CNN's poll shows that Kerry and Edwards lead Bush

[Gustaf]

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.

What was the last poll, percentages for all 3 candidates? I could calculate the EV result from that.

[© tweed]

I think it was Perot 35-Bush 31-Clinton 29....not sure though...going from memory.

[Gustaf]

I think it was Perot 35-Bush 31-Clinton 29....not sure though...going from memory.

OK, thanks.

[© tweed]

I said I wasn't sure

I'll look at google.

[© tweed]

What link?

[Gustaf]

OK, I did a little walkthrough with the numbers MiamiU posted, and the result was a devastating victory for Perot.

Clinton hung on to New York, Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, West Virginia, Maryland and D.C. giving him 83 EVs.

Bush won Nebraska, New Jersey, Indiana and most of the South. Except the Perot gains: Texas, Oklahoma and Florida.

All the rest went to Perot, who swept the west and the northeast, as well as the mid-west. 331 EVs allogether.

[Gustaf]

Here's the map...

[© tweed]

A Perot presidency..a scary thought.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Far better than the Presidency we got with Clinton!

[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

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

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/

[Gustaf]

A Perot presidency..a scary thought.

Hypocrite!

[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

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

It's semantics, I guess. The Gallup poll I cited was a two-man, not a three-man poll. Still, it does point to weakness on Clinton's part the first month of his re-election year.

[Nym90]

The poll showing Dole ahead polled registered voters, not likely voters. That is the likely cause for the discrepancy. I should have qualified it then by saying that Clinton never trailed Dole in in 1996 in a Gallup poll of likely voters.

[© tweed]

A new poll released yeterday by CBS news shows Bush trailing a generic Democrat 47-42%, and trailing Kerry 48-43%.

[GOPman]

Funny, CNN put out the same kind of polls in 1988 showing Bush Sr. getting "beat" by Dukakis by over 12 points! Wonder how that happened, especially when Dukakis got kicked by loosing with 7 points in the G.E. Polls always favor a dem, they are more likely to engage in taking polls. I think you will see a change when the GOP convention takes place, and the 3rd Anniversary of 9-11 comes around. It will remind people of the party and the president that stands for morals, courage and honor. The GOP will be riding high come November.

One other thing, has anyone forgotten the CNN polls showing the Dems were going to take the Senate back in 2002? Not even close. Most polls are skewed, I believe intentionally in some cases, to show the dems having some kind of momentum. Unfortunately for the libs, it just doenst work as planned. They just can't understand the reason why normal people would vote for the GOP! Elections are close, as we saw in 2000, I have my opinon on how it ended up that close though. Just ask the workers of the John Thune campaign in South Dakota. They learned why elections are close, and not because of legal votes either! Now apply that same dem tactic nationally, and you see how 1-3 percent of the vote is probably a result of fraud on the dem side. The magnitude of vote fraud is outrageous, not to mention criminal. Its in their blood, they can't help it.

[opebo]

Funny, CNN put out the same kind of polls in 1988 showing Bush Sr. getting "beat" by Dukakis by over 12 points! Wonder how that happened, especially when Dukakis got kicked by loosing with 7 points in the G.E. Polls always favor a dem, they are more likely to engage in taking polls. I think you will see a change when the GOP convention takes place, and the 3rd Anniversary of 9-11 comes around. It will remind people of the party and the president that stands for morals, courage and honor. The GOP will be riding high come November.

One other thing, has anyone forgotten the CNN polls showing the Dems were going to take the Senate back in 2002? Not even close. Most polls are skewed, I believe intentionally in some cases, to show the dems having some kind of momentum. Unfortunately for the libs, it just doenst work as planned. They just can't understand the reason why normal people would vote for the GOP! Elections are close, as we saw in 2000, I have my opinon on how it ended up that close though. Just ask the workers of the John Thune campaign in South Dakota. They learned why elections are close, and not because of legal votes either! Now apply that same dem tactic nationally, and you see how 1-3 percent of the vote is probably a result of fraud on the dem side. The magnitude of vote fraud is outrageous, not to mention criminal. Its in their blood, they can't help it.

Couldn't agree more GOPman, the Dems are the masters at vote fraud.  

[© tweed]

Funny, CNN put out the same kind of polls in 1988 showing Bush Sr. getting "beat" by Dukakis by over 12 points!

We know.  I just thought I would mention this.

[elcorazon]

Funny, CNN put out the same kind of polls in 1988 showing Bush Sr. getting "beat" by Dukakis by over 12 points! Wonder how that happened, especially when Dukakis got kicked by loosing with 7 points in the G.E. Polls always favor a dem, they are more likely to engage in taking polls. I think you will see a change when the GOP convention takes place, and the 3rd Anniversary of 9-11 comes around. It will remind people of the party and the president that stands for morals, courage and honor. The GOP will be riding high come November.

One other thing, has anyone forgotten the CNN polls showing the Dems were going to take the Senate back in 2002? Not even close. Most polls are skewed, I believe intentionally in some cases, to show the dems having some kind of momentum. Unfortunately for the libs, it just doenst work as planned. They just can't understand the reason why normal people would vote for the GOP! Elections are close, as we saw in 2000, I have my opinon on how it ended up that close though. Just ask the workers of the John Thune campaign in South Dakota. They learned why elections are close, and not because of legal votes either! Now apply that same dem tactic nationally, and you see how 1-3 percent of the vote is probably a result of fraud on the dem side. The magnitude of vote fraud is outrageous, not to mention criminal. Its in their blood, they can't help it.

Interesting theory.  How do you explain that ALL the polls in 2000 had Bush ahead of Gore, some by a significant margin, right up to election day?  I agree polls aren't perfect; I also agree some polls are intentionally designed to elicit certain results; I do not agree that that includes the kinds of polls we're talking about.  The biggest problem with these polls is the time crunch causes them to cut corners which makes their results less reliable.