August 2004: election projection.com Kerry-327, Bush-211

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I believe that Obama will win fairly easily. I never really thought Kerry would win. The odd thing is that though my gut-feeling is 180 degrees different there is not a gigantic numerical difference between the two so far.

In August 2004 the Gallup tracking poll had Bush up by a few points for most of the month while most other polls showed Kerry leading. (Gallup was flamed every day, though they tuned out to be more accurate than some favored polls, like Zogby.)

There were a lot of polls in August 2004, and they were all over the place:

"This month, a Zogby Poll has Kerry up 7 percent; Gallup has Bush up 3; Time has Kerry up 7; and CNN/USA Today has Bush up 4." ("Electoral College holds key to election, again"
By John Baer. Knight Ridder Newspapers 8/23/04 http://www.arbiteronline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=e56d7142-7819-44cb-8900-9d13959fd1da)

Despite the uneven national polling, Kerry was romping in electoral vote projections:

"Two Web sites, one pro-Kerry, one pro-Bush, are tracking state polls, then assigning corresponding electoral votes and showing results on color-coded maps. Both show Kerry way ahead. On the pro-Kerry site, www.electoral-vote.com, for example, Kerry has 317 electoral votes (270 are needed to win) and Bush 202. On the pro-Bush site, www.electionprojection.com, Kerry has 327 and Bush 211." (ibid.)

The point here is not that Obama will not win. He will. He may even win in a landslide. The point is that John Kerry was very strong in electoral college projections four years ago, but not so strong in national polling.

People like to say that national polling is meaningless and you need to look at the states. That argument is beguiling because it is true in principle... the president is indeed picked by states, not popular vote. But state polling is, for whatever reason, more variable than national polling.

And on election day the popular vote and electoral college count tend to match. I think three presidents have been selected while losing the popular vote. (And since more Florida voters intended to vote for Gore than Bush in 2000, an *accurate* electoral college count would have matched the popular vote in 2000.)

CONCLUSION: Obama is a prohibitive favorite (2:1), yet the race is incredibly close. It's a paradox. Both are true. I think it is because everyone assumes Obama is in the challenger role, and thus the almost unprecedented numbers of currently undecided voters will break for Obama disproportionately, as is typical of elections with an incumbent. But McCain isn't an incumbent, so it's hard to say. Everything I know about politics points to an Obama win, but most numerical measures people point to *today* to show that are historically unreliable.

This is an unusual election.

_________________

DISCLAIMER: There is a sense here that cheer-leading on the internet wins elections. That is the "Save Tinkerbell" theory the Republicans used to make the Iraq war such a success. (If things aren't going well it's because people are not clapping hard enough.)

Democratic Underground has existed for only one presidential election so far. Everyone was encouraged to say Kerry would win, and was flamed for suggesting he might not. So the historical track record for the effect of cheer-leading on DU is 0-1.

Did Kerry lose because DU encouraged complacency by stating he would win? Or did Kerry lose because DU wasn't enthusiastic enough... didn't do enough to visualize victory?

I would suggest a third option; that posts on DU did not decide the 2004 election one way or the other. Since DU cheer-leading probably does not win national elections, or lose them, it is best for people to prognosticate based on their most sober analysis, not based on whether their observations will be applauded or flamed.

[scheming daemons]

1. That was AFTER the Dem convention, but BEFORE the GOP convention... apples and oranges

Where was the race BEFORE the Dem convention?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. The race was roughly the same before the Democratic convention

You might remember that 2004 was famous for Kerry's non-bounce. The Democratic convention didn't move the race much one way or another, which is unusual.

But your point is well taken. The 2004 Democratic convention was quite early (July 26 to July 29, 2004).

Given a choice between comparing August to August, or comparing August to July (measuring in distance from the convention), there are arguments to be made on both sides.

But the overall fact remains, which is that Kerry was 1) well ahead in some national polls exactly four years ago, and 2) the he was doing quite well in electoral college state-polling measures.

You probably think Obama will get a big bounce from the convention. So do I. I expect a lot of things to happen in the next few months.

But that's my guesswork about the future, which is the point of the OP. I feel strongly that Obama will win, but my analysis includes assumptions about future events.

(I thought Kerry would get a big convention bounce in 2004 because Mondale got a giant bounce in 1984 in a somewhat similar liberal vs. crazy fascist dynamic, but he didn't. My assumption was wrong.)

[karynnj]

10. there was a bounce, the problem is that many of the polls

looked at the end point being the few days after the convention ended. The problem is that there was a terror level increase the morning after Kerry's speech and the coverage which had not been on terrorism returned to it. (this was a bogus, political action as the info was 3 years old and so credible that Laura and Jenna Bush did not cancel going to a fund raiser in a building specifically targeted a few days later.

