A stroll down memory lane: The Bush-Kerry 2004 poll results.

[Honeycombe8]

Ahhhh, yes. Neck and neck. One ahead one day, the other ahead the next. Who will win? Who knows? No, not Obama-Romney. It was Bush-Kerry. Deja vu all over again.

I ran across this document I prepared in 2004, where I either gathered or copied a lot of poll results.

Sometimes I think I remember being shocked that Bush won. Who knew? But then I think back and recall that no...there were signs. The polls near the end ... no, they didn't clearly indicate that Kerry would win. But what DID they indicate?

To refresh our minds, here are the 2004 ELECTION RESULTS:
Popular vote:
Bush 50.73%
Kerry 48.27%
Nader 0.38%
(http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/tables.pdf)

THE POLL RESULTS TABLE:


POLL............DATE..............BUSH..KERRY...NADER.UNDEC..LEADS

ARG.............1/04/04..Reg..........46....47......n/a...7.......K
Zogby...........1/06/03..Likely.......54....31......n/a...15......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..1/11/04..Likely...55....43......n/a...1.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..1/29/04..Likely...46....53......n/a...1.......K
ARG.............2/04/04..Reg............46....48......n/a...6.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..2/17/04..Likely...43....55......n/a...1.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..2/08/04..Likely...49....48......n/a...2.......B
AP/Ipsos........3/03/04..Reg...........46....45......6.....2.......B
Zogby...........3/03/04..Likely........49....36......n/a...16......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..3/07/04..Likely...44....52......n/a...1.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..3/07/04..Likely...44....50......2.....2.......K
NBC/WSJ.........3/08/04..Reg.........46....43......5.....3.......B
NBC/WSJ.........3/08/04..Reg.........48....45......n/a...4.......B
ARG.............3/11/04..Reg............43....50......n/a...7.......K
ARG.............3/11/04..Reg............42....48......2.....8.......K
Zogby...........3/19/04..Likely........46....46......3.....5.......Tie
AP/Ipsos........3/21/04..Reg..........46....43......5.....6.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..3/28/04..Likely...51....47......n/a...1.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..3/28/04..Likely...49....45......4.....1.......B
Zogby...........4/04/04..Likely........45....47......n/a...6.......K
Zogby...........4/04/04..Likely........46....45......3.....5.......B
AP/Ipsos........4/07/04..Reg..........49....45......3.....3.......B
AP/Ipsos........4/07/04..Reg..........45....44......6.....5.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..4/08/04..Likely...48....45......n/a...2.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..4/08/04..Likely...47....43......4.....3.......B
ARG.............4/09/04..Reg............44....50......n/a...6.......K
ARG.............4/09/04..Reg............43....48......2.....7.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..4/18/04..Likely...51....46......n/a...1.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..4/18/04..Likely...50....44......4.....2.......B
NBC/WSJ.........5/03/04..Reg.........46....42......5.....5.......B
NBC/WSJ.........5/03/04..Reg.........48....45......n/a...4.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..5/04/04..Likely...48....49......n/a...2.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..5/04/04..Likely...47....47......3.....2.......Tie
AP/Ipsos........5/05/04..Reg..........46....43......7.....5.......B
ARG.............5/06/04..Reg...........44....47......n/a...9.......K
ARG.............5/06/04..Reg...........44....45......4.....7.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..5/09/04..Likely...48....47......n/a...2.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..5/09/04..Likely...47....45......5.....1.......B
CBS/NYT.........5/23/04..Reg..........41....47......5.....5.......K
CBS/NYT.........5/23/04..Reg..........40....50......n/a...6.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..5/23/04..Likely...47....49......n/a...3.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..5/23/04..Likely...46....47......4.....2.......K
ARG.............6/03/04..Reg............46....48......n/a...6.......K
ARG.............6/03/04..Reg............45....46......3.....6.......K
Time............6/04/04..Likely.........49....48......n/a...3.......B
Time............6/04/04..Likely.........48....43......6.....3.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..6/06/04..Likely...44....50......n/a...3.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..6/06/04..Likely...43....49......5.....2.......K
AP/Ipsos........6/09/04..Reg..........46....45......6.....2.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..6/23/04..Likely...49....48......n/a...2.......B
CNN/USA/Gallup..6/23/04..Likely...48....47......3.....2.......B
NBC/WSJ.........6/28/04..Reg.........45....44......4.....5.......B
NBC/WSJ.........6/28/04..Reg.........47....47......n/a...4.......Tie
ARG.............7/03/04..Reg............45....49......n/a...6.......K
ARG.............7/03/04..Reg............44....47......3.....6.......K
Marist..........7/04/04..Reg............46....47......3.....4.......K
NBC.............7/06/04..Reg............41....49......4.....6.......K
NBC.............7/06/04..Reg............43....54......n/a...3.......K
Time............7/08/04..Likely.........45....49......n/a...6.......K
Time............7/08/04..Likely.........45....47......4.....5.......K
ABC/WashPost....7/11/04..Reg......46....46......4.....1.......Tie
CNN/USA/Gallup..7/11/04..Likely...45....50......2.....2.......K
Pew.............7/18/04..Reg............44....46......3.....7.......K
CBS/NYT.........7/15/04..Reg.........44....49......n/a...4.......K
CBS/NYT.........7/15/04..Reg.........42....45......5.....6.......K
Quinnipiac......7/22/04..Reg..........43....44......4.....9.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..7/21/04..Likely...46....47......4.....2.......K
CNN/USA/Gallup..7/21/04..Likely...47....49......n/a...2.......K
NBC/WSJ.........7/21/04..Reg.........47....45......2.....5.......B
Fo..............7/21/04..Reg.............43....42......4.....10......B
Time............7/22/04..Reg...........44....46......5.....4.......K
ABC/Wash.Post...7/25/04..Reg......48....46......3.....1.......K
Zogby...........7/29/04..Likely........41....46......3.....8.......K
Rasmussen.......7/29/04..............45....48......n/a...n/a.....K


Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

[graham4anything]

1. two things different

Obama is leading bigger than the polls have stated

Obama is beloved with the majority of democrats, whereas Kerry (like Mittens this year) was the forced choice and had a real sheety running mate foisted upon him(as bad as Sarah Palin) and Kerry was never in the lead
by any real margin.

[Honeycombe8]

5. And Obama is in the position that Bush was in, sort of, in 2004.

As the incumbent, he's really more like Bush was in 2004 than Kerry. When it's close, it breaks for the incumbent, I've read.

But even that's different in that Obama has often been ahead all year, while Bush often was not earlier in the year.

[ProSense]

11. People also

liked Kerry, whose rating was up to 40 points higher than Mitt's.

[bhikkhu]

24. Plus - there's no third party guy

Kerry was screwed over by Nader before any other screwy business in that election. At we don't have that to worry about this time.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. This race was back and forth until the Repub convention & Bush never relinquished his lead again...

Kerry might've led in a couple polls, but from August to November, Bush led in an overwhelming majority ... though they were tight. It's why I was never confident Kerry could win. It was all set to hypothetical outcomes ... "undecideds break for the challenger..." "Bush needs to be above 50% in approval to win and he isn't..."

Ultimately, Bush narrowly led and he narrowly won.

[WooWooWoo]

10. Kerry was killed in August of that year

he had no money to spend on ads because he was awaiting his public funds, something Obama tossed aside when he ran (smart move) - it was also the month the Swift Boaters joined in and sank his momentum.

Obama survived August, which if his campaign was going to head downwards, would have happened in that month.

He's in a MUCH better position now than Kerry was then.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Well, the analogy is more of Obama being in the BUSH position of 2004 as incumbent in a close race.

But it is different because Obama is in a substantially better position than Bush was then in that he has been mostly - actually almost always - ahead even if narrowly, and it looks like things are beginning to break for him post convention.

I still wonder if all of the SuperPAC money will materialize for Romney if he looks too much like a loser in a few weeks. Ad space may be bought but it wouldn't surprise me to see ads for downticket races instead.

Adelson and Kochs are old enough that they may never get a chance to influence an election again like this one so I suspect their money will be spent regardless just to prove a point, but no one likes to throw money away in a clearly losing cause unless they are ideologues, and I suspect most of this SuperPAC money is looking to buy influence with a winner.

[Butterbean]

14. I agree. Looking at those numbers (again, hindsight is 20/20)

it seems pretty clear that Bush was leading, even if by the slimmest of margins. The thing about this race is that, as far as I know, Romney may have gotten a 1-2 point lead every now and then, but factoring in margin of error and all that, he really hasn't had the lead. At all.

This race feels MUCH different than 2004, in that if anything, Romney is the stiff, quickly pushed through candidate, much like Kerry was then, which really worked against Kerry then and works against Romney now. I just don't see the race as that close back then. It's close now, but even still, Obama leads.

[ProSense]

16. It is a "much different" race,

for one thing, Mitt is not Kerry.

George Bush and John Kerry are again deadlocked, 45% Bush � 45% Kerry, among likely voters in the three-way race, as they head into tonight's town hall meeting, according to a TIME Poll taken Oct. 6-7. Nader is down to 3%.

On being "likeable," a key strength for Bush in 2000, Bush now trails Kerry, 70% - 65%. (Bush had a slight 4 point lead on likeability before the debate.) Bush still leads Kerry by a wide margin, 81% - 42% on "sticking to his positions."

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,712673,00.html#ixzz21yjytlt7

There were a lot of polls that were statistical dead heats. The election could have gone either way, and at a greater probability than today.

[ProSense]

3. The 2004 election

was an atrocious race. The swiftboating, the media complicity, vote suppression and other horrendous actions leading up to and on election day were disgusting.

[russspeakeasy]

4. The Dem's acted like they were in super slow motion.

It took them a full 72 hours to respond to the first swift boat ad.

[Honeycombe8]

6. And they never adequately responded, IMO. Esp. Kerry. nt

[russspeakeasy]

9. Not even close to adequate. It was a disaster.

[ProSense]

13. The media had

a lot to with that. By 2006, and especially in 2008 and today, they couldn't get away with what they did in 2004.

I mean, the media hyped Bush like he was a war hero. They ran documentaries on his father and him, a guy who was awol and turned out to be an incompetent President. Don't even mention the purple band-aids at the RNC.

Times have changed. There is also a much more coordinated left blogosphere.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Boy, wasn't it. It was a horrible race with lots of problems. nt

[RedSpartan]

8. I've always referred to it as political malpractice.

[warrior1]

12. They also stole Ohio.

Kerry won like Gore.

[Honeycombe8]

17. Well, that's what I thought, but someone told me Kerry won Ohio...really. I didn't think so, tho.nt

[Ikonoklast]

18. Kerry DID win in Ohio.

SoS Ken Blackwell changed that result.

[ProSense]

19. Remember the disaster?

Across the country: Vote switching, tampering, over counting, long lines, thuggery, poll closings, blackouts, confusion reporting the results. A lot of people likely still don't know about these incidents, but the outrage and the commissions that looked into the vote were very real.

That was the 2004 election.

[Honeycombe8]

21. What kind of people do things like that? It's is unconscionable. They are the least patriotic

people I've heard of, to defraud the democratic system.

I guess we can expect the same thing this time around. I just hope the Democrats are prepared. It seems so, since they sued Ohio about their closing the early voting period.

I think Obama and his team are fighters about campaigns, though. I don't see Obama conceding until there is a real final outcome with every stone being overturned and every legal process followed to conclusion. I think.

[ProSense]

22. One of the problems

with 2004 was trying to convince people that Republicans are despicable. With the media complicit in aiding the Swift Liars, it was too easy to write all of this off as whining. Sure 2000 was a Court-selection coup, but 2004 was an all-out assault on the entire process of democracy. There really isn't going to be anything like it again, and there has already been a relatively incident-free election since then.

Unlike the undercover and almost surreal assault on the process that happened in 2004, Republicans are now attempting to use their power brazenly and openly to suppress the vote. Easier to challenge it when it's out in the open.

[graham4anything]

25. this race is more like 1964,or 1972 or 1988 than 2004

I am sure Goldwater/Miller had rabid rightwing fans in 1964 who thought their candidate would win
I am sure Mike Dukakis thought he would win in 1988

I am sure George McGovern thought he would win in 1972 both before and after Eagleton mess
Yeah, we dreamed McGovern would win, but honestly, did anyone actually think it would realistically happen?

The people who listen to Rush and Sean and Karl Rove and Fox are in for a major disappointment as the truth is there really is no race at all.And logic says the republicans have blown it for generations to come, what with their draconian treatment the last 4 years of any and all minority groups that are now becoming the majority of voters in the USA. People on the right always spew about 3rd parties, well, the republicanlibertarianteaparty is quickly becoming 3rd party status. One day they may not even qualify for matching funds and a place in any debate at all
(we can dream)

[Ikonoklast]

23. It was a planned heist all along.

With Ken Blackwell all by himself in a room, switching votes.

That mother fu**er, I still get enraged just thinking about it.

And he was rewarded handsomely.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Let me rephrase. Kerry did not get the electoral votes for OH.

I looked it up, and it refreshed my memory. There was a recount or going to be one, and Kerry didn't fight for it and conceded because the win margin was so small, he didn't think a recount would make any difference, and his advisors advised him to do the gentlemanly thing or he'd be called a sore loser.

It was later that Kerry became aware of all the shenanigans that had been going on there, or some thought had been going on there, but there wasn't proof to challenge the results.

Yeah, I think Bush stole the White House two times. But by "won," I mean literally won. Kerry did not win Ohio, because he did not get the electoral votes for it.