BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead over George Bush!

by Pat Flatley, Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST

Since projecting Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. based on today's numbers is all the rage, it might be helpful to reflect on the fact that presidential polls predict nothing in late July, much less in May.

Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll

Published: July 26, 1988

LEAD: In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Read the rest here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=940DEFD7113EF935A15754C0A96E94826 0

The basic point is that anyone referencing presidential polling in May as an argument towards "electability" is either being dishonest or hasn't the slightest idea what they're talking about.  The only value of these polls is to help candidates choose where to spend their time in their general election campaign.  That's it.




Tags: Michael Dukakis, George Bush, electability, presidential polling (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 29 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Sorry. Reality doesn't fly too well around these parts. But nice try.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:50:19 AM EST

Polls taken in between conventions (none / 0)

are worthless.

Mondale only trailed Reagan by 3 in '84 out of the convention.  Clinton lead Bush in '92 by 20+.

If you want a comparable poll from 1988, Dukakis lead 50-39 in a Time Poll taken on April 21st.  This looked like an outlier, though, most polling showed the race tied in the spring.


by fladem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:54:25 AM EST

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Finally! Some historical perspective!

Dukakis was doing really well with white, working-class voters after beating Jesse Jackson in 1988.

Then, a funny thing happened.

Those voters came home to the Republican party...


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

That's a great point. He held on to the educated wealthy elite and the AA vote in the general.  And we clearly know how well that worked.


by nyarch on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Incorrect actually.

Bush I won  almost 20% of the AA vote in 1988 - a year in which turnout was severely depressed, in particular among minority groups.

Dukakis didn't lose the poor white vote because he "held on" to anybody.

The truth is that his "support" among white voters in June of 1988 was a false level of support...these voters had yet to get out of primary mode and compare him to the Republican alternative, whom they preferred.

Just like Clinton's support among KY/WV whites is false support now.


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

NOt entirely true here either. Dukakis got close to 90% of the black vote. 20% I believe was a goal set by Lee Atwater AFTER this election. A goal that they have yet to achieve.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a funny thing happened (none / 0)

the forerunners of today's Republican media machine let loose with "Willie Horton" - and somewhere in there the poor guy took a ride in a tank - that balloon sank so fast ... We have this scenario ahead of us this summer regardless which candidate is chosen, so why not choose the one that at least knows what to do once she gets there.


by pan230oh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a funny thing happened (none / 0)

Agreed.

Regardless of who we nominate we ought to be wary.


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a funny thing happened (none / 0)

Wait, sorry, I didn't read the last sentence of that comment clearly.

My response to this is fairly simple...basically I have no assurance that, having run a semi-incompotent campaign for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Clinton will run a masterful campaign for the White House.


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a funny thing happened (none / 0)

Actually, fwiw, it was Al Gore who first used Willy Horton in the primary campaign against Dukakis.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Folks, it's not just the poll numbers, but the numbers right now are more reflective of the demography of states than anything else, and THAT is what shows, definitely, why Barack Obama is WEAK in OH, PA, FL, and even some strongholds like CA and MA.

By nominating BO, we make our party less appealing to women, blue collar whites, and hispanics, and we have an opponent with the opportunity to make serious inroads to those constituencies.

Things can change, but the facts on the ground right now still mean something.  (That's right, that Hillary is the better candidate to beat McCain, who's already running ahead of the GOP brand.)


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM EST

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Why did we waste all that time and money on primaries?  Why didn't we just keep our powder dry, hang out until May, and pick our nominee based on May general election polls?


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (2.00 / 1)

We figured out something from the primaries.  We figured out that our primary system isn't designed to alone handle a race this close.

This is by far the largest involvement in the primary that we've seen to date.  Nowhere near the 35 million people that participated in this Democratic primary have ever participated in a Democratic primary before.  In 2004, really, Howard Dean quit the race before he even received 1,000,000 votes.  John Edwards' total number of votes received in 2004 didn't even break 4,000,000.

Barack Obama's delegate lead is tiny.  Tiny, tiny, tiny.  He leads by less than 200 delegates out of over 4,000 available.  Candidates like Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart went to the convention without as strong of a case as HRC.  HRC leads in the popular vote, and will have the popular vote in her corner by the time everything is said and done.  (Just a few months ago, when we were talking about this thing going to the superdelegates and even Denver, the MSM loved to say HRC would have a case if she won the PV...now, not so much).

This is an exceptional primary.  It is exceptionally close.  We have never seen, in the Democratic Party, a primary that has played itself out the way this one has.  To claim that the Presidential primary system is designed to interpret the will of the people is BS.  By design, it obscures the will of the people.  When we have President John McCain in the White House, I don't think Democrats will be standing around saying "Well, thank GOD we used that delegate system to select our nominee!"


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Technically, Jackson dropped out of the primary before the convention.

He only stayed in the race toward the end in order to negotiate with Harold Ickes over the creation of the new proportional delegate system.

And while Hart did stay in the race until a few days before the convention, it was only because Mondale did not have a majority of delegates as Superdelegates were still making up their minds.

So if Sen. Obama reaches a majority of pledged and superdelegates, there will be no precedent for Sen. Clinton to continue on until the convention.


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

2210 :-).  We'll see if he can make it there...he cannot without Superdelegates.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

I'm not certain if 2210 will indeed by the number as I await some sort of compromise on Michigan and Florida. Until that compromise is agreed upon the magic number is 2025.

To get there he'll need the help of somewhere between 70 and 90 superdelegates...not sure how that number will be affected by a potential MI/FL compromise.

But yes, we'll see if he can make it down the home stretch... : )


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

I am fairly sure that the DNC will make sure Barack Obama doesn't receive 2,026 delegates before May 31st so that it can avoid that trainwreck. At least I would if I were Howie Dean.

It'll be over when it's over, guys.  We promise :-).


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Oh, I'm fairly certain as well that Obama will need at least the first week in June to get to the right number of delegates.

The question in my mind is merely what the exact figures of the compromise will be, and how the compromise will affect the number of remaining delegates he needs. A more pro-Clinton compromise may delay the process until late June, while a more pro-Obama compromise may lead to a near-immediate exit.


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

It'll only be President McCain if people choose to make it so by not voting for Obama in the fall. And comments like "Obama can't win" when he is the presumptive nominee by every metric are not helpful.

Nothing more, nothing less.


by Yalin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

While I disagree with your analysis, I appreciate the tone of your responses in this thread.

Can you explain the math - and the logic underlying the math - that would give Hillary Clinton a popular vote lead at this juncture in the race?  Thanks.


by Pat Flatley on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

State-certified vote totals and tallies from every contest.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

I'd appreciate a much more specific breakdown, state-by-state and the formula from which you've derived the caucus totals.  Also, what formula are you using for Michigan?  Are you doing a demographic comparison to other states and apportioning votes that way?  I need specifics on this, obviously.

Also, this obviously implies that the popular vote is a metric by which this contest should be judged, whereas most of us would acknowledge that this isn't true.  If the popular vote were the metric then the campaigns would have strategized completely different.  They would've been focused on running up the score in highly populated areas, rather than specifically targeting districts where delegates could be picked off.  The popular vote argument is strictly a political one that attempts an emotional appeal back to Florida and Al Gore in 2000.  That's fine, but let's at least tell it like it is.


by Pat Flatley on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Clinton would have her strengths, but Obama has his as well: everywhere from the Great Lakes to the Pacific.  BTW, we shouldn't really worry about CA, MA, or even PA for the general election with either candