Rasmussen and Zogby show Kerry winning...sorta

Let's assume Dick Morris is correct in this column, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13068 , and 85% of the undecides go for the challenger.

Zogby (who personally is a Democrat) and Rasmussen (who personally is a Republican) seem to have thier shit together, as it were.  I trust them both.  Both are full-time pollsters who run thier own firms.  Thier names are on the line, so they want to get it right.

Zogby has Kerry down by 3 with 7 undecided, including minor canidates or not: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=867

If 85% of the undecided go to Kerry, then Kerry ends up with 6 of the 7, and ends up being up by 2.

I also like the fact that Badnarik is gaining and Nader is falling...I would love to see Nader place fourth behind Badnarik.

Rasmussen has Kerry down by 2.7%, with 3.8% undecided: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm If you give Kerry 3.2% (85% of 3.8%) and Bush .6% of the undecided, Kerry would be up by .9%.

It's not over yet...

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

4 Comments

Easier way to think of it
Any incumbent who is polling less than 50% is vulnerable.  The lower the number, the worse the incumbent's chances.

If an incumbent is polling below 45%, it is extremely unlikely that they will win.

Fair warning - this only goes for 2-person races.  If there is a third candidate who gets a substantial percentage of the vote, then that changes the formula.  Personally, I do not see the third party candidates (including Nader) getting enough of the vote to change the outcome of the race.  They are polling very low and are likely to wind up with even less votes than the current polling indicates.

by PonyFan 2004-09-19 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen and Zogby show Kerry winning...sorta
Nader has a tremendous knack for the national numbers, but the states present challenges for him usually. As for Rasmussen, in 2000, he had an agenda, and lost total credibility, so I wouldn't trust his numbers, however interesting that they are, until I see him get better than off by what he was in 2000: (Bush 48, Gore 40).
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-09-20 07:32AM | 0 recs
Trouble with undecideds...
We have two conflicting pieces of CW...that John Kerry is a strong closer and that undecideds tend to vote for the challenger.

But since John Kerry, the strong closer, was the incumbent in most of those cases, then doesn't he disprove the rule that undecideds vote for the challenger?

Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry'll win, but I'm not sure how many of the undecideds will really come to the Dem side.  In fact, a previous Zogby poll of undecideds showed they were more likely to vote for Bush.

by cfr 2004-09-20 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Trouble with undecideds...
Yeah, but MOST canidates aren't strong closers.  Kerry's campaign style is very weird, really-but effective.  He almost intentionally falls behind, and then turns it around at the end.  It's a risky strategy, but it works for him.  Plus, Dick Morris's analysis was for PRESIDENTIAL campaigns.  I think senate campaigns may have a different meme about them that favors the incumbent.
by Geotpf 2004-09-20 08:52AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads