Yet another couple of data points to support the supposition that Strategic Vision is not a legitimate polling operation, but part of the Republican spin machine, attempting wherever possible to make Kerry look weaker than he is, even in his stronghold states. Look at these recent polls:
WASHINGTON KERRY BUSH NADER MOE
Strategic Vision 9/20 - 9/22 46 45 2 3 (Kerry by 1)
Survey USA 9/19 - 9/21 51 46 - 4 (Kerry by 5)
Ipsos Pub. Aff. 9/17 - 9/20 51 42 2 4.9 (Kerry by 9)
Elway Poll 9/17 - 9/19 52 38 - 5 (Kerry by 14)
CALIFORNIA KERRY BUSH NADER MOE
Strategic Vision 9/20 - 9/22 48 43 - 3 (Kerry by 5)
Los Angeles Times 9/17 - 9/21 53 40 2 3 (Kerry by 13)
Pub. Policy Inst 9/12 - 9/19 51 39 - 3 (Kerry by 12
I think, as I've expressed before, that what you see is a deliberate attempt to undermine Kerry's public position by shaving off points from his poll results wherever and whenever possible -- always being careful never to go too far and present results that no one will believe. The margin of error gives a fair amount of wiggle room for these guys to play within, and I think they're using it for all it's worth.
It would really be best if people dropped SV's results from their poll-driven Electoral College estimations, because they're not trustworthy, in my humble opinion.
For more, see this anlysis and the further links in that post.
Update (9/28): In an e-mail to me, TruthIsAll had some interesting things to say:
I have been posting on just this topic at DU [Democratic Underground].
On the national level, to distinguish between National pollsters, I have created a separate group of 8 Independent pollsters, who are part of the existing full group of 18 corporate and independents.
Is it just a coincidence that the Independent 8 National Group has the race tied at 46%, whereas the full 18 Group has Bush leading by 2%? This means the corporates have Bush leading by an average of 4%.
The effect on the probability of a Kerry win (defined as the probability of getting a majority of the popular vote) based on these two National polling groups is very interesting.
In an unbelievable coincidence, they are exactly reversed as of today.
For the 8 independents: Kerry has a 92.38% win probability.
For the full group of 18, Bush has a 92.38% win probability.
The State model, based on Monte Carlo Simulation, gives Kerry a 91% probability. So the State model confirms the Independents National model.
The numbers are quite interesting:
State Model:
Kerry current poll weighted average is 46.49%, projected to 50.85% with a win probability of 91.0%.
National 8 model:
Kerry current poll average is 46%, projected to 50.80%, with a win probability of 92.38%.
This is a key point: Both models use totally different methods to compute probabilities and derive Kerry's national popular forecast.
The National model applies the tight MoE for the 8 polls (8,000 respondents) to the projected Kerry % to derive his probability.
The State model uses the results of 5000 simulations based on the latest weighted state polls (mostly Zogby and ARG) to calculate the probability (the number of Kerry wins divided by 5000).
The race is tied if one looks at the current national 8 average poll and the weighted state polls.
But it's NOT really tied, since Kerry will get the bulk of the remaining undecided and other 3rd party voters, not to mention the effects of the unknowable and potentially massive democratic turnout.
I wish I had more time to catch up on what's been going on before lighting out for the territories again, but I'm afraid it's can't be helped. Responsibility calls, and I've got to run. Rumor has it there's Internet access available at the local library where I'm going, so maybe (maybe), I might be able to post something this week -- assuming I'm not so blissed out by living in the beautiful Catskill countryside, and so completely media-deprived as well, that I have nothing whatsoever to say.
I'll be back on Sunday, but while I'm gone, take a look at Mark Green's Name The October Suprise website.
And, by the way, don't worry so much about Bush's lead in the Electoral College survey, I'm with Jerome Armstrong in thinking that this is Bush's highwater mark, and, for him, it's all downhill from here. You can already see the signs in the latest state polls, which are moving back Kerry's way and shifting the states which gave Bush his big leads on many sites away from him. My short-term prediction is that next week we'll be back to even, or close to it, and the weeks after that will see Kerry's numbers rise again.
