Early Polls Don't Really Mean Much. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 08, 2024, 11:15:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Early Polls Don't Really Mean Much. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Early Polls Don't Really Mean Much.  (Read 5878 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« on: February 13, 2004, 06:20:25 PM »

Just to put all these early polss that show Kerr ahead by 6% here or Bush ahead by only 3% there, I want to give you some other numbers off the top of my head to show why early polls don't mean much:

In 1960, 92% of American's thought that we would have a man on Mars by 1990!

In 1960, 75% of American's thought that we would have colonies on the moon by 1980!

In 1970, 78% of people thought that the 21st century would be charecterized by the on going struggle between the US and the Soviet Union!

In 1955, 89% of all people thought that we would have a cure for cancer by 1990!

These are just few examples of early polls that were way-off.  So all the polls that come out before the summer should be taken with a grain of salt unless they show very wide margins in the race.

That says nothing, they're not related, since we aren't asking for people's predictions, but for their opinions, not the same thing. All the polls showing losing candidates like Mondale or Dukakis ahead in election years are much better arguments.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2004, 08:06:06 AM »

This is where Bush is in comparison to 1996 (both Gallup):

(2004)
2/6-8 (Bush-Kerry-Undecided): 49-48-3
1/29 - 2/1 (Bush-Kerry-Undecided): 46-53-1
1/9-11 (Bush-Kerry-Undecided): 55-43-2

(1996)
3/15-17 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 54-42-4
3/8-10 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 54-42-4
2/23-25 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 56-40-4
1/26-29 (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 54-42-4
1/12-15  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 48-49-3
1/5-7  (Clinton-Dole-Undecided): 46-49-5

Clinton did benefit from a tough GOP primary fight.  Bush doesn't really get that benefit.


Are comparing Bush to Clinton b/c of incumbency, or to Dole b/c of being Republican? I am guessing the former, that makes more sense, but it's still something to remember.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2004, 09:04:35 AM »

I don't think Bush will win like Clinton did in 1996.

No, probably not. This election might be a little unique, actually. When was the last time we had an election where one candidate won clearly, but not overwhelmingly in the PV, and did likeise in the EV?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2004, 09:17:32 AM »

I don't think Bush will win like Clinton did in 1996.

No, probably not. This election might be a little unique, actually. When was the last time we had an election where one candidate won clearly, but not overwhelmingly in the PV, and did likeise in the EV?
1992. Slightly less clearly in the PV (6 points instead of eicht), slightly less clearly in the EV (12 votes less)

Clinton got 68% of the EV. That's not close, His percentage margin was 37% in the EV, as compared to 6% in the PV.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2004, 09:28:07 AM »

Perot's impact kinda messed up 1992, but not so much 1996.

It did, but it needn't really impact the relation between Clinton's PV margin and his EV margin.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2004, 09:30:01 AM »

But that applies for 1996 as well, so what's your point? "Clearly but not overwhelmingly", you called his 1996 margin. If that's true then, it's true in 1992 also. Or am I misunderstanding something?

I think so. I see how my quote might have messed things up. What I meant was that if Bush beats Kerry 52-48 or something like that, and wins the EV roughly 308-230, that would be kind of unique, with the EV percentages resmebling the PV one, and the election being pretty close.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2004, 10:05:51 AM »

But that applies for 1996 as well, so what's your point? "Clearly but not overwhelmingly", you called his 1996 margin. If that's true then, it's true in 1992 also. Or am I misunderstanding something?
I think so. I see how my quote might have messed things up. What I meant was that if Bush beats Kerry 52-48 or something like that, and wins the EV roughly 308-230, that would be kind of unique, with the EV percentages resmebling the PV one, and the election being pretty close.

Ah yes. I thought you'd called 1996 unique. After all, 1980 had a similar PV margin and a much larger EV one...

Yeah, the quote was dum, I was talking about the coming election.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,785


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2004, 01:27:32 PM »

I don't think Bush will win like Clinton did in 1996.

No, probably not. This election might be a little unique, actually. When was the last time we had an election where one candidate won clearly, but not overwhelmingly in the PV, and did likeise in the EV?

Carter v Ford 76

True, but that was a very close election. True though, that it's the last time that PV and EV were close to each other. They seldom are...
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 14 queries.