Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: What on earth happened to Jennifer Brunner? (314 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It was even by election day both in 2000 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andgarden, thematt523, askew, DCCyclone

    And 2004. In the former it started out similarly to this poll. The two are of course comparable in that there is a Democrat in the White House. That being said, Gallup are notoriously volatile and lately I think they are less reliable too.

    During the 2008 campaign their tracker and Rasmussen's constantly had McCain doing better than everybody else. They then offered three different turnout models toward election day which was a massive cop-out. And then they overshot the Obama margin in their final poll.

    Their final generic ballot poll for 2010 had the GOP winning by 15 points when they actually won by 7. Newport then tried to claim such a big miss meant nothing because they were mostly right with the trajectory. This despite the fact most pollsters got pretty close to the mark. Except Rasmussen of course.

    Now look at their current approval tracker. They have Obama consistently lower than everybody but internet pollsters. Historical prestige should not be mistaken for accuracy. I think the media in particular do this with Gallup.

    “I am a man of fixed and unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.” Everett Dirksen (R-IL)

    by conspiracy on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42:50 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yup, 2000 looks like an interesting comparison (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, SaoMagnifico

      And in that context, you might say that Obama is doing reasonable well.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:45:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gallup in 2000 and 2004 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin

      may have shown the election even (and thus nearly correct) by election day, but there were a lot of detours along the way.  In 2000 their tracker jerked wildly in both directions, often because of trivia (Bush's supposed subliminal advertising, Gore's sighing in debate.)

      In 2004 it was usually more Republican than the average IIRC, which perhaps due to historical prestige, as you indicate, led the media to spin the race accordingly.  Gallup, for instance, found Kerry got no "bounce" from the Democratic convention (he actually lost a point or two according to them) and so then the media went into a spate of "no convention bounce" stories, despite other poll findings to the contrary.  And in mid-September they pulled out a joker in which Bush had a 54-40 or so lead (others had Bush ahead at that point, but not by nearly that much) and the media drooled for days over the massive Bush landslide that was supposedly imminent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (65)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Environment (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Republicans (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Education (23)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Congress (17)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site