The Polls - Political Analysis

[Galahad]

OK,

To see if we can make the political discussion a bit more antiseptic and a bit less about memos and medals I looked at polling from early September (Ranging from the 5th to the 15th) for elections back to 1952. In ALL cases except for those listed below, the candidate that was ahead in this time period won the election by roughly the same margin as their September lead:

In 1980 - Reagan and Carter were tied at 39% with John Anderson at 15%

In 1976 - Carter was up by 11 over Ford and won by 2%

In 1968 - Nixon was up by 11 over Humphrey and won by 1%

In 1960 - Nixon and Kennedy were tied.

In 1952 - Dewey lead Truman by 7% (and we know what happened there).

In all other cases, Eisenhower/Stephenson (twice), Johnson/Goldwater, Nixon/McGovern, Reagan/Mondale, Bush/Dukakis, Clinton/Bush, Clinton/Dole, the leader at this stage won by about the same margin they lead by in September. In only one case, 1952, did a candidate come from behind at this stage and win.

So what do you think? If Kerry can break the trend, how is it going to happen? If he can't break the trend, what will the result be for the Presidential race and the congressional races?

As an aside, in looking for this info, I found this fascinating story from Time Magazine from September 1980 about the race between Carter, Reagan and Anderson. It is staggering, IMO, both how wrong they got it in there analysis and how prescient of the next 30 years some of it is.


1980 Presidential Race

 

[Jennifer S]

I don't think Kerry can do it. He's not charasmatic like Clinton. I don't think much will happen to change peoples minds at this point.

 

[castlegazer]

However, one needs to remember that the RNC has never occurred this late in the year prior to the election. This adds another layer of complexity when trying to decipher the historical polls and using them to judge what will hapen this election season.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by castlegazer
However, one needs to remember that the RNC has never occurred this late in the year prior to the election. This adds another layer of complexity when trying to decipher the historical polls and using them to judge what will hapen this election season.

Good point. But even though the Republican Candidate's "bounce" may have happened later than usual because of that, the time remaining until the election remains the same. So in fact it could be argued that President Bush doesn't have to maintain his lead as long as he would have if the convention had been a week or two earlier.

 

[castlegazer]

Good point too.

 

[caitycaity]

wow finally a political post i can enjoy (so far, LOL)!!! thanks, galahad.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by caitycaity
wow finally a political post i can enjoy (so far, LOL)!!! thanks, galahad.

Hey caity.....knew I could get you with a few numbers.....

 

[KarenC]

What about the 2000 election Galahad? It's my understanding that Gore was up 8 points over Bush at this point of the cycle.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by KarenC
What about the 2000 election Galahad? It's my understanding that Gore was up 8 points over Bush at this point of the cycle.

You're right. There were various polls, of course (more each cycle it seems). Gore was up by 1 to 7 points at this point depending upon the poll. He won the popular vote by 1% or so (or by about what some of his polls showed in September).

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by Galahad
In 1952 - Dewey lead Truman by 7% (and we know what happened there).

In only one case, 1952, did a candidate come from behind at this stage and win.

A minor correction:

1952 was Eisenhower/Stevenson.

1948 was Dewey/Truman and the year that a candidate came from behind at this stage to win.

There's an advantage to being old - I was alive when this was happening.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by arminnie
A minor correction:

1952 was Eisenhower/Stevenson.

1948 was Dewey/Truman and the year that a candidate came from behind at this stage to win.

There's an advantage to being old - I was alive when this was happening.

Oops, you're right. 52 and 56 were the two Eeisenhower/Stevenson races (I was alive for the second one of those, though I don't believe I was polled..... )

 

[disney4us2002]

How do you find these types of things? Did you google? Who won the presidential race by the biggest margin?

I was 16 in 1980 but I thought Reagan was hugely favored. I suppose he was in my area and in listening to my parents and their friends. I didn't know they were tied and I don't even remember an independent. That seems like a high number for an independent.