[Franks Wild Years]

2. Something I'd like to point out,...

All through '04, Bush had a large lead in terms on enthusiasm among his supporters. In a close race, that kind of thing can be crucial - This year it's Obama with a large lead in that respect.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. You are correct, but base enthusiasm for Kerry was tremendous.

Obama's advantage is relative. The pugs are dispirited.

So yes, he has a large advantage there.

Base enthusiasm on the left in 2004 was, however, as high or higher in 2004. Look at how fast the party came together behind Kerry, including the Dean people. It was perceived by the Democratic base as a life-or-death election. (Everyone says every election is life and death, but in 2004 that sense was off the charts.)

[Franks Wild Years]

5. Yeah, but...

...in the end the true base alone won't win you an election. That Obama is up overall is a really good sign, I think. I believe that the base will come around - Anyone amongst that group who is LESS likely to vote for Obama than they did Kerry isn't a true left-winger....they simply can't been hit by the vile policy of the Bush administration and presumably they live in big houses on big hills. Such people would be despicable frauds to me, and I don't believe there will be many of them come election day. I think the urgency will, ultimately, manifest itself among the base as much as anything else. Things were GREAT in 2004 compared to now.

Ultimately though...if Kerry was leading Bush 20% with respect to voter enthusiasm the end result would've been reversed and, well, an excellent President Kerry would be getting re-elected with ease this year after washing away the muck caused by four years of Bush.

[karynnj]

13. I think ANY real leftwinger would be equally likely to vote for Kerry as for Obama

- at 100%. Given the choice, Bush vs Kerry or Obama vs McCain - there is NO reason for a true leftwinger to even need to think. As to enthusiasm from the base, read this 8/11 Dkos thread - remembering that Dkos was Very much a Dean place. Only after he lost, did many revert to there negative comments on Kerry - though most continue to see him as a very honorable person. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/11/1562/16898 - The only DKos thread I bookmarked)

However, for moderate to left leaning people your point that people have been hit, is relevant. As more people are personally affected by the bad foreign and domestic policies, many will be more likely to actually see how bad Bush/McCain are for the country. As was pointed out in the op, Bush was at 50% in 2004 and there were people, who whatever misgivings they should have begun to have had, had bonded to the idea that Bush was protecting them. Many did vote their fears, ignoring any case Kerry made that we were in fact less safe. It was a thought they did not have the strength to consider - it meant understanding that they were less safe than they wanted to be. Even as George Will (2006) and RAND recently echoed Kerry - McCain echoes Bush 2004. The difference is that now Bush is at below 30% approval and people are looking for solutions. These are the people who might have had just too much fear to vote Kerry, who hopefully will vote Obama.

* speaking of National security speeches, Kerry gave an extraordinary set of speeches last week that really should be read or watched by Democrats as a basis to counter the Bush/McCain view. The wonderful thing about them is that doing things consistent with our values IS also the thing most likely to work. The first speech is on National Security and is the OP, the other is in a reply post by me - it was on Christian/Muslim relations. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6570288&mesg_id=6570288

These ideas are consistent with his 2004 comments, but expand on them. (In fact, they are consistent with his 1996 Yale speech)

[Pharaoh]

12. Hunter Thompson

Killed himself because of it.............

[karynnj]

15. I loved his recommendation for Kerry

where he said something like having known Kerry for over three decades and knew he was a good man with a brave heart and that even Bush's best friends wouldn't say that of him.

[rockymountaindem]

16. Just because of you I looked that up and read it now

...and because I'm reading "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, '72" right now. I can't believe what an amazing writer and interesting person he was. This is the 4th book by him that I've read. It's such a shame he killed himself because we really need him now.

[karynnj]

17. I'm flattered - and hope I got it substantially correct

I loved the 1972 book.

[rockymountaindem]

18. Have you read "Hell's Angels"?

You can definitely see the roots of his style in that one.

[karynnj]

22. No - and I never heard of it - I assume you are recommending it?

I'll have to look for it. Thanks

[Drunken Irishman]

6. The difference, of course, is right in your polling.

Most polls had Bush up, while only a couple had Kerry up.

How many polls actually have McCain leading? He still hasn't been able to break 45% in Gallup's tracking poll, which tells me his ceiling IS 45%. He can't win this election with that kind of support. Yeah it's close, but Obama has shown time and time again he can easily climb into the high 40s, McCain hasn't. Compared to 2004, Bush often showed he could climb to near 50%, Kerry rarely did.

[writes3000]

11. And that's before factoring in Barr & Nader...

Who will both pull more from McCain than Obama.

[JeffR]

7. "There is a sense here that cheer-leading on the internet wins elections."

Link?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

[JeffR]

14. I thought not.

[karynnj]

9. Nice post

I agree with you that DU did not lose 2004 by either being too confident or not enthusiastic. Another question would be could it have helped more. I wasn't here in 2004 - except as a lurker, but where I see DU possibly helped then and now was in two ways.

One is that nearly everything thrown out shows up here and when it does, there are usually posts saying I wrote this as a LTTE, "...." That is a very good use of DU - especially when it grows and multiple people are posting things like this. It does two things, without being rigid talking points- it does hone good arguments. Within the smaller groups, we all take the best points others have given. It also prods others to write LTTE.

Another thing it may be more likely to do in 2008, than in 2004 is to surface real concerns people are having - say, on a comment made or an action taken. We are a diverse population and if there are posts that show uneasiness with something - it ight be something the campaign should look further into. Now, there is nothing that will keep everybody happy 100% of the time and we are, in general, to the left of the party and even more so when the entire voting population is concerned. It would be good though if the campaign is to some degree monitoring the boards - as we are political junkies, we could in fact be the early warning sign of something not playing well. A well timed correction in how things are said can save grief. We could be the early warning signal.

At the risk of angering the Clinton supporters, here is an example. The first time HRC mentioned RFK's 1968 June CA primary there were angry threads here and on Dkos. I was an Obama supporter who disliked the comparison as the calendar had changed making the comparison intellectually dishonest. The sharpest criticism then was that some took it to be speaking of his murder. There was no outcry in the MSM or real world. HRC repeated this comment for a couple of months - before in late May, it became a major issue that she had to comment on. I know HRC had an internet team led by Peter Daou. What I wonder was why the anger seen the first time (I think early March) was not passed upwards. HRC could still have made the point (disingenuous as it was) using just 1992.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. There are a million things people can do to influence elections.

But saying "polls are bullshit" isn't one of them.

My comments were not meant to castigate exchange of information, organization, issue awareness or any of the many good things that happen here.

I was only addressing the mania for dismissing data selectively to reach willfully uniformed conclusions. (And, of course, the comedic cries of conspiracy after ones assiduously irrational conclusions are contradicted in the real world.)

Every day people post poll results. And every day some DUers line up to say, "this is bullshit," if they don't like the finding. Then a series of what can only be described as old wives tales are trotted out to explain the result. It's pathetic, anti-democratic primitivism. Historically, liberal democracy is based on reason and reality. That is why it works better than competing forms of government based on voodoo, whim, paranoia and irrational intellectual self-service. That's also why the facts so often have a liberal bias.

If someone needs to believe that Obama will win 50 states to muster enough enthusiasm to support him, then that's what it is. Far be it from me to deny anyone whatever motivation she needs.

But that's a narrow pathology that ought not be made an institution.

[karynnj]

23. I agree with you 100% and find it disconcerting

that some assess the validity of polls by whether they like the results. My backround is that of a mathematician who did a large amount of sampling - but not survey research - so I am not one who thinks it good to cherry pick polls.

[azmouse]

19. I don't think it's so much cheer leading going on here as

it is some of us trying to calm those DUers who are setting their hair on fire every time a poll comes out showing the race is close. We're just trying to get people to focus their nervous energy in positive ways that will help the Obama campaign. So I would say that just a few of us 'cheerleaders' here could make a difference in November if we can get others to work in their neighborhoods for Dems, any Dems, and not sit around saying 'woe is me' because everything is not perfect.

[Fly by night]

20. Well, if you give Kerry the five states that the Chimpster/Turd Blossom stole outright, ...

... that would be about right.

I'm thinking of Nevada, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio and (probably) Florida.

But I can still hear the Rethugs (in their best mocking accent):

"Polls? Polls? We don't need no steenkin' polls. We have the machines."

Or as one of them really said (in the summer of 2003), "The election's over. We've won. All that's left to do is count the votes. And we're doing the counting."

Two points to source that last quote (it was a Rethug Congress-critter from New York, drunk at a White House function, as I remember.)

[PresidentObama]

24. And the McCain people are coming at Obama with some of the same low tactics that Bush used to...

...shrink Kerry's lead and regain the lead in the fall up until after the three debates where Kerry beat the living shit out of Bush.

Obama can't follow the Kerry campaigns fatal mistake of mostly ignoring low road attacks, with soft responses and responding late, and must come back and knock them back and attack them back. Kerry's biggest mistake in 2004 was he was the better candidate and strongly Presidential, but his campaign sucked and his campaign strategy was abysmal.

Win, lose or draw--we can't let Obama get swiftboated!