wanna know who'll win the election?

[aREDSKIN]

A perspective for using and relying on the "findings" of some polls.

I know it's an anti-Kerry site but read the rationale and decide for yourself if it merits consideration or is just a plain outright steaming pile of horse plops.

Once again it remains up to conservatives in the blogosphere to shine the light of truth about the misleading poll results trumpeted by the elite media this week. Let's do a quick rundown of what must have been orgasmic news for the mainstream media, shall we:

CBS News reports Bush's approval rating at "lowest ever".

ABC News heralds Bush's "new lows".

CNN reports that Bush's approval rating has reached "record lows".

Sounds pretty disheartening doesn't it. But fear not, we here at crushkerry.com (with a little help from our friends) are here to expose these polls for the frauds that they are.

First, let's be clear, we do not intend to get all technical and "inside baseball" concerning minutia of polling. Not to say that it's not interesting, but it takes time and a certain knowledge of statistics to be able to follow the discussion. And quite frankly, we don't have the time to do it.

However, if you want to know just about everything about the intricacies of polling, and the results of just about every single national and state poll, with brilliant analysis, visit the site of the Freeper screen named Dales . In his spare time Dales (a/k/a Gerry Daly) has his own website Daly Thoughts that is the most invaluable resource imaginable for polling data and analysis.

As a public service to our readers we want to give you a brief primer on how to read polls, and why the ones listed above aren't worth squat

Sample Group What is not highlighted in the ABC, CBS, and CNN polls is the inadequacy of their sample group. Just as you can't build a house without a solid foundation, you can't get an accurate reading of the electorate without the proper sample group. The respondents in these polls are simply "Adults", probably the least reliable sample group when trying to predict the ultimate decision of the electorate at that point in time.. Why? Because 36% of those "adults" AREN'T EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE .

So right away we have to ignore nearly 40% of the respondents. But wait, it gets worse. We have to eliminate another chunk of the respondents who are "Registered Voters". Why, because 15% of those registered don't vote. In the 2000 Presidential Election , A TOTAL OF ONLY 54% OF ADULTS VOTED As a result, these polls are meaningless because statistically 46% of respondents won't be voting anyway.

Even if the poll claims to be of "likely voters", you have to dig deeper to determine if the respondents truly are "likely voters". Pollsters have been known to set very low standards for labeling someone as such. For example "Are you likely to vote" doesn't exactly make one a likely voter. There should be a series of questions asked to determine if the person on the phone will actually vote.

Turnout Model All pollsters have to predict what percentage of voters will be of a certain party. Check the poll to see how what percentage of the sample group is Republican, Democrat and Independent. Then check to see what the historical figures say about a party's percentage of the turnout in past elections for the same office. CNN and Newsweek are notorious for over sampling Democrats. For example a poll may show Kerry leading Bush, but then you find out their poll includes 41% Dems and 35% GOP, which bears no basis in reality or history. This is also the reason that Zogby's 2002 Senate predictions sucked

National Polls are Meaningless As we all found out in 2000, it is not the national vote that counts, despite the greatest hopes of certifiably insane Al Gore but rather, the tallies from the individual states, that matter. Notice how the national media polls never tell you what percentage of the results come from "Red" and "Blue" states. Ever wonder if the 70% of the respondents making up the sample were from socialist paradises like California or Massachusetts, so again, it's very easy to skew the results of national polls depending on where the respondents are located.

For the state polls, Mason-Dixon, SurveyUSA and Research 2000 have proven to be the most accurate. Zogby and Rasmussen have proven to be inaccurate in the past.

The willing accomplices in the press Does the media care that the accuracy of these polls is right up there with a blind man throwing darts? God no. The polls showed Bush suffering, so being the biased media that they are they shout the results from the rooftops. Yes, the mainstream press as a whole are moronic, but they can't be as stupid to think these polls are newsworthy.

For proof of their willingness to spread bad news about President Bush no matter how bad the source, consider the recent release of Zogby state polls showing Kerry leading in 12 of the 16 battleground states. Only problem w/ that poll is that the sample group were paid Zogby clients in an INTERNET poll. admits the poll is not scientifically reliable nor does it accurately reflect the opinion of the US voter. Yet a Google search shows that newspapers in nearly every state, as well as national media, ran with the story as the gospel truth. In fact, most of the articles didn't even let the reader know it was an internet poll, nor did they list the pollsters own admission of its rather substantial shortcomings.

