Gallup: Bush Deficit in Horse Race Unusual for Incumbents

[tritsofme]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's most recent trial heat of presidential preferences, from a Jan. 29-Feb. 1 poll, shows President George W. Bush trailing Massachusetts senator and Democratic front-runner John Kerry by a 53% to 46% margin among likely voters. A review of historical trial-heat data from past elections shows it is rare for an incumbent president to be trailing at this stage in a campaign. At the same time, in the eight elections analyzed here, there have been campaigns in which the incumbent led in February but was defeated for re-election in November. As such, it is hard to draw any inferences as to what Bush's current standing means for his re-election prospects.

Gallup has a long history of asking presidential trial-heat questions in election years. There are comparable data from as far back as 1948 for elections in which an incumbent president was pitted against his eventual challenger in January or February of the election year. While it is not clear at this point who the Democratic nominee will be, Gallup's historical polling shows it is rare for an incumbent to be trailing any named opponent at this early stage in the election year. The only other time an incumbent trailed his eventual challenger (or, for that matter, any other possible opponent tested) at this stage in the campaign was in 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter held a slight edge over incumbent Gerald Ford, 48% to 46%. (Carter eventually defeated Ford in a close election.)

In seven other elections for which there are comparable data, the incumbent president led his eventual challenger when voters were asked in January or February about their current voting intentions. It should be noted that in a few elections in which the incumbent eventually won, such as those of Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996, the incumbent trailed the challenger at some point in trial-heat polls conducted in the year prior to the election year.
<snip>

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=10531

[grytpype]

1. Here's the money quote:

The only other time an incumbent trailed his eventual challenger (or, for that matter, any other possible opponent tested) at this stage in the campaign was in 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter held a slight edge over incumbent Gerald Ford, 48% to 46%. (Carter eventually defeated Ford in a close election.)

So the ONE OTHER TIME the incumbent was losing at this point was 76, when incumbent Ford lost. And Kerry's lead over Bush is enormous compared to Carter's lead over Ford.

Bush fatigue is setting in.

[Gman]

4. Gerald Ford was not elected president just like Bush

He was neither the VP on the 1972 ticket, nor was he, of course the president. Ford assumed the VP position after the resignation of Agnew and Rockefeller as VP. Nixon resigned, Ford became an unelected prez.

[Art_from_Ark]

10. A little clarification

Ford was appointed to replace Agnew. After Ford became President, Rockefeller became Ford's V.P.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. All signs are bad for bush

If the press senses that bush is a loser,then he is a loser. If he continues to turn in these childish "interviews" in the face of Iraq and the economy, only the most hardcore knuckleheads will stand by him.

[Arugula Latte]

11. But, how can that be?

All the pundits on cable TV were telling me just a few weeks ago that Bush would be nearly impossible to beat...I thought they were infallible.

[Old and In the Way]

3. This is no typical election.

Because we've never had this type of screwing from a President.

I live in a small Republican town. In 2000, we had 2 people show up for the caucus (I admit, I wasn't either of them). Tonight we had 20. There was no talking policy minutae between the caucuses...just which candidate could best beat Bush.

That is the issue of the 2004 election.

[fearnobush]

6. Thats right my friend... ABB all the way. Any Body, But Bush.

ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB ABB

[depakid]

5. For good or ill, the polls will be important in this race

Two reasons:

1. Perception rather than reality on the ground has already been the hallmark of the primary seasons and the bandwagon effect is more pronounced than ever. The pols and the media both want to back a winner and neither seem all that interested in discussing policy details. After having had time to consider the ramifications of a Dean presidency, my thoughts are that many of the powers that be now consider Kerry someone that they can live with. Of course, they be in for a surprise.

2. A close election means that DRE's can (and IMHO would) be used to steal the election for Bush. As it is, there's no doubt in my mind that some state and local elections have been and will continue to be corrupted. There's not much we can do about that this time around- not everywhere, at least. The important thing is that if the poll results all agree- and the general sentiment in the population is that Bush is through, people will think twice about widespread, large scale fraud.

[dusty64]

7. So this gives an

idea what vote totals would be without them going through the diebold filter. I expect chimp's % to be lower than 46, but fully believe once again the official numbers will not be anything like the exit polls. Hmmmm, anyone wonder why?

[PATRICK]

8. statistical samples

First in our whole national history we have had relatively few general elections. Second, history and patterns have been "progressing and changing ever more rapidly. Therefore when mining for trends or even wisdom you can take little comfort or authority in statistics. On the other hand they will do anything except to tell the littlest dictator he is toast.

You don't need too many studies to come up with a couple of points. Strong- and I mean nuclear hostility to Bush- and not just among activist Democrats has created a hate base all right. Even some benighted ideologues on the right are disenchanted with one monstrosity or another. You don't ever recover from negatives like those. As for his soppy admirers- even Nixon as his worst had those. We have that idiot journalist here in upstate New York who does schmaltz set pieces and went overboard into the Arctic by showing the sentimental human side of Nixon. O course he had none as shown unwittingly by the horrible evidence in the article. it was a classic of dreamy insanity. Pollyanna Nixon.

Back to point two. Give the people a good alternative. Even the lousy media will have to give up the ghost if a real president just shows up. 1+1= 2 times Bush has been defeated or two Bush presidencies if you wish. The most disliked dynasty in American history.

IN these circumstances there will always be a "wag the dog" desperation, GOP snipe and fraud, but Junior's meltdown has been the most apocalyptic thing about his propped up horror show. Judging by his verbal shorthand and flip evasiveness on a SCRIPTED Meet the Fake press you may see GOP worry warts just wishing he would go away before November. Why do we listen to Bush's curt denials and weak lying
and think he is going to increase popular support for his self serving performance? All the media quoted here liberally propped up and filled in for Bush. NPR opened with elaborate summaries of Bush's stumbling half sentences as if he from mars or something.

I would say Bush is losing it, but I doubt he ever had it. At least it shows the miserable state of his affairs is getting to them and all their maneuvers to date have been dismal failures and pathetic stalls.

[salin]

9. While encouraging... is it comparable?

In those other races was a likely challenger identified (named) at so early in the race? The shift in the primaries rather changes the dynamics, so it would seem that the comparisons are a bit of apples (early runners after a couple of primaries but not a settled front runner) and oranges (right now it looks like a runaway - even if that does not transpire - it does look like the frontrunner is established, and the press around it increases name recognition.)

That said, it doesn't look good for Bush. I just don't think that looking at historical data (which, imo, is uncomparable) tells us much.

[progressivebydesign]

12. Early in Bush's term..

I remember a presidential historian predicting that Bush would go down in history as the worst president ever. Looks like Bush is FINALLY living up to his potential. Gotta love it.

[progressivebydesign]

13. Early in Bush's term..

I remember a presidential historian predicting that Bush would go down in history as the worst president ever. Looks like Bush is FINALLY living up to his potential. Gotta love it.

[tritsofme]

14. big kick

to *'s gonads

[opihimoimoi]

15. Mother of all kicks

:kick: