Gallup's Survey Gives Hart 9-Point Lead Over Reagan (March 9, 1984; Reagan 43%, Hart 52%)

New York Times ^ | March 9, 1984 | Gallup Poll

[ambrose]

Gallup's Survey Gives Hart 9-Point Lead Over Reagan By JOHN HERBERS Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 9, 1984. pg. A12, 1 pgs

Article types: article Dateline: ATLANTA, March 8 ISSN/ISBN: 03624331 Text Word Count 870

First Paragraph ATLANTA, March 8 -- Reports of a surge of support across the nation for Senator Gary Hart since his victories in New England Presidential primaries were bolstered today by a Gallup poll that showed him leading President Reagan in a national sample of voters.

[JohnHuang2]

Oh, no! The sky is falling! Bush is gonna lose! We're doomed, DOOMED, I TELL YA!

Oh, wait...I just noticed the date ;-)

[JohnHuang2]

[ambrose]

This is terrible! Hart is going to win! We're doomed!

[JohnHuang2]

LOL!

[onyx]

I remember a landslide. Reagan's landslide. Hart went on to oblivion --- not his party's nomination.

Damn, I just love polls.

[JohnHuang2]

Clearly, this poll shows we have history all wrong: Reagan was defeated by Hart in 84. It was a landslide victory. We know this because Gallup polls are always 1000% correct, no? ;-)

[fsorbello]

That's classic! Excellent post...it really keeps things in perspective.

[onyx]

Of course Gallup polls were always correct back when they had the polling market cornered. Now, Zogby leads the parade, and I believe he has Botox Kerry comfortably ahead of our President Bush.

Back to the classroom for us, John. We have history all wrong.

[JohnHuang2]

heh!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

Primary Numbers: Lukewarm for Kerry***Weyrich's point is that the media have been creating a groundswell or a zeal for John Kerry where, in relative numbers, it does not exist. If that's not bias, we don't know what is.***

[JohnHuang2]

By the way, this poll had Reagan at 43 percent, Hart at 52 percent....sound familiar?

[JohnHuang2]

G'morning, Cincy :-)

[ex-Texan]

LOL, LOL, LOL !

[Fledermaus]

The idea this country is "divided" and Bush has to worry about Kerry or Edwards is a joke.

Do any of you really think, regardless of the press (that crowned Dean the nominee before even one vote was cast), that people are going to elect anyone but Bush when they get into those booths and think?

I don't.

I have many complaints with Bush but I'm not stupid.

When it's time to pull the lever, they'll wake up.

[JohnHuang2]

I added the exact numbers to the header -- hope you don't mind.

[JohnHuang2]

Well said, my friend. Totally agree.

[Fledermaus]

Thanks, but I was just trying to hit on Cincy and onyx! lol

It must be my bed time!

[JohnHuang2]

hehehe
G'nite, my friend.

[ambrose]

No, that's cool...

[goldstategop]

That was before Donna Rice came along and Hart was forced to drop out. The Democrats didn't discover then that screwing an intern was a resume-enhancing move with the party base.

[Fledermaus]

Thanks buddy.

I have nothing planned this weekend and thus look forward to your posts and making comments.

[ambrose]

I heard Frank Newport, of the Gallup Poll, on O'Reilly today (John Gibson was subbing). He said, of the last five presidents running for re-election, none of them have been in the position Bush is in (behind Kerry and Edwards) and gotten re-elected. Obviously, Newport had his fingers crossed.

Pulling your quote over from an earlier thread. LOL..

[JohnHuang2]

More than welcome, bud.

[JohnHuang2]

Interestingly enough, this was a poll of 719 registered voters; Bush and Ketchup boy are neck-and-neck among registered voters in the latest Gallup.

[onyx]

Hey Cincy, want to start your day with a smile? Then don't miss #19. :)

[ambrose]

The biggest point of the last poll was showing Edwards with a large lead as well. Serves the medias' desire to prolong the Kerry-Edwards horse race.

[JohnHuang2]

Source (scroll down about a third of the way)

[JohnHuang2]

Re: #28 -- bingo. And the latest Gallup was conducted on Monday (Monday was a holiday, not exactly a good day to catch Republicans at home) and Tuesday night, the night of the Wisconsin primary and all the media hoopla.

[ambrose]

We can't be complacent, it will be a tough slog ahead, and our enemies will engage in the worst treachery imaginable to win... but I thought these old polls might lend some perspective to the "sky is falling!" contingent on here.

[JohnHuang2]

Totally agree. The last thing we need now is complacency. We need to work like our guy is 10 points down -- from now till E-Day.

[TonyInOhio]

Now, Zogby leads the parade, and I believe he has Botox Kerry comfortably ahead of our President Bush.

I am suprised that there has been little mention of Zogby blowing the Wisconsin primary polls. His last poll, published, I believe, on Monday, had Kerry beating Dean by 15 points and Edwards in thired at 10%.

That's not just inaccurate, that's bad.

[FRgal4u]

Whenever you see a poll with the dims outperforming in the likely vs the registered, you have to be very careful in reading too much of the data.

In Gallup polling, there have been very few cases where the likely dims outperforming the registered dims (dims are more likely to skip the polls on election day). I look at the latest gallup poll with Ketchup and Sunshine up so much in th elikely category, two things strike me as odd - the virtual nonexistence of undecided, and the significant outperformance for the dims in the likely group.

My thinking is that Gallup possibly put a series of questions like -

1) are you going to vote this yr
2) have you ever voted before 30 if you have not voted before and going to vote this yr, who are you going to vote 3) even if you are undecided, tell us which candidate you will lean towards.

Think about it, during the holiday weekend, we have more of those primary coverage, more hate speeches from the left and more bullcrap from the administration itself (the outsourcing flap. So there is a good chance of a significant portion of people who said they have not voted before and will vote this yr - and my bet is all these people will go for the dims when they answer the questions. Thus there will be a big overweight for the dims in the likely voter grp, and this could throw the whole validity of the poll into question. These "likely" voters are unreliable on election day, and they are drawn to the dims now because of the positive news coverage.

Bottomline is, I think Bush has hit a very bad stretch and kerry has all the good news on his side. Still I don't believe of the gallup data as there is no way a president with 51% approval (from gallup, same poll) will pull in just 43% of the votes. An eight pt gap between these two data pts is very unusual.

[.30Carbine]

I thought these old polls might lend some perspective...

Very wise. Thank you!

[EllaMinnow]

In an article posted yesterday, the folks at Gallup pointed out that "likely voters" is a self-identified group. Since dem primary season is in full steam, dems are feeling much more part of the process than Republicans, and so identify themselves more as "likely voters."
But when the rubber hits the road, Republicans are always more "likely" to actually get to the polls and vote.

[MeekOneGOP]

ha ! Thanks. Putting/keeping things in perspective is a great thing ! ...

[DrDeb]

GREAT FIND!

I haven't had a chance to research the proposition that several polls (including Gallup) had Reagan trailing a Democrat contender at various times during the 1984 election year -- thank you for doing some of the research for me!!!!!!

[DrDeb]

If you want some perspective on the President's current GALLUP poll numbers, visit this thread -- Reagan 43% Hart 52% (3/9/84)!

[coloradomom]

It really is encouraging to have some historical perspective.

I read in one of the earlier posts that Frank Newport (Gallup) has said that earlier Presidents with poll numbers like President Bush's at this point in an election year haven't been re-elected.

It seems to me, though, that looking at March and April numbers from past years is far more relevant than February numbers. This year the Democratic primary season is compressed and very early. Thus, the Democrats look stronger now than they might have in, say, February of 1984.

Ambrose has done a great job of bringing us this information!

[ohioWfan]

Another fact........the Presidential election is based on the Electoral College.

If I'm not mistaken, Deb, President Bush leads by fairly large margins in most of the 'red states,' and beats Kerry in all of them, does he not?

That means he'll win the election (if that holds.....and it will), regardless of what people in the blue states do.

In addition, a larger percentage of people are calling themselves Republicans in many states. The country has gotten more conservative since 9/11.

Not being complacent here, but feeling very optimistic about November.

[ohioWfan]

Great post, ambrose! Thanks!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the ping!

[eureka!]

Referencing Gallup and the Gipper in light of our day or so ago exchange...

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Thank you.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[blackie]

Polls suck ~ Bump!

[ambrose]

.

[HenryLeeII]

Yeah, that really ticked me off when Gary Hart beat former California governor Ronald Reagan in the '84 election. I bet Reagan would have made a pretty good president...;>)

[HenryLeeII]

Yes, they're interviewing the same people in the Gallup headquarters. Reminds me of the Ann Coulter piece from last year when she brought up the "man on the street" guy who just happened to be interviewed about numerous topics over the years. Same guy, supposedly a disinterested independent who just always happens to see the lefties' point of view on the topic du jour.