Even worse, they fail to inform the reader that, in a very unusual step for a supposedly "independent" pollster whose brother is an apologist for terrorists ), John Zogby recently claimed the election was Kerry's to Lose" . Don't you at least think his preconceived opinion on the election's outcome should be highlighted in all stories on Zogby polls so the readers know of the potential for biased poll results?

We hope this helps your blood pressure the next time one of these "respectable" polls shows some bad news for the President. And remember, the only poll that counts is on election day.

http://www.crushkerry.com/article155.html

[@DCGoldPants]

crushkerry.com

I didn't know the Prez could work a computer.

seriously though.

Anybody know the lowest numbers a sitting President has had before an election where he still won?

I don't have the answer, I'm really asking.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

crushkerry.com

I didn't know the Prez could work a computer.

seriously though.

Anybody know the lowest numbers a sitting President has had before an election where he still won?

I don't have the answer, I'm really asking.

I think you can find the answer here

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

J/K. . . If I remember correctly, Tricky Dickey was at 20% when he resigned, but since he didn't run, I don't fell he should count. I can't recall if Carter ever got around 40%, but I know he was under 50%. I also know no incumbant president has ever won a second term when his popularity dipped below 50%, not good news for Bush, but good news for the country.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by aREDSKIN

http://www.crushkerry.com/article155.html

How does this take into account ALL major polls showing Kerry leading? A flawed system, or a spun article? You make the call.

Even FOX's online poll (a conservative poll) has Bush with only 48% of the votes, not good for GWB.

[SkinsNut73]

Originally posted by Bufford 3.3

crushkerry.com

I didn't know the Prez could work a computer.

seriously though.

Anybody know the lowest numbers a sitting President has had before an election where he still won?

I don't have the answer, I'm really asking.

Actually, I just read about this within the last couple of weeks. Interestingly enough, recent history has the answer(s). Reagan had the lowest approval rating ever for a sitting president (he hit the low 40's), yet he won re-election in a landslide.

Clinton, at mid-term, was just a couple points higher than Reagan...and he of course won a second term.

The first President Bush had one of the highest approval ratings ever at 70%. He, of course, ended up losing...

The gist of the article I read was something to the effect of don't believe poll/approval rating numbers until you get closer to the election. In the author's mind the "real" numbers started to come out in the August/Sept timeframe.

He also stated that on average, about 36% of the people who get polled now are not even registered to vote or they do not exercise their right to vote...

[Ancalagon the Black]

Crushkerry.com's authors have either never learned how to take a statistically significant sample or they're intentionally misleading people.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Updated with new data. Bush regaining ground.

[Thiebear]

Thats a pretty cool site: Just to see NY and CA combined almost equals the election itself: no wonder Bush won 31(?) states last time and almost lost..... Stop the conspiracy theories please...

62% of the US.

Right now it looks like Bush will lose... I cant believe VA will go Kerry but who knows...

It would be nice to see a map that doesnt look like the Civil War lines this time though no matter who wins...

[@DCGoldPants]

I was thinking that same thing Bear....but Warner won in VA....and if you drive through the state..North to South. The 1st hour you're see almost nothing but Kerry bumper stickers. I was shocked.

[JackC]

This election will come down to one question, that will be answered by the voters.

Does GWB deserve another term? I think they will answer no. I think Kerry will win in a complete landslide.

As for the site: What a slanted piece of junk. It's like being down 6 TD's with 5 minutes to go in the game and the guy next to you is still confident. Man let's just score a TD get the onside kick ...score again, get the onside kick again..yada yada.

The site predicts California will go for Bush---now that's funny.

[Oldskool]

It comes down to this:

Besides the ideologist and policy wonks on both sides of the political spectrum, I don’t think that most people in this country care for either Bush or Kerry at all.

Saying that if you had a choice to vote for the devil you know or the devil you don’t know, you’d vote for the one you know, right?

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Oldskool

It comes down to this:

Besides the ideologist and policy wonks on both sides of the political spectrum, I don’t think that most people in this country care for either Bush or Kerry at all.

Saying that if you had a choice to vote for the devil you know or the devil you don’t know, you’d vote for the one you know, right?

I'd vote for a tampon before I'd vote for Bush.

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Oldskool

It comes down to this:

Besides the ideologist and policy wonks on both sides of the political spectrum, I don’t think that most people in this country care for either Bush or Kerry at all.

Saying that if you had a choice to vote for the devil you know or the devil you don’t know, you’d vote for the one you know, right?

That's an interesting way to look at it.

It's still early.....we pretty much know everything that Bush is about. He can't change.....because his admin blasts just about any change.

Once the Dem convention comes around.....things are going to heat up. We'll see.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Oldskool

It comes down to this:

Besides the ideologist and policy wonks on both sides of the political spectrum, I don’t think that most people in this country care for either Bush or Kerry at all.

Saying that if you had a choice to vote for the devil you know or the devil you don’t know, you’d vote for the one you know, right?

You phrase that question as if it makes complete logical sense to vote for the one you know... I don't understand how it's not possible that the "one you don't know" isn't better than the "one you know" (just as it's possible, and it seems to logically follow somehow to you unless I'm interpreting your phrasing poorly, that the "one you know" is better than the "one you don't know").

Furthermore, if we really were talking about a devil of sorts, where perhaps any difference would seem to be a matter of diminishing returns (since they're devils), I don't see how reelecting a devil is better than trying to send the message, no we don't like devils to keep their jobs, so we'll take the only other option available to us.

This kind of judgement really depends (at least, to me) on how bad you think Kerry *could* be versus how good he *could* be, and compare that with how good/bad GW *is*. If you want to think about it more, consider the fact that this would be GW's second term.

[Oldskool]

Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne

You phrase that question as if it makes complete logical sense to vote for the one you know... I don't understand how it's not possible that the "one you don't know" isn't better than the "one you know" (just as it's possible, and it seems to logically follow somehow to you unless I'm interpreting your phrasing poorly, that the "one you know" is better than the "one you don't know").

Furthermore, if we really were talking about a devil of sorts, where perhaps any difference would seem to be a matter of diminishing returns (since they're devils), I don't see how reelecting a devil is better than trying to send the message, no we don't like devils to keep their jobs, so we'll take the only other option available to us.

This kind of judgement really depends (at least, to me) on how bad you think Kerry *could* be versus how good he *could* be, and compare that with how good/bad GW *is*. If you want to think about it more, consider the fact that this would be GW's second term.

Im not saying that either one is better or worse than the other.

How the question is phrased is : Do you vote for the person that you are unhappy with right now but pretty much know what to expect or do you vote for the person that youre not too excited to vote for in the first place and have no idea what he will do (good, bad or indifferent).

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by JackC

As for the site: What a slanted piece of junk. It's like being down 6 TD's with 5 minutes to go in the game and the guy next to you is still confident. Man let's just score a TD get the onside kick ...score again, get the onside kick again..yada yada.

Do you really think it's a piece of junk? I agree that the site owner is veeerry optimistic about his beloved candidate's final EV tally, but what about the actual projection? Looks like a decent piece of analysis to me.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Bumpy bumpy...check it out: the score's tied!

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by JackC

. I think Kerry will win in a complete landslide.

I haven't seen you around for a while JackC but I see you haven't lost your sence of delusion. Care to make a wager on your prediction? I'm game.

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Bumpy bumpy...check it out: the score's tied!

According to this site Bush is 10 points up.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/06-18-2004/0002196096&EDATE=

President Bush's lead over Kerry widens and Cabinet members' ratings also rise

ROCHESTER, N.Y., June 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Is it the effect of the nation's

memories of Ronald Reagan or the expanding economy? Whatever the cause, the

latest Harris Poll has a lot of good news for President Bush and the

Republicans. The good news includes:

* A very modest improvement in President Bush's job ratings (which is

within the possible margin of sampling error) to 50% positive, 49%

negative.

* Significantly improved job ratings for Vice President Dick Cheney

(from 36% positive to 42% positive), Secretary of State Colin Powell

(from 63% positive to 67% positive), and Attorney General John

Ashcroft (from 40% positive to 43% positive).

* Improved ratings for the Republicans in Congress (from 35% to 39%

positive), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (from 25% to 29% positive),

and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (from 26% to 30% positive).

However, the most startling change in the new Harris Poll compared to a

comparable survey in April, is that President Bush has widened his lead over

Senator John Kerry, from three points among likely voters then to 10 points

now.

What Does History Tell Us?

President Bush's June ratings suggest that the Presidential race is still

wide open. His current ratings are better than the June ratings of recent

presidents who were not re-elected (George H.W. Bush, Carter, Ford and

Johnson) but worse than the June ratings of the three who were re-elected

(Clinton, Reagan and Nixon).

PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS PREDECESSORS

JOB APPROVAL RATINGS

President Date Positive Negative Not Sure Re-elected

George W. Bush June 2004 50 49 1 ?

Clinton June 1996 55 45 1 Yes

George H.W. Bush June 1992 32 67 1 No

Reagan June 1984 55 45 * Yes

Carter June 1980 26 73 1 No

Ford June 1976 41 57 2 No

Nixon June 1972 56 42 2 Yes

Johnson June 1968 45 No data No data No

(did not run)

*=Less than 0.5 percent

These are the results of a nationwide telephone survey of 991 adults by

Harris interactive conducted between June 8 and 15.

TABLE 1

BUSH VS. KERRY

"If the next presidential election were held today between George W. Bush

for the Republicans, John Kerry for the Democrats and Ralph Nader as an

Independent, for whom would you most likely vote?"

Base: All Adults

All Adults Likely Voters

April Now April Now

% % % %

George Bush 43 48 46 51

John Kerry 43 42 43 41

Ralph Nader 9 7 8 6

None of these 2 * 1 *

Not sure/Refused 2 2 2 1

Bush Lead 0 0 +3 +10

NOTE: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

TABLE 2

POSITIVE RATINGS TRENDS SINCE 9/11/01: SUMMARY

Base: All Adults

Soon After Feb. April Aug.

POSITIVE RATINGS 9/11 2003 2003 2003

President George Bush 88% 52% 70% 57%

Secretary of State Colin Powell 88% 76% 81% 72%

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 78% 56% 71% 55%

Attorney General John Ashcroft 65% 51% 57% 48%

Vice President Dick Cheney 69% 45% 55% 42%

Republicans in Congress 67% 43% 52% 41%

Democrats in Congress 68% 38% 39% 30%

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist NA 37% 39% 32%

House Speaker Dennis Hastert 52% 33% 41% 29%

Oct. Dec. Feb. April June

POSITIVE RATINGS 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004

President George Bush 59% 50% 51% 48% 50%

Secretary of State Colin Powell 70% 74% 65% 63% 67%

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 47% 57% 50% 45% 47%

Attorney General John Ashcroft 42% 51% 44% 40% 43%

Vice President Dick Cheney 42% 42% 41% 36% 42%

Republicans in Congress 40% 37% 40% 35% 39%

Democrats in Congress 34% 28% 33% 32% 31%

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist 29% 28% 31% 26% 30%

House Speaker Dennis Hastert 29% 24% 26% 25% 29%

Note: (NA) = Not Applicable

TABLE 3

PRESIDENT BUSH'S OVERALL JOB RATING

(Not Sure's Excluded)

"How would you rate the job President George W. Bush is doing as president

- excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Base: All adults

Positive* Negative**

2004 June % 50 49

April % 48 51

February % 51 48

2003 December % 50 49

October % 59 40

August % 57 41

June % 61 36

April % 70 29

February % 52 46

2002 December % 64 35

November % 65 33

October % 64 35

September % 68 30

August % 63 37

July % 62 37

June % 70 28

May % 74 25

April % 75 23

March % 77 22

February % 79 20

January % 79 19

2001 December % 82 17

November % 86 12

October % 88 11

August % 52 43

July % 56 39

June % 50 46

May % 59 35

March % 49 38

February % 56 26

* Positive = excellent or pretty good.

** Negative = only fair or poor.

[AJWatson3]

it's kind of weird... over the last two weeks nothing has changed via foreign policy (progress in iraq or afghanistan), and not much new or improving on the home front, but reagan dies and bush and his cabinet get higher approval ratings? am i missing something?

[Lone Star Skin Fan]

It's just amazing. This is going to be a close election. How???

It's obvious. We need a change.