josh Marshall
Kaus files
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Whiskey Bar

Mideast blogs

Salam Pax (Iraq)
G. in Baghdad
L.T. Smash (U.S. military in Iraq)
Lady Sun (Iran)

City blogs

L.A. Examiner

Africa blogs

Cathy Buckle

Media blogs

Dan Gillmor's eJournal
Media Whores Online


Newspapers online (guide to papers on the web)
International Herald Tribune
The Guardian U.K.
New York Times (free registration required)

Economy blogs

Brad DeLong

Powered by
Movable Type 2.51 home
Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site map | Low-graphic
NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company


Back to topBack to top