Warm Bread: Bush's grim poll numbers.

Slate ^ | Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2004, at 3:48 PM PT | William Saletan

[COURAGE]

If you've read or watched news reports about polls taken since the Democratic convention, you've probably heard that John Kerry didn't get much of a "bounce." These reports miss the important data. Let's look at the numbers.

1. What's changed. Three major media polls have been taken since the convention: ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News/New York Times, and CNN/USA Today. Prior to the convention, Kerry's favorable rating was nine points higher than his unfavorable rating in the ABC poll. Since the convention, this margin has grown to 19 points. Bush's positive margin on the same question is just two points.

[Southack]

The Dems' Boston convention raised to 46% from 43% the number of Americans who view Senator Kerry as a liberal.

That's the kiss of death label for national politics, and they did it on their own without any of our help.

Senator Kerry has now matched the dubious feat of Mondale in 1984 when his convention bounce put him even, for the moment, with President Reagan.

Moreover, the current tie in the national polls is skewed by the massively liberal states of Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey.

In contrast, President Bush leads in most or all of the 38 states that he won back in 2000, which is more than he needs to win again in 2004.

Senator Kerry has used up his major political ammunition (VP candidate selection, Convention, etc.). Worse news for Dems is that Senator Kerry has no compelling new policy idea to rally Americans.

In contrast, President Bush has used up none of his own political ammo. If desired, he could switch VP's. He could propose to eliminate, or even issue an executive order against, the IRS. No doubt he'll also score more victories in the War on Terror between now and election day, too. The President's convention doesn't even start until the end of this month, either.

But what the Dems at Slate are doing is trying to find good news in their garbage. It won't work, but it will smell up the place.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Publius6961]

Let's look at the numbers.

Let's not.

Polls are mostly tools to nudge the ignorant and uninformed in a specific direction, and otherwise serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

Understood and used by exclusively the "apparent losers".

[finnman69]

http://www.polipundit.com/2004_08_01_polipundit_archive.html#109163742442039441

Do you STILL believe the "polls"???

MISSOURI GAY MARRIAGE BAN

The pre-election "polls"

Date: August 2, 2004
Source: The Associated Press and ABC
Poll: "A recent poll showed that about 60 percent of Missouri voters support the amendment [to ban gay marriage]." (Emphasis added.)

The actual result

Date: August 4, 2004
Source: Voters
Tally: The ban on gay marriage passes with more than 70 percent of the vote.

Hmm. That "poll" was only off by . . . more than 10 percentage points.

THE CALIFORNIA RECALL ELECTION

The pre-election "polls"

Date: September 12, 2003
Source: The Associated Press and CBS
Poll: Arnold Schwartzenegger at 25 percent.

The actual result

Date: October 7, 2003
Source: Voters
Tally: Arnold receives 48.6 percent.

Hmm. That "poll" was only off by . . . about 100 percent.

THE 2002 FLORIDA GOVERNOR'S RACE

The pre-election "polls"

Date: October 23, 2002
Source: InsiderAdvantage tracking poll
Poll: McBride leads Jeb Bush, 49-45.

Date: September 29, 2002
Source: St. Petersburg Times
Poll: Bush leads McBride by only six points, 50-44.

Date: October 27, 2002
Source: Miami Herald
Poll: Bush leads McBride by eight points, 51-43, with six percent of the electorate "undecided."

The actual result

Date: November 5, 2002
Source: Voters
Tally: Bush crushes McBride, by 13 full percentage points.

Hmm. That seems odd. All three of those "polls" understated Bush's support by huge margins.

All of this must be coincidence.

Right?

[catpuppy]

... you've probably heard that John Kerry didn't get much of a "bounce." These reports miss the important data.

Yeah, right. Like missing the important gnats when there is an elephant in the room. Kerry is toast. The lib media know it. Bush in a landslide. Take it to the bank.

[krb]

The only poll that matters is the one held on the first Tuesday in November.

Actually it's held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November :-)

[Sabertooth]

Anyone who wants to win easy money on Election day should bet a Democrat that Kerry won't take 50% of the popular vote.

Only twice since 1944, FDR's last election, has a Democrat won 50% of the vote: Lyndon Johnson (by a landslide) in 1964, and Jimmy Carter (barely) in 1976. Truman ('48), Kennedy ('60), and Clinton ('92 & '96)) were all Democrat winners by plurality.

