a comparison of June 2004 and June 2008 polls

[MBS]

This article was mentioned in the Daily Dish:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/then_and_now_take_two.php
Some excerpts (see url for graph and complete text)

If you read about today's Washington Post/ABC News poll online, you probably missed the "Act II, Scene I" sidebar graphic from the Post's print edition that is also available online. The gist if the graphic is that while the McCain-Obama vote looks now looks identical to Bush vs. Kerry preferences four years ago, the larger political terrain as defined by the Bush job rating, the perceived direction of the nation and views about the Iraq War are very different. . .

. . .Regardless of whether the current national horse-race is exactly the same as at this point in 2004, or a few points better for the Democrats, the larger point of the Post graphic still holds: We have seen far bigger changes in the percentage of Americans that disapprove of George Bush's performance as president (+17 percentage points since June 2004 in the ABC/Post poll), that say things in the country "have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track" (+27) and that conclude the war in Iraq was "not worth fighting for" (+11).

I really think the change in the perspective of the electorate on Bush and Iraq is a key difference between 2004 and 2008. To me, the difference in voters' outlook on the country is at least as important , arguably more important, than the candidates this time around.

[beachmom]

1. Exactly. It is a structural difference. The only way McCain can win it

is to run as an Independent, completely divorced from Bush and the Republicans. He hasn't done that, and really he is stuck between a rock and a hard place -- if he goes too Independent, then the Republican volunteers, who he needs to organize on the ground for the election, will stay home. Many Republican VOTERS will stay home. So as it has been before, the Republican is quite enslaved by a nutsy GOP base. To be perfectly honest, we have a lot of nuts in our base, too. The difference is our Democrats don't have to cater to the nuts, just the mainstream liberals who want universal health care, an exit strategy from Iraq, and more economic fairness.

[karynnj]

2. What this really shows is that Obama has a lot of work to do

Part of the margin between the Democrats now vs what it would be if everything stayed the same until November is that I don't think they switched to likely voter yet. (LoOk at pollingreport.com - the sample is still "adults", not registered voters or likely voters. Democrats tend to do better in the population of all adults, before it is narrowed down. That means if, they were equal in their campaigns, it would be as close as Kerry or Gore vs Bush. That is why it is great seeing people like Kerry and Clark used so well - and Obama hitting issues as well as he is doing.

That said, an observation I would make just here, the comparison shows how good a candidate Kerry was, in spite of no media help. He polled nearly as well though Bush was not unpopular - DU to the contrary - the economy was better, oil prices were ok, and people thought the war could turn out ok - even among many against it at the beginning.