Polls do not equal destiny

[JNB]

 Back in 1988, when I was first starting to become aware of politics, Dukakis was ahead of Bush for most of the summer if 88. At one point, he was ahead of the polls by 17 percentage points, people were convinced that Bush had no chance, but a well ran 88 presidential convention, a excellently ran campiagn(Plus a poorly ran Dukakis one) pushed Bush to a near landslide victory. In June of 92, Clinton was running thrid the polls behind Bush and Perot is another example.

  Speaking of this, on web sites such as dailykos and Free Republic, too many people put too much weight on current polls, the polls do capture a snapshot in time, what they do not capture, much less forsee is how will a canidate present himself to the public, how well the campaign is ran, how well the issues are framed. People may try to think of Soccer Moms, NASCAR dads, university students, Latinos as static groups, but they are far from it. The best guesses, and of course they are only a guess, is looking at current congressional seats, plus legislative seats that represents a area in question, aliong with recnet presidential election results, to make a guess at what the future may hold, but then again, 88 left many people stunned.

[WONK]

Ahem.  I'm sorry (59% approval rating) I missed what you said (59% approval rating) about too much empasis on current polls (Bush 55% Dean 37%).

[JNB]

  These polls do not predict the future. Like I said, in August 88, Dukakis looked like a sure winner, he was up anywhere between 10-17 points in the polls. In 83-84, before Mondale was nominated, Reagan did not look like a sure thing, he was only getting in the high 40s in the generic ballot, and I beleve some polls showed him behind Sen. Hart. The point is right now, we can make some reasonable assumptions, but those go out the window when one canidate runs a horrible campaign or another canidate runs a excellent one. While there is about 40% of the electroate that is more or less static, the 20% in the middle has a large amount of volitality.

  That is why Freepers talk of Dean = McGovren like it is a sure thing or DailyKos and DUers talking about states like MI, PA, and WI being "theirs" is also quite pre mature.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

 Back in 1988, when I was first starting to become aware of politics, Dukakis was ahead of Bush for most of the summer if 88. At one point, he was ahead of the polls by 17 percentage points, people were convinced that Bush had no chance, but a well ran 88 presidential convention, a excellently ran campiagn(Plus a poorly ran Dukakis one) pushed Bush to a near landslide victory. In June of 92, Clinton was running thrid the polls behind Bush and Perot is another example.

  Speaking of this, on web sites such as dailykos and Free Republic, too many people put too much weight on current polls, the polls do capture a snapshot in time, what they do not capture, much less forsee is how will a canidate present himself to the public, how well the campaign is ran, how well the issues are framed. People may try to think of Soccer Moms, NASCAR dads, university students, Latinos as static groups, but they are far from it. The best guesses, and of course they are only a guess, is looking at current congressional seats, plus legislative seats that represents a area in question, aliong with recnet presidential election results, to make a guess at what the future may hold, but then again, 88 left many people stunned.

Just for once I actually agree with you

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You can't compare 1988 (open seat) with 2004 (incumbent), but 1992 is a resonable comparison.

But the undercurrents are flowing the opposite direction for W than they did for his father.

1984 is a far better comparison - a incumbent with strong leadership skills and a strong tail wind...running against a raise-your-taxes loon on the left.

[JNB]

   In 83, no one expected Reagan to have a landslide, and in fact people gave him a 50-50 chance of winning re election. Again, had Gary Hart been the nominee, it may have been a different story(then again had Lamar Alexander been the GOP nominee in 96 it may have been a different story as well).

   2000 was somwhat unusual because the polls were so close for the entire capaign, and actually got it right for the most part(also when talking about the final results of the 2000 election ONE MUST take into account the last minuite DUI revelation that Bush had). Looking at information from previous elections, be it 88, 80 or 76, the polls had wild swings during the summer.

  As for the 92 election, Bush may have(for now at least) a more favorable economy, but I think a bigger factor, and the biggest advantage that Bush has over his father is the fact the GOP controls congress, and congress can actually get some additional legislation though in the spring and summer of next year to give Bush a big boost, unlike his father, who had to deal with a congress that threw up roadblock after roadblock.  Going into a re election campaign, a president has not had this good of a working relationship with congress since LBJ in 64(yes technically it was a election campaign).

