The Statistic USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll Didn't Want You to See...

What a difference a half a day makes! On Tuesday morning as I watched the Senate hearings, I kept having that annoying ticker on CNN exclaim that Bush had taken the lead from Kerry 48-47. In the afternoon I was reading USA Today in the doctor's office and found a different part of their own poll.

Among "likely" voters, yes, it was Bush 48 and Kerry 47. BUT among "registered" voters the numbers were Kerry 50% and Bush 44%. They noted that one of their criteria for labeling a person "likely" rather than just "registered" was how many times voted in the past. Well, that eliminates the newly registered and it doesn't take into account the anger swirling around this election---i.e., how many people (obviously) did not vote last time (or Gore would not have even had a close election); but with the messes we are in today do, indeed, intend to vote this time. I picked up the following info, too, that I think you would be interested in:

1. This 50-44 of registered voters showed Kerry has improved in that group. 2. Kerry now has a 14 point lead over Bush on "who would better handle the ecnonmy which is up from 8 points last week. 3. Bush's margin of handling Iraq shrank from 15 points to 3. Also, it was pointed out that Bush supporters "may be feeling some what beleagured by the Iraq news and so they are active. They told USA Today that they are following the race closely and likely to vote because of it and that it what put them in the likely voter category and "allows Bush to hold his own".

In a word, the good little propagandists of our media who pick and chose which stats to put on the tv screen, just don't want us to realize that it's all depending on the get out the vote because Kerry really is ahead. If they can make Dems think this is not going anyplace and keep them at home, then they can pull Wonder Boy out of this hole. So beware, they will be chosing the stats out of these polls that best suits their purpose of making us think that Bush is doing really well despite all the problems he has been having. He is not---it's taking it's toll.

and in most elections it may be a better indicator. But it doesn't take into account the things you mention, and Kerry is probably doing better than the polls suggest for that reason.

is the way the almighty poll numbers have slipped from the daily news stories. In 2000, every day there were poll anouncements and now the right wing media doesn't want the public to know the real numbers.

I would love to see a news magazine piece about some of the changes to the White House living quarters Theresa Heinz Kerry is thinking of making.

Now that would really piss off the freepers.

good news for Bush, they all push it 24/7. When it's bad news for Bush, they either don't report it or try to pick out one thing that looks okay. Or, the biggest ploy is to do the "well, Bush may be losing ground but, nah nah nah, Kerry's isn't gaining by it".

gush about "what a popular pResident" bush is. Day in and day out that is all we heard, and now they are conspicuously silent about how UN popular he is.

... than polls of "All" Registered Voters. They usually produce varying results, but most pollsters feel that "likely registered voters" polls are the most accurate. I'm reasonably sure Zogby polls only "likely" voters.

about why "LV is better than RV" applies close to an election, but six months away it's just the opposite.

You really can't know who the likely voters are 6 months beforehand.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000466.php

There was a good thread a day or two ago that showed Blitzer was cherry picking only the poll categories which showed Bush ahead, and in one case he seemed to pick numbers out of thin air that were favorable to Bush. It was taken verbatim from the CNN transcript and then shown which polls he was referring to, in each case he didn't report the numbers which showed Kerry leading Bush.

have a 'speaking' career when he's not preznit?

I mean it can be a little dispiriting, but if Kerry looks unlikely to win, dems who might not bother to vote will go out to vote. Better Kerry is down slightly on Bush, then everyone that's fed up with Bush will vote.

The worst possible thing would be Kerry 90 - Bush 10, then people just wouldn't bother to vote. (e.g India's election). Though the opposite might be almost as bad.

I may have missed something here if so, please feel free to point it out.

are trying to show a close race but one that Bush is winning. It helps spark his people but it begins to make Dems think that there is no way in the end we are going to get by the incumbent who always has the advantage. If they can show all this bad news around Bush and him holding his own and perhaps a point or two ahead, it's very demoralizing to the opposition. They would like a 90-10 spread but for Bush so the Dems don't bother showing up. They never want the repukes to think that this race is more than a point one way or the other. They don't want this to ever get to a point where republicans will think it's over for Bush. But they sure would like Dems to think that Kerry isn't getting anyplace...and that's exactly the way they analyze it every day: i.e., 'but Kerry is not gaining with all these troubles for Bush".

I predict huge democratic turnout this November so I will be optimistic and go with "registered voters". If Kerry is ahead in registered voters, I predict they will vote.

I am very optimistic about democratic wins this November.

A significant bloc?

Remind your friends to verify their voter status, and/or re-register.

Turnout will be key. the higher the turnout the better for Kerry & I think turnout will be hight... many of those "not likely but registered" voters will come out because of anger over the 2000 stolen Election and all the fuckups by Chimpy & Co since, not least of which is Mr. Bush's Disastrous War in Iraq.

Maybe you heard it here first.

This election will not be close. It will rival the all-time record landslide elections. Dems need to focus on the local elections. Kerry with a democratic senate is almost assured.

We need to be getting out the vote in the house elections. Volunteer for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts.

There is enough anger in this country to fuel a true revolution. We have to capitalize in this election.

conservatives who WILL NOT be voting for the chimp for various reasons. Anger in this country is correct and it appears to be coming from both sides of the aisle.

... conservative and libertarian-leaning Republicans alike have a real choice, and are no more bound to Bush than the NRA seems to be.

Not to oversimplify, but Russo might even turn out to be the right's Nader.

Scroll down to "Bush's libertarian challenge:"

http://www.dailykos.com/

through a few minutes of Limpballs and a Libertarian called in. He stated he was a Libertarian that leaned conservative and his point to Rush was he was vehemently opposed to the patriot act and the renewal of it. He said it was dangerous and the power the administration gained from it was quite frankly scary. He blamed the PA for the horrors in Iraq.

Of course Rush went into a rant about "how are we suppose to fight the war on terror?". He wouldn't have any part of it and would not be voting for * because of the PA. I wonder how many Libertarians feel the same?

This could be a very interesting dynamic.

Polls of likely voters are not more accurate in a Presidential election year when high turnout is expected because a lot of people show up to vote that normally don't.

But again, this shows that all we really need to do is get great turnout and excite people enough that they will show up to vote. We don't need to sell-out to moderate swing voters if we can motivate more people to vote. That's why someone like Congressman John Lewis, who can motivate the normally innactive Democratic base to vote, would be a much more strategic VP nominee than another moderate white man.