 

[Galahad]

disney4us2002,

There were a few places, but this has most of it in one place:

Past Poll Margins

In 1980, Anderson was a liberal Republican that ran as a third candidate. It was the larges 3rd party support in quite a long time....certainly since that time.

 

[Teejay32]

I was 10 in 1980, but for what it's worth Ronald Reagan was very popular among 5th graders. I also remember watching the news anchor on Saturday Night Live do characteristic updates on all the Presidential candidates and they left Anderson for last: "John Anderson, 40th President of the United States!" Huge cheers. Anderson was in the audience.

 

[Galahad]

So does anybody think Senator Kerry will buck the trend?

 

[Lanshark]

I don't think he will break the trend unless something drastic happens.

As someone else pointed out, Kerry does not have the charisma that Clinton had. His message is not getting through all of the political bashing that is going on from both sides. He needs to clarify his message, whatever it is, and do it quickly. He needs to find a way to relate to middle class America and address the things that are important to the "common man". Jobs, health care, education and national security rate way above what anyone did 30 years ago in Vietnam. Bush needs to do the same thing but he is running as an incumbent so he has a definite advantage.

 

[shortbun]

just what we need, more analysis.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by Lanshark
I don't think he will break the trend unless something drastic happens.

The Presidential Debates should be interesting.

Bush lead in the polls isn't all that great according to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Election 2004

Date Bush Kerry
Today 47.1 46.5
Sept 13 47.2 46.4
Sept 12 48.3 45.2
Sept 11 47.5 46.1
Sept 10 47.8 46.2
Sept 9 47.5 46.8
Sept 8 48.2 46.5
Sept 7 47.3 47.3
Sept 6 47.6 46.5
Sept 5 47.6 46.4
Sept 4 49.1 44.7

 

[bsnyder]

As we all know, the head to head polls aren't all that important. It's the electoral map that determines the presidency.

Here's a couple of sites that track the electoral numbers, based on the latest state polls. The first site is run by a Democrat, the second by a Republican. Currently, Bush wins by either count.

www.electoral-vote.com

www.electionlprojection.com

edited to correct the second link. Thanks Island Lauri!

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by bsnyder
As we all know, the head to head polls aren't all that important. It's the electoral map that determines the presidency.

Here's a couple of sites that track the electoral numbers, based on the latest state polls. The first site is run by a Democrat, the second by a Republican. Currently, Bush wins by either count.

www.electoral-vote.com

www.electoralprojection.com

The first website you listed - here's a few notes from this website in regard to "Bush wins":

"Good news for George Bush, Ralph Nader, you, and me but no good news for John Kerry today. The good news for Bush is that he is now ahead by 1% in Florida , 48% to 47% and 1% in Pennsylvania , neither of which is statistically significant, of course. But this tiny shift in two key states puts him ahead in the electoral college again.

More good news for Bush is the Strategic Vision (R) poll in Ohio. They have Bush ahead 52% to 40%. However, the Rasmussen 7-day tracking poll has Ohio as an exact tie at 47% each. To paraphrase Shakespeare: Something is rotten in the state of Ohio. Given the MoE of 3% these two results are not compatible. The Strategic Vision poll was taken Sept. 10-12 and the Rasmussen poll was taken Sept. 6-12, so the Strategic Vision poll is more recent, but such a large change in such a short time is unlikely. Nevertheless, since Strategic Vision is more recent, it goes into the map and the spreadsheet. (Why he considers the Strategic Vision poll more recent when they both went through 9/12, I don't know).

The good news for Nader is that the Florida Divisions of Elections is putting him on the ballot despite a court order not to do so. In the old days, when Mayor Daley stole elections for the Democrats, at least he did it by getting dead people to vote in the dark of night. The Republicans are a lot more brazen. I suspect we haven't heard the last of this story.




The second website you listed brings up a pop-up haven. I think that you meant http://www.electionprojection.com


You can find information in regard to the electoral map: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/election_2004.htm