Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Presidential Poll History
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | September 10, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 09/10/2012 1:23:17 PM PDT by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's some polling data from October 24-26, 1980, 'cause I heard Brit Hume today say... By the way, folks, on this whole business of you being despondent and depressed... I don't know how many of you are, but I'm telling you: The conservative media out there need the vapors. They're about ready to toss it in. You know, they live in this media bubble. They live and work in it, and consider themselves part of it, and they're totally freaked out. They believe every poll that comes out.

To the extent that you read them and access them, I'm just want to warn you: You're gonna be hit with fatalism like you haven't seen before. For example, Hume said on Fox this morning, "Well, you gotta keep in mind that the candidate who is ahead in the polls in mid-September rarely loses." Well, does anybody remember Carter and Reagan? It wasn't until the week before the election that the polls started showing the truth of that election. An October 24th, 25th, 26th 1980 Gallup poll had Carter leading Reagan by three among likely voters; eight points among registered voters.

Reagan ends up winning by ten percentage points.

o Gallup was off by 13 to 18 points just a week and a half before the election -- two weeks -- which shows me how much Gallup wanted Reagan to lose. Incumbent Democrat presidents usually aren't reelected. Do you know Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president to be reelected since FDR? Did you know that? Now, you might want to count LBJ being reelected as JFK's second term, but there obviously were mitigating, extenuating circumstances there. LBJ did not run for a second term. He quit.

(impression) "I will not seek, and I shall not accept, the nomination of my party to be yo' president. Lady Bird and I would rather go back t'Texas and kick the beagles." Incumbent Democrats are usually not reelected. Clinton in 1996, if it weren't for Perot, who knows? Remember the Scott Walker situation in Wisconsin? What were they saying about the Scott Walker recall election against Tom Barrett before the election?

If you remember, they were saying, "This is too close to call. It could be that Walker's gonna lose the recall." They were all -- all of them in the Drive-By Media -- talking about this. Yet Walker won with 53% of the vote. The Loser, Michael Dukakis, had a 17-point lead over George H. W. Bush in 1988 after the Democrat National Convention.

On July 26th, 1988, the New York Times said, "This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by Gallup. Telephone interviews took place July 21st," which was the last night of the convention. Fifty-five percent said they preferred to see Dukakis win. Thirty-eight percent said Bush.

They had Dukakis up 17 points; Bush ended up winning by eight.

Jimmy Carter led Reagan by four points after his convention in 1980.

If there's precedent here, it's not on Obama's side.

END TRANSCRIPT


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls

1 posted on 09/10/2012 1:23:21 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I remember plans for the Dukakis Inauguration were well underway when the tank photo hit.


2 posted on 09/10/2012 1:30:13 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Thanks, Kas.


3 posted on 09/10/2012 1:34:52 PM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Thanks for adding some sanity to the web site, today. I've got something else to discuss and I haven't been able to find a single thread that was serious enough to discuss it. When I am doing research on Yahoo, I am getting messages that I do not have permission to visit this or that (National Review Onlne) web site on this server. So, then I went back and clicked on cashed and the web site came up, but then it disappeared with the same message, with the added caveat that if I insisted on visiting the web site, I was doing it at my own risk. That was the second time, in a week that I had gotten that message. I don't remember the first web site. I just finished reading Brad Thor's book, The Black List, and this sounds like something right out of that book. Has anyone had a similar experience?
4 posted on 09/10/2012 1:41:26 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

for later


5 posted on 09/10/2012 1:45:37 PM PDT by Doctor 2Brains (If the government were Paris Hilton, it could not score a free drink in a bar full of lonely sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I am not experiencing this problem. You probably picked up malware or something.


6 posted on 09/10/2012 1:52:03 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I still have this curious little observation about presidents elected in the 8th year of a decade that I think will play out this year.

Eve since 1888, no president elected in a year ending in 8 has ever won reelection, or finished their 2nd term in the case of Nixon.