[TomAtPitt]

No, polls done now cannot be used to accurately predict what will happen in November. However, they are an accurate reflection of how the public feels now, and the amount that Democrats are down is territory they will have to make up. And with the economy seen as likely to improve, that will be hard to do.

[Inmate Trump]

I wonder what Democrat insiders will do if Dean actually beats Bush and becomes president.  They've pretty well attacked Dean's ability to win and labeled him another McGovern who can't win.  Bill and Hillary have done all they can, save endorsing anyone, to stop Dean.

If Dean wins the presidency, DNC insiders are going to be in some big trouble b/c they will have pissed off the new leader of their party.

[zorkpolitics]

I agree its a bit earlier to get excited about the current polls, but the under lying trends that influence them are important.

  In Bush’s favor:
Economy improving
Iraq improving
International success (Libya giving up WMD, Iran agreeing to Nuclear inspections)
Bush delivering on his campaign promises (Taxes, Education, Medicare, Energy)

In the Democrats favor:
9 Candidates criticizing Bush every day
Loss of jobs last 3 yrs
Continuing Iraq war, no WMD found
Large deficits

It seems much more likely the Bush Positives will dominate.

[jravnsbo]

Can we say filibuster proof majority in the senate and a larger majority in the house with a Dean presidency for GOP.

Plus what would the moderates in Dem party think as you say.  They HATE dean and with him and Peolosi taking a HARD LEFT course, it would be tough for them.  The moderates could not nom a different dem until 2012 and by then liberals would have severly hurt the party.

I wonder what Democrat insiders will do if Dean actually beats Bush and becomes president.  They've pretty well attacked Dean's ability to win and labeled him another McGovern who can't win.  Bill and Hillary have done all they can, save endorsing anyone, to stop Dean.

If Dean wins the presidency, DNC insiders are going to be in some big trouble b/c they will have pissed off the new leader of their party.

[Nym90]

Actually, for a lot of the 2000 campaign Bush had a large lead over Gore, approaching 20 points. Bush was far ahead at this stage of the campaign 4 years ago, it narrowed some in the spring, but then Bush opened a lead in the high teens throughout the late spring and held it most of the summer. It was only after the Dem convention that the race got close and stayed close. For most of the campaign, Bush's lead over Gore was about equivalent to his current lead over Dean.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Actually, for a lot of the 2000 campaign Bush had a large lead over Gore, approaching 20 points. Bush was far ahead at this stage of the campaign 4 years ago, it narrowed some in the spring, but then Bush opened a lead in the high teens throughout the late spring and held it most of the summer. It was only after the Dem convention that the race got close and stayed close. For most of the campaign, Bush's lead over Gore was about equivalent to his current lead over Dean.

What Nym90 fails to understand is that he's been missed greatly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can we say filibuster proof majority in the senate and a larger majority in the house with a Dean presidency for GOP.

Plus what would the moderates in Dem party think as you say.  They HATE dean and with him and Peolosi taking a HARD LEFT course, it would be tough for them.  The moderates could not nom a different dem until 2012 and by then liberals would have severly hurt the party.

Er... do you actually know what hard left is?
I do(www.pcf.fr) and trust me Dean is not hard left.

[Gustaf]

Can we say filibuster proof majority in the senate and a larger majority in the house with a Dean presidency for GOP.

Plus what would the moderates in Dem party think as you say.  They HATE dean and with him and Peolosi taking a HARD LEFT course, it would be tough for them.  The moderates could not nom a different dem until 2012 and by then liberals would have severly hurt the party.

Er... do you actually know what hard left is?
I do(www.pcf.fr) and trust me Dean is not hard left.

If Dean wins, I don't think the moderates would complain. What you're saying is that Dean is catastrophic b/c he can't win, and if he wins he will be able to influence the party so much more that it will be even harder to win. It doesn't make sense. If he wins wit a radical agenda, I think most Dems will be very happy, and then they might well win again with the same agenda.

On polls, I think they are becoming much more accurate over the years. From my experience in our recent referendum campaign in Sweden is that you have to look out for biased polls. Unbiased polls are generally speaking highly reliable when it comes to predicting the outcome of an election, but they can be used to spin news if the institutes aren't acting professionally.

[angus]

There is only one poll that matters.  You will learn of its results this fall.