So keep the faith, and keep plugging away, doing whatever you can to support Kerry, get out the vote, and relieve us from the weight and dread of Bush. Negativity and panic aren't helpful or even appropriate, not when you consider the lessons of the past and how quickly things can turn around in an election. Yes, it's certainly true that it's time for the closer to close, and I'm sure Kerry knows that as well, so we can all look forward to the new energy and drive that the Kerry campaign will show us in the coming weeks.
Back later.
Update (9/25): On a rare occasion when I've been able to get online, let me pop in to say that the site hit 40,000 visits sometime in the past few days (probably on Thursday), and to thank everyone for dropping by.
I returned from the boondocks (very lovely boondocks indeed, near the Catskill Mountains in upstate NY, but anyplace without fast Internet access is a drag by definition if you're trying to keep up with something like a fast-moving election) to my home in NYC only to find that my last survey of Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast / scoreboard / map sites has passed its sell-by date, so I went to the well once again to see what that trackers are saying.
SITES
Larry Allen (9/17) Kerry 222 - Bush 279 - ?? 37 (CO, NV, PA) (was: 254-233-51)
Chris Bowers (9/18): Kerry 254 - Bush 284 (was: 291-247)
Chuck Buckley (9/19): Kerry 273 - Bush 265 (was: 305-233)
Ed Fitzgerald (9/19): Kerry 260 - Bush 278 (was: 305-233)
(Note: Provoked by the 9/20 Zogby results, my own numbers have changed to 291-247 -- due to WI & PA flipping from Bush to Kerry -- but I have not included this in the totals below. Next week's survey will reflect any changes that come about due to the Zogby results, and other new poll results.)
Matthew Hubbard (9/18): Kerry 222 - Bush 280 - ?? 36 (CO, FL) (was: 259-243-36)
Human Events (9/17 - news report): Kerry 211 - Bush 327 (new to survey)
LA Times (9/20): Kerry 146 - Bush 180 - ?? 212 (was: 146-168-224)
Leip Atlas (500 "most recent" user predictions; 9/19):
(Note: The Newsweek map shows 10 swing states. I've derived the numbers here by looking at each state's latest poll, as provided by Newsweek, and assigning each state accordingly.)
MEDIAN: Kerry 221 - Bush 291 (remainder: 26) (was: 254-259-25)
MODE: Kerry 254 - Bush 284 (was: 254-233-51)
"Mean" is what we usually call "average." All items are added up and divided by the number of items.
"Median" is the center point, the middle value in a list. There are as many values larger than the median as there are values that are smaller.
"Mode" is the number in a list which appears the most times.
RANGE Kerry max: 297 (311) Kerry min: 146 (146)
Bush max: 341 (316) Bush min: 180 (166)
SUMMARY
If the results of last week's survey were somewhat difficult to interpret, this week is entirely different, and the results are abundantly clear. Bush has overtaken Kerry, and now sits just about where Kerry was a month ago. The trackers are practically unanimous in declaring Bush as having enough electoral votes to win: 40 of 47 sites have him winning, with another 4 showing him in the lead; on the other hand, only two sites have Kerry winning (one of them is Zogby/WSJ), and one other shows a Kerry lead.
At the moment, Bush has 291 to 293 votes, while Kerry has 221 to 224.
UPDATES ETC.
Since I'm spending the bulk of the week in a place with poor Internet access, I really can't update the survey as I usually do in the days after I post it. I'll do what I can on Monday night and Tuesday morning to make sure everything is up to date -- including the latest Rasmussen and Zogby numbers (note: which I have now done) -- but any updates after that will have to wait until the next iteration a week from now.
Due to a complete oversight on my part, in the first couple of publications of this post I forgot to include a new site, the proprietor of which is Alcon San Croix, who describes himself in this way: "I am a 14-year-old student from Tacoma, Washington. I am a progressive Democrat, although certainly not a partisan hack." I have now included his site, with my apologies for the unintended slight.
