Skip to comments.Romney Has Best Gallup Tracking Poll Numbers Since 1968
Posted on 10/22/2012 8:52:42 AM PDT by kingattax
Mitt Romney continues to out-poll every winning presidential challenger since 1968.
The latest Gallup daily tracking poll of likely voters has Mr. Romney leading Barack Obama by seven points, 52% to 45%. Mr. Romneys total is greater than Richard Nixons 44% at this point in the race in 1968, Jimmy Carters 49% in 1976, Ronald Reagans hard to believe 39% in 1980 (Carter was ahead with 45%), George H. W. Bushs 50% in 1988, and Bill Clintons 40% in 1992.
In 2000 and 2008 George W. Bush and Barack Obama both tracked at a within-error 51%.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Ruh Roh! Romney is on a roll. Keep hustling, finish strong!
Romney is probably sitting at 54% and the only other winning GOP presidential candidate who got it was Bush I in 1988 and he won by a landslide. Gallup hasn’t been wrong very often and all the polls that show it as a close race - RCP in particular - are way off! That’s just my view since their predictive model is pure garbage. Today’s numbers in CO show that the state polls coming into view confirm Gallup IS correct, as they always lag behind. With 54%, I don’t see Romney loses OH and PA. I say he wins them both. It should hold up after tonight’s debate.
My biggest fear is that R/R get 53% of the vote and somehow lose the electoral vote. It can happen. Bush destroyed Kerry in ‘04 and could have easily lost the election if OH had slipped a few points in Lurches direction.
The worst thing about this is that Nobama would still govern as if he has a mandate just to spite the people. How dare they challenge King Barak?
The popular vote types/sites are still out there but very quiet this cycle....
Wow. Just think of that.
Johnson had put the country in such a state that there were riots in the streets. Major cities were burning, national guard in the streets. Two major public figures had been assassinated, and Johnson had realized his situation was so hopeless that the threw in the towel.
That was the tidal pressure behind Nixon in 1968. And Romney is polling ahead of him, even with the substantially more partisan media/polling environment we have today.
1968 was pre-Watergate, remember. The “MSM” was nothing like today; it hadn’t yet been taken over by the people who were organizing the riots.
“...Obama recovery stalls under Romney.”
Expect to hear this by December.
PRAISE GOD AND KEEP PRAYING!
I was told this would happen if I voted for Goldwater, darn if they weren't right.
I don't think it's possible with a 53-47 breakdown. A close race that's withing 1 point is a possibility but I don't see that happening.
“We have never weighted polls by party affiliation” - Frank Newport, Editor in Chief of Gallup.
Party affiliation follows the way a person is currently inclined to vote and party affiliation doesn’t drive how someone votes.
“We only ask the person after we have polled them who they currently self-identify with at the end of the poll for informational purposes.”
Somebody explain to me how such a methodology is better and more accurate than the others.
On October 20, in 1992, Gallup had Clinton beating Bush by 13 points. That was down, mind you, from 25 points.
Let's just hope we're not seeing a repeat of this!
Larry Sabato, Crapweasel Extraordinaire, was on Fox this morning saying “the Gallup numbers are completely wrong!”
They showed a clip of a Gallup guy saying their methods are absolutely solid, and of course some people are upset about them because they don’t like what they are seeing, LOL.
The tide has turned.
Watch for the MSM meltdown...
Other than that, Gallup has picked the winner in the presidential election every time since they started back in 1936.
Normally you see a "surge" for the challenger in the final few days, as we saw with Reagan in 1980. For Romney to be 7 points up (as of yesterday), well you can't ask to be in a better position than that.
My wife is concerned, despite the polls,
that 0bama being who he is and who he is backed by,
will simply steal the election.
Weighing by party affiliation is an excellent way of confirming the validity of your sampling technique. The problem is that party registration is verifiable, party affiliation is not.
55% / 45%. I’ve been calling it thusly since mid-summer. I’m just waiting for the numbers to catch up.
