Yesterday, I wrote about a SurveyUSA poll of likely voters refuting the dated and flawed Ipsos-Public Affairs survey of less-likely-to-turn-out registered voters in WA. Kerry's been losing ground.....and his WA lead is almost within the four-point margin of error, SurveyUSA reported.
Now, the second poll in just a few days indicating Washington remains a battleground, just about dead even, in fact. It was done, and paid for by Atlanta-based Strategic Vision, which has been doing regular surveys in swing states. The phone poll surveyed 801 likely voters, Sept. 20 to 22. MOE=3.
In WA, Kerry's margin has slipped from 9 (8/9-11) to 6 (8/21-23) to 3 (9/4-6) and now, (9/20-22), to 2 points in a two-way race. In a three-way race (with Nader) his slippage over the same timeframe is 7 points, to 3, to 2, to 1.
Here's a report on the latest round of its WA polling, by Strategic Vision (a summary was to be posted later today at this page,) but had not been yet, after 6pm PST.
The results of the poll showed that the Kerry Campaign has lost substantial ground in Washington. In the match-up between the two presidential tickets, Kerry-Edwards led Bush-Cheney 47% to 45%, with 8% undecided and a margin of error of +/- 3%. In a three-way contest with the Bush-Cheney ticket, the Kerry-Edwards ticket, and the Nader-Camejo ticket, the results were Bush-Cheney 45%, Kerry-Edwards 46%, Nader-Camejo 2%, with 7% undecided, and a margin of error of +/- 3%.“John Kerry is losing ground in Washington as he is in all the battleground states,” said David E. Johnson, CEO of Strategic Vision, LLC, “This is not good news for Kerry. He must now defend the states that Al Gore won in 2000, before he can begin making inroads on Bush states. Just by tying Kerry down in Washington with time and resources takes away from states like Florida and Ohio that Kerry must win. It also shows that his new strategy is not working yet.
...."Kerry’s problem is that more people are exposed to him the less they like him,” said Johnson. That is why we have seen him begin appearing on shows like “The Late Show with David Letterman” and “Live with Regis and Kelly”, in an attempt to humanize him. Unfortunately for him once most people form an opinion of a candidate it is hard to change it with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton being the exceptions, and Kerry has not demonstrated their type of charm and charisma that would allow him to do so.”
Among other results in the Strategic Vision WA poll:
If the election for United States Senate were held today, would you vote for Patty Murray (D) or George Nethercutt (R) ?
Patty Murray 48%
George Nethercutt 41%
Undecided 11%
If the election for Governor were held today, would you vote for Christine Gregoire (D), Dino Rossi (R), or Ruth Bennett?
Christine Gregoire 44%
Dino Rossi 42%
Ruth Bennett 1%
Undecided 13%
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 24, 2004 12:51 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/525
Matt... I think it's wishful thinking on your part to view the polls as encouraging for R's in WA state. As I've stated in my own blog on the subject, D's have an electoral advantage in WA: there are simply more of us. That's why the GOP performs so dismally in statewide races.
Furthermore, if anything, the polls are underestimating voter turnout, and as the NY Times pointed out, D's are doing a better job nationwide at registering new voters.
Posted by: David Goldstein at September 27, 2004 10:43 AMWhat do you know about "Strategic Visions"? Have you viewed their methodology in polling?
Polls are being used to manipulate Americans, especially American voters. Over the last several months I've reviewed several polls and--when I could find the information--used methodology which turned out worthless poll results.
It is the norm, when doing research using polls, to provide WITH the analysis/reference to the poll the exact methodology used to produce the data and analysis.
The vast majority of polls not only don't give the information, but they don't even give you enough data to find the methodology yourself.
"The Great American Polling Fraud: How Polls Are Being Used to Manipulate Voters" (http://www.politicalamazon.com/polls.html) gives a discussion of this fraud being perpetuated against Americans, with specific examples of inaccurate, poorly (or fraudulently) preduced polls which give worthless results, but which are touted by polling groups and their clients as actually meaning something.
Want to refresh your knowledge of what constitutes a valid poll? Visit "20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results" by Sheldon R. Gawiser, Ph.D. and G. Evans Witt
(http://www.politicalamazon.com/polls.html#20)
The moral of the story is this: UNLESS YOU CAN FIND ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT A POLL'S METHODOLOGY AND OTHER DETAILS BY WHICH YOU CAN JUDGE IF THE POLL IS VALID OR NOT, ASSUME THE POLL IS WORTHLESS.
Posted by: PoliticalAmazon at October 2, 2004 12:09 PM"Political Amazon:"
As I reported in the piece, this poll was of 801 likely voters, was paid for by the polling firm itself, not a political campaign, and had a margin of error of +-3 percent. I also gave the dates the poll was conducted, the shifting results over the last several rounds, and difference between a two-way and three-way presidential race.
In addition, tho I did not report it in the article, I questioned the company's CEO on the phone before posting my item, and specifically wanted to know if the percentages of Democrats and Republicans polled matched voter registration in this state, by party. He replied that is what they did here, and do in each state.
We actually had an interesting discussion about that whole issue, and he remarked that "sampling" condition is somewhat overrated, as many people who are registered as a Democrat may actually vote Republican, and vice versa.
In addition, I learned that all Strategic Vision's polls are done by live questioners, not automated.
The company has been polling in six swing states every two weeks for several months. They are pretty well known by now, and broadly cited.
Nonetheless, I do think Strategic Vision should post more details on their methodology on their site. All the same, having talked to them, I thought the poll was worth reporting on.
As it happens, and I realize this may not be worth much to you, but the Associated Press mentioned this poll in a story just a day or two after I posted the above item on my blog.
Regarding your reading suggestions, it's nice to refer people to web sites, but it gets the dialog going more effectively if you can succinctly state what you thought was missing.
I'd respectfully suggest you be more specific next time. The meat of your complaint was missing.
Posted by: Matt Rosenberg at October 2, 2004 08:06 PMIt seems that not only can't Kerry's reputation endure anything more than short term scruitiny, it fails when it is faced with those that knew him way back when. How well I recall even dyed in the wool Republicans saying to me in the sixties that Richard Nixon had a nom de guerre of "Tricky Dick." I was told to be wary of him by many.
I think that Mr. Kerry's permutations and machinations could well earn him the moniker of "Tricky John." I strongly suspect that Senator Kerry is the Democrats' Richard Nixon.
Posted by: Howard Wolf at October 4, 2004 10:26 PMIf you have any questions about "strategic vision" and their possible bias, just go to their home page:
David Johnson was named Honorary Chairman for the National Republican Congressional Committee's Business Advisory Council.
Posted by: George at October 9, 2004 12:27 PM