Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MSNBC - Frank Luntz says - if the Prez is not up by at least 3 points in the Polls, he will lose...

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%.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: frankluntz; predictions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-180 next last
To: Torie
Interesting analysis, but older elections are not relevant in the media age

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.

121 posted on 10/19/2004 9:02:21 PM PDT by AHerald ("The fates lead him who will; him who won't they drag.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OneTimeLurker

See #55.


122 posted on 10/19/2004 9:02:23 PM PDT by hobson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dales

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?


123 posted on 10/19/2004 9:03:03 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Torie

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.


124 posted on 10/19/2004 9:03:51 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATmedia will no longer control American politics if patriots have their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Torie
That's fine-- I included Veeps to give more data points, but certainly removing them does not change the conclusion at all, because removing them does not introduce any contrary data points.

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.

125 posted on 10/19/2004 9:04:01 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

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?


126 posted on 10/19/2004 9:05:29 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The next to last poll came out... next to last. It varied by year.

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.

127 posted on 10/19/2004 9:06:00 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Three generations later we're still hanging.


128 posted on 10/19/2004 9:07:20 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit; Torie
I can answer that. He thinks high turnout will help Kerry because high turnout generally helps the Democrat.

If what generally happens will happen this time is anyone's guess.

129 posted on 10/19/2004 9:07:27 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
Bush is up nationally because he is winning by landslide margins in the South, but he could still lose the electoral college.

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?

130 posted on 10/19/2004 9:08:48 PM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Dales
What was Carter's job approval rating two weeks out? We are just chatting here. I am sure you have thought this through. I am just probing. Lawyers like to probe. :)

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.

131 posted on 10/19/2004 9:09:05 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Torie
 
 "Cross conflicted voters" sounds a bit like Liberal Wussies to me, however, though I disagree politically with your brothers and nephew I'm glad to know that they are not cross conflicted.  The following I pulled from various places in this article: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aQNuV0ebjkKc&refer=top_world_news
About three weeks ago I watched a seminar on C-Span where Frank Newport (editor in chief and the guy with the baritone voice on all Gallup Video) was explaining to reporters how to read polling data. During that speech he said unequivocally that undecided voters break for the "challenger." Since blogs don't believe in any bibliography that doesn't begin with http://www I cannot reference it here for fear of being called a newbie DU'er (whatever that means) ... If I only would have had the foresight to press the record button on my TIVO, I could have "ripped & posted" it online. Of course that would have assumed that I was nerdy enough to keep it for three weeks in anticipation of this thread. Clairvoyance is NOT one of my stronger suits.
 
U.S. President George W. Bush must overcome 48 years of history to win re-election over Democrat John Kerry. Since 1956, none of the three presidents who trailed in a Gallup Poll after February of a re-election year won a second term.

 Because most undecided voters typically back the challengers, Bush must open enough of a lead to withstand an election-day shift to Kerry, said Frank Newport, the Gallup poll's editor in chief.

``The undecided would break the other way,'' said Newport, 54. ``He could be in trouble.''

Bush overcame the 6 percentage point lead Kerry had in a Gallup poll taken June 3-6. The three most recent polls by the Princeton, New Jersey-based organization found the president with at least a 3-point lead, including 51 percent to 47 on Aug. 23- 25, although all were within the margin of error.

Undecided voters tend to cast ballots for a challenger in greater numbers because they are dissatisfied enough with the incumbent that they can't commit to keeping him in office, said David Rohde, a political science professor at Michigan State University in East Lansing.

``If you are not willing to commit yourself to voting for the president, at the end of the campaign you run out of time, so those doubts seem to crystallize and you go for the opponent,'' Rohde said.

Past Elections

Five incumbents have won re-election since 1956: Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. None trailed in Gallup polls taken during the eight months before their re-election, Newport said.

The phenomenon of challengers capturing more of the undecided vote than incumbents is based on voter data from the eight presidential elections since 1956 involving incumbents seeking re-election. Incumbents lost three times: Gerald Ford to Jimmy Carter in 1976; Carter to Reagan four years later; and George H.W. Bush to Clinton in 1992.

 

 


132 posted on 10/19/2004 9:12:49 PM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Member of the PajamaNati for 1/6th of a year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Torie
It was not measured two weeks out, so we can only guess from the data.

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.

133 posted on 10/19/2004 9:15:46 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Torie
" Hopefully, you will address the next to last poll query"

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?

134 posted on 10/19/2004 9:16:56 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Dales
You answered while I was typing my post. And Carter's numbers were indeed terrible I see. What we have here is a close election with Bush having an approval rating of around 50%, with a very divided electorate, with generally strong views. There is no modern template for this election. The past is in my view irrelevant from a data point of view. And we are at war, which tends to push dissatisfied voters who are cross conflicted towards the incumbent. In short, we just don't know a thing about how undecideds will break vis a vis the past. Absolutely nothing.

That's my take at the moment, until you manage to change my mind again. :)

135 posted on 10/19/2004 9:25:40 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
If Bush is three points ahead in polls, he is 13 points ahead in the real world.

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?

136 posted on 10/19/2004 9:28:54 PM PDT by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Heff

I thought Arkansas was a done deal.


137 posted on 10/19/2004 9:29:12 PM PDT by des
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sam Spade
They had a Presidential debate one week before the election. According to pollsters at that time, it changed things mightily and there was no time afterwards for Carter to bounce back.

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.

138 posted on 10/19/2004 9:29:41 PM PDT by gop_gene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
Only close elections are relevant. With big margins, folks who are dissatisfied with their party's nominee, tend to want to keep the other guy's margin down. That is why I switched from Clinton to a third party, when I was fairly certain Clinton would win in 1996, and while not old enough to vote, would have voted for Goldwater in 1964, and do so only in the certainty that he would lose, since at that time, I thought he was tempermentally and mentally unfit for office.

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.

139 posted on 10/19/2004 9:30:10 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"The past is in my view irrelevant from a data point of view."

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!

140 posted on 10/19/2004 9:34:40 PM PDT by Dales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-180 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson