CNN's poll shows that Kerry and Edwards lead Bush

[Gustaf]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

It shows that Gallup is the most accurate.

Strange...they're the worse in Sweden. They missed our referendum by 15%.

[© tweed]

Indeed, I would agree with that. What I meant was that it doesn't mean that Bush is guaranteed to lose or anything, since every race is unique, but it's still a clear cause of concern for Bush.

Is there anywhere Gallup polls are archived from years past?

Gustaf---What is the most accurate poll in Sweden?

[Nym90]

I remember seeing it on Gallup's website once, but I can't remember how to get to them now. I'll poke around a little later and see if I can find the link.

[© tweed]

I remember seeing it on Gallup's website once, but I can't remember how to get to them now. I'll poke around a little later and see if I can find the link.

Okay, thanks.

[zachman]

What new group of voters has Bush made tremendous gains with? What Gore states do you think Bush would take today, with grace?

[Gustaf]

Indeed, I would agree with that. What I meant was that it doesn't mean that Bush is guaranteed to lose or anything, since every race is unique, but it's still a clear cause of concern for Bush.

Is there anywhere Gallup polls are archived from years past?

Gustaf---What is the most accurate poll in Sweden?

SIFO, which stands for "Svenska Institutet för Opinionsundersökningar", in English "Swedish Institute for Opinion Polls". And, of course, SCB, the state owned polling institute who can afford much bigger polls. Most Swedish polling institutes are Swedish, only Gallup in international. And they really suck, to put it bluntly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most polling firms in the U.K are both biased and innacurate.
The best is probably Mori... although it's not very accurate... and is run by an American...

The worst is YouGov, which got the last election wrong by 7%, is incredibly pro-Tory (so biased that they are the Tories "in house" pollster. They actually work for them), is run by a man who used to work for a certain Jeffery Archer, does it's polling over the internet, never publishes it's methodology, publishes it's "polls" in right wing newspapers, and is reffered to by cynics as "AnythingYouWantGuv?"

Our polling industry is more or less unregulated, and is little more than a propaganda tool for press barons.
It needs regulation.
Now.

[Gustaf]

Most polling firms in the U.K are both biased and innacurate.
The best is probably Mori... although it's not very accurate... and is run by an American...

The worst is YouGov, which got the last election wrong by 7%, is incredibly pro-Tory (so biased that they are the Tories "in house" pollster. They actually work for them), is run by a man who used to work for a certain Jeffery Archer, does it's polling over the internet, never publishes it's methodology, publishes it's "polls" in right wing newspapers, and is reffered to by cynics as "AnythingYouWantGuv?"

Our polling industry is more or less unregulated, and is little more than a propaganda tool for press barons.
It needs regulation.
Now.

The Swedish counter-part would be TEMO, who are employed by the right and big business. They're still fairly accurate though. Demoskop, which has the same political ties are really, REALLY bad though. And very biased.

[Nym90]

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=1210

That shows the "trend lines" for each election back to 1936 on the links over on the left. Also interesting to check out the link showing how accurate their final polls have been throughout the years.

I remember seeing somewhere on the site the actual numbers for each of the tracking polls for 1996 and 2000...the graphs are helpful, but don't give the actual numbers. I'll look for those too.

[Nym90]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

There's every poll that was taken in the 2000 race, including all of Gallup's.

[opebo]

Most polling firms in the U.K are both biased and innacurate.
The best is probably Mori... although it's not very accurate... and is run by an American...

The worst is YouGov, which got the last election wrong by 7%, is incredibly pro-Tory (so biased that they are the Tories "in house" pollster. They actually work for them), is run by a man who used to work for a certain Jeffery Archer, does it's polling over the internet, never publishes it's methodology, publishes it's "polls" in right wing newspapers, and is reffered to by cynics as "AnythingYouWantGuv?"

Our polling industry is more or less unregulated, and is little more than a propaganda tool for press barons.
It needs regulation.
Now.

More regulation?  Great - make sure polling is done in a way which pleases the State.  

[NHPolitico]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

You are wrong. You might even be wrong in more than one of those cases, but you are certainly wrong regarding 1996.

