Romney Has Best Gallup Tracking Poll Numbers Since 1968

Washington Times ^ | 10-21-12 | James S. Robbins

[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. Romney’s total is greater than Richard Nixon’s 44% at this point in the race in 1968, Jimmy Carter’s 49% in 1976, Ronald Reagan’s hard to believe 39% in 1980 (Carter was ahead with 45%), George H. W. Bush’s 50% in 1988, and Bill Clinton’s 40% in 1992.

In 2000 and 2008 George W. Bush and Barack Obama both tracked at a within-error 51%.

[Personal Responsibility]

Yes they have and they will continue to do so as long as it benefits them

[CatherineofAragon]

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier; FR has been timing out for me and I couldn't get a post through.

"What was Sabato’s 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.

"He's wrong."

You bet your sweet Obama he is. ;)

[Terry Mross]

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?

[Skulllspitter]

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.

Well put.

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.

[carlo3b]

... 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

[StAnDeliver]

"Bush destroyed Kerry in ‘04 and could have easily lost the election if OH had slipped a few points in Lurches direction."

BS.

First of all, where were the votes going to come from, WHEN OHIO MIRRORED THE NATIONAL RESULTS:

2004 National	50.7	48.3
2004 Ohio	50.8	48.7

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.

[cgbg]

As Teddy Kennedy said: “We will cross that bridge if we get to it.”

:-)

[SeekAndFind]

FROM GALLUP's OWN WEBSITE :

Election Year Presidential Preferences: Gallup Poll Accuracy Record
1936 - 2008

Year	Nominees	Final Poll	Election Results	Deviation
2008	Barack Obama	55	52.6	-2
	John McCain	44	46.0	+2
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
	Ralph Nader	4	2.7	+1
1996	William J. Clinton	52	49.2	+3
	Robert Dole	41	40.7	0
	H. Ross Perot	7	8.4	-1
1992	William J. Clinton	49	43.0	+6
	George Bush	37	37.4	0
	H. Ross Perot	14	18.9	-5
1988	George Bush	56	53.4	+3
	Michael Dukakis	44	45.6	-2
1984	Ronald Reagan	59	58.8	0
	Walter F. Mondale	41	40.6	0
1980	Ronald Reagan	47	50.7	-4
	Jimmy Carter	44	41.0	+3
	John Anderson	8	6.6	+1
1976	Jimmy Carter	48	50.1	-2
	Gerald Ford	49	48.0	+1
1972	Richard Nixon	62	60.7	+1
	George McGovern	38	37.5	0
1968	Richard Nixon	43	43.4	0
	Hubert H. Humphrey	42	42.7	-1
	George Wallace	15	13.5	+1
1964	Lyndon B. Johnson	64	61.1	+3
	Barry Goldwater	36	38.5	-3
1960	John F. Kennedy	51	49.7	+1
	Richard Nixon	49	49.5	-1
1956	Dwight Eisenhower	59.5	57.4	+2
	Adlai Stevenson	40.5	42.0	-2
1952	Dwight Eisenhower	51	55.1	-4
	Adlai Stevenson	49	44.4	+5
1948	Harry S. Truman	44.5	49.5	-5
	Thomas E. Dewey	49.5	45.1	-4
	Strom Thurmond	4	2.4	+2
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

---

[StAnDeliver]

"Larry Sabato, Crapweasel Extraordinaire, was on Fox this morning saying “the Gallup numbers are completely wrong!"

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.

[SeekAndFind]

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.

[nickcarraway]

How many times has Romney run since 1968? He was running against his father?

[KC_Conspirator]

Sabato lost his credibility with the macaca incident and letting him into his class. VA is most likely strong Romney and this clown cannot even admit it.

[JediJones]

I think that modern media technology has been changing things year after year. Public opinion can now shift in large numbers more rapidly than it ever has before. Word-of-mouth travels faster and more widely than ever before.

This effect is what helped Romney turn the race around since the debates started. As we enter the 2-week post-debate period, this effect can be used against him. He’s not out of the woods yet.

[devolve]

.

- About 12 years ago a certain wise-ass NewsWEAK magazine editor said the liberal slanted media gives a good 15% edge bias to the democrats -

- Today a printed NewsWEAK magazine is extinct - and NewsWEAK will have an a “pay subscription” online website.

- They will be competing with the DRUDGE REPORT and FREE REPUBLIC - both are free for all to surf and browse.

- Today FOX News Channel skunks MSNBC and CNN and the old network trio -

No wonder Obama and his useless Commie idiots hate FNC

.

[lquist1]

“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.”

They have been, but I think only about a combined 175 or so electoral votes worth of states have approved this change so far. They are working though to get to the 270 mark, and I think as usual Republicans are on the defensive here and doing nothing proactive in Red states to make sure this does not happen.

[StAnDeliver]

Undecideds don’t work that way in a Presidential election. In fact, they have been committing in an historically sound way viz the Incumbent Rule this cycle...

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, no wonder...

[RatRipper]

See my new tag line

[JediJones]

Depends what they pull on Romney. We know that Bush Jr. almost lost the election over his DUI in a matter of days. They could bring out something really late against Romney and have it make a big impact quickly.

[for-q-clinton]

But what about states like VA where you don’t have to declare a party nor do you.