MyDD :: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless

Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless

by CAchemist, Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:59:12 AM EST

I think people are a little too happy about Obama's national polling numbers. I am afraid that if we forget the past we are doomed to repeat it.

We must, MUST act as if we are losing.

I was searching for hard evidence to prove my general point that June polls are meaningless when I stumbled into this great WSJ article entitled Beyond The Bounce. The article was written on September 8, 2004.

We should take a look at two important features in the pile of WSJ graphs. First, June polls are not predictive of November success. Second, convention coverage and the inherent bump really, really matters. I didn't remember that John Kerry got absolutely no convention bounce.

The graphs cover back to 1984. I will not repost Reagan/Mondale as it was never, ever close. So without further ado here are tracking poll numbers for 1988-2004 from June to late September.

1988 - In June Dukakis was way up.

1992 - In June Bush was up.

1996 - In June Clinton was up.

2000 - In June Bush was up

2004 - In June it was a dead heat.

Right now Gallup has Obama up.

Its irrelevent!!

Take home message. Pretend we are losing. Pretend we are losing by a lot. The convention matters.

Tags: Obama, McCain, polls, convention (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

We are not winning! (2.00 / 1)

Its halftime and we are winning. Lets go into the third quarter like we aren't.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:00:39 AM EST

Re: We are not winning! (none / 0)

(cough)Lakers(cough)

by TCQuad on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:12:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are not winning! (none / 0)

If Obama is like the Lakers, he should have a really sweet lead until October 20th.

That was some crazy meltdown tonight. I live in LA so am obviously rooting for them, but now I just want them to be put down easy.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are not winning! (none / 0)

I'd refer you to my celebratory post in the open thread... Or the subsequent Yankees bashing post... But I think it's evident who I'm pulling for. On the plus side, I'm a biochemist, so at least we can agree that the sciences is important!

And (to pull this nominally back on topic) McCain and science don't mix.

by TCQuad on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

Good idea.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

So what do you think it will mean that the conventions are literally two days apart? Is that going to kill the GOP's bump? Because you KNOW that the Democratic convention is going to be a killer. Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton. John Edwards. Bill Clinton. Al Gore(?). Michelle Obama. These people are all experienced crowd-killers. When they speak for a week straight, with Obama capping it off with the speech of a lifetime, it's going to be crazy.

Who the hell the Republicans gonna bring out? McCain? Ah-nold? Romney? Lieberman? BUSH?! CHENEY?! Ooh, maybe their secret weapon... Bobby Jindal! He could teach us all about the importance of ramping up the Patriot Act and imprisoning abortion doctors. The only way the GOP will get a bump out of this convention is if Ronald Reagan rises from his grave and brings Jesus Christ back with him.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:32:52 AM EST

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

Yeah, I think this years conventions are really going to be strong contrasts.

McCain is running away from "typical" republicans so I don't know who he will be willing to share the stage with. It should be great.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:22:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's horrible news for McCain. (none / 0)

The conventions are, essentially, a bunch of speeches. This is an area McCain does NOT want to compete with Obama in. And it's bad enough to have to speak AFTER Obama has already spoken, but for it to be so close will only serve to highlight the difference between the two candidates, and not in any way that is favorable to McCain.

by Rhizomorph on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's horrible news for McCain. (none / 0)

Hell, Obama nearly stole the last Dem convention, and he was only the first keynote speaker.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

assuming of course that ron paul supporters don't stage a floor fight, then i just might watch.....for entertainment and history purposes

nevermind that ron paul himself plans on having a seperate convention at least 1 day during the gop event.

I'll be surprised if the GOP gets a bump

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (2.00 / 0)

If pre-convention polls are meaningless I assume you would not mind if McCain were up 20. It would be more accurate to state that pre-convention polls are less predictive of outcomes than post-convention polls. Your graphs show that the pre-convention poll leader in June of 1996, 2000 and 2004 went on to win the election. The graphs are pretty though.

by STUBALL on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:42:00 AM EST

True (none / 0)

Fair enough. I just don't want people to stop working as hard as they are because its already won. It isn't.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:24:40 AM EST

Re: True (none / 0)

oops. This was to stuball.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:25:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

The polling data is a snapshot of opinion at the time. It is only going to be good for 2 things:

1) Eliminating states from consideration in August.
2) Figuring out how big the rift is at convention time (including who and how likely it is to be healed with a Senator Clinton VP).

In both these cases, if the polling data does not come back favorable you know it is time to pull the plug on the project.

For 2 the two unfavorable outcomes for a Clinton VP would be either a completely healed rift or if the 15%-20% has a high percentage of NOvemberists.

The former would indicate Sen. Clinton would no longer be needed and the latter would indicate that she couldn't possibly help with the problem. However, if you have a large percentage of soft irreconcileds, it might make sense to have a Senator Clinton VP.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:12:02 AM EST

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

The question is whether he will attract more Democrats or less. If you look at the polls, Obama loses far more Democrats than McCain does Republicans. That number can dwindle very easily over time as people learn more about the two candidates. More worth noting is simply that all the polls have a fairly substantial undecided vote that could break either way.

I've seen many analysts say that this election is a referendum on Obama, and I think that is correct. The fortunate part is that if he can fight back against the Republican machine, he is more than powerful enough to win an issue-based campaign.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

However, there is an element of triage here. Unless your full of volunteers and cash, you may have to take someone's "Never" as never and advertise/canvas/phonebank elsewhere.

I understand your point completely but as a matter of strategy if you have 5-10 percent of the Democratic electorate as NOvemberists, you need to move on in a hurry and find votes elsewhere (new voters,disaffecteds, etc.) Would you like a huge number? Sure, it makes it easier but at some point you have to contingency plan.

You have to put polls in play that determine what percentage is realistically obtainable and what percentage is NOvermberists. I have no opinion about the composition and want to know that before allocating resources and deciding on a VP.

The campaign should be on a Senator Clinton track and a non-Senator Clinton track.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (none / 0)

Read "you're" for the first "your", I'm exhausted.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Convention National Polls are Meaningless (2.00 / 1)

All this is entirely true. What I don't understand is some of he euphoria over Obama's bounce numbers. Yes he'slightly ahead. He should be miles ahead. A lead of 6% when the Republicans are totally in the tank and 80% of the country says we are going in the wrong direction is nothing to shout about.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:24:35 AM EST

Perspective (none / 0)

From NBC's Mark Murray

In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Obama leads McCain by six points (47%-41%) among registered voters. While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

by jsfox on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:19:14 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.