|
|||||||||||||||||
Posted on 10/19/2004 7:39:42 PM PDT by TBBT
When asked - Frank said that the President has the momentum at the moment in the national polls. However, the race is really close in the Electoral College.
He said that due to increased voter registration and the last remaining undecided voters - who tend to break towards the challenger - he believes that Bush will need at least a 3 point lead in the popular vote (national polls) to win enough battle ground states to win the electoral college.
He states that conventional wisdom says it's one thing to register a lot of new voters, but it’s another to get them to the polls. However, he said he thinks this year is going to be different and therefore he is predicting a record turn out. He says this factor will favor Kerry, making up ground for Kerry by about 0.5%. He says that the remaining undecided voters breaking for the challenger will give Kerry another 2.5%.
A seemingly compelling argument at first blush. But I would argue that these "older elections" actually point to a remarkable relevancy when one considers that they show a consistent trend in spite of the fact that they spanned an era of history that featured other very dramatic developments related to mass media (from radio to tv, for example) and the public's access to news. Not to mention wars and any number of other incredible demographic, cultural, and techologica changes that took place during this same time.
In spite of all the incredible changes in America between 1936 and the year 2000, these polls show a consistent trend regarding the undecideds breaking toward the incumbent. As different as the world today--the media age--seems to be, I doubt it's so different as to be removed from the historic trends that span over 6 decades.
We'll find out come Nov. 3. But my money is on the historical trend.
See #55.
When exactly did the next to last poll come out, and was the poll you picked just a matter of timing, since there is more than one poll out there?
I don't know why you think turnout will help Kerry. It is just as likely to go Bush or more likely given the high level of concern about terrorism and the belief that Bush is MUCH better wrt that.
Regarding 1980, unless Bush's job approval rating suddenly drops about 15-20 points, there is exactly a zero percent chance of Bush replicating Carter's belly-flop in 1980. He could lose, but the end collapse is simply not in the cards. We could still see Kerry, however, reprise the Carter/Dukakis splat. I doubt it though. I am thinking a 50-80 electoral vote win is what we are looking at.
Ya, but it the younguns with the potential to regress towards the mean that raise concern. Granted, the Dutch Americans have never regressed towards the mean, over about 4 generations now, or more. Are the Cubans as steadfast?
And I used, for the purposes of this study, only the Gallup poll for the national (and in the article, only the Rutgers/Eagleton for New Jersey). I did that to keep an apples-to-apples comparison, and also because Gallup is about the only poll out there that there is data for going back over enough elections to provide a meaningful comparison.
Three generations later we're still hanging.
If what generally happens will happen this time is anyone's guess.
But what I can't figure is the huge populations of CA, NY, other Dem strongholds should give just as high margins for Kerry or am I wrong?
Hopefully, you will address the next to last poll query. In any event, the data points are too few, to have any statistical significance. Which proves the point, that the break theory has no traction - either way. It depends on the situation in detail, and that takes judgment. Speadsheets just won't cut it.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Jun 16: 32%
Jun 30: 31%
Jul 14: 33%
Aug 18: 32%
Sep 15: 37%
Nov 24: 31%
Dec 5: 34%
That September one was fairly soon after the Democratic convention.
FWIW.
I thought I had-- since you think I have not I have to conclude that I am not understanding your question. Can you rephrase it better or differently or more specifically?
That's my take at the moment, until you manage to change my mind again. :)
I actually got polled tonight! I always wonder why I never get called. Got a call about how worried I was about health care and was told it would take 15-20 minutes. I said fine. The questions were horrible, the answers you were allowed to give were even worse. You really have to think about how you answer. I can picture some bored person not actually listening to the questions and just saying a number. I was asked whether I thought we should have a govt healthcare system like Canada, whether the govt should put limits on prescription drugs, whether I would be willing to pay higher taxes for govt healthcare. How odd, my poll probably ended up being 5-7 minutes. Think I gave the wrong answers? lol Where's my other 8-10 minutes of fame?
I thought Arkansas was a done deal.
Unusual circumstances breed unusual results.
That was Carter's big mistake, having just one debate, and holding it just a week before election day. Until then, the media had a good many people worried and convinced that Reagan was unintelligent and was a right-wing warmonger. People were dramatically reassured by that debate that he wasn't what the media/DNC made him out to be, and there was not enough time left for the Carter camp to change that impression.
And as I posted elsewhere, the relatively few date points make it all meaningless, and particularly so, when you factor in the variables in this election that simply have no prior template.
I can't go that far. I am a conservative, after all, and being a conservative means you must pay attention to the lessons of the past.
But I have to admit that I have thought that there is a really good chance that we are in totally uncharted waters. The way that the 2002 elections blew away the expectations of many people tell me that. The odd way the polls have acted all year tell me that. But most importantly, how could 9/11 have not changed everything, and put us completely in uncharted waters?
We'll know soon enough. But even if we do go by history, we still would not *know* how the undecideds will break, as we still would be talking about only a handful of data points. Its not a big enough sample size to "know". All it can do is help us suspect on way or another.
I'm not sure Luntz is wrong. It may be that if on election day, Bush is not up by three that he is in trouble. But what history told me months ago when I wrote that was that odds were that wherever we were a month or so before the election, that Bush would probably improve on that by election day.
I just did have one thought though, that goes against the hunch I have and that apparently you have that the past is irrelevant this year. The past told me, before the debates, that the debates would not matter all that much, and that the race would go back to where they were before them before we got to the end. That did happen, so maybe the old established ways that campaigns unfurl do apply.
Time will tell!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
