NEW AP POLL - Bush +1% - Nader @ 6%

[The Vorlon]

Just thought I'd start a poll thread....

Newest Associated Press Poll (Actually conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs)

Bush: 46%
Kerry 45%
Nader 6%

Sample size = 771 voters
Conducted March 1st-3rd 2004

This poll should be accurate +/- 3.53% 19 times out of 20
This poll should be accuarte +/- 1.8% 2 out of 3 times

The above margin of error refers only to statistical errors associated with the sample size, and assumes no additional error due to possible bias or ambiguity in the questions asked.  

>>>Things Democrats will be happy about...

#1) - It is very close.

#2) - The Nader vote at 6% suggests that Kerry has room to grow on his political left.  In 2000 Nader often drew in the mid single digits, however got just 2.7% on election day.  

Because Nader supporters were such a small percentage of the actual voter base, good quality statistical data on how they actually voted is a bit sparse, but what data there is suggests about half ended up voting for Gore.

IF (big if) this is true, another three percent from Nader gives Kerry 48, and the lead...

#3) - Bush is under 50%.  Any incumbant under 50% is in DEEP trouble, at least traditionally.

#4) - 60% of respondants feel the country is on the "wrong track" - This is a very closely watched polling number and anything under 50% "right track" is usually big trouble for the incumbant.

>>>Things Republicans will be happy about.

1) - In 2000 Bush LOST the popular vote by .52% and won the Electoral College, he's doing 1.5% better than in 2000

2) - The assorted Democrats just spent $100 million, 3 months, and endless free media coverage of their primary beating the %^%%% out of Bush, and he is still up, if only by a point.  Bush still has his $100+ in the bank and can now start to pound away at Kerry who may not have the cash to fight back. (Using 10s of $millions to pound away at a candidate after he becomes the nominee but BEFORE the actual official campaign begins is EXACTLY what Clinton did to Dole in 96 BTW)

3) - The poll was of Registered voters, not "likely voters"
A republican candidate typically does 3-4 % better amoung those who actually vote versus those who are simply registered (actual voter turnout is nationally just a bit over 50%)

4) - Bush's support is more commited than Kerry's. - 37% are "strongly" supporting Bush versus only 28% who are "strongly" backing Kerry, suggesting Bush has a better chance of converting Kerry Supporters than the other way around..

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AP_POLL_PRESIDENT?SITE=MTGRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

let the flaming begin....





 

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Nader is higher than I expected, but he was at about 6% in the polls right before the 2000 election, and ended up with less than half that.  I expect Nader will outpoll his actually election showing again this year.  And he probably won't even get to 2%, since he won't be on the ballot in many places.

Also, the 6% is probably a lot of disgruntled Dean supports, many of whom will return to the Dems when they see Dean campaigning with Kerry or speaking at the convention.

[zachman]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

One more thing - that poll must have REALLY pushed for leaners to have only 3% undecided eight months before the election!

[California Dreamer]

well what this and the recent Pew report says is that it is still 'tied' with a slight edge to the Dem...that can be wiped out by Nader to tip the balance

...we are just where we started in November 2000


...of all the numbers, the one that Roves worries about most are right track/wrong track. The only way to win when wrong track leads right track is to try to surpress turnout through a massively negative campaign (it worked for Gray Davis). A time honored tradition to save the bacon of any incumbant who has low favorables.

[zachman]

I think a lot of the undecided independents who like neither Kerry or Bush chose Nader, but obviously do not plan to vote for him. If Nader stayed at 5% nationwide, this could mean trouble.

[zachman]

Would someone reject a poll because they said likely voters?

I would even answer a poll now even though I am not even od enough to vote.

[© tweed]

I'm not all that worried, Nader will not be on the ballot in enogh states to poll 6% nationwide.

[zachman]

What turned off some independents to the democrats was the supporters clapping at anti-Bush jabs. The same negative effect will now happen to the republicans as they hear Bush's supporters clap and laugh at Bush's simple attacks.

[angus]

CaliforniaDreamer,  I agree completely.

Howdy Vorlon,

I welcome Ralph Nader's campaign.  Over the years he has fought the hard fight for consumer protection, environmental awareness, gender equality, and sustainable growth.

All together boys and girls,
Let Ralph Debate!
Let Ralph Debate!
Let Ralph Debate!
Let Ralph Debate!

[NHPolitico]

CaliforniaDreamer,  I agree completely.

Howdy Vorlon,

I welcome Ralph Nader's campaign.  Over the years he has fought the hard fight for consumer protection, environmental awareness, gender equality, and sustainable growth.

All together boys and girls,
Let Ralph Debate!
Let Ralph Debate!
Let Ralph Debate!
Let Ralph Debate!

