Another new state poll (Nevada)...

[ATFFL]

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

You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare two polls.  That is a bad habit to be in.

And, as I showed above, correcting the oversampling may render this poll a tie.  The interals are skewed to oversample a democratic area.

[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.

[freedomburns]

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.

I read your postings in the user predictions.  Dang Carl, how did you get so knowledgeable about this stuff?  I am impressed.

A few questions:
(1) What is "nomination data"?

(2) I could do historical research, and I'm sure pull just as many statistics out that fit my picture of what I would like for the result.  I can't be sure that you are not cherry picking your data.  Can you be sure that you are not wearing rose colored glasses, so to speak?

For instance, no Democratic candidate in recent history has polled as high as Kerry is at this point in a Presidential campaign.  For a challenger to be going into the convention in a virtual tie is unprecedented in modern times.  Given that, he is almost guaranteed to win.  

Some here seem so confident in their predictions.  Maybe that is with good reason.  Perhaps you have access to better data.  I admit that I am relatively new to statistical analysis and number crunching of polls, but I do find it VERY interesting.

I can't wait to see the final result, and I hope people that are wrong will humbly abase themselves here on the forum, apologize for their partisan logic, and then post a picture of themselves eating crow. (Not a real one please, I'm a vegetarian)

I can't say that your analysis is flawed.  You have given this too much thought, and I am unable to refute your logic.  But you are just one person.  Do you have reason to be so confident in your analysis?  Where is your data coming from?  Suspect partisan sources like Public Opinion Strategies?

The Republicans have gained in the voter rolls.  But everything moves in cycles and that cycle is ending soon.  People are getting pretty fed up with how dumb Bush is (no offense intended).  Even the people who are more powerful than the President are getting fed up with how lamely he carries off their bidding.  They may let Kerry get elected if Bush can't pull his act together.

I wasn't planning on getting a full membership to PollingReports.  I can just wait until people post their data, with detailed analysis, on this site a few hours later.  But I am starting to think that I might want to crunch their numbers myself.  And, that is the kind of site that I like to support.

freedomburns

[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)?

[mddem2004]

One possible benefit to the Democrats that I don't think has been discussed is the effect that Nevada's most nationally known public figure, the Democrats #2 man in the Senate, the Honorable Senator Harry Reid, is up for re-election in November. He had a tight one last time in 1998 (only 48% of the vote it appears) but I hear he is well ahead in his race for a fourth term this time.
Any effect? Does he draw votes to Kerry that may not otherwise be there?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[mddem2004]

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"

[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.

[ATFFL]

For those who want to see the Mason Dixon poll of Nevada:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jul-25-Sun-2004/news/24381796.html

[freedomburns]

Right, thanks guys.  Now we have two polls from the same source to compare.

In the March Mason-Dixon poll stats:
Bush 49%
Kerry 38%
Nader 4%
Undecided 9%

In the July poll:
Bush 46%
Kerry 43%
Nader 4%
Undeciced 7%

So, in the past three months Kerry has taken 3% from Bush and 2% of the undecideds in NV, despite Bush spending much money here.  There are three months to go.  If the trend continues, Kerry will win it.  The July poll shows the independents very concerned with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump plan that Bush flip-flopped on.  So the independents will likely break for Kerry.  Also, there is some hope (wishful?) that when people see how close it will be, and are not just answering a pollster, they won't actually vote for a third party candidate (Nader takes more from Kerry).  

The Dems say that they are "ecstatic" with the poll, and for good reason.  In three months they have made huge headway.  They still have their work cut out for them.  The state will not be a cakewalk.  

I probably shouldn't "guarantee" it for Kerry, but it sure looks good to me.

I don't have access to the favorability ratings for the July poll for comparison, but in March it was:

Bush 48% favorable, 37% unfavorable, 15% neutral
Kerry 35% favorable, 36% unfavorable, 27% neutral

If I had access the favorability ratings for the July poll it would help to make a prediction...
I suspect that Bush's unfavorable percentage will have gone up, but I'd like to know how much.

freedomburns

[CARLHAYDEN]

Even good polls have a summer bias for Democrats,

[Gustaf]

On fades and stuff, IIRC, independents always lean Kerry.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

[© tweed]

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.

[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.

[© tweed]

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.

Well it is certain that Bush will take a larger percentage of the Democrat vote than Kerry will of the Republican vote, because of the south.  40% of Oklahoma Dems voted for Bush in 2000, and Bush won WV despite the GOP only 'owning' 29% of registered West Virginia voters.

