The Gallup poles

Oct 21 10:48 UTC 2000

Now I am not a 'sampling statistician' although I am married to one who
is one of the top 10 or so in the US and they all know each other.  But
I am me, a mere computer geek who happened to study statistics under the
oversight of Yates. Yates of the 'Yates correlation coefficient
correction' for those of you and whats-her-name who are of the maybe 40
or so in the world who know what it is (know what the meaning of the
word 'is' is) is one of the top notch 'geeks'.  Maybe Dr. R. understands
what it is.  (But my opinion may because I personally think Dr. R. is a
fine person even if he is not familiar with the YCCC.)  Anywhat, even
though I predicted that Gore would win the presidential election I am
now in the uncomfortable position of having to admit that I may be
wrong.  (Notice how 'careful' I am)  In the most recent polls the older
demographic groups seems to be more or less in the 50% range.  It is the
under 29 - the generation G and below that have the most variance and at
the same time 'issues' that seem on the surface to have nothing to do
with them that seem to be in the position to  have the 'swing vote'.

It will be interesting to see which party picks up on this in the next
few weeks.  Hint: the same demographics that watch _CSI_ are the ones
that will decide this next pres thingy it looks like.

(So long as the kids don't get clued in that the Social Security
thingy is a giant 'ponzi' scheme)

response 2 of 32:

Oct 21 20:55 UTC 2000

Well Beady by the logic of the under 29s picking the pres Nader would be
the man while I wish that was true, survey says bzzzzzzzt.

And thanks for playing.

response 4 of 32:

Oct 21 23:37 UTC 2000

  He could've been cruising Chicago neighborhoods for Poles.  
  The town is lousy with 'em..

response 6 of 32:

Oct 23 08:59 UTC 2000

Thus far neither the DNC nor the GOP have gotten on the clue buss.  The
'swing vote' seems to be the 'assholes'... Those that like and
understand shitty music (cRAP).  Two weeks and counting and neither
party realizes that the deciding factor is gonna be the youngsters. 
Those clueless not likely to vote that both the GOP and DNC have ignored
and dismissed as meaningless.  Whats worse is that the only thing that
either party has to offer them is 'empty promises' - aka *nothing*. 
That demographic that seems to hold the key in this election are the
ones that regard pigs flying along with politicians promises, honest
lawyers, and the moon having significant cheese export potential right
up there with social security having any significance when they reach
the depends age and no longer have teeth to brush.

Its gonna be interesting how this all plays out.  At this point it is
Bush to lose---meaning Gore hasn't a chance if Bush doesn't somehow
screw it up. 

I bet that Gore would win a couple months ago, I really did.  Didn't
bet any money on it but that was my opinion.  Now, I dunno so much, I
think the GOP may pull off both the presidency and congressional
majority.  (And the latter part sort of worries me.)

response 8 of 32:

Oct 24 03:30 UTC 2000

numbers I saw today gave the electoral ad. to W.

response 10 of 32:

Oct 24 16:59 UTC 2000

(2% is inside the margin of error.)

response 12 of 32:

Oct 25 09:18 UTC 2000

There's nothing they can do at this point to win the younger vote.  They can
alienate it, but they can't win it.  The younger vote will likely remain
obscured until something really pressing forces them in number to the polls.
Nothing pressing has arisen for years.

response 14 of 32:

Oct 25 18:25 UTC 2000

Hmmm...If you can't be leading by a good margin, the trailing by a small
margin coming into the election may not be a bad second choice - helps get
your voters out.

response 16 of 32:

Oct 27 00:00 UTC 2000

once again it is the electoral vote that counts,and in the electoral
estimates gore hasnever trailed.  Bush is ahead nationally in somepolls
because he's about eighty zillion votes aheadin Texas, and way ahead in
utah and all the mountain states.  Those states,however, all add up to
the same number of electoral votes regardless of whether Bush wins by
one vote in each state or onemillion votes in each state.

Look at the state polls, they are what counts.  And a big one was outtoday,
a cbs new york times pollshowing Gore is now up six points in Florida. 
The seniors down there are all voting for him because he's convincing them
Bush's tax cuts would threaten social security.  Florida is 25 electoral
votes,butmore than that, Florida is make or break for Bush, theydont have
an electoral strategy that includes losing Florida.  You cant realisitically
win the white house if you lose new york, california, and florida.

response 18 of 32:

Oct 27 02:49 UTC 2000

None of the states individually are crucial.  However, if Bush were to
lose Florida, or if Gore were to lose Illinois, that would imply a
certain weakness that would be simultaneously be undermining their
chances in lots of other states.

New Mexico almost always votes for the winner.  But winning New Mexico
is not the key to winning nationally.  It's a symptom, not a cause.

response 20 of 32:

Oct 27 05:10 UTC 2000

So, who are those 700-800 "potential voters" CNN is polling, who have
Bush ahead by 5+ points?

response 22 of 32:

Oct 27 14:32 UTC 2000

CNN's tracking poll is notoriously volatile.  At one point it had Bush
ahead by 10 points, when all the other polls showed the candidates about
even.

Every poll done by a different organization is done in a different way.
Finding the sample, contacting the respondents, screening for likely
voters, are all crucial issues.  Pollsters have different ideas about
some of these things, different levels of resources, etc.

Since 1984, Zogby has had the best track record among American political
pollsters.

response 24 of 32:

Oct 27 14:50 UTC 2000

read an article on voter.com where Zogby says swing voters, undecideds,
break 3-1 for Gore when pushed.