Gallup (1,039 -- REGISTERED VOTERS;  ± 3 PCT PTS)
96 Jan 12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
96 Jan 5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

[© tweed]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

There's every poll that was taken in the 2000 race, including all of Gallup's.

That shows how far Gore came to win the PV...I remeber when Gore and Bush declared their candidacy in June 1999, Bush was ahead by 20 points.

[zachman]

I was surprised Gore won the popular vote, because he was consistently 3 points behind Bush. Perhaps this caused more unconcerned voters to vote for Bush because they wanted a winner. If anything I thought Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win the popular vote.

This is my 100th post! Give me a star!!

[© tweed]

This is my 100th post! Give me a star!!

Now I'm only 3005 ahead of you

[zachman]

Wow! How do you Miamu and Gustaf get so many posts. I've only really posted on this 2004 forum.

I'm watching Mindy Tucker, republican strategist, on Scarborough Country and I realize what the republican strategy is on Kerry:

Prove he is a sponsor of special interests and lobbyists.

Prove he was unpatriotic about his protest of Vietnam.

      Prove that Kerry is indecent, and that Bush is trying his best, and to dismiss any claim about corruption within his administration.

[© tweed]

It won't matter if ROY MOORE RUNS!!!
Well, yes it will.  I'm afraid that htey can paint KErry as this hyper-liberal....they wouldn't have been able to do that with Edwards.

[zachman]

When the republicans call Kerry liberal, we should get back by calling Bush irrational or aloof.

[© tweed]

When the republicans call Kerry liberal, we should get back by calling Bush irrational or aloof.

Or stupid.  

let the mudslinging begin.

[minionofmidas]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

You are wrong. You might even be wrong in more than one of those cases, but you are certainly wrong regarding 1996.

Gallup (1,039 -- REGISTERED VOTERS;  ± 3 PCT PTS)
96 Jan 12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
96 Jan 5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

Well, he used the data from a Gallup-maintained page. You can check his link, it shows Clinto ahead consistently. So you should back up your data.
It's possible that the Gallup graph shows a January average.

1936 Roosevelt continuously in the lead (but margin seriously underestimated)
1940 dito
1944 dito without the sentence in brackets
1948 Dewey overtakes Truman in June, leads right to the end (ie, wrong result predicted)
1952 Eisenhower consistently ahead
1956 dito
1960 lead swinging back and fro several times, final prediction a two point lead for Kennedy
1964 Gallup predicted an even worse shopwing for Goldwater (at one point they had him trailing by 54 points)
1968 Humphrey overtook Nixon for a while in May and June
1972 very accurate throughout the year
1976 Carter ahead from the beginning, 33% up in July, then comes down heavily. The very final figure shows Ford ahead (ie, wrong result predicted)
1980 Carter leads til june (at the beginning of the year by 29 points), Reagan overtakes and has a 16 point lead in August, the fall sees Carter narrowly overhead again, Reagan overtaking him at the last poll (and even then his margin is underestimated)
1984 Reagan leads throughout (at one point in august, the lead is down to one point. Soon after, however, the predicted results takes on the proportions of the final tally)
1988 Dukakis ahead from april to august
1992 Bush ahead into may, Perot in may and june, Bush again in late June. From early july to the end, Clinton leads. He looks headed for a landslide in August, but in October its very close.
1996 Clinton consistently ahead. Except for a few bumps in both directions, even the margin is quite consistently accurate.
2000 the lead changes about as often as in 1960, but there's a point in October when Bush leads by 13 points, and even at the end he's two points ahead

[California Dreamer]

It's true that polls swing around in election years.

But its not true that Bush isnt trying. The most telling thing so far is that Bush has made a series of moves which were all geared to help and all have failed:
1. Medicare bill
2. State of the Union
3. Meet the Press interview

He has also been showing up in the democratic primary states after the dems leave town

...yet his numbers keep going down.

this weekend he is going to the Daytona 500 to woo NASCAR dads....lets see if that works


The problem for Rove is that for over two years they have been working the national security thing, and that has finally run out....he is losing cred on that and no one wants to hear more (his proliferation speech this week got nowhere). It saved their bacon in the fall elections of 2002, taking Enron and PWC and accounting scandals and Bush/Cheney ties out of the headlines and replaced it with Iraq....but I doubt they can do the same thing agaiin.

