Replies

Yeah only thing about the argument about Reagan being down 20 points is that I read the same thing when Mitt Romney was running in 2012 and was down in the polls, people reminded us all about Reagan being down..>

Actually, "favorable / unfavorable" ratio is a better predictor of the elections outcome — Romney had 47% vs Obama's 42% in the beginning, but he was stuck at 47% while Obama's steadily rose to 51% by the end of October, so while polls were all over the place and Romney & Co. (as well as most Drudgereport readers) were sure of his victory, the outcome was very clear for a couple of months before election.

Also, most comparisons to 1980 Reagan-Carter polls are invalid for many reasons, including but not limited to very different sophistication and frequency of the polls and number of polling organizations / methodologies, entirely different political dynamic ("Iran hostage crisis"), vast changes in the numbers and nature of the available media and information channels, states delegates / electoral college count and realignment vs national two-factor / multi-factor percentage polls, and of course, the individuals involved and their [un]favorability...

BTW, Obama's favorability rose within the last year from the low 40s (where it stayed for most of his presidency) to the 51% (which explains why he is now more active in campaigning for his de facto "third term" — that Hillary would represent — which has not been accomplished since Ronald Reagan).

This recent article demonstrates very well why comparisons of current polls to the polls during Reagan election in 1980 don't hold water and represent more of a wishful thinking than a reliable historical precedent (again, pay closer attention to favorability numbers than any other):

This Is Not 1980, And Donald Trump Is Not Ronald Reagan - Redstate, by Dan McLaughlin, 2016 March 15

Very interesting post, thanks.

Here’s the most recent favorability rating that I could find for Obama:
Bloomberg Politics Poll conducted by Selzer & Company. March 19-22, 2016. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1. LV = likely voters

“... For each, please tell me if your feelings are very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable. If you don’t know enough to answer, just say so. Barack Obama, president of the United States.”
Very favorable: 30%
Mostly favorable: 26%
Mostly unfavorable: 15%
Very unfavorable: 26%
Unsure: 2%

Actually, the Reagan polls were NOT abnormal. My analysis of every election June vs. November going back to 1952 shows the June leader more likely to lose in November; that errors when it came to Dems June/Nov were off by 13 points, but when it involved Republicans, they were off by an average of 22 points; that even “blowouts” like Goldwater saw stunning shifts. Goldie lost by 20, but was down in June by over 50. the Dukakis race was another massive swing of over 34 points.

Here is what I posted a few days ago:

In May 2008, John McCain led Obama by 6, yet within a few weeks Obama led McCain by 9-—a 15 point swing.

In June 2012, Obama led Romney by 5 but Romney surged into a lead in October, then two ties.

In June 1992, Bush led Clinton by 6 in a three-way, but when Perot dropped out in July he led by 8. Then, suddenly, Clinton shot up to a 20 point lead in July. The final was a Clinton 6-pont advantage.

In June 1996, Clinton was beating Dole by 16, but the final was only 8.

In June 1976, Carter led Ford by 18, but the final was 2 and I think had the race gone on one more month Carter would have lost.

In June of 1988, Dukakis led Bush by 17 in two different polls-—and ended up losing by 17 (that’s a 34 point flip, folks).

In June of 1984, Reagan led Mon-Dull by 9 . . . but ended up winning by 18-—double the polling estimate.

In June 1980, Jimmy Carter led Reagan by 7, but lost by 10 (a 17 point swing).

Nixon led McGovern by 16 in June of 1972-—but won by 23.
Humphrey led Nixon by 5 in June, but lost in a tie (Nixon gained 5 points).

Everyone remembers the Goldwater blowout, right? 23? Except in June LBJ was beating him by 56.

Although JFK won in 1960, it was a popular vote tie, and he had led Nixon by 4 in June.

Likewise Ike won reelection by 17 . . . but had led in June by 27. It was worse in 1950: Ike led by 28 in June, but won by only 11, a rather massive error.

Now, regardless of what McLaughlin says, it is very, very obvious what is happening: June-September polls, EVEN WHEN THEY SAY “REGISTERED” VOTERS, do not check or follow up. Many of them (OAN yesterday, for example) say “registered” but you find out it is more than 10% “adults.” They NEVER use “likely” voters until much, much later in the year.

The “registered/adult” polls overstate Dem strength substantially (as I show, by an average of 9 points).
For a known political quantity like Cankles, who has been running for president for 16 years, still to be in essentially a tie with Trump-—especially in the battleground polls? This is 2008 all over again, but with Trump as Obama in terms of the electoral college. Maybe bigger.