Scared of new Gallup Polls showing large Bush lead?

[West Coast Democrat]

I urge DUers to put Gallup polls in the proper perspective. They always show Bush with a much larger lead than he actually has with likely voters.

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
October 24-26
Likely Voters' Choice for President


Bush 52%

Gore 39

Nader 4

Buchanan 1

Sampling error: +/-3.5% pts



CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
November 2-4

THREE-DAY AVERAGE

Likely voters'
choice for president


Bush 48 percent

Gore 43 percent

Nader 4 percent

Buchanan 1 percent

Undecided 4 percent


Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/tracking.poll/

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/05/tracking.poll/

[Jack_Dawson]

1. I'm scared at how stupid Americans are

But there's nothing I can do about it.

[Myra]

7. And if they believe these bullshit polls and the bullshit media

After what they've seen first hand the past few years,
they're hopeless. The US is probably just a failed
experiment, flawed from the beginning thanks to the acceptance
of slavery and the electoral college. Corrupted from start
to finish.

[kath]

21. "flawed from the beginning thanks to the acceptance of slavery and the

electoral college"

Man, ain't *that* the truth, Myra!

[Myra]

25. Thanks kath. It just disgusts me so completely

That the "founding fathers" put failsafes in the package
to prevent the country from falling into the clutches of the
unworthy people. Sure saved their bacon in 2000.

And the whole subject of slavery in this country---
they still want it. The rich wanted free labor and they're
damn well determined to get free labor, no matter how long it...
took.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Polls suck...

When people don't have jobs and healthcare in 2004 they'll be voting demoratic, don't worry.

[5thGenDemocrat]

8. Under Clinton, Andy the Right Wing Republican was earning $24/hr

As a pipefitter, and working all the overtime he could stand. Now, he's been downgraded to shop work with the same company at $14/hr and rarely getting 40 hours a week.
When he mentioned this to me last week, I just said "Welcome to the Bush economy. You voted for the guy." Andy really dislikes Dopey and I doubt he'll vote for him again.
John
I hope to God Par Buchanan gets into this race. Or that Andy has an epiphanal conversion on the Road to the Voting Booth.

[kentuck]

3. Their polls are very good psychological warfare....

Just like they did with Gore...But they always, ALWAYS, change it to a more realistic number just before the election. These numbers are meant to intimidate and serve no other purpose.

[West Coast Democrat]

5. Clearly Gallup realizes they have a poor track record

Even the poll showing a 5% lead for Bush 2 days before the election goes a long way to prove Gallup's inaccuracy, but the poll showing a 13pt lead for Bush 10 days before the election....that's indefensible.

[Nederland]

9. Not really

The 13pt lead was pre-DUI.

[West Coast Democrat]

11. The DUI had nothing to do with the change

check it out yourself

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/poll/frameset.exclude.html

[Nederland]

16. Different Poll

You posted a different poll than the one in your first post. If I go to 10/26 position on the link you just posted, I see Bush with a 7pt lead, not a 13pt lead. What gives?

[lancdem]

4. Plus, the newest Gallup poll

came right after Saddam's capture, so it's inflated. That will pass. BTW, the recent Gallup polls had Bush's numbers higher than anyone else anyway.

[Nederland]

6. Polls change

The point I think you are trying to make is not so much that the poll shows a lead that is much larger than what Bush "actually" has. Rather, the point here is that opinion can change quite alot in the space of a few days when a reason presents itself. In the 2000 example above, the shift was due to the late breaking news regarding Bush's DUI. Polls taken the day before the actual election were quite accurate. The Zogby poll, for example, got it exactly right predicting the 48% - 48% split precisely.

In sum, the polls coming out right now are accurate. If the election were held today Bush would win. However, its a long time till election day and these polls should be nothing more than a motivator to get to work.

[West Coast Democrat]

10. Gallup Polls showed virtually no change after DUI Story

No, that is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just saying that Gallup is not an accurate poll.

[sallyseven]

13. Polls don't vote

Relax. The6 are rarely ever right

[West Coast Democrat]

12. Sure, Bush would win this very moment

But by 30 pts with 60% of the vote? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[Nederland]

14. No

Not by 30pts because the undecides are still pretty high.

[West Coast Democrat]

15. I still say it would be a CLOSE election if held today

Saddam or no Saddam

[eissa]

17. I ain't worried

I'm repeating my stance: with the exception of a few sell-outs (Zell Miller, etc.) we will retain the votes of 2000. Add in many Greens who have witnessed the nightmare that is the bush administration, plus a few repukes horrified at *'s spending spree and that alone should be in our favor. Add in military families that have lost loved ones, soliders that are maimed for life, and ex-pats that are tired of being laughed at and that adds more. The repukes "won" in 2000 because they had an angry, energized base that went out and voted. This country is still split; the election will be decided by the party that manages to get the most people out to the polls.

[andym]

20. I am deeply concerned

The incumbant has a tremendous advantage unless at least one is true:
1) The economy is bad and trending down
2) Foreign policy has led to a disaster
3) Strong 3rd party candidate splits the vote

Incumbants who lost in the last century:
Taft: T Roosevelt ran as 3rd party candidate

Hoover: Economy in the sewer and trending down

Johnson: Foreign policy disaster in Vietnam

Carter: Economy bad with downtrend-- didn't start getting better until years later + Iran hostage crisis.

Bush: Economy was in downtrend, but started to rebound a few months before election. Perot took 19% of the vote, especially in pro-Bush regions. Lee Atwater, brilliant evil political strategist was dead.

Bush II (hopefully):
Economy lost 3 million jobs, but is expanding more than 1 year from election. Uptrend is a positive indicator for those Americans with jobs (90%). Unclear how the economy will play out, but right now it won't hurt Bush enough to lose.

Foreign policy: "War on terror" Talaban defeated in Afghanistan, but Bin Laden on the loose. Iraq war causing American casualties but Saddam captured. If war is going really badly, it will hurt Bush, if casualty rate is down by the summer, then Bush will play the Commander in Chief role to great effect.

Third Party: If Nader runs, he mostly siphons off votes from the nominee.

At the moment, he would be re-elected easily. If the nominee can be
painted as untrustworthy in any way, then * would win in an historic landslide. It will be hard for the nominee to paint Bush as untrustworthy unless one of the scandals breaks open (Traitorgate) because he has already been stereotyped in the popular culture as "honest" and not smart enough to be manipulative. Ironic, given the reality, but ....

To win our candidate will:

1) have to get a few breaks (Bush scandal, or bad events)

2) be perceived as a great guy, honest and consistent, and very personable to at least break even with the Bush myth-making

3) neutralize Bush as Commander in Chief. Be impressive on foreign affairs.

In this analysis, barring large changes of fortune, only Kerry or Clark have a real chance to defeat Bush (due to point 2) unless he/she gets some "lucky" breaks. And both will have a difficult time.

Remember Bush is only hated by those who understand
who he has been, who he is, and what he has really been doing. Without a scandal adjudicated by a neutral party, all charges against him will be reduced to partisan political attacks and will not stick.

[andym]

22. In "I am deeply concerned", correction

In this analysis, barring large changes of fortune, only Kerry or Clark have a real chance to defeat Bush (due to point 3) unless he/she gets some "lucky" breaks. And both will have a difficult time.

Not point 2. Foreign policy is the problem.

[tritsofme]

18. In December/January 1983, 1991, 1995, 1999

Question: qn6a Field Date: 12/9/1983-12/12/1983
(Suppose the 1984 presidential election were being held TODAY.) If President Reagan were the Republican candidate and Walter Mondale were the Democratic candidate, which would you like to see win?
Mean: N/A Total N: 2633


% N

1.00000 Reagan 47.09 1240

2.00000 Mondale 44.14 1162

3.00000 Other 0.10 3

4.00000 Undecided 8.67 228



Question: qn3 Field Date: 1/6/1992-1/9/1992
If George Bush runs for re-election this year, in general, are you more likely to vote for Bush or for the Democratic Party's candidate for president?
Mean: N/A Total N: 4873


% N

1.00000 Bush 45.29 2207

2.00000 Democrat 37.92 1848

3.00000 Other 2.81 137

4.00000 DON'T KNOW 12.74 621

5.00000 REFUSED 1.24 61


Question: qn8 Field Date: 12/15/1995-12/18/1995
(Now suppose the 1996 presidential election were being held today.) If Bill Clinton were the Democratic Party's candidate and Bob Dole the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for -- Clinton, the Democrat, or Dole, the Republican?
Mean: N/A Total N: 1000


% N

1.00000 Clinton 51.23 512

2.00000 Dole 41.12 411

3.00000 Neither (vol.) 5.05 51

4.00000 Other (vol.) 0.00 0

5.00000 Don't know 2.23 22

6.00000 Refused 0.37 4




December Wave 1
Question: qn9 Field Date: 12/9/1999-12/12/1999
(Next, we'd like you to think about the general election for President to be held next year, that is in November 2000.) If Vice-president Al Gore were the Democratic Party's candidate and Texas Governor George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for -- Al Gore, the Democrat or George W. Bush, the Republican; George W. Bush, the Republican or Al Gore, the Democrat?
Mean: N/A Total N: 1037


% N

1.00000 Al Gore, the Democrat 39.74 412

2.00000 George W. Bush, the Republican 53.76 557

3.00000 NEITHER (vol.) 3.21 33

4.00000 OTHER (vol.) 0.26 3

5.00000 DON'T KNOW 2.69 28

6.00000 REFUSED

[tritsofme]

19. kick

[gasperc]

23. I've tried to find the Clinton at 27% in 6/92 with no luck

also the Bush I vs. Dems in 11/91 would be cool

[tritsofme]

26. Clinton was at 27% in 6/92

Question: qn1 Field Date: 6/29/1992-6/29/1992
Suppose the presidential election were being held today. If George Bush were the Republican candidate and Bill Clinton were the Democratic candidate and Ross Perot were an Independent candidate, who would you vote for?
Mean: N/A Total N: 589


% N

1.00000 Bush 29.95 176

2.00000 Clinton 27.39 161

3.00000 Perot 25.26 149

4.00000 OTHER (VOL.) 0.67 4

5.00000 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 16.73 99

[gasperc]

27. More "june gap" election year poll data

poll junkies/worriers enjoy

Q2: How does Bush’s current lead compare with front-runners in previous elections?
The obvious question raised by George W. Bush’s current lead in the polls is the relationship between that lead and a possible Bush victory in November. Bush currently leads Al Gore by four percentage points, based on a Gallup survey conducted June 6-7. An analysis of Gallup historical trends shows that the status of the presidential race in June, in and of itself, is not necessarily indicative of the outcome in November.
As shown in the chart below, among the twelve presidential elections held from 1952 through 1996, in four of them -- 1968, 1980, 1988, and 1992 -- the candidate who eventually won the election was running behind in the polls during June of the election year. Specifically:
• In June 1992, Bill Clinton trailed President George Bush, at a time when Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was still a serious contender in the race.
• In June 1988, Vice President George Bush trailed Michael Dukakis by nine percentage points, but eventually won the election by seven points.
• In June 1980, Ronald Reagan trailed incumbent President Jimmy Carter by 2 points then went on to win the election by ten points.
• In June 1968 Richard Nixon lagged five points behind Hubert Humphrey, then won the election by just under 1 percentage point.
Even in years when the June pre-election result showed the winning candidate ahead, the margin of that lead in June was generally different from the margin of the candidate’s win in November. In two cases, 1972 and 1984, the race was significantly closer in June than it ultimately proved to be on Election Day. In five cases, 1996, 1976, 1964, 1956 and 1952, the race margin was significantly wider in June than it was in the end. Only in 1960 did the winning candidate lead in June by a margin similar to that which he eventually won by in November.
Poll Results in June of Election Year Election
Winner Loser June Gap Actual Gap Difference Winner Loser

1996 49 33 16 8 8 Clinton Dole
1992 25 31 -6 6 -12 Clinton Bush
1988 39 48 -9 7 -16 Bush Dukakis
1984 53 44 9 18 -9 Reagan Mondale
1980 33 35 -2 10 -12 Reagan Carter
1976 55 37 18 2 16 Carter Ford
1972 53 37 16 23 -7 Nixon McGovern
1968 37 42 -5 0.7 -5.7 Nixon Humphrey
1964 77 18 59 22 37 Johnson Goldwater
1960 50 46 4 0.2 3.8 Kennedy Nixon
1956 62 35 27 15 12 Eisenhower Stevenson
1952 59 31 28 11 17 Eisenhower Stevenson

[Yupster]

28. For those who enjoy this stuff

if you go to www.old-games.com you can download a cute little game (for $ 3) called President Elect. In it you run a campaign for any candidate from 1960-1988 and see how you do. You can run RFK against Nixon in 68, or Reagan against Carter in 76. It's not too intricate, but fun for political junkies.

[mandyky]

24. Nope, I haven't trusted Gallup since before the war

The only polls I'll watch are Primary nights and then for the General election.