First Poll Shows Hike for Kerry After Convention

[UpInArms]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5836812

excerpt:

The Newsweek poll released on Saturday said Kerry, who has been running in a virtual dead heat with Republican President Bush, gained a four-point boost in the polls from the Democratic National Convention held last week in Boston.

In the poll conducted on Thursday and on Friday, Kerry received 49 percent of the vote to Bush's 42 percent and 3 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader. In early July, Kerry led Bush 47 percent to 44 percent, with Nader at 3 percent.

Without Nader in the race, Kerry led Bush in the new poll by 51 percent to 45 percent. The poll of about 1,000 registered voters had a 3 percent margin of error.

...more...

[splat]

1. Polled before Kerry's speech

"In a poll conducted on Thursday and Friday..."

Corrupted polling:
Kerry didn't speak till Thursday night. Half the poll was before and half after, with the results lumped together.

The results are pretty meaningless.

[wtmusic]

2. good pt

probably half the kick came from Kerry's speech

[King of New Orleans]

3. This article doesn't mention it

but another article says the Friday night sample was an an 11 point Kerry lead.

[whistle]

6. Oh, then what you're suggesting is that we need to see poll...

...results that are taken exclusively since Kerry's speech. I agree with that totally. Anyone see any polls that have been conducted over this past weekend? Also, to get results that are +/-3% or better as margin of error, isn't a sample size of only 1,000 a bit short?

Here is a link to a sample size calculator that I use which suggests that the sample should be around 1,068 completed interviews. If they are basing the results on just 1,000 completed interviews their margin of error is actually 3.1%, according to the calculator.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Again, these findings are still based on popular vote, which as we know from the 2000 election, meant nothing for Gore.

Now, if a polling firm was to do a survey with say 2,500 completed interviews, the margin of error would drop to 1.96% at the 95% level, or 2.58% at the 99% level of confidence.

Why are these polling companies using such small samples in a race that is as close as this one? It can't be money, because both political organizations have enough money to cover the costs of doing such polls. I'm thinking it's to maintain the drama and theater of the presidential campaign.

[Eurobabe]

4. and there goes the terra alert!

like clockwork (orange)

[whistle]

5. Now as I read the Reuters article it says....

..."In the poll conducted on Thursday and on Friday, Kerry received 49 percent of the vote to Bush's 42 percent and 3 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader. In early July, Kerry led Bush 47 percent to 44 percent, with Nader at 3 percent.

Without Nader in the race, Kerry led Bush in the new poll by 51 percent to 45 percent. The poll of about 1,000 registered voters had a 3 percent margin of error. "

So, if Nader is included in the options of the poll the results are:

Kerry......49%
Bush.......42%
Nader......03%
Undecided..06%
Total...100%

Without Nader the poll the results are:

Kerry......51%
Bush.......45%
Undecided..04%
Total...100%

The question up till now has been how are undecided voters going to vote? Under either of these scenarios though, it's saying that undecideds may no longer be a factor because their swing even if totally assigned to Bush would not beat Kerry from a popular vote view. There is however also the electoral vote, so these polls have to be assigned state by state. How do Kerry vs Bush stand up under the electoral vote matches?