A double-edged sword. He knows his stuff on trade issues and that's a vulnerability for Bush, but elevating Nader can hurt Kerry.  

[zachman]

Why didn't they let Perot debate in 96'?

How did Perot qualify for the debate in 92'?

[angus]

That's a legitimate standing complaint from the left and from the right.  The two centrist corporate-controlled imperialist parties do control the process. That's an undisputed fact.

Perot did debate in '92.  I think the rule is that anyone polling 15% or more in recent polls by a reputable non-aligned agency can debate.  And, of course, anyone who insists that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 must, by the same logic, concede that Perot cost Bush the election in 1992.  In '96, Perot may not have high enough polling numbers to be allowed to debate.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I'm not all that worried, Nader will not be on the ballot in enogh states to poll 6% nationwide.

The big question is where he will be on the ballot? 2-3 percent for Nader will hurt Kerry if Nader is on the ballot in states like Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire...

Btw. What Nader should do to being on the ballot as an independent candidate?

[12th Doctor]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

[Kghadial]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

Be serious Supersoulty, Truman won by like 4.48% and it too was a unique election with the dixiecrat Thurmond taking a percent or so from him and a few states.

It is a valid point, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman (would have if it wasn't for the dixie crats) , FDR, Coolidge, TR, McKinley, remember the last incumbent to barely win the popular vote (excepting Wilson)  (i think) was good ole Grover Cleveland and he lost in the electoral college.

I think we can all agree that we won't be having a strong enough third party to get an Electoral Vote (unless Roy Moore runs, run Roy run!!!). So i think  zachman is perfectly legitmate to point out this valid trend that incumbents win overwhelming unless there is a strong third party garnering electoral votes.

If you want supersoulty we will change the line too:  4.45% would that make you feel better?

[Beet]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

Be serious Supersoulty, Truman won by like 4.48% and it too was a unique election with the dixiecrat Thurmond taking a percent or so from him and a few states.

It is a valid point, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman (would have if it wasn't for the dixie crats) , FDR, Coolidge, TR, McKinley, remember the last incumbent to barely win the popular vote (excepting Wilson)  (i think) was good ole Grover Cleveland and he lost in the electoral college.

I think we can all agree that we won't be having a strong enough third party to get an Electoral Vote (unless Roy Moore runs, run Roy run!!!). So i think  zachman is perfectly legitmate to point out this valid trend that incumbents win overwhelming unless there is a strong third party garnering electoral votes.

If you want supersoulty we will change the line too:  4.45% would that make you feel better?

Yeah the press blew that one because they stopped polling six weeks before the election.

[12th Doctor]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

Be serious Supersoulty, Truman won by like 4.48% and it too was a unique election with the dixiecrat Thurmond taking a percent or so from him and a few states.

It is a valid point, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman (would have if it wasn't for the dixie crats) , FDR, Coolidge, TR, McKinley, remember the last incumbent to barely win the popular vote (excepting Wilson)  (i think) was good ole Grover Cleveland and he lost in the electoral college.

I think we can all agree that we won't be having a strong enough third party to get an Electoral Vote (unless Roy Moore runs, run Roy run!!!). So i think  zachman is perfectly legitmate to point out this valid trend that incumbents win overwhelming unless there is a strong third party garnering electoral votes.

If you want supersoulty we will change the line too:  4.45% would that make you feel better?

Yeah the press blew that one because they stopped polling six weeks before the election.

I wasn't really being serious anyway.  Besides, I think that Beet picked-up on the spirit of my point better.  A lot can happen.  Certianly, given one month, Bush's numbers will begin to climb again.  I predict that by this time next month, Bush's poll numbers will be up to 49%-51%.

[dunn]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

Be serious Supersoulty, Truman won by like 4.48% and it too was a unique election with the dixiecrat Thurmond taking a percent or so from him and a few states.

It is a valid point, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman (would have if it wasn't for the dixie crats) , FDR, Coolidge, TR, McKinley, remember the last incumbent to barely win the popular vote (excepting Wilson)  (i think) was good ole Grover Cleveland and he lost in the electoral college.

I think we can all agree that we won't be having a strong enough third party to get an Electoral Vote (unless Roy Moore runs, run Roy run!!!). So i think  zachman is perfectly legitmate to point out this valid trend that incumbents win overwhelming unless there is a strong third party garnering electoral votes.

If you want supersoulty we will change the line too:  4.45% would that make you feel better?

Clinton ?
No winning incumbent won less % of pv then him. ever

[Beet]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

Be serious Supersoulty, Truman won by like 4.48% and it too was a unique election with the dixiecrat Thurmond taking a percent or so from him and a few states.

It is a valid point, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman (would have if it wasn't for the dixie crats) , FDR, Coolidge, TR, McKinley, remember the last incumbent to barely win the popular vote (excepting Wilson)  (i think) was good ole Grover Cleveland and he lost in the electoral college.

I think we can all agree that we won't be having a strong enough third party to get an Electoral Vote (unless Roy Moore runs, run Roy run!!!). So i think  zachman is perfectly legitmate to point out this valid trend that incumbents win overwhelming unless there is a strong third party garnering electoral votes.

If you want supersoulty we will change the line too:  4.45% would that make you feel better?

Yeah the press blew that one because they stopped polling six weeks before the election.

I wasn't really being serious anyway.  Besides, I think that Beet picked-up on the spirit of my point better.  A lot can happen.  Certianly, given one month, Bush's numbers will begin to climb again.  I predict that by this time next month, Bush's poll numbers will be up to 49%-51%.

Yeah, that's a good point... as somebody said here before, the polls don't really matter until after the conventions. If Bush is still polling 48 at that point, it would be delicious, if only by portending a suspenseful election night. But at this point, no. And after a multimillion dollar ad campaign in 17 states, if Bush's numbers aren't at least at 49 in a month, it would be surprising.

Clinton was less than 1% under Truman in the popular vote, and Perot captured 8.4% whereas the Thurmond only won 2.4%.

[Kghadial]

Based on historical data my prediction is George W. will be defeated. Woodrow Wilson was the only elected incumbent president to win by less than 5% (and that was an extraordinary era), all the other elected incumbents have won by landslides. If an incumbent is tied, he is really behind.

Hmmm, are we forgetting about Truman?

Be serious Supersoulty, Truman won by like 4.48% and it too was a unique election with the dixiecrat Thurmond taking a percent or so from him and a few states.

It is a valid point, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman (would have if it wasn't for the dixie crats) , FDR, Coolidge, TR, McKinley, remember the last incumbent to barely win the popular vote (excepting Wilson)  (i think) was good ole Grover Cleveland and he lost in the electoral college.

I think we can all agree that we won't be having a strong enough third party to get an Electoral Vote (unless Roy Moore runs, run Roy run!!!). So i think  zachman is perfectly legitmate to point out this valid trend that incumbents win overwhelming unless there is a strong third party garnering electoral votes.

If you want supersoulty we will change the line too:  4.45% would that make you feel better?

Yeah the press blew that one because they stopped polling six weeks before the election.

I wasn't really being serious anyway.  Besides, I think that Beet picked-up on the spirit of my point better.  A lot can happen.  Certianly, given one month, Bush's numbers will begin to climb again.  I predict that by this time next month, Bush's poll numbers will be up to 49%-51%.

Yeah, that's a good point... as somebody said here before, the polls don't really matter until after the conventions. If Bush is still polling 48 at that point, it would be delicious, if only by portending a suspenseful election night. But at this point, no. And after a multimillion dollar ad campaign in 17 states, if Bush's numbers aren't at least at 49 in a month, it would be surprising.

yeah , yeah ..  but it was an interesting point that we'll either have bush gloating about his dominant win for four years, or he'll lose

unless bush finds another way to be a historical anomaly, the guy does manage to do unique things, perhaps its part of his strategery

[California Dreamer]

Why didn't they let Perot debate in 96'?

How did Perot qualify for the debate in 92'?

I believe, but I am not sure, that ther is a cutoff of those who are polling at 15% or more.

One thing I am sure of is that the Nader vote will always poll higher than reality, it was this way in 2000 as well. Many Nader supporters get real when they get into the booth. Another issue for Nader is that it is likely he wont be on the ballot in all 50 states, so his vote by definition can never be as high as his polling numbers.

The big question is if the polls were looking like this in October would Nader drop out.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I agree with that.

In another close and divisive race, Bush has got to plan for Nader to be the hero this time by dropping out and campaigning for Kerry at the end.

[opebo]

I agree with that.

In another close and divisive race, Bush has got to plan for Nader to be the hero this time by dropping out and campaigning for Kerry at the end.

I'm pretty sure Nader wouldn't do that.. to him Kerry is worse then Bush - the same but more deceptive.  Nader is a deeply silly man.

[angus]

Yeah, Nader is Nader.  Nader is not a green (The Green Party form the semiofficial apologists for the democrats.)  He only agreed to be their candidate in '96 and '00 on the condition that he didn't have to join their party.  Nader has taken on bigger goliaths than Kerry and Bush all his life.  I'd be very surprised if the Kerry Machine was able to intimidate him.