Although I have included a note to my own projection to indicate how it has changed as a result of the new Zogby numbers, I haven't included the new numbers in the totals, nor do I intend to update all the sites to reflect any changes provoked by Zogby. We will see what those changes are in the next survey, which I should be able to do in one week, on Sunday 9/26 - Monday 9/27.
From each website I've taken the most comprehensive set of numbers offered, if possible without a "toss-up" category or other caveats, just Kerry versus Bush. Many of them differentiate between "solid" or "strong", "slightly" or "weak", and "leaning" or "barely" states, but I've combined them all together in order to present numbers which are as comparable as possible.
I encourage everyone to use the links and check each site for the specifics of that site's methodology and presentation.
My convention is that Kerry is listed first and Bush second, bold type indicates a winning candidate (i.e. 270 electoral votes or more), and italics or underlining indicates a leading candidate.
Sites which haven't updated in a while will be temporarily removed from the list until they're freshened. Right now, until around the end of September, I'll keep a "stagnant" site in the survey for about 3 weeks. For the first half of October that will tighten up to 2 weeks. From the middle of October until the election, it'll be a week at most.
One-time Electoral College analysis articles from the news media (as opposed to ongoing features) will be included, but only for a single interation of the survey, unless they are replaced by a new article.
As always, if anyone has links for any other sites that regularly track Electoral College status, please feel free to send them my way and I'll be glad to add them to the list. I'm also more than happy to hear from the proprietors of any of the sites surveyed here, should they have any complaints, comments, or suggestions for improvements.
NOT INCLUDED
The following sites have been removed for the reasons indicated:
absolutist
aggresive
anti-Constitutional
anti-intellectual
arrogant
authoritarian
blame-placers
blameworthy
blinkered
buckpassers
calculating
class warriors
clueless
compassionless
con artists
conniving
conscienceless
conspiratorial
corrupt
craven
criminal
crooked
culpable
damaging
dangerous
deadly
debased
deceitful
delusional
despotic
destructive
devious
disconnected
dishonorable
dishonest
disingenuous
disrespectful
dogmatic
doomed
fanatical
fantasists
felonious
hateful
heinous
hostile to science
hypocritical
ideologues
ignorant
immoral
incompetent
indifferent
inflexible
insensitive
insincere
irrational
isolated
kleptocratic
lacking in empathy
lacking in public spirit
liars
mendacious
misleading
mistrustful
non-rational
not candid
not "reality-based"
not trustworthy
oblivious
oligarchic
opportunistic
out of control
pernicious
perverse
philistine
plutocratic
prevaricating
propagandists
rapacious
relentless
reprehensible
rigid
scandalous
schemers
selfish
secretive
shameless
sleazy
tricky
unAmerican
uncaring
uncivil
uncompromising
unconstitutional
undemocratic
unethical
unpopular
unprincipled
unrealistic
unreliable
unrepresentative
unscientific
unscrupulous
unsympathetic
venal
vile
virtueless
warmongers
wicked
without integrity
wrong-headed
Thanks to: Breeze, Chuck, Ivan Raikov, Kaiju, Kathy, Roger, Shirley, S.M. Dixon
recently seen
i've got a little list...