When asked on Meet the Press what the biggest issue was this campaign he said security, but most americans say the economy. He is heading dangerously into Bush Sr. territory.

[Gustaf]

Remember these polls on Bush losing mean nothing. Polls said in 1984 that Mondale was ahead of Reagan. Reagan won almost all 50 states.

Mondale never lead Reagan in the calendar year of 1984 in Gallup polls.

Not only that, but if Bush does beat Kerry, it would mark the first time since 1948 that an incumbent president came from behind to win reelection after having trailed in ANY Gallup poll at any point over the course of the election year.

Not only Reagan in 1984, but also Clinton in 1996, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964, and Eisenhower in 1956 all led their eventual November opponent in every single Gallup poll for the entire year of the election.

That's not necessarily all that relevant, but it's still something to ponder.

You are wrong. You might even be wrong in more than one of those cases, but you are certainly wrong regarding 1996.

Gallup (1,039 -- REGISTERED VOTERS;  ± 3 PCT PTS)
96 Jan 12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
96 Jan 5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

Well, he used the data from a Gallup-maintained page. You can check his link, it shows Clinto ahead consistently. So you should back up your data.
It's possible that the Gallup graph shows a January average.

1936 Roosevelt continuously in the lead (but margin seriously underestimated)
1940 dito
1944 dito without the sentence in brackets
1948 Dewey overtakes Truman in June, leads right to the end (ie, wrong result predicted)
1952 Eisenhower consistently ahead
1956 dito
1960 lead swinging back and fro several times, final prediction a two point lead for Kennedy
1964 Gallup predicted an even worse shopwing for Goldwater (at one point they had him trailing by 54 points)
1968 Humphrey overtook Nixon for a while in May and June
1972 very accurate throughout the year
1976 Carter ahead from the beginning, 33% up in July, then comes down heavily. The very final figure shows Ford ahead (ie, wrong result predicted)
1980 Carter leads til june (at the beginning of the year by 29 points), Reagan overtakes and has a 16 point lead in August, the fall sees Carter narrowly overhead again, Reagan overtaking him at the last poll (and even then his margin is underestimated)
1984 Reagan leads throughout (at one point in august, the lead is down to one point. Soon after, however, the predicted results takes on the proportions of the final tally)
1988 Dukakis ahead from april to august
1992 Bush ahead into may, Perot in may and june, Bush again in late June. From early july to the end, Clinton leads. He looks headed for a landslide in August, but in October its very close.
1996 Clinton consistently ahead. Except for a few bumps in both directions, even the margin is quite consistently accurate.
2000 the lead changes about as often as in 1960, but there's a point in October when Bush leads by 13 points, and even at the end he's two points ahead

Was Perot running first in 1992? Could he actually have won the election with a little luck?

[© tweed]

Well....Perot may have been able to win the PV, but probably would have lost the thing in the house.  Perot was ahead by about 5%, and htne just dropped out of the race.  He re-eneter in October, but alot of his support had shriveled up.

If he had stayed in, Perot probably would have won ME, WY, CO, MT, and AK, but that's about it.

[Gustaf]

Well....Perot may have been able to win the PV, but probably would have lost the thing in the house.  Perot was ahead by about 5%, and htne just dropped out of the race.  He re-eneter in October, but alot of his support had shriveled up.

If he had stayed in, Perot probably would have won ME, WY, CO, MT, and AK, but that's about it.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the absolute majority rule...that would almost certainly have done him in, considering how badly he did on most of the South and East, including most big states.

[© tweed]

Well, lets see.

Maine: Perot in second, loses state to clinton by 8.3%

Wyoming: Perot in third, 8.5% behind Clinton and 14% behind Bush

Colorado: Perot in third, 12.5% behind Clinton and 17% behind Bush

Montana: Perot in third, 9.5% behind Clinton and 11.5% behind Bush

Alaska: Perot in third, 2% behind Clinton and 11% behind Bush

I think he would have won those states.