Why the Polls Don't Add Up

[Nicholas_J]

WASHINGTON — You can hardly blame the Democrats if they seem a bit confused. After all, as the situation in Iraq has worsened over the past six weeks and national polls have shown a steep decline in President Bush's job-approval ratings (some, including the latest CBS/New York Times survey, have him registering well below the 50 percent mark), John Kerry can't seem to pull ahead of the president the national horse-race polls...


The real reason that Mr. Kerry is making so little progress is that voters are now focused almost exclusively on the president. This is typical: as an election approaches, voters first decide whether the incumbent deserves re-election; only later do they think about whether it is worth taking a chance on the challenger. There is no reason to expect a one-to-one relationship between public disaffection with the incumbent and an immediate surge in public support for his challenger.

We saw the same dynamic in the 1980 race. President Jimmy Carter's favorable rating in the Gallup surveys sank from 56 percent in January to 38 percent in June, yet he still led Ronald Reagan in Gallup's horse-race measures. For much of the rest of the campaign, voters who disapproved of Mr. Carter couldn't decide whether Mr. Reagan was an acceptable alternative. Through the summer and early fall, the lead changed back and forth, and CBS/New York Times and Gallup polls showed conflicting results — at one point in August, Gallup found Mr. Reagan ahead of President Carter by 16 percentage points, yet just two weeks later it registered a dead heat. It was not until the two men held a televised debate eight days before the election that Ronald Reagan gained legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate.

Similarly, in May 1992 President George H. W. Bush had only a 37 percent approval rating according to a Times Mirror Center survey, but the same poll showed him with a modest lead, 46 percent to 43 percent, over Bill Clinton. Only the Democratic convention and the debates brought about an acceptance of Mr. Clinton (even though his negative ratings were higher than Mr. Kerry's are now). It took a long time for him to be seen as an acceptable alternative to Mr. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/opinion/12KOHU.html

[RoyGBiv]

1. Kick

:kick:

[phillybri]

2. Good point...great insight...

:kick:

[Beetwasher]

3. Everyone on DU Should Read This Article

This should be required reading, especially for all the doom and gloomers...Kerry is in terrific shape historically speaking...

[lancdem]

5. I agree wholeheartedly

[lancdem]

4. Thanks for posting this

I was thinking about this the other day, that there's a lag between voters souring on Bush and then turning to Kerry. It's a two-step process that doesn't happen simultaneously. I think the Kerry campaign knows that, even if hardly anyone else seems to.

[Nicholas_J]

11. Kerry simply

Is in the best position of any opponent to an incument to win than any candidate who has run against an incumbent in recent history, perhaps in 60 years.

He is keeping as low a profile as possible to avoid media attacks, letting the weight of the Bush administrations errors and attempts to hide their agenda and methods fromf the American public to swamp the Administration.

Kerry has always run this way, and did so during the nomination process. He did not come out swinging until a short period before people actually were going to go to the polls. And when he did he ver effectively used the efforts that the media used against his rivals for the nomination to bring down those rivals.

Kerry went from being almost 40 points behind the leader in the polls, Howard Dean, in a scant two weeks, because he waited until doing something, or saying something or making points against his rivals would actually be remembered and taken into consideration when they cast their votes.

Kerry's philosophy seems to be to do one thing at a time,do it very well, and then move on to the next thing.

By focusing on health care right now, rather than Iraq, he is pointing out what he plans to do that is completelly off of the Bush campaigns radar, while the media point out the negatives about what Bush is doing now. All he needs to do is make breif commnents about the events surrounding Iraq and 9/11, focus on the positive elements of his platform and let the media handle the negative aspects of Bush's reign.

[Claire Beth]

6. good article! n/t

[felonious thunk]

7. Exactly right, Kerry is playing this smart

He's avoiding peaking too early. Keep the attention on Bush now, because he is floundering. People still don't know Kerry, but by November they will. I've heard way too much criticism of Kerry not taking advantage, but he in fact is. He is playing this very very smart. He knows history, and that Bush's falling approval ratings are there for the taking, and he'd rather take them in August than May.

[Beetwasher]

8. He's Also Been Avoiding Looking TOO Partisan

by staying above the fray. By letting Bush hang himself and not pouncing on him viciously over the recent scandals he innocculates himself to some degree from charges of playing politics w/ tragedy. It's a good strategy. In the meanwhile he's running positive ads and defining himself.

[felonious thunk]

9. I agree

I think Kerry is running a fantasic campaign right now. He is not being partisan, he's being positive, letting Bush falter. Especially for a guy noted as a good "closer" Kerry is doing it right at this point in the campaign. At the convention, he'll kick it into high gear, and the public will get to know him.

Kudos to his campaign for recognizing what is going on with the country right now. I think they have run an excellent general election campaign to this point.

[cally]

10. Bush will try to avoid debates

The challenger starts to lead after the debates. One way for * to stay ahead is to avoid debates. Starting during the convention, Kerry needs to start calling for debates.

[apnu]

13. I think debates should be a mandatory part of the process.

Its the best time that the people can see all the candidates together side by side. It give voters a lot of information and exposure to the candidates.

If Kerry calls for debates, and if W runs (like the little school girl that he is), then Kerry and us should bellow from the mountain top 'CHICKEN! CHICKEN! CHICKEN!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. I don't think Bush will be able to avoid debating

[ACK]

12. Damn that is real insight.

Good to understand this though I have been saying this about the Clinton numbers for awhile.

[salonghorn70]

15. The 1980 Race

I posted this on another thread but it seems to go well here also. I still remember the Carter campaign rally at the Alamo on the Saturday before the election. It was one of the worst political rallies that I have ever been to. Low attendance and no enthusiasm. I believe that reports after the election said that Carter had already been told that the undecided vote was breaking heavily to Reagan and that he knew that he would likely lose. After that rally, I knew something was very wrong.

[turiya]

16. Berg's killers are Al Qaeda yet polls are lies?

how does anyone know which to believe and what are lies?

[Nicholas_J]

17. The same way you have told in the past

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

its a duck.

Anything that favors the view point of the current administration at this point has a statistically better than average probability of being a lie.

Virtually every element related to the administrations planniing for 9/11, relating the causes to going to war with Iraq to the events of 9/11. the facts related to Saddams behaviour prior to 9/11, the events and conditions related to the treatment of Iraqi prisonmers of war, and on and on, have been shown to have been spun out of a great deal of deception and lie.

At this point, anything that comes out of this administration in relations to anything must have a better probability of being a lie than the truth.

[spooky3]

18. interesting, thanks!