its.....A ZOGBY POLL!...

[Ben.]

Yes that right after his truly “excellent” polling during the primaries Zogby has emerged with a new national poll….yeahhhhhhhhh……… that’s right another poll… now while Zogby is not the most reliable of pollster he (as with most polls) can give you a basic idea of what I going on… so it may seem that rather than Bush opening an increasing lead on Kerry the race is effectively still tied…here are the results…

“With less than eight months to go before the presidential election, likely voters are almost evenly divided in their support for a candidate to capture the White House in November. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry holds a slight edge of 48% to 46% over President George W. Bush.

Candidate
March 17-19 %

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry
48

President George W. Bush
46

Undecided
5


When Independent candidate Ralph Nader is added, Kerry and Bush are tied with 46% each, followed by Nader at 3%.

Candidate
March 17-19 %

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry
46

President George W. Bush
46

Independent Ralph Nader
3

Undecided
5


In the Blues States, those that were won by former Vice-President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, Kerry receives 56% support, as compared to Bush with 38%. However, in the Red States, those won by President Bush in 2000, Bush leads with 53% to Kerry’s 40%.

Candidate
Blues States %
Red States %

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry
56
40

President George W. Bush
38
53

Undecided
4
6


If a major terrorist attack were again to hit the United States, 51% of likely voters prefer to be led by Bush as compared to Kerry with 40%.

Candidate
March 17-19 %

President George W. Bush
51

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry
40

Undecided
6


Overall, however, President Bush's job performance rating continues to slide with 53% of likely voters giving him an negative rating (Fair-Poor), and 46% granting him a positive rating (Excellent-Good). On the important re-elect question, only 45% say that the President “deserves to be re-elected”, while 51% say it “time for someone new” in. Voters also expressed concerns regarding the country's direction. A plurality of voters (50%) feel that the United States is headed on the wrong track, while 44% say that the country is headed in the right direction.

Almost one in three (30%) identified jobs and the economy as top issue facing the country, followed by the war on terrorism (16%), the war in Iraq (12%), health care (10%), and education (8%).

Pollster John Zogby: "This is predictably unpredictable. The President's job performance is down as is his re-elect. The country's direction is a net negative. Kerry seems to have weathered the first week of both blistering attacks from the President and Vice-President and his clumsy claim of support from foreign leaders. The President holds on to strong support among Republicans, but he is having trouble with Independents. Both sides have the gloves off and this tempo should continue because the race is just so tight.”

Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of a random sampling of 1065 likely voters chose at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from Wednesday, March 17th through Friday, March19. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, presidential voter to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.”


Here’s the Link http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=812

[CTguy]

This is just further proof that Nader is a scumbag with an ego the size of Anna Nicole Smiths ass.  

[Ben.]

I have to say...despite the fact that Zogby is not very reliable generally...(though he is usally best at national rather than state polls)...it would fit with how i see things going Nader at around 2-3% and Bush and Kerry effectivly tied with perhaps an advantage to Bush...

[CTguy]

I cant believe 3 million or so people are really going to vote for Nader this time around.  I voted for the ego maniac last time and refuse to again even though I live in a state that is so impossible for Bush to win I might as well not waste the gas money showing up at the polls.

[Gustaf]

Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of a random sampling of 1065 likely voters chose at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from Wednesday, March 17th through Friday, March19. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, presidential voter to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.”[/color]

Zogby.... what do you say about Zogby.... ?

Zogby is a very, very smart man...  But he also cuts a ton of corners when doing his polls, and he weights the %^%%^%$! out of his samples.. waaaay more so than any other pollster I am aware of.

As others have noted, he is often right, as others have noted he is often wrong....

Zogby typically incorporates a somewhat looser "voter screen" (actually he uses fewer questions.. It saves money) and makes different turnout assumptions - He typically models a somewhat higher African American turnout for example, and more independants.

I really wish the "truth in advertising" rules applied to pollsters, then every Zogby Poll (and others also) would start out as follows:

"We have made the following assuptions about the election... If these assumptions are accurate, this is what the race looks like today...."

As for the actual poll...  It's very close, we all knew that anyway...

Zogby's models slightly favors the Dems relative to the GOP, so Kerry +2 basically says the same thing as the Teeter/Hart poll showing Bush +1.. (The Teeter/Hart model is a tad more GOP friendly)

In fact, if you average Zogby and Teeter/Hart you get Kerry +0.50.. which is exactly the margin for Gore in 2000...   which is kinda funny...

In 2000, Zogby's final poll had Gore +2.. 1.5% higher than the the actual result.

In 2000, Teeter/Hart's final call was Bush +1.. 1.5% higher than his actual result..

If you averaged Zogby and Teeter/Hart in 2000, you got Gore +0.5.. which was dead on...

it's like deja vue all over again...

But doesn't the MoE make it kind of hazardous to make assumptions about margins of 0.5, 1. 2% etc. ?

