Skip to comments.Advantage Kerry? (Flashback to 2004)
Posted on 09/09/2012 11:56:07 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Roger Simon frames the question concisely:
"Last week Charlie Cook, a highly-respected non-partisan political analyst, wrote in his column for the National Journal that things are looking bad for President Bush.
"Cook's chief point is that while Kerry holds just a slim lead in some polls, there are very few undecided voters out there and that Bush realistically can expect to get no more than 25 percent of them.
"Which would mean a Kerry victory in November. Cook is not foolish enough to predict this and, of course, he includes the usual language about how things can change. But here are his concluding thoughts:
" ' . . . President Bush must have a change in the dynamics and the fundamentals of this race if he is to win a second term. The sluggishly recovering economy and renewed violence in Iraq don't seem likely to positively affect this race, but something needs to happen. It is extremely unlikely that President Bush will get much more than one-fourth of the undecided vote, and if that is the case, he will need to be walking into Election Day with a clear lead of perhaps three percentage points.' "
The Note declared the outlines of a trend last week:
"The reality is -- as amazing as this seems -- this is now John Kerry's contest to lose.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So what's Gallup showing currently? Obama leading, 49% to 44%, as of Sunday (yesterday). That's after a tsunami of ritual-style adulation and homage in the media over Bill Clinton giving a speech. (Clinton even got bonus points for not raping anyone throughout the convention, especially with Hillary thousands of miles away.)
What Gallup and other pollsters aren't fully factoring in is the dismal Friday jobs report, indicating as many as 368,000 people dropping out of the work force (technically known as 'joining the Democrat Party').
Obama says the reason for the lousy job market is because Bush's still running the economy from Crawford, Texas. As Obama would put it, this jobless recovery is stamped with three proud words, Made in the U.S.A by the Bush Junta.
Don't know about you, but every poll I've seen shows the economy as the numero uno issue on voters' minds. As Joe Biden would say, everything boils down to a 3-letter word, jobs.
And there's nothing indicating the economy will magically be turning around in the next 50 days or so. So, since Obama's post-convention poll boomlet was the result of Clinton's speech, the media are now telling us Clinton's speech was the 2012 campaign's 'inflection point', that the election this November no longer boils down to jobs and the economy but will ultimately come down to Clinton's speech-making skills. Oh really? Ask yourself, what are the odds that on Election Day the economy won't be the top issue on voters' minds, but rather some speech Clinton gave in the summer? I like R/R's chances.
Anyway, that's ...
My Two Cents ...
Monday-morning mega ping! Have a great day, y’all!
I question the motives of anyone who claims to be a Romney supporter yet implies Romneys really ahead, not to worry. Heck, hes so far ahead he does not even need your vote so just dont believe those polls showing Obama ahead. Hes losing BIG TIME.
Okay, so I guess their message is no need to work harder.
Better to play it safe and believe all polls that have Obama ahead. The worst that could happen is Romney will win in a 49 state landslide.
I would hate to think of what the results would be for those claiming that all polls showing Romney behind are lies. Move on, nothing to see here. Maybe an Obama landslide?
Play it safe. Use the data to benefit our side. Does that make sense to you?
Im not taking any vacations anytime soon from this election. But its time those telling us Romneys got it in the bag go and take one. They disturb me.
We did not win in 2004 or 2010 using that nothing to see here philosophy. We took all bad news seriously.
Not one analyst has considered the 2010 results, as far as I have seen.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
“”Let’s see what Gallup’s tracking poll is showing. It’s September 10, and so far Gallup is showing a small lead for Obama, ranging from 7 points (49% to 42%) on one day, stretching to 10 points (51% to 41%) only days later. Oh, wait! That’s the Gore v Bush, not Obama v Romney”””
Races with no incumbent have polls that are very unstable. Look at Gallup in 1960,68,88,2000 polls varied almost weekly. In 1968 at one point Nixon was up 15 even with Wallace in the race. He won by less than 1. Races with incumbents are more steady.
There are a lot of parallels between Kerry and Romney, but that doesn’t mean Romney has no chance. A Massachusetts liberal who is a governor is slightly better than a Massachusetts liberal who was Senator.
No. Nobody suggests Romney is ahead so we shouldn’t be doing anything. At the same time, the level of panic and hysteria “Romney is a loser” or “Romney wants to lose” hit all time high simply because Obama gets his post-convention bounce that it’s good to have a reminder that the sky is not yet falling.
Remember at this same point in time JIMMAH was way ahead or Ronnie.
We all know how that one turned out. . . . . .
Why is Charlie Cook so revered by the press as such a political whiz to be respected? This isn't the first time I have seen him so highly regarded in an article while being so terribly wrong in his "analysis".
Election 2000 and 2004 were way to close for comfort. Both could easily have gone either way. It all came down to one state. If 2012 is the same, we better hope that Colorado goes Red.
Not one analyst has considered the 2010 results, as far as I have seen.
Do they ever consider off years? Maybe they always just consider the last election. I am not sure but that could be a reason. Nobody was voting for President in 2010. Alot of people only vote in Presidential years and not off years.
From a Newsbusters article of yesterday, Sept 9:
The media are gushing and fawning over new poll numbers showing Barack Obama getting a bounce from the just ended Democratic National Convention putting him four points ahead of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
Before they get too cocky, they might want to recall that after his convention ended in 1988, Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by seventeen points
Seventeen points!! And we know how that election turned out.
Because Cook is their cr@p truck driver. The one that pumps the cr@p into the polls in the first place.......He might be able to neatly package the turds but it doesn't change the fact it still a pile Poo.
This is not 1980 and demographics in Massachusetts have changed plenty but..... in 1980 nobody except maybe the Gipper himself would have thought he was going to carry Massachusetts...but he did. Politics is full of surprises. Don’t count Romney out. He’s not the best candidate but he’s all we’ve got to stop four more years of socialist demeaning of America. He can and will carry most of the battleground states.
Yep, you are so correct with your 2 cents!
Thanks for the ping.
All of the poll weighting seems to believe that party ID and turnout will be similar to 2008. I don't think that is probable. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest 2010 numbers either, but somewhere in the middle.
The analyst who correctly predicts that will win the award for closest to actual turnout.
Besides, as we saw in 2000, you can win the popular vote and lose the race, so it's really the polling in battleground states that matter, not national numbers.
Oh, Lordy, JH2...why are there so many serious posts in reply to such a wonderful and exquisite $.02 by you?
We need better clientele around here! lol
“Ask yourself, what are the odds that on Election Day the economy won’t be the top issue on voters’ minds, but rather some speech Clinton gave in the summer? I like R/R’s chances.”
You, and me, too, my FRiend.
I hope you are back, and plan to post more during the election. Your posts crack me up! At the same time, there is great truth to them.
From, dc2k...your greatest fan. ;o)