Another new state poll (Nevada)...

[CARLHAYDEN]

I checked the site a few weeks ago before the June update.  Interesting to see those posters having basic problems with facts.  

For the assistance of those who haven't bothered to check the site, let me provide a few little tid-bits.

First, in June of 2000, in the State of Nevada, Democrats outregistered Republicans 386,202 to 384,459.  

Bush won 50.7% of the vote in Nevada in 2000,

In June of 2004, Republicans outregistered Democrats 363,463 to 354,950.  

I guess I haven't mastered the 'new math,' but these figures don't seem to me to be favorable to Kerry.

Also, with respect to Clark County, in June of 2000 it contained 64.78% of the state's registered voters, contrasted with 62.06% in June of 2004.

Further, the turnout rate in Clark county in 2000 was 69.46%, compared to the statewide figue of 70.15%.

So, the idea that Clark county has 72% of the state voters seems more than a little far-fetched to me.

Again, I guess I don't use the 'new math,' where you just make things up.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Then you do agree that voters vote and not population.

Please cite a 'fact' which I misstated.

In my math (perhaps a little old fashioned), the extrapolation of trends favors Bush.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As to "(h)ow can you claim yours is a valid position when you see the polls and how they are trend this year," let me respond:

First, I have seen surveys which are NOT publicly available, and they differ significantly from many of the 'polls' available publicly.  This is not unusual as the 'polls' available publicly before the 1980 elections showed the election as close whereas the private polls for both major candidates showed Reagan with a comfortable lead.  

Second, unless polling is very carefully done, it yields seriously incorrect results.  I have had many posts pointing out defects in many of the polls.  Vorlon has also pointed out many of the defects.

Third, for a more detailed explantion of my analysis of the election, see my post in the 2004 User Predictions thread, page 157 on this board.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, with regard to "nomination data."  Due the space limitations for posting on this board, I had to be brief.  To expand, Congressional Quarterly had an excellent book published a number of years ago in which it tracked the nomination process for Presidential candidates throughout the twentieth century (until date of publication)  Subsequent data confirms that information that where an imcumbent President seeking reelection did not have a substantial challenge in the primaries (which I define as winning all primaries contested with at least two-thirds of the vote), that candidate not only was nominated, but won reelection.

Second, with regard to "historical research," I strongly recommend it.  I do doubt that you can find the data to your liking, but research away.

Third, with regard to your assertion that:

"no Democratic candidate in recent history has polled as hight as Kerry at this point in a Presidential campaign,"

I suggest you check your historical statistics. The easiest one that comes to mind is Carter in 1976.  

Yes, statistical analysis is very interesting.  Part of the problem is that frequently the data base is inadequate for sophisticated analysis (too small, corrupted, etc.)

An interesting rule I learned a long time ago was, in analysis of a mass of complex data, to 'expect the unexpected,' which is to say, to notice when the data seems to defy convention analysis, and (if the data is good), change your analysis to fit the data.

I'll give you a couple of examples of 'rules,' which other people cited in the past, which Clinton disproved in 1992.

1. If you lose the New Hampshire primary and get nominated, you'll lose the general (true before 1992).

2. If the Black vote for a Democrat presidential nominee is much more than twenty per cent of his vote, he will lose (true before 1992).

Finally, I'll leave you with a subject for study:

When a major party challenger has contested and beaten an incumbent President seeking reelection, how many times was the challenger a Govenor (or former Govenor), and how many times a Senator (or former Senator)?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bush won 50.7% of the vote in Nevada in 2000,

Wrong. Check the Atlas Mr. "I think Chuck Schumer is worse than Pol Pot but I'm still a Democrat." Dumbass.

Actually, Bush got 49.52 % of all parties in Nevada in 2000.

My error.

Its always nice to see you exhibit your 'manners.'

[CARLHAYDEN]

Bush won 50.7% of the vote in Nevada in 2000,

Wrong. Check the Atlas Mr. "I think Chuck Schumer is worse than Pol Pot but I'm still a Democrat." Dumbass.

Now, Now.....we're all allowed to occasionally "have problems with basic facts" and once in a while use "new math to just make things up"

BTW, the is a legal controversy in Nevada as to whether "none of the above" votes should count.

Several years ago the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that 'none of the above' cannot win an election.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In my math (perhaps a little old fashioned), the extrapolation of trends favors Bush.

How can you claim yours is a valid position when you see the polls and how they are trending this year?  See below:

freedomburns-

He's certainly gaining ground given that of the 2 certainly reliable polls from the state: the first showed him down 11 and the second, taken a couple of months later, showed him down 1.

The latest poll, even with possible oversampling of southern Nevada, shows a 4-5% shift to Kerry in the past six week.  Your analysis is flawed. (IMHO)

freedomburns

Check out the Mason-Dixon poll of july 20-22.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Even good polls have a summer bias for Democrats,

[CARLHAYDEN]

At this time of the year you're correct, IMHO.

[CARLHAYDEN]

At this time of the year you're correct, IMHO.

Well Kerry will almost certainly win the independent vte because Bush will get a far bigger share of the Dem vote than Kerry gets of the GOP vote.

While you are probably correct that Bush will win a larger percentage of the Democrat vote than Kerry will of the Republican vote, the 'independent' vote, particularly in Nevada, is very difficult to predict.