Early Polls Don't Really Mean Much.

[12th Doctor]

Just to put all these early polss that show Kerr ahead by 6% here or Bush ahead by only 3% there, I want to give you some other numbers off the top of my head to show why early polls don't mean much:

In 1960, 92% of American's thought that we would have a man on Mars by 1990!

In 1960, 75% of American's thought that we would have colonies on the moon by 1980!

In 1970, 78% of people thought that the 21st century would be charecterized by the on going struggle between the US and the Soviet Union!

In 1955, 89% of all people thought that we would have a cure for cancer by 1990!

These are just few examples of early polls that were way-off.  So all the polls that come out before the summer should be taken with a grain of salt unless they show very wide margins in the race.

[12th Doctor]

Just to put all these early polss that show Kerr ahead by 6% here or Bush ahead by only 3% there, I want to give you some other numbers off the top of my head to show why early polls don't mean much:

In 1960, 92% of American's thought that we would have a man on Mars by 1990!

In 1960, 75% of American's thought that we would have colonies on the moon by 1980!

In 1970, 78% of people thought that the 21st century would be charecterized by the on going struggle between the US and the Soviet Union!

In 1955, 89% of all people thought that we would have a cure for cancer by 1990!

These are just few examples of early polls that were way-off.  So all the polls that come out before the summer should be taken with a grain of salt unless they show very wide margins in the race.

The only poll that really means anything before the summertime is the Approval rating.  Which is at around 56% for Bush right now.

[Wakie]

So what you're saying is that polls that are making predictions about events 20 years in the future are fairly unreliable?

[Gustaf]

Just to put all these early polss that show Kerr ahead by 6% here or Bush ahead by only 3% there, I want to give you some other numbers off the top of my head to show why early polls don't mean much:

In 1960, 92% of American's thought that we would have a man on Mars by 1990!

In 1960, 75% of American's thought that we would have colonies on the moon by 1980!

In 1970, 78% of people thought that the 21st century would be charecterized by the on going struggle between the US and the Soviet Union!

In 1955, 89% of all people thought that we would have a cure for cancer by 1990!

These are just few examples of early polls that were way-off.  So all the polls that come out before the summer should be taken with a grain of salt unless they show very wide margins in the race.

That says nothing, they're not related, since we aren't asking for people's predictions, but for their opinions, not the same thing. All the polls showing losing candidates like Mondale or Dukakis ahead in election years are much better arguments.

[California Dreamer]

yes its true that polls mean little now

in fact Bill Clinton was polling below Bush Sr in the first quarter of 92.

And yes Bush's approval is important now...and maybe Fox News has him at 56%, but everyone else has him at 49-52 (lowest point ever in his presidency). And in the ABC/Washington post poll this week: 54% of americans believe he exagerated the WMD issue. Sounds to me like his big issue of 'integrity' is slipping, and that is the biggest problem he has

[MarkDel]

California Dreamer,

Yes, Bush is slipping badly in the polls. Mainly because the Republican slime machine (your words) has been far less effective than the Democratic slime machine. If Bush grows the BALLS to fight back against you guys, he'll move back up in the polls.

[NHPolitico]

And in the ABC/Washington post poll this week: 54% of americans believe he exagerated the WMD issue. Sounds to me like his big issue of 'integrity' is slipping, and that is the biggest problem he has

Same poll has his honesty and trustworthiness score pegged at 52%, down from 70% pre-war.

Dems are now using AWOL in non-national guard ways. He's AWOL on jobs, AWOL on affordable health care. They know that they've accomplished what they need to and don't even care about whether he was AWOL in the national guard.

[zachman]

It's going to be a harsh race from both sides.

[StevenNick]

I would agree that polls don't mean much at this point, but I would also warn the President that he could be in some trouble.  Any number of things could turn this race upside down (Kerry's alleged infidelity, the situation in Iraq, improved job growth, catching Osama, finding WMD, etc).  All that to say that I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen in November.  If I were placing a bet, I would predict that Bush wins handily, but I probably would have said the same thing at this point in 1992.

[NHPolitico]

This is where Bush is in comparison to 1996 (both Gallup):

(2004)
2/6-8 (Bush-Kerry-Undecided): 49-48-3
1/29 - 2/1 (Bush-Kerry-Undecided): 46-53-1
1/9-11 (Bush-Kerry-Undecided): 55-43-2

(1996)
3/15-17 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 54-42-4
3/8-10 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 54-42-4
2/23-25 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 56-40-4
1/26-29 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 54-42-4
1/12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
1/5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

Clinton did benefit from a tough GOP primary fight.  Bush doesn't really get that benefit.

[agcatter]

This will be the ugliest campaign in years.

[zachman]

It will be. Negative campaigning will be the only method Bush can use to supress Kerry. I think Kerry will be very tough though, and point out the same flaws in Bush. Regardless, this election will have record turnout.

[© tweed]

I just don't see how the hell Kerry can win.

[zachman]

Miamiu, I think Bush will lose because Kerry will inherit the entire Gore base from 2000, and Bush's support has not grown.

Where are you from again Miamiu?

[© tweed]

New York.

[zachman]

You're from NY and you think Bush will lose? Be fearless.

[© tweed]

You're from NY and you think Bush will lose? Be fearless.

I think he will lose NY but win the general.

[MAS117]

kerry is going to landslide NY on March 2nd

[© tweed]

kerry is going to landslide NY on March 2nd

I'm talking general election...Kerry will still take around 55% here in the general.

[12th Doctor]

First off, I was half joking.  "Demonstarting absurdity by being absurd".  But you all understand my point.  It's just too early to proclaim Bush DOA because of some polls.  The 56% comes from the latest Zogby poll I think (could be Gallup) it's not a Fox Poll because I didn't see it on Fox.  

To the Dems: Why do you assume that Bush is going to be the only one engaging in negative campaigning?  The Dems are already doing it with this AWOL crap.  And why do you assume that Bush will have to smear Kerry to win?  Your bias is impossible to ignore, then you land on us for being bias.

To the Republicans:  Oh, ye of little faith.  Why are you getting so pessimistic?  We have a guy here who is (in our oppinion) one of the greatest presidents in 100 years and you are already dicounting him in the election.  Why?  Is this a funeral?  Did someone die?  It's still very early in the campaign and Bush hasn't even started campaigning yet.  Kerry has had a free ride for the past month and whether or not this scandal grabs momentum or not, that is going to change.

So far the race has been the Dem bully punching Bush in the arm at the lunch table.  Sometime here soon, Bush is going to respond and when he does, it will be shock and awe.

[© tweed]

Best president of the last 100 years!!! HAHA!!!

[MarkDel]

Miami,

It's WAY too early to make any statements about how good a President George W. Bush will be. However, if Democracy takes hold in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's a good possibility that it will spread to other Middle Eastern nations. If that happens, how do you think history will treat Bush as a President about 50 years down the road? Please be objective now...you're one of the few Dems on this site I would trust to give an honest, objective answer to a question like this.

[12th Doctor]

Best president of the last 100 years!!! HAHA!!!

I believe my exact words were "ONE of the greatest".  And I also specifically stated from the Republican prospective.

[MAS117]

supersoulty is that a picture of u

[12th Doctor]

supersoulty is that a picture of u

No, no.  That's a piture of Senator Jim Talent of Missouri.  I think that I look a lot like him though.