Elliott Abrams
Steven Abrams (Kansas BofE)
David Addington
Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson
Roger Ailes (FNC)
John Ashcroft
Bob Bennett
William Bennett
Joe Biden
John Bolton
Alan Bonsell (Dover BofE)
Pat Buchanan
Bill Buckingham (Dover BofE)
George W. Bush
Saxby Chambliss
Bruce Chapman (DI)
Dick Cheney
Lynne Cheney
Richard Cohen
The Coors Family
Ann Coulter
Michael Crichton
Lanny Davis
Tom DeLay
William A. Dembski
James Dobson
Leonard Downie (WaPo)
Dinesh D’Souza
Gregg Easterbrook
Jerry Falwell
Douglas Feith
Arthur Finkelstein
Bill Frist
George Gilder
Newt Gingrich
John Gibson (FNC)
Alberto Gonzalez
Rudolph Giuliani
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Fred Hiatt (WaPo)
Christopher Hitchens
David Horowitz
Don Imus
James F. Inhofe
Jesse Jackson
Philip E. Johnson
Daryn Kagan
Joe Klein
Phil Kline
Ron Klink
William Kristol
Ken Lay
Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Trent Lott
Frank Luntz
"American Fundamentalists"
by Joel Pelletier
(click on image for more info)
Chris Matthews
Mitch McConnell
Stephen C. Meyer (DI)
Judith Miller (ex-NYT)
Zell Miller
Tom Monaghan
Sun Myung Moon
Roy Moore
Dick Morris
Rupert Murdoch
Ralph Nader
John Negroponte
Grover Norquist
Robert Novak
Ted Olson
Elspeth Reeve (TNR)
Bill O'Reilly
Martin Peretz (TNR)
Richard Perle
Ramesh Ponnuru
Ralph Reed
Pat Robertson
Karl Rove
Tim Russert
Rick Santorum
Richard Mellon Scaife
Antonin Scalia
Joe Scarborough
Susan Schmidt (WaPo)
Bill Schneider
Al Sharpton
Ron Silver
John Solomon (WaPo)
Margaret Spellings
Kenneth Starr
Randall Terry
Clarence Thomas
Richard Thompson (TMLC)
Donald Trump
Richard Viguere
Donald Wildmon
Paul Wolfowitz
Bob Woodward (WaPo)
John Yoo
guest-blogging
All the fine sites I've
guest-blogged for:
Be sure to visit them all!!
recent listening
influences
John Adams
Laurie Anderson
Aphex Twin
Isaac Asimov
Fred Astaire
J.G. Ballard
The Beatles
Busby Berkeley
John Cage
"Catch-22"
Raymond Chandler
Arthur C. Clarke
Elvis Costello
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Philip K. Dick
Kevin Drum
Brian Eno
Fela
Firesign Theatre
Eliot Gelwan
William Gibson
Philip Glass
David Gordon
Stephen Jay Gould
Dashiell Hammett
"The Harder They Come"
Robert Heinlein
Joseph Heller
Frank Herbert
Douglas Hofstadter
Bill James
Gene Kelly
Stanley Kubrick
Jefferson Airplane
Ursula K. LeGuin
The Marx Brothers
John McPhee
Harry Partch
Michael C. Penta
Monty Python
Orbital
Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger
"The Prisoner"
"The Red Shoes"
Steve Reich
Terry Riley
Oliver Sacks
Erik Satie
"Singin' in the Rain"
Stephen Sondheim
The Specials
Morton Subotnick
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Tangerine Dream
Hunter S. Thompson
J.R.R. Tolkien
"2001: A Space Odyssey"
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes
Bullshit, trolling, unthinking knee-jerk dogmatism and the drivel of idiots will be ruthlessly deleted and the posters banned.
Entertaining, interesting, intelligent, informed and informative comments will always be welcome, even when I disagree with them.
I am the sole judge of which of these qualities pertains.
E-mail
All e-mail received is subject to being published on unfutz without identifying names or addresses.
Corrections
I correct typos and other simple errors of grammar, syntax, style and presentation in my posts after the fact without necessarily posting notification of the change.
Substantive textual changes, especially reversals or major corrections, will be noted in an "Update" or a footnote.
Also, illustrations may be added to entries after their initial publication.
the story so far
unfutz: toiling in almost complete obscurity for almost 1500 days
If you read unfutz at least once a week, without fail, your teeth will be whiter and your love life more satisfying.
If you read it daily, I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything.
(You might want to keep a watch on me, though, just to avoid the syrup ending up on your feet and the pancakes on your forehead.)
Finally, on a more mundane level, since I don't believe that anyone actually reads this stuff, I make this offer: I'll give five bucks to the first person who contacts me and asks for it -- and, believe me, right now five bucks might as well be five hundred, so this is no trivial offer.