When people go into the voting booth, they really have one big choice:
“Do I want for more years of this?”
And the answer will be a resounding “NO!”
Life in America sucks worse than at any time in post-Depression history. Everyone can feel it. We want the awful 0bama years behind us.
We could have run a real conservative and won 55% / 45%.
Clinton got 43% on Election Day - got 3+ over the last poll in October 1992. Romney will be up by 2+ over this poll on Election Day. If Obama melts down tonight, NJ, MI, WA and OR could come into play but I don’t expect that to happen.
All Romney needs to do put in a good performance tonight and the rest will take care of itself.
This is what beat Goldwater, the ad that changed the course of History..
When the world saw it, it was over! I hate to say it, but I think we just might see an updated version of this if Romney doesn’t see the TRAP tonight.. The only trick Obama has is FEAR.. The FEAR OF WAR..
What would Romney do with Iran, Israel, the fear of Syria, etc.. This is why Obama stalled before identifying the reason for the attack, HE NEEDED TO BE SURE! Thank God we had a steady hand at the helm! I hope I’m wrong, BUT.... ?
That won’t happen. The recovery begins the day Romney is elected especially if he gets a Republican Senate. The recovery will begin with a surge as job creators feel a massive weight lifted off their shoulders.
Imagine what our nation would be like if it had more papers like the Washington Times.
Too bad some of those rich guys Obama likes to slam don’t buy up the major papers and switch the tone.
Not to mention...
The country has grown more libtarded since then.
What was Sabato’s reasoning for saying Gallup is completely wrong?
People on the DU say the same thing about Romney.
It’s all nonsense both ways.
The GOP hasnt had a clear-cut election night win since 1988. We just aren’t used to winning, so when it looks like it, some get worried.
I think it would be fitting if in honor if McGovern death if Obamas electoral map is worse than McGoverns
Not to going to happen. A GOP presidential candidate today is not going to beat RR’s popular vote percentage and EV record and the Mittser is no RR. But he’s in the sweet spot. Just where you want to be two weeks out from the election.
Not to worry: I believe it very likely that Obama is going to top out at 43% of the vote.
“My biggest fear is that R/R get 53% of the vote and somehow lose the electoral vote. It can happen. Bush destroyed Kerry in 04 and could have easily lost the election if OH had slipped a few points in Lurches direction.”
Actually, the final total in 2004 was 51-48 Bush, and he carried OH by 126,000 votes, which was by roughly the same margin as the national poll. I wouldn’t worry about a scenario of getting 53% and losing — that, while possible, is nearly impossible, certainly nothing to lose any sleep over.
There really wasn't any, other than saying that such a split was laughable. A glance at some of his tweets reveals that he doesn't know WHY that could be, only that it's his personal feeling that millions don't shift their votes so easily. What he is missing is the fact that, up until very recently, the polls were designed to INFLUENCE opinion, not reflect it.
He’s wrong. All the other polls are in line with Gallup. If Romney wins independents by around 10 pts as all the polls are showing, he wins by the popular vote by 7-10 pts. Sabato is a Dem hack and is in denial.
I agree that Romney is the likely winner, and potentially by a surprising margin. I was only noting that the assertion of the author - that Romney’s tracking numbers are the nest since 1968 - was wrong. IN fact, it is laughably, miserably, astonishingly wrong.
That famous mushroom cloud ad created lots of talk but had little effect on the election and may had helped Goldwater. After all, the polls were showing that he would might lose his home state of Arizona. But Barry carried Arizona.
In Alabama when one mentions the ‘64 landslide it refers to how great the Goldwater margin was. His coattails swept in a slate of Republican Congressman in the then solid Dem South.
Goldwater said that the main factor in his defeat was that the country did not want a third prez within a year and a half and the sentimental JFK legacy in LBJ’s hands was strong.
Sabato says Gallup was wrong because Gallup disagrees with what - and I’m paraphrasing here - everyone knows will happen.
Like all things liberal, they have to have an air of inevitability to them. Their logic and approach is the very definition of “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes”
Haven’t the democrats been pushing that popular vote thing where some states have said they will pledge their Delegates to the winner of the national popular vote.
We gotta win beyond the margin of lawyer.
The same people who could not believe the whitewashing we put on the Dems in the 2010 midterms will be stunned - STUNNED - when Romney demolishes Obama. It’s like they are forcing themselves to not see it coming.
Yes they have and they will continue to do so as long as it benefits them
"What was Sabatos reasoning for saying Gallup is completely wrong?"
There really wasn't any, other than saying such a split was laughable. A glance at some of his tweets reveals that he doesn't know WHY that could be, only that it's his personal feeling that millions don't shift their votes so easily. What he is missing is the fact that, up until very recently, the polls were designed to INFLUENCE opinion, not reflect it. Now Rush is saying Reuters is using the same "reasoning" as Sabato to try and discredit Gallup.
You bet your sweet Obama he is. ;)
The question if what will conservatives do if obama wins by a tenth of a per cent? Will they riot if it’s obviously voter fraud?
Gallup's methodology is fine at the national level.
Rasmussen's partisan weighting methodology is fine, too, though slower to catch trends.
On the state level, strong campaign organizations can turn unlikely voters into likely voters (and use ads to demotivate voters favorable to their opponent) and outperform their poll results, but there's a limit to what that can accomplish.
... a.. er.. I was Goldwater for Illinois, Co Chairman.. I/WE saw it much different then your, what? Something that you read on the internet? I don’t want or need an argument, that is not necessary.. I posted something that I lived through, personally, and I posted what I know..
If you disagree, Fine.. Thanks
First of all, where were the votes going to come from, WHEN OHIO MIRRORED THE NATIONAL RESULTS:
The final margin of Bush's Ohio victory was 126,885, just under the population of Dayton (166,179) as Ohio's 7th-largest city. It was a substantial Ohio win by Bush in '04 by any measure.
To illustrate: the number of votes that Kerry lost Ohio by, was greater than the number of votes needed that would have propelled Bush to take WI, PA, MI, and NH in a Reagan-like sweep -- in fact, less than 100,000 votes.
As Teddy Kennedy said: “We will cross that bridge if we get to it.”
|Year||Nominees||Final Poll||Election Results||Deviation|
|2004||George W. Bush||49||50.7||-2|
|John F. Kerry||49||48.3||+1|
|2000||George W. Bush||48||47.9||0|
|Albert Gore, Jr.||46||48.4||-2|
|1996||William J. Clinton||52||49.2||+3|
|H. Ross Perot||7||8.4||-1|
|1992||William J. Clinton||49||43.0||+6|
|H. Ross Perot||14||18.9||-5|
|Walter F. Mondale||41||40.6||0|
|Hubert H. Humphrey||42||42.7||-1|
|1964||Lyndon B. Johnson||64||61.1||+3|
|1960||John F. Kennedy||51||49.7||+1|
|1948||Harry S. Truman||44.5||49.5||-5|
|Thomas E. Dewey||49.5||45.1||-4|
|1944||Franklin D. Roosevelt||51.5||53.4||-2|
|Thomas E. Dewey||48.5||45.9||+3|
|1940||Franklin D. Roosevelt||52||54.7||-3|
|Wendell L. Willkie||48||44.8||+3|
|1936||Franklin D. Roosevelt||55.7||60.8||-5|
|Alfred M. Landon||44.3||36.5||+8|
Oooh, listen to the stuck pig squeal. Because Gallup has unmasked the polling propoganda squad, which puts Sabato out of work -- no one wants him to discuss a blowout election.
RE: Gallup’s methodology is fine at the national level.
Rasmussen’s partisan weighting methodology is fine, too, though slower to catch trends.
That’s why I’d like to see the Mason-Dixon Poll of specific states. They’re probably the best pollsters out there at this point in time at the STATE level.