Polls

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Here's a good link to polls for previous elections.....


It will give you a good idea of who is and isn't a reliable pollster


http://www.ncpp.org/1936-2000.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Check Out Rasmussen In 2000-ROTFLMFAO

NT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Battleground Blows Too

How can a self respecting Dem like Celinda Lake attach herself to that garbage?

[LoZoccolo]

3. An interesting thing about the Nader numbers...

...is that he polls mostly higher than he actually gets. And even if not, he ties with actual numbers. Encouraging.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Those Are Election Eve Polls....

His support evaporated on Election Eve...


The proof is in those polls....


Look at Rasmussen and the so called bipartisan Battleground Poll....


Harris nailed it in 00.... I forgot his first name but Harris was JFK's private pollster in 1960. He's the one who told JFK he would be the next pres on Election Day in an extremely close race....

[louis c]

5. As you can see

the undecideds break to the challenger.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. From Your Mouth To God's Ears....

but who was the challenger in 00....

[louis c]

7. None

Undecideds break this way:

Since 1948.

We discount 1948 for two reasons. First, polling was in its infancy and therefore unreliable. Secondly, there was a four man race.

Since 1948, then, in races in which the incumbent stood for re-election, the challenger received a vast majority of the undecideds. The reasoning behind this theory is that most voters have already made there mind up about the incumbent. If it is not favorable in his fourth year of office, and they are not committed to him by then, the challenger has the advantage to win their support.

Even in landslide years like 1964 and 1972, the challenger received a majority of the undecideds. Of course, in these years, so many voters were already committed to the sitting President that it had little impact on the outcome.

So, measuring the years in which the incumbent ran for re-election the undecideds break for the challenger in 1956, 1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, and 1996. Open seats don't count, because the image of both challengers is fluid.

If you research this, you will find that, regardless of the ultimate winner, the challenger receives the bulk of the undecideds. Also, the closer to election day you get, the larger that percentage becomes, but the smaller the volume gets.

So, the challenger receives somewhere between just over the lowest percentage of 60% that went to McGovern in 1972, to the highest of nearly 80% by Reagan in 1980. All other challengers fall somewhere in between. In 1992, Clinton and Perot combined for over 80%.

So, it is a safe bet to assume that Kerry will receive no less than 70% of the undecideds in November. In addition, no pundit expects Nader to receive above 2% of the vote. Nearly every Nader vote now that goes some place else will go to Kerry.

Bush needs a 7% lead at this point to win in November by a slim margin.

Any Kerry-Edwards lead now trends toward an easy victory, IMHO.

[RummyTheDummy]

8. Excellent post

I was talking to my dad last night and he was saying that at the end of the day, people will stick with Bush. Many making decisions at the last minute.

To which I replied, that would reverse what amounts to a 50-year trend with undecided voters. I'm beginning to believe that Bush-Cheney's internal polling is showing them to be in even more trouble than the public knows.

[louis c]

9. There is even more evidence

No incumbent President since 1948 has won Re-election if his approval rating was below 50% in any Major poll at any time during his election year.

That includes 1976, 1980, and 1992.

In every other case, if the incumbent's rating remained above 50%, he won. This includes 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, and 1996.

Every indication is that the piece of shit in the White House will lose in a landslide.

[Literate Tar Heel]

10. internal polling

I think you're right about this, and that explains the fascination lately with gay marriage and the attempts to get the extreme right-wing base energized ... they're seeing that a huge turnout from the fundamentalist right is their only chance now because they've lost the swing voters and a sizable number of moderate Republicans ... they have to skew the electorate to the right now by adding more nutjobs because they've lost the fight for the middle

[RummyTheDummy]

11. Their ads are what I'm thinking about

Unfortunately, I watch a lot of cable news. The Bush campaign has been running negative ads almost exclusively. This is often a characteristic of campaigns that are in peril.

And as you said, the red herring issues like gay marriage are being used to solidify their base which by now should be well beyond solidified. That's what I think their internals are showing. That there's about 3-5 percent of their so called core base (not Indy's or swing voters) that could be chipped off the top. It's people who lean toward them, but waver.

That wouldn't be a big deal in 72 or 84, but it is HUGE in this one. If they lost even just two percent to Kerry I think it could be devastating to their campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. This Is A Good Thread...

Please keep in mind that if * receives the same amount of votes from Caucasians, African Americans , Hispanics, , and Asians as he did in 2000 he will lose by some 3,000,000 votes because of demographic shifts. Therefore * must vastly increase his percentages among one of these groups especially African Americans and Hispanics because of their large numbers...Of course he could always get a larger share of the white vote..... At this point this task seems undo able for*.....


What gives me pause is the Electoral College which favors Republicans and the fact that the last northeasterner to win a national election was John Kennedy....


I live in Florida and see the polls are tight.... Florida as the scene of the crime has great resonance for us Dems but if I think we should look to Ohio to pick up the Electoral College votes we need.... I detest Jeb Bush... Detest him..... He's an oleaginous son of a bitch but he's reasonably popular in Florida....

I don't see a landslide though history suggests that when incumbent presidents run for reelection they either lose or win big.... I think the nation is polarized and I expect a photo finish reminiscent of 2000....

Go Dems..... When you vote, vote like your life and your children's lives depend on it cuz it's that important....

[Eurobabe]

13. probably why DimSon has no 2nd term agenda

there won't BE a second term for this a$$hole.

[champdavid]

14. "Reliable Poster?"

Speaking of reliable or not...here is a link to the result of a presidential poll that may or MAY NOT be reliable...

http://www.christianet.com/internetmarketing/pressrelease.htm

You can guess at the slant by the website itself...they even make you go through some sort of "BIBLE" quiz before you see their results.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi champdavid!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: