Absolutely fascinating Charlie Cook Q&A.

[speedoo]

This is a bit long, and about a week old, but well worth reading.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15752-2004Oct7.html

Cook has to be the smartest guy around in terms of elections and polls. Which polls are good, which are bad:

"I think that anyone who puts significantly more weight on any one pollster is making a huge mistake. John Zogby is a terrific guy who works very hard and has had some really good years and other years (2002) that weren't so good. There is a web site that has plotted out each of the major national polls on a graph that indicates that Zogby's polls have been a tad more Democratic than most others, just as Fox/Opinion Dynamics tend to be a bit more Republican than the others. Averages are always better, just stick to polls that are done over the telephone (NOT internet) and conducted by real live people, not "push #1 for Bush, #2 for Kerry...) like Rasmussen or Survey USA. They have no idea of they are interviewing nine years old or not."

Why the shrub cannot win if he is not close to 50% in pre-election polls:

"I cannot remember ever seeing a race where a well-known, well-defined incumbent won a half or more of the undecided vote. Generally it is at least two-thirds to three-quarters going to the challenger, somebody was throwing a figure around of 85 percent, don't know if that is right. But as a general rule, undecided voters overwhelmingly break toward challengers, unless the incumbent is relatively unknown, undefined, appointed or something. That's why it is a mistake for people to focus on the spread between the two candidates, the far more relevant figure is the actual vote percentage of the incumbent in a poll (or better, average of polls). If you assume that Nader/others get about two percent of the vote (down from combined 3.1 percent last time), if President Bush is at 46, 47 or maybe 48 percent of the vote going into election day, he probably loses, 49 percent, on the cusp, 50 percent wins."

[Awsi Dooger]

1. Thanks, I didn't know Rasmussen polled by push-button

His polls are oft-quoted here. Supposedly tilts Republican, although the partisan breakdown he claims to use now looks accurate.

I respect Charlie Cook and vist his website frequently. They used to team him with Stuart Rothenberg on CNN frequently, but I have not seem them analyze this election on the same panel. Some DUers like to slam both of them as rightwing, but I have not detected that, especially regarding Cook.

The undecideds generally do not break as strongly to the challenger in a presidential race as a typical election, since the challenger becomes so well known himself during the campaign. I'm looking for 62-63% undecided to Kerry, but that is admittedly conservative.

[izzie]

2. What is the site with all the polls? I like BBC it has 3

BBC is really pretty good on all this. I must say I have not looked for others but they must be out there also.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. This one is pretty good

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

I like American Research Group polls because they have a consistent and sensible partisan makeup and break down every state in many factors -- percentage of Republicans who prefer Kerry, etc. You have to click on the specific state poll link to see that. http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/