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are absolutely, 100%, totally correct.

We have had 7 polls I know of in the past week showing (in a two person race) from between Bush +4 and Kerry +2, with a bunch of stops in between.

It's close, very close,..

Any statement more specific than that is not supportable from a statistical point of view.

You can't even "average" the 7 polls because they all use different turnout models and assuptions, which while generally speaking sort of, kind of, aproximately are more or less consisitent with each other, the various polls are different enough that they really are not quite apples to apples...

I mentioned Zogby + Teeter/Hart because at this point both polls show exactly what they showed in 2000, and that in 2000 the average of those two polls was dead on...

More a historical foot note than anything else...

Ah, OK. It's easy to get frustrated with people who don't understand things like MoEs...though in some uncanny way, often changes within MoE turn out to be real eventually...or at least that's what I've observed in Sweden...

[CTguy]

You know what is really and truly sad...  intelligent people sit around reading all these polls that bounce around within a few points of eachother hoping it bounces the correct way...

And you know who those people are that are bouncing the poll results around...  People that probably don't even know who is President right now...  that are so out of touch with politics and society at large that they probably respond to these polls on a whim as they probably do when they enter the voting booth.  

It is sad that our elections are determined by people who simply don't care.

[Gustaf]

You know what is really and truly sad...  intelligent people sit around reading all these polls that bounce around within a few points of eachother hoping it bounces the correct way...

And you know who those people are that are bouncing the poll results around...  People that probably don't even know who is President right now...  that are so out of touch with politics and society at large that they probably respond to these polls on a whim as they probably do when they enter the voting booth.  

It is sad that our elections are determined by people who simply don't care.

You have a turnout that's among the absolutely lowest in the Democratic world. Be happy...

[CTguy]

I don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

[CTguy]

I am starting to think low turn out is an absolutely good thing since educated people tend to be over-represented... and they tend to be far more socially progressive...

But on the other hand it makes the system very unstable...  you have such a large chunk of voters not showing up... if they all did one year something drastic could happen to Congress and we could have one party shoving constitutional amendments down our throats...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am starting to think low turn out is an absolutely good thing since educated people tend to be over-represented... and they tend to be far more socially progressive...

Aaaaaaaaaaagh!
Despite their natural social conservatism, poor people are more likely to be Democrats than any other comparable demographic...

[angus]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaagh!

And it has been repeatedly shown that these social issues do inform voting proclivities, by and large.

(oh, but maybe that's your point.)  

[Platypus]

I still find it hard to believe that Bush won the election with 23% of the VAP.

Also, this poll is good news. I think Zogby is one of the more accurate pollsters,m even if his methods are a bt...odd.

[© tweed]

Rasmussen has it Bush 48-45%

[classical liberal]

I don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Winston Churchill said that the best argument against Democracy is 5 min with the average voter.

[Gustaf]

I don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Winston Churchill said that the best argument against Democracy is 5 min with the average voter.

He also said that democracy is the worse political system, except for all the others. That's the main point.

[MarkDel]

Zogby used to be the best pollster in the country, but he missed badly in the 2002 Elections, and his personal political beliefs have finally started to intrude into his polling data. Zogby has always been a Democrat and a Liberal, but for his entire career, he had maintained a level of objectivity rarely seen of people in his position. For that, he had my respect and admiration. But all of that changed on 9/11. You have to understand that Zogby is a strong supporter, because of his ethnic heritage and statements he has made, of Arab Muslims. Since 9/11, his once vaunted objectivity has gone out the window and has been replaced by an irrational hatred of the Bush administration who he views as anti-Muslim because of the War on Terror and Bush's ongoing support of the Sharon government. This explains why the always reliable polling data was AWFUL in the 2002 Elections...he's now finally become a partisan.

[angus]

Yeah, but on the otherhand Newsmax, of all people, call Zogby "one the most respected pollsters in the world."  I never quite understood the dichotomy.

[ShapeShifter]

Yeah, but on the otherhand Newsmax, of all people, call Zogby "one the most respected pollsters in the world."  I never quite understood the dichotomy.

then what is a "good" pollster???

[MarkDel]

Angus,

That's because the conservatives at Newsmax are still clinging to the days in the 1980's and 1990's when Zogby consistently forecast Republican support at a higher level than Gallup, CBS and the other pollsters...and Zogby was almost always right in those days. There was no major secret why Zogby was so much more accurate...he was the first guy to really nail down the concept of the "likely voter" rather than the "registered voter"

Republicans vote more consistently than Democrats...otherwise we'd be in REAL trouble.

[angus]

Shapeshifter, you'll have to address that to Vorlon, I think.  My phd is in physics.  Mark's is in constitutional law.  I do have an idea of what a good pollster is, but I don't really feel qualified to answer that.  (Unless you want a sarcastic/therapeutic answers, then I'd be more than happy to oblige.)