1868* Grant (Honestly the only thing that saved him was Reconstruction and his history in the Union Army)

1888 Benjamin Harrison - Lost in 1892

1898 William McKinley - Didnt live to run again.

1908 Taft - Lost in 1912.

1928 Hoover - Lost in 1932.

Truman 1948 - So unpopular he didnt run again.

Nixon 1968 - Did win in 1972 didnt finish his 2nd term.

G HW Bush 1988 - Lost in 1992.

Obama 2008 - Loses in 2012


7 posted on 09/10/2012 1:55:09 PM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I would like it if people would stop with the 1980 comparisons, for the following reason: John Anderson was polling huge-—21%-—at this point in the 1980 campaign. What happened was that all those liberal/moderate Republicans he was appealing to came to Reagan. (All but 6%) So that made up a massive amount of Reagan’s comeback. There is no third party candidate this time around.

That said, I still think the polls are badly oversampling Dems and that Romney is slightly ahead in a “real world” sample. When you factor in turnout models, my prediction of 310 still stands.


8 posted on 09/10/2012 1:55:56 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

What kind of malware? I’m using a MAC.


9 posted on 09/10/2012 1:58:49 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LS
LS,

We moved to Georgia a year ago from Ohio. My family and friends are in Northeast Ohio and I have asked them whats going on there this election cycle...since none of them are political junkies like us, the answers have been pretty vague. Good news is they are all voting Romney.

Anyhow, what are you seeing in your area of Ohio, if you don't mind sharing....

10 posted on 09/10/2012 2:05:09 PM PDT by thingumbob (I'm a bitter clinger...I dare you to take my gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eva

You call your son to git over there and fix your computer. That’s all I know about fixing Apple computers! :)


11 posted on 09/10/2012 2:07:09 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LS; Kaslin
The ONLY polls that matters are those of "Likely Voters." The first question any honest pollster should ask is "Are you planning to vote in this year's election." If the person on the other end of the line answers "yes," the reality is that he or she may end up voting. If the person anwers no, the pollster should hang up immediately.

This is not rocket sience. The Eagles are a pretty good team with Micheal Vick at quarterback. If he is not in the game, his production is irrelevant.

12 posted on 09/10/2012 2:29:41 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LS; Kaslin

And one more thing:

Whether we get the 2008 turnout the Obamas are hoping for, or something more like 2004 (which was 55% as opposed to 57%), the reality is that slightly more than half of the people a pollster contacts will actually be voting in this year’s election. In 2000, 51% of eligible voters actually showed up. A repeat of that can be summed up in two words: President Romney.


13 posted on 09/10/2012 2:36:47 PM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thingumbob
I'm seeing not huge enthusiasm for Romney. I'm also seeing extreme dislike of Obama, even from former supporters. Now, that said, the Romney ground game has been focused on calling, calling, calling. They are just now starting to walk. I think they took Rove's 04 campaign and doubled it. My county made 85,000 calls last month alone---a national record. My friend in SE OH/NW W VA says that the sentiment is strongly anti-Obama there even among union people.

So Romney probably won't have the "Palin love" but it still may translate into a lot more votes.

14 posted on 09/10/2012 2:56:26 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LS
A lot of my friends had differing opinions about who they wanted in the primary ....but now that it's all settled for Romney they and just about every family member they have are in the "Anybody But Obozo" column.

.....most of them voted for Gingrich and you know how close that was for Romney in Ohio. So I'd say the "ABO" column is about as much loyalty as Romney can expect from them, although they were beyond ecstatic with the Ryan pick.

15 posted on 09/10/2012 3:07:04 PM PDT by thingumbob (I'm a bitter clinger...I dare you to take my gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Incumbent Democrat presidents usually aren’t reelected. Do you know Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president to be reelected since FDR?”

Only two ran for re-election, Carter and Clinton. So they’re 1 for 2 when they run, which isn’t much of a sample to go off of.

All incumbents have either lost or won by a greater margin when re-elected than when they were first elected. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first to win by a lesser margin (baring some unforeseen disaster whereby he wins by more then 7%).


16 posted on 09/10/2012 3:25:12 PM PDT by TomEwall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson