Obama's polling numbers are excellent. When looking at polling numbers over the last 30 years, the incumbent always trails at this point in the race. The fact that Obama leads in most National polls or is very close to most of his challengers is actually remarkable from a historical perspective.
Here is a real good article on Presidential polling and how to properly evaluate polls this early in the race.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-cautionary-poll-tales/Some excerpts:
Earlier, Doug Mataconis took a trip down memory lane and noted that at a similar point in his presidency, Ronald Reagan had poll numbers not unlike those of the current resident of the White House.
To wit, please take the following trip down memory lane with me (to a different point in history, but the point will be rather obvious):
Reagan v. Mondale (1984)
Eventual results: Reagan 58.8%, Mondale 44.7%
Some of the polling:
WaPo, 1/22/84:
Reagan ties both Mondale and Glenn with 45 percent of the vote.
The findings represent a leveling of the slight rise in support for Reagan against Mondale and Glenn in November and December polls.
NYT, 3/9/84:
The new Gallup poll, taken by telephone among 719 registered voters from March 2 to March 6, confirmed what political specialists generally believe to be a very volatile situation among the electorate five days before Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses in nine states.
The poll found that in a trial heat for the Presidency, 52 percent said they favored the Colorado Senator to 43 percent for Mr. Reagan. When matched against Mr. Hart’s two leading rivals in the poll, Mr. Reagan led former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, 50 percent to 45 percent, and Senator John Glenn of Ohio 52 percent to 41 percent.
WaPo, 7/23/84:
Conducted at the end of the Democratic National Convention last week, the Newsweek-Gallup Poll of 1,006 registered voters showed 48 percent supporting Mondale and his vice-presidential nominee, Rep. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.), 46 percent favoring Reagan and Vice President Bush, and 6 percent undecided.
The 2 percent difference is insignificant, since the poll has a 4 percent margin of error.
WaPo, 7/27/84:
WHAT IS going on with the polls? For months we were told that Ronald Reagan was nine or 14 or 26 points ahead of Walter Mondale. Then, within hours of the close of the Democratic convention in
San Francisco, out came the Gallup organization with a poll showing Mr. Mondale two points ahead. Have 18 million Americans suddenly changed their minds? Or are the polls just wrong? MY TAKE: THERE IS ALWAYS A POST CONVENTION BUMP ! THESE GUYS SHOULD KNOW THIS! THE BUMP IN THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN THAT WAS WRONGLY ATTRIBUTED TO SARAH PALIN WAS ACTUALLY JUST THE GOP POST CONVENTION BUMP. ONCE THE RACE SETTLED, AS IN 1984, WE SAW WHERE THE PUBLIC REALLY STOOD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush v. Dukakis (1988)
Eventual results: Bush 52.3%, Dukakis 44.7%
Some of the polling:
The Toronto Star, 5/19/88:
A CBS/New York Times poll released Monday said Dukakis leads Bush 49-39 per cent and would beat the vice-president in all regions of the country if the election were held now.
A Lou Harris poll Sunday gave Dukakis a 50-43 per cent edge.
WaPo, 6/30/88 (Just 5 months until the election)
In the Gallup poll of 1,210 registered voters conducted last weekend, Dukakis held a 46-to-41 percent lead over Bush, compared with a 52-to-38 percent lead he held in a similar poll in mid-June. The poll found Dukakis losing ground among most key voter groups, particularly self-described Democrats and independents, a key swing group.
The ABC News-Money Magazine poll gave Dukakis a 3 point margin, essentially a dead heat under the margin of polling error.
In the last Washington Post-ABC News poll at the end of the May, which used the same methodology as this one, Dukakis had an 11 point lead.
The ABC-Money poll of 1,013 adults was taken June 22-26 and showed Dukakis dropping from being the choice of 52 percent of the general public to 45 percent. Bush gained 1 point, rising to 42 percent; those with no choice increased 4 points.>
NYT, 7/26/88
In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party’s nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll. This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.
Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis’s lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton v. Dole (1996)
Evenutal results: Clinton 49.24%, Dole 40.71%
Some of the polling:
USAT, 1/19/96:
A new USA TODAY/CNN/ Gallup poll finds that President Clinton is rated stronger on issues than his likely opponent, Senate Republican leader Bob Dole. But Dole outpoints Clinton when it comes to character traits and personal skills.
Look for each to accent his own strengths and exploit his rival’s weaknesses.
Overall, 45% say Clinton deserves re-election; 52% say he doesn’t, suggesting a close race.
CNN, 1/5-7/96: Their tracking poll had Dole at 49% and Clinton at 46%
I will note that by the Spring, Clinton cracked open a hefty lead over Dole.
END OF ARTICLE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some other polling numbers I found with just a 5 second "Google" search from what most objective observers would call reliable pollsters.
CNN POll February 2004
Kerry 53%
Bush 46%
Edwards 49%
Bush 48%
Bush 50%
Clark (Wesley) 47%
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-02-02/politics/elec04.poll.prez_1_job-approval-poll-democratic-candidates?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIme Magazine Poll March 1995
Dole 52%
Clinton 44%
Clinton 48%
Gramm 41%
In the same poll, 53% of votes said they "likely" or were "definitely" going to vote against Clinton in 1996
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg04399.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA TImes Poll June 1988 (Just 5 months before the election)
Dukakis 45%
Bush 42%
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-30/news/mn-7846_1_dead-heatNew York TImes May 1988
Dukakis 49%
Bush 39%
CBS Poll March 1988
Bush 46%
Dukakis 45%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion:
Romney, Bachmann, Perry and even Palin (were she legitimate) should be soundly thrashing the President in National polls at this stage of the race.
The fact that they are not, and actually are usually getting beat in polls at this state of the race is really amazing!
When you look at the historical trends of Presidential Polling and compare data today to "apples to apples" objective Presidential polling from the past.... Obama appears incredibly strong. Or the GOP field is incredibly weak (take your pick). Either way it is no wonder that many strong GOP Presidential contenders (who no doubt review such information and have reliable people with similar data advising them) are waiting until 2016 to run.
If I were Mitt Romney and or Michelle Bachmann and I saw that I still trailed the President at the same point in the campaign where Dole, Dukakis, Kerry and even Mondale all led (and in some cases by impressive margins) what would should I think?
Add in the fact that the Presidents first quarter fund raising was historically impressive. It was well ahead of where Bush was in 2004 (even when adjusted for inflation). His money numbers beat the entire Republican field. So what logical conclusion must you reach?
The fact is that if the election were held today, Obama would be re-elected. Then add in a non-primaried President with close to a billion dollars and an underrated, but rapidly changing ethnically demographic map in his favor, and it becomes almost impossible to see the President with under 51% of the vote on election night. The Republicans know this. That's why amazingly not one active Governor or Senator is vying for the job.
These polling numbers for the President are very good. They are just not put in proper context. The Presidents numbers are much better than they appear.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