[freedomburns]

Here is the article I promised:

From today's San Francisco Chronicle (Sunday, July 25, 2004):

'Californians road-tripping to register Nevada voters'
'Home thought safe for Kerry, so focus is on swing states'

Las Vegas -- His shirt soaked with sweat after 21/2 hours of walking door-to-door in the 107-degree morning heat of Las Vegas, Santa Clara construction worker Dan Yoshida put down his clipboard and counted how many Nevadans he had registered to vote.
Three.
He had caravanned 10 hours with 24 other Bay Area residents to this most unsexy suburban corner of northwest Vegas to offer help in a "swing" state where polls say the presidential election is too close to call. For three voters? And yet he was smiling.
Polls are giving Democratic Sen. John Kerry a comfortable lead over President Bush in California, so a growing number of the Bay Area's left-of- center types feel there's no point staying home and preaching to the converted.
Their solution: Hook up with one of a host of new organizations, like last weekend's organizer, DrivingVotes.org, that are coordinating trips to places like Nevada, where their efforts are needed more; Bush beat Democrat Al Gore in Nevada by a shade under 21,000 votes in 2000.
Nevada's prize is five electoral votes, which could be the election's difference, as the mantra goes in the 17 states where the vote is too close to tally on either campaign's tote board.
Tilting that margin toward Kerry is what is inspiring California road- trippers like Yoshida. He was one of 35 Californians, including nine from Southern California, who packed into vans Friday for a 72-hour roadie, many splitting the $68-a-night accommodations at the Howard Johnson by the airport, far from the Vegas strip.
"I was tired of sitting around with my friends saying, 'We're pissed off, but what are we going to do about it?' " said Yoshida, who just finished a 4 1/2-year hitch in the Marines. "This got me off my butt. Yeah, this was definitely worth it. It makes you feel like you're doing something."
Coordinated separately by Bay Area pro-Kerry groups and national progressive outfits like America Coming Together, Swing the State and the League of Independent Voters, a growing number of Californians are finding ways to turn out like-minded voters outside their home state. Most are under 35 and heretofore politically disengaged, and they find electoral politics loathsome.
Mobilizing large force
Yet other than New Yorkers headed to the Midwest, no state is exporting more help to swing states than California, said Adrienne Maree Brown, program director of the League of Young Voters, which is encouraging such road trips to register voters.
"California is surrounded by swing states," said Brown, co-editor of the league's inspiration, the how-to book, "How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: The Anti-Politics, Un-boring Guide to Power."
"It's like progressive people have finally gotten the message that they have to lose those elitist attitudes that are there on the coasts," Brown said. "A lot of people talk about, 'We got to help the people rise up,' but they forget the 'people' part of it. There's progressive people in Akron, Ohio. Now people are trying to connect with them."
"Everybody says swing states are where the action is," said Carol Butler, an El Cerrito resident who is coordinating swing state expeditions for Bay Area volunteers for Kerry. The plan is to visit Nevada regularly until November, including a fall pitch to college students for another road trip to Las Vegas.
"John Kerry is going to win California whether we stay here and work for him or not," Butler said.
Not so fast, said Bush campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, who said there are 75,000 volunteers for Bush in California. Campaign officials stress that Bush hasn't written off the state and confirm that he plans to visit Southern California in mid-August.
Republican National Committee spokesman Yier Shi said he knew of no similar effort to export conservative help from red to swing states. "We have enough volunteers in the swing states," he said.
Quipped California Republican Party spokeswoman Karen Hanretty: "Maybe Republicans (from California) are smart enough not to walk around Las Vegas in 100-degree heat."
Hanretty dismissed the border-crossing effort as the work of "the more liberal voters from the Bay Area who are going to support Kerry because he's not the other candidate. But I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for Kerry himself. "
Indeed, the Vegas road-trippers didn't encounter a lot of Kerry love from Nevadans. A poster inside the America Coming Together offices where the California volunteers gathered asked, "Why the hell did you come all the way to Nevada?" Underneath, one respondent wrote, "I'm angry." They're hearing the same response on the street.
"People are mostly saying, 'Get rid of Bush,' " said Seiji Carpenter, a San Francisco Mission District resident, as he snagged a handful of registrations outside a Food 4 Less.
Getting results
Whatever the motivator, Kerry's Nevada operatives and other progressive leaders there have appreciated the help. Of the 47 volunteers trying to identify and register sympathetic voters Saturday in Vegas, more than two- thirds were from California. They helped register 162 new voters and made face- to-face contact with 341 others -- a boon in a region where the party registration is as close as the polls.
"The response from California has been amazing," said Anna Franker, field director for the Nevada chapter of America Coming Together, a year-old organization formed to register and turn out progressive voters. "If each person who comes out has five conversations with voters, then over the next few months, that's what's going to swing the election."
Franker was a bit overenthusiastic in her Saturday morning pep talk to volunteers, saying, "If you're talking to someone who's a Bush supporter, don't register them. The Bush people will take care of them." An America Coming Together spokesman quickly corrected her, saying they would register everyone, regardless of party affiliation.
For Bay Area road-trippers, the side benefit of these Nevada jaunts -- besides the after-campaigning joys of the Strip -- has been an education in talking to voters outside the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley progressive bubble. They ran into the fiercely independent "Nevaditude" of people like 68- year-old Mark Connor, who answered the door shirtless and told Yoshida, "I don't think either of them is worth my damn vote."
As the Californians walked through Connor's working-class neighborhood Saturday, where 1,200-foot, 3-bedroom homes were selling for $172,500 and front-yard auto repair was not uncommon, some of the Californians were surprised at people's concerns.
"I thought people were going to be upset about the war, but they were more concerned about health care and housing," said James Moed, a 29-year-old San Franciscan. "This has been an eye-opening experience."
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.

[khirkhib]

excellent article.  time to do more canvassing work, as soon as I paint the bathroom.