Skip to main content

View Diary: FACT: Bush Led Gore By 13 Points in Late October (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In lieu of tip jar recommend (4.00)
    If you like this recommend it instead of tipping.  Thanks.
    •  Recommend and rate (3.50)
      I think you deserve both. This henny-penny attitude (of others) that because a poll or two indicate Bush is in the lead "nationally'"is simply ludicrous.

      I believe that the RNC spoke mostly to the already converted. Zell Miller made no converts among the female voter block. It has been documented elsewhere that the viewership of the RNC was lower than that of the DNC, and less favorable. If I am right about the "preaching to the choir" aspect of the RNC, then Bush's increase in his national horse race numbers are likely reflected in increased support in places like Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Kansas, etc. These were not exactly in the toss-up category.

      Please people, stop worrying and just get out there and help Kerry win! He can't do it all by himself, but he is leading the way.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - FDR

      by Vitarai on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 07:18:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Recommend and rate (none)
        "Bush's increase in his national horse race numbers are likely reflected in increased support in places like Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Kansas, etc. These were not exactly in the toss-up category."

        There are a number of posters who like this theory, but there's simply no evidence for it.

        All year, polls in the battleground states have very closely tracked the national polls.

        If you had done an Ohio or Wisconsin poll at the same time with the same methodolgy as the Time or Newsweek poll, you would have gotten very similar results.

        If the national polls are tied on election day, Kerry is no more likely to have an electoral college advantage than Bush.

        ---

        There are problems with the Time and Newsweek polls, (see Mattb25's comments upthread), but the fact that they're national polls is not one of them.

        Until we get very close to the election, (and to some degree even then), watching well-run national polls is the best way to get a sense of where the race is.

        •  Bush's lead (none)
          Petey you are correct that there is no proof I can give for my hypothesis. Mattb25's is the more accurate way of stating what my point had been.

          The RNC played to the base, not the country at large. Therefore the giant leap in Bush support in head-to-head matchups is caused by too many Republicans being polled vs. Democrats. The registration numbers are not an 8% Rep advantage nationally. So Newsweek's poll is useless to gauge where the race is right now. Just as the last SurveyUSA poll of California was useless. (Kerry only ahead by 3, puhlease!)

          Time's poll has the well documented timing issue. That likely also skews its participants Republican. I also happen to feel that polls are not accurately reflecting the voting population this year.

          Finally, This is not a national election. We haven't seen any state polls yet to compare against these awful national polls. Plus, your point about the Battleground states polling being like the national numbers is true only as an agregate, not when comparing individual states like Wisconsin and Ohio, or Pennsylvania. At one point polls were showing Pennsylvania and Michigan outside of the MoE and solidly Kerry. He has never really been in that position in the national polls. Other polls have shown Bush leading in some battleground states while Kerry was leading in national polls, albeit all within MoE. Also, two other national polls disagree with Time and Newsweek (Zogby & ARG). Even Rasmussen only shows Bush up by 4, and they are a Republican leaning (though not necessarily partisan) polling firm.

          And as someone who thought Dukakis was a shoe-in in 1988 when he went ahead of Bush I by more than 20 points. I can assure you, I always remain skeptical of poll bounces. Consistency and trends is what I look for, and given Kerry's strong response starting Thursday night, I will wait awhile before I get nervous about the outcome of this election. This doesn't mean I am complacent. I just happen to trust Kerry to be able to lead us.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - FDR

          by Vitarai on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 08:55:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Bush's lead (none)
            "Finally, This is not a national election. We haven't seen any state polls yet to compare against these awful national polls. Plus, your point about the Battleground states polling being like the national numbers is true only as an agregate, not when comparing individual states like Wisconsin and Ohio, or Pennsylvania."

            As we all saw in '00, it's obviously not a popular vote election.  But electoral college issues only come into play if the popular vote is extremely close.

            In practical terms this year, if either candidate wins the popular vote by more than a percentage point, they are very likely to carry the election.  If either candidate wins the popular vote by more than two percentage points, they're almost guaranteed to carry the election.

            And even with all the cliches about the closely divided electorate, it's much more likely that the final margin will be outside of that two percentage point range.  Without double checking, I think only 4 out of the last 25 elections have been that close.  Elections normally break one way or the other.

            Given all those factors, the easiest way to get a sense of where we are in the election is to look at well-run national polls.  

            The Time and Newsweek polls are probably not examples of well-run national polls, but my point remains.

            •  Exactly, but... (none)
              Bush's poll numbers in 2000 were also grossly inaccurate.  If Kerry is down by 5, it's my belief he's actually tied.  There's no way to "prove" it, but that's exactly what happened last time.  Bush needs to have a lead of 5 percentage points going into the election or he's not going to win even the electoral vote.  

              In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

              by Asak on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 02:06:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Fact: Gore led Bush by 74 EC votes on Sept. 30 ... (none)
      In a national poll of individual states done by American Research Group released on Sept. 30, Gore had a 74 Electoral College vote lead. Nader had over 4 percent.

      What happened? Gore huffed and puffed during the debates, blew his lead, spent the last month scaring and stealing millions of voters from Nader - costing the Greens their 5 percent and federal funds - and he still "lost."

      Polls don't matter. What matters is what you do on Election Day and what you do in the days and weeks before Election Day. Stop worrying about the polls and go do the hard work Kerry needs you to do to get elected.

      Jim Hightower: "I have a two-step program for you. First we get rid of Bush. Then we get rid of Kerry."

      by politizine on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 08:17:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Fact: Gore led Bush (none)
        "Polls don't matter. What matters is what you do on Election Day and what you do in the days and weeks before Election Day. Stop worrying about the polls and go do the hard work Kerry needs you to do to get elected."

        Wow!  I managed to find a paragraph from politzine that I don't violently disagree with.  Will miracles never cease?

        •  It's not that shocking ... (2.25)
          If you would move beyond your partisanship, you would find out that I make a lot of relevant, agreeable comments out there.

          And yeah, I make sense sometimes, too.

          Nader's running: Get over it. Move on. Jim Hightower: "I have a two-step program for you. First we get rid of Bush. Then we get rid of Kerry."

          by politizine on Sat Sep 04, 2004 at 08:25:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: It's not that shocking ... (4.00)
            "If you would move beyond your partisanship, you would find out that I make a lot of relevant, agreeable comments out there."

            Talk to me after November 2nd.

            The next two months are a time for all right-thinking folks to do whatever than can to help the Democratic Party.  

            It's a time for partisanship.

            •  Sorry ... (2.00)
              While I have pretty much decided I will vote for John Edwards for VP and will definitely do that if the race is tight, I don't vote the party - I vote the candidate. Which is why I haven't voted for John Kerry in two of his reelection campaigns for Senate when I lived in Mass. For far too long, Democrats have said one thing and done another and they continue to do so today.

              How can anyone listen to a Democratic nominee and party complain about lost factory jobs when it was their president and their nominee that voted for every bad trade deal that has ever been proposed?

              How can anyone listen to a Democratic nominee and party complain about our lost soldiers in Iraq when they supported the action too and when their past president in 1998-1999 also supported regime change?

              How can anyone - with a straight face - listen to a Democratic nominee and party complain about corporate malfeasance in the media, scandals, campaign finance, etc. when they haven't done one single thing to stop it but instead, embrace it with the same fervor as the party they attack?

              Jerry Brown had it right in 1992 when he led the first "Take back America" campaign. Our nation - and the party - would have been better off had we listened then.

              No, despite Bush being a fascist, the Democrats are still as bad as they were in the past. The Democrats didn't get better. They didn't improve or change. Bush became far worse than anyone imagined. That is the only thing that has changed.

              Thankfully, my vote will count in New Hampshire. Thankfully, I can vote for a true Democrat - Granny D - in the Senate race and a pretty cool musician - Paul Hodes - for Congress. If the presidential race is tight here, I will vote for Edwards but I will also know that I should have voted for the best leader for our country - a man who has done more in 40 years than both John Kerry and John Edwards will ever do in their entire lives - and that's Ralph Nader.  

              Nader's running: Get over it. Move on. Jim Hightower: "I have a two-step program for you. First we get rid of Bush. Then we get rid of Kerry."

              by politizine on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 04:56:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: Sorry ... (none)
                "I will vote for Edwards but I will also know that I should have voted for the best leader for our country - a man who has done more in 40 years than both John Kerry and John Edwards will ever do in their entire lives - and that's Ralph Nader."

                You're right in one sense.  Ralph Nader has done more to hurt the American people in the last 4 years than John Kerry and John Edwards could do in several lifetimes.

                ---

                But more to the point:

                Are you aware that this is a Democratic website?

                Are you aware that you're trolling here?

                RedDan is Trotsky-ite communist who is here because he's supporting Democratic candidates.  But you spend considerably more time here boosting Nader and slagging Kerry than anything else.

                You say you're going to vote Edwards for VP, (whatever that means since the Pres & VP run together).  But that's not what most of your rhetoric here is advocating.

              •  With You Up Until the End (3.40)
                Nader has been an entirely divisive force this year among those who hope to build a progressive alternative.  On Nov. 3, the Nader/Camejo campaign will cease to exist.  The Green Party will keep going.

                In a "safe" state? Consider a vote for David Cobb, the Green Party's candidate for President.

                by GreenSooner on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 05:21:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site