CNN's poll shows that Kerry and Edwards lead Bush

[Gustaf]

If you look at trends, is obvious that Bush is losing support.

There are 2 major political events left: the Democratic primaries/convention/nomination and the campaigns. The former will benefit the Dem nominee (Kerry) and the latter will help Bush.

[Gustaf]

Well, you forgot about a couple major events--the GOP convention, which will help Bush, and the debates, which are anyone's guess, though Kerry did an excellent job by all accounts debating Bill Weld in 1996. And I don't see any particular reason to believe that the campaign will necessarily help Bush, what is your reasoning for this?

Well, I didn't attach a lot of impact to the convention of the incumbent, but if you think it will make a difference, then OK. The debates, well I kind of included them in the general campaign, but I agree that they compose an individual factor.

I was basing it on Bush having more money and, I think, a better campaign machine, but I don't think his advantage has to be huge.

[Gustaf]

Well you have to remember this is the polls with the democrats trying to attack Bush every chance they get while the White House has yet to fire a shot so to speak.

In a debate with Kerry I'd expect Kerry to come off as a know it all bully like Gore did and that doesn't help him too much.

Being knowledgeable might not always be good, that's true.

[Gustaf]

It's not true that Bush hasn't been heard from lately. There was a little thing called the State of the Union address 2 weeks ago, and Bush got zero bounce out of that. That had the potential for a lot more impact nationally than Bush would have gotten by campaigning.

Gustaf--The convention of the incumbent party does usually provide a bounce, yes. Maybe not nearly as much as the convention of the party out of power since the challenger is not as well known beforehand and thus gets a boost in name ID as well, but the incumbents have historically gotten a decent boost from their conventions too.

OK, then, I accept that I am wrong.

[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%.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Gustaf]

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

OK, thanks.

[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...

[Gustaf]

A Perot presidency..a scary thought.

Hypocrite!