Past election polls and the final result in recent elections:

[Sean Reynolds]

This is all done by Gallup, so take it for what it's worth.

Each poll was done in October, so around the same time as today's polls.

October 2000:

Gore: 39%
Bush: 52%

Final result:

Gore: 48.4%
Bush: 47.9%

October 1996:

Clinton: 48%
Dole: 39%

Final result:

Clinton: 49.2%
Dole: 40.7%

October 1992:

Clinton: 42%
Bush: 31%
Perot: 19%

Final result:

Clinton: 43.0%
Bush: 37.4%
Perot: 18.9%

October 1988:

Bush: 49%
Dukakis: 43%

Final result:

Bush: 53.4%
Dukakis: 45.6%

October 1984:

Reagan: 56%
Mondale 39%

Final result:

Reagan: 58.8%
Mondale: 40.5%

October 1980:

Carter: 47%
Reagan: 39%

Final result:

Reagan: 50.8%
Carter: 41.0%

Now looking at the stats you get this:

2 out of the 6 elections showed that the person leading in October went on to lose the popular vote (Bush in 2000, Carter in 1980). 4 out of the 6 elections the winning candidate didn't poll above 50% While one candidate, Carter, lost without polling in at 50% in October. Only one candidate, Carter, went on to lose the election after leading in October.

Now just looking at it in terms of incumbency. Only one incumbent polled better than 50% in the October leading up to their election. That was Reagan in 1984. The rest (Clinton, Carter and we'll add Gore since he was apart of the Clinton presidency) did not. Carter and Gore went on to lose the electoral college. Clinton however won the election without cracking 50% in either of his elections.

This is what concerns me. People continually state that President Bush is in trouble because he is below 50% in a lot of polls. Looking at this data, only one incumbent in the past 24 years has won the White House when polling above 50% in October.

That said, it's quite obvious some of these elections take place later in November (in fact 2000's election date is a week deeper into November than what this election is). Looking at polling data, the election seems to be decided in either late October or early November. With that, it's safe to say that since the election is being held 2 days into November, the surge will need to take place in the later part of October (or basically right now). Now we ask ourselves, who has the surge, Kerry or Bush?

Polls are all over the place, but if President Bush's lead in most polls has dwindled the past two weeks, Kerry has has the momentum and thus the election. If it's the other way around, Bush has won re-election, regardless if he cracks 50% or not.

[Sean Reynolds]

1. Bump!

lol

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. Interesting analysis

:kick:

[Jack from Charlotte]

3. What's.... 50%.... have to do with anything?

ESpecially when there were 2 significant 3rd party candidates involved like with Perot in '92 and '96. Also, counting Gore as an incumbent is wrong. He wasn't.

The key figures in elections invovling re-electing an incumbant are his "disaprovals." If they're aroung 45ish he has a very, very hard time winning. Once people decide to change and disaprrove of the incumbent.... the only other question is.... is there a viable alternative. The debates in 1980 showed Reagan to be a reasonable alternative and this year show Kerry to be a very good alternative.

[Euphen]

6. Job approval is what separates Bush from the incumbents who were reelected

While Clinton may have polled below 50%, him and Reagan - the two incumbents who won reelection out of those listed - had approval ratings well above 50%. Although Carter was in the lead his approval ratings were dismal. Bush's are in the mid to high eighties, and trending downward, and so there is very little room for growth.

[Sean Reynolds]

8. You're right...I just said it concerned me.

However I think Gore was an incumbent because he was running as the Vice President of the sitting president.

All I'm saying is that it looks like the election was decided in the final weeks of the campaign. That's why I did this type of research, now we've got to ask ourselves who is surging....that will likely be the winner come November 2nd.

[West Coast Democrat]

4. Gallup has been noticeably unreliable for the past few years

so you can't really compare today's Gallup polls with those in the distant past.

[Euphen]

5. I was always under the impression that . . .

. . . undecideds typically break for the challenger. But looking at those polls, it seems that the majority of them end up voting for the incumbent, especially in 1984 and 1992. Only in 1980 did the undecideds go for the challenger by the amount that most people here think they will go for Kerry. Otherwise the challenger at best, in 1996, got slightly more than half.

[snippy]

7. This is too small of a sample to draw any conclusions on how undecided

voters break. They do usually break in favor of the challenger. That being said, in 1984 Reagan was liked by a pretty good number of "Reagan democrats" who hesitated about voting republican but ultimately did. And in 1992 the undecideds included lots of republicans who considered voting for Perot but ultimately did not.

I think the undecideds will break for Kerry this year barring an effective last minute smear campaign of lies from Bush but not by a huge margin. I also think Kerry will receive a greater number of votes from people not being included in the polls as "likely voters."

[liberalpragmatist]

9. It probably has to do with approval ratings

High approval ratings probably makes it likely that undecideds will break towards the incumbent.

Besides, the rule isn't ALL undecideds break 2/3 for the challenger - it's LATE undecideds (the very last) break 2/3 for the challenger.

[Euphen]

10. I agree about the approval ratings.

Bush's support, unlike Reagan's or Clinton's, is about equal to his approval ratings, so there is very little room for growth. Therefore we can probably assume that unless something causes his approval ratings to rise above 48-49% by election day, which seems unlikely in light of rising gas prices and casualties in Iraq, the undecideds are unlikely to break for Bush.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. We need to be careful

If Bush's approval rating is 47, we're in good shape. If it's at 46 or lower, we're in excellent shape.

But a 48 or 49% approval rating is not great news for us. Now, for that matter, it's not terrific for Bush either. However, with that margin, he's virtually guaranteed a very close finish. In other words, even if he's below 50, if he's very close, he's got a great chance.

That's why I'm hoping turnout's high and his actual approval rating is closer to 45 than 49.

[sandnsea]

12. No, approval ratings

Right track, wrong track ratings. Those are the ones that the incumbent should be above 50% on.