Gallup Poll: "Final Survey Shows Nip-and-Tuck Race" (Eisenhower vs. Stevenson, 11/3/1952)

Washington Post ^ | November 3, 1952 | Gallup

[ambrose]

Nip-and-Tuck Race Tuesday Indicated in Final Survey:Final Survey Shows Nip-and-Tuck Race

By George Gallup Director. American Institute of Public Opinion. The Washington Post (1877-1954). Washington, D.C.: Nov 3, 1952. pg. 1, 2 pgs

Article types: front_page Dateline: PRINCETON, N. J., Nov. 2 Text Word Count 1003

Abstract (Article Summary)

PRINCETON, N. J., Nov. 2. -- Final poll results, based upon interviewing through Thursday, show Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson coming down the homestretch in a tight race for the popular vote majority.

[ambrose]

[Lazamataz]

Wow! Thanks for posting this! I never would have known this race is so tight!

GO IKE, GO!

(Now if I can only get this time-machine working again....)

[churchillbuff]

the fact that Ike or Reagan or Bush I came from behind (in 1988) to win doesn't mean Bush II will. Remember that Bush I was behind at this time in 1992 -- and he lost in November.

My point: all these historical "Analogies" you're citing don't have any predictive value for 2004; what's needed is not looking backward, but hard work by Bush - especially to solidify his base by acting like a CONSERVATIVE, not a Teddy Kennedy-style spender.

[ambrose]

Actually, Bush 41 led most of the way leading up to the Rat Convention, then Perot briefly took the lead:

---

Perot Has Narrow Lead in Post-ABC News Poll
Morin, Richard, Warden, Sharon, Dionne, E J Jr. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Jun 2, 1992. pg. A

Abstract (Article Summary)

Political independent Ross Perot is leading President Bush and apparent Democratic nominee Bill Clinton in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

---

Bush 41 then took back the lead, and Perot then dropped out of the race and all but endorsed Clinton, on the eve of his convention speech. Clinton then took the lead and never looked back.

[LdSentinal]

After the NH Democratic primary on February 18, 1992, Bush Sr's approval ratings never rose above 42%.

We're almost to the end of this primary season for the Demccrats and Bush has a 51% approval rating in the latest Gallup poll -- and yet he's trailing Kerry.

January 1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.1%
January 2004 Unemployment Rate: 5.6%

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Looks like he lost alright.

BTW, from his 1952 acceptance speech: "Let's talk sense to the American people," he said. "Let's tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that we are now on the eve of great decisions, not easy decisions, like resistance when you are attacked, but a long patient, costly struggle which alone can assure triumph over the great enemies of man - war, poverty, and tyranny - and the assaults upon human dignity which are the most grievous consequences of each."

The Democrat party sure has changed in 50 years.

[Nick Danger]

all these historical "Analogies" you're citing don't have any predictive value for 2004

They probably don't. But I don't think that's the point of bringing them up. If you are trying to be intelligent about assessing these news stories about how Kerry is ahead, it is useful to know how much windage to apply to correct for (a) the quite obvious and ever-more-lame attempts by the media to promote Democratic candidates (2) an apparent desire on the part of many voters to toss sand into the polling process by lying about their intentions, and (3) the effect of political correctness on the willingness of conservative voters to reveal their preferences to strangers over the phone.

The observed phenomenon is that in almost every election, the media runs "poll stories" that overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate, often by spectacular amounts. I personally remember the "too close to call" election-eve polls in 1980, followed the next day by the first Reagan landslide. We just saw the same thing in California... "too close to call" says the media. Next day, the public says, "Be shuh to zee da newwwwww Ahnold Schwarzanaygah mooooovie."

If there is a message in this, it is that you can't rely on media polls to speak truth. A Republican might be ahead, a Republican might be behind. But whichever it is, the polls written about in the media will have him behind.

The only safe thing to do if you're a Republican is to proceed as if you are behind. If you find out on Election Day that you won 48 states, that's a bonus.

[Impy]

Man, I wished they had free archives.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Why didn't you post the article from 1956-- the applicable year to Bush running for re-election? Ike lead all the way that year. Bush is no Ike.

[Coop]

(Now if I can only get this time-machine working again....)

Flux capacitor out of whack?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bush 41 was doing great in the polls in 1992, but had probably the worst June in political history. Clinton went from 24% support (with Perot on the list) to 56% without in just a single month. The race was over by July 1st.

[HostileTerritory]

Bush led Gore by as much as 20 points in nearly all the polls published in 1999 and 2000. I don't think your conspiracy theory holds up.

[alwaysconservative]

And THEN they released the DUI photo just days from the election, the one thing likely to drain away conservative support from President Bush. You don't think that had anything to do with it? Or telling people Gore took a state he hadn't and depressed Republican vote? Look at the facts: Bush didn't lose, but he almost had the election stolen from him.

[Nonstatist]

Bush led Gore by as much as 20 points in nearly all the polls published in 1999 and 2000.

Bull. Source?

[HostileTerritory]

I don't disagree with you at all. The point is that the guy I replied to said that the media always runs polls slanted toward the RATS for months before the election. Sorry, that's not what happened in 2000. I think the original poster sounds kooky.

And believe me, I'm no fan of polls--I know how some outfits like Newsweek weight their samples differently to give the Republican a lower total. I think the current Kerry boomlet is less than meaningless because most respondents don't know anything about him. Yet I can't ignore the fact that the media showed tons of polls with Bush in the lead throughout 1999 and 2000 except for a few months in summer when Gore pulled ahead.

[HostileTerritory]

What exactly are you objecting to? Bush led Gore in most polls, except for a brief period in later summer, and there were times when his lead was as much as 20 points. If you have sources that prove this to be "bull", I am receptive to being educated.

[Nonstatist]

What exactly are you objecting to?

That youre full of crap, mostly.

From September1 to the the election it was neck and neck with most pollsters, with Gore leading Bush as often as Bush lead Gore, and less than 10 points difference. He was down by 7 on Sept 11, 2000 (Gallup) He didnt "lead" by as much as 20 points "in nearly all the polls published in 1999 and 2000"..

As far as conspiracy goes, if it wasnt for the last minute "drunk driving" "revelation" built on the continuous cocaine inferences the previous year, Bush would have won by 5 to 10 points, IMO. But thats not conspiracy talk, just opinion.

[HostileTerritory]

You're parsing my words wrong. I admit that the wording is ambiguous. A more thorough way of putting it would be "Bush led Gore in nearly all polls, sometimes by as much as 20 points, in 1999 and 2000."

Your response starts the clock at September 1, 2000, which is not too analagous to February, which is where we are now. Gore did lead Bush in some polls in late summer, but if you go back to the initial post, the context here is the EARLY stages of the campaign, when supposedly the media is making numbers up that ALWAYS show the Republican losing. The media was not reluctant to print polls showing Bush with a huge lead over Gore early in the campaign.

If you want to defend the original theory, be sure that that's what you're defending, and not some much more obvious and bland statement that I wouldn't have disagreed with.