Text 2487, 148 rader
Skriven 2004-09-21 14:04:32 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 2485 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
Ärende: POll
============
21 Sep 04 12:51, LEE LOFASO wrote to JOHN HULL:

 LL> Hello John,

 LL> [..]

 >>LL>Right now, the race is dead even, or Bush slightly ahead.
 >>LL>However, Kerry has to change the dynamics of the race if he is to 
 >>LL>win.

 JH>>The Gallup Poll is the largest and oldest of the political polls, 
 JH>>and has Bu up by 12 or 13 points.  The Time Poll is next and is 
 JH>>nearly as much.  Most o the rest are smaller and even they have Bush 
 JH>>ahead to some degree or another Its hardly dead even when you 
 JH>>consider the whole picture.

 LL> The "largest and oldest" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is the
 LL> methodology used, as well as the analysis of results.

They're largest and oldest for a reason - they have a track record.  People
therefore pay more attention to them, and the two or three other polls that are
near them.  The little guys are a dime a dozen, and have little or no track
record to trade on, therefore they don't get watched with the same attention. 
The little guys also tend to be all over the ball park result wise one from
another.

 >>JH>Its the trend that counts, and most of the major pollsters will
 >>JH>tell you tha if they're honest.

 >>LL>So-called "trends" come and go.  Michael Dukakis had a 17-point
 >>LL>lead in the polls over George H.W. Bush.  However, that lead was
 >>LL>nothing but soft support.  Not a "trend".  Dukakis could have, and 
 >>LL>shou have, won the election.  If only he had convinced African 
 >>LL>Americans to out and vote.

 JH>>How do you think analysts figure out where to steer a campaign
 JH>>or where to concentrate their advertising dollars?  Trend analysis,
 JH>>statistics.

 LL> You forgot about strategy and tactics, which play a much larger 
 LL> role.

Strategy isn't worth a damn if you've misunderstood your demographic base, and
tactics in a political campaign, just like on the battlefield, don't survive
the first contact with your opponent.  Trend analysis tells you what the voters
think is important, which way they are likely to swing on certain issues, who
they trust, etc.  Once you have all that, THEN you can come up with a viable
strategy to make use of your advertising dollar in the most effective manner.

 JH>>There a also internal polls done by the parties that are much more 
 JH>>in depth than the ones done for dissemination to the general 
 JH>>public. Trends are much more apparent in those than what we get.

 LL> Internal polls are always conducted on behalf of candidates.  And
 LL> the results of those internal polls are rarely, if ever, released 
 LL> to the general public.  However, that says nothing about "trends".  
 LL> For example, the presidential race between Carter and Reagan was dead 
 LL> even until the last week of the campaign, when Reagan pulled ahead to 
 LL> win on election day by ten percent.

Some years ago, there was a series of seminars shown on C-Span that dealt with
political campaigns and polling, and how it affected the outcomes of elections.
 Several prominent pollsters were on the panel.  They all said that internal
polling is far more specific and far more important to strategic campaign
planning than the polls done for consumption by the general public.  After
advertising, campaigns spend more money on private polling than any other item.

 >>LL>The same is true of Kerry.  The two groups Kerry needs in order to
 >>LL>win the election are African Americans and voters 18-35 years of 
 >>LL>age. He also needs to at least break even among seniors.  And win 
 >>LL>a majority of women voters.  Kerry will get his vote among seniors 
 >>LL>and women.  Not sure if he'll get what he needs among African 
 >>LL>American and young voters.

 JH>>Registration are way up among young people voting for the first 
 JH>>time. Last heard the GOP was making huge inroads among that age 
 JH>>group.

 LL> Many various groups are actively trying to get more young people 
 LL> to register to vote.  And that is a good thing.  However, getting 
 LL> those young people to vote is an entirely different matter.

 >>LL>The question is - will African Americans vote for Kerry as they
 >>LL>did for Gore?  And will young voters vote at all?  Without those 
 >>LL>two groups strongly in his camp, Kerry is sunk.  Of course, with 
 >>LL>those two groups strongly in Kerry's camp, Bush is sunk.

 JH>>Kerry is not getting any traction with blacks like Clinton did, 
 JH>>according to the reports I've seen on the news.  And I wouldn't 
 JH>>count on young people backing him that much.  Both of those groups 
 JH>>depend heavily on economic issu and Kerry hasn't talked about those 
 JH>>much at all.  He still can't get away fr Vietnam or the war in Iraq, 
 JH>>and all he's doing is flip-flopping on those.  H did it again 
 JH>>yesterday.  Bush is gonna eat him alive in the debates, too.

 LL> Gore received a much higher percentage of the African American 
 LL> vote than Clinton ever did.  If Kerry receives the same percentage of 
 LL> the African American vote as Gore, Kerry will likely win the election.
 LL> Even if young voters choose not to vote.

What in hell makes you think they want to vote for Kerry?  There isn't a single
black on his campaign staff, and he hasn't addressed issues important to blacks
hardly at all.  In fact, the reports I saw of the reaction to his speech to the
NAACP recently said that blacks gave him a luke warm response at best, and in
fact, made many of them angry with his condescending tone.

 LL> Hopefully there will be presidential debates, as well as vice
 LL> presidential debates.  However, presidential debates often favor the 
 LL> challenger rather than the incumbent, being that the incumbent has more to

 LL> lose.  There is no doubt that Bush will be well-prepared for debates, as 
 LL> well as Kerry.  While it is impossible for a candidate to "win" a debate, 
 LL> there are many ways to "lose" a debate.  And "losing" a debate in a close 
 LL> presidential contest would spell doom for that candidate.  That is what 
 LL> happened to Gerald Ford, when he said Eastern Europe was free of Soviet 
 LL> domination.  It also happened to Walter Mondale, although that occurred at

 LL> the Democratic Convention when Mondale said he would raise taxes, making 
 LL> the presidential contest between Reagan and Mondale the shortest campaign 
 LL> in history.

Kerry has no track record to fall back on.  Vietnam has already all but ruined
his campaign, he's all over the map on foreign policy, and hasn't put out any
kind of concrete economic agenda.  His senate record is a non-starter as well.
He's nothing but a slick talking bomb thrower, and Bush will use that, and his
lack of a solid record to beat him to death.  Also, Bush comes across as
friendly, empathic, and competent when he talks to people.  Kerry is officious
and arrogant.  His recent remarks about the US (and Iraq) being better off with
Saddam still in power is going to hurt him badly during the first debate, which
is on foreign policy.  Kerry has no foreign policy - unless you count turning
control of most of it over to the UN as a policy. 

The debates are critical for Kerry.  He has to win all three to have a chance.
If he loses the first one as he almost certainly will, his chances of
recovering are practically nil with less than a month left.  

By the way, he has another thing to worry about.  If it turns out that the
source of those forged TANG documents is connected to his campaign in even the
slightest way, he's toast.  That can break wide open at any point, and will
ruin any gains he gets from the debates.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)