In the same period of time, only Nixon ('68) and Bush 43 ('00) were plurality winners. Eisenhower ('52 & '56), Nixon ('68), Reagan ('80 & '84), and Bush 41 ('88) all took more than 50% of the popular vote for the GOP.

[ckilmer]

People willing to bet money were not at all impressed with Kerry. His numbers are still going south

[Coop]

We?? Who are you kidding? All you do is shill for Kerry. :-D

[HamiltonJay]

Since when did SLATE every have anything good to say about conservatives? Let alone have a clue about politics? Be serious.

[cake_crumb]

On the other hand, the fact that three years and hundreds of relentless attacks aimed at the president and reported by a media that is unashamedly FOR Kerry by a 12/1 margin, the fact that he is THIS high can be considered proof that he is doing his job well and the American people do trust him.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Dukakis was up on Bush 41 by 17 points at one point.

You would think no way Bush could have won with a Dukakis lead like that would you?

No challenger has won the white house with ZERO bump.

Hail to the King Baby.

Hail to the King Baby.

[Coop]

In contrast, President Bush has used up none of his own political ammo. If desired, he could switch VP's. He could propose to eliminate, or even issue an executive order against, the IRS. No doubt he'll also score more victories in the War on Terror between now and election day, too. The President's convention doesn't even start until the end of this month, either. But what the Dems at Slate are doing is trying to find good news in their garbage. It won't work, but it will smell up the place.

And let's not forget the Kerry campaign is "going dark" on the airwaves for the next month or so (although the 527s will still be helping him out), while the Bush campaign is starting a broad new ad blitz.

[snarkytart]

Thank You!

[JoeV1]

Suggest you go to the Gallup site. Here, let me help you.

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12622

Now scroll down to the section that contains poll results for LIKELY VOTERS. This is important because it is the only group that makes any sense to poll. Likely voters must be registered but registered voters are not (only 50%) always likely voters.

Now notice that the 2 sets of stats are for before the convention and after the convention. In each case Kerry has lost ground and Bush has pulled ahead. Again, this is AFTER KERRY'S so called 'day in the sun. From now on it will be all Bush all the time. He will have his convention and we will see what happens. Since the nation already knows him and his beliefs and policies, he has no chance of losing ground but has an excellent chance of grabbing the undecideds, something Kerry utterly failed to do.

[cake_crumb]

"Senator Kerry has used up his major political ammunition (VP candidate selection, Convention, etc.)."

I otherwise agree with your post, but advise you not to believe the above sentiment for a minute. The Democrat Machine's political ammunition does not lie in such concrete things as VP candidates or conventions. Their political ammunition is rumor.

Kerry's surrogates have plenty of time to dredge up any of a hundred minigates manufactured to destroy the president in the past three years. They have, and they will continue to do so.

[Southack]

"Hmm. That seems odd. All three of those "polls" understated Bush's support by huge margins. All of this must be coincidence."

Giving a little credit to the pollsters, they had no data to factor in our Florida voter registration drive in 2002. We added five full percent to the numbers of registered Republicans in Florida in 2002.

That ground-pounding effort definately paid off in increased Republican votes then, and will do so again in 2004. But the old ratio of Dems, Repubs, and Indies was skewed. The pollers used the old ratio, showing Jeb up by 6 or so %, when the more accurate ratio of Repubs would have showed Jeb up by 11% or more...had they been able to know the success of our voter registration efforts there.

The polls showing McBride in the lead, however, was inexcusable propaganda. It did have the effect of conning fat-cat Demo donors into wasting more of their donation money, though...so it wasn't all bad news for us!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Numbers Guy]

This is wishful thinking on Salentan's part

All one needs to know is what was Salentan predicting two weeks ago.

If he predicted "no bump for Kerry, but his peripherals will improve and that will carry him to victory", then maybe this analysis would have some credibility.

If he was predicting a big bump for Kerry on the way to a November win, then this piece is obviously ex post facto CYA happy talk.

I'm guessing it's the latter.

[Steve_Stifler]

Just curious. If Kerry's such a lock to win the presidency, why doesn't he resign from the Senate? It would be great public relations and would free him schedule up completely for campaigning. I think we all know the reason he hasn't.

[The Wizard]

couldn't happen to a nicer louse

[cake_crumb]

You might be interested in this thread before lightening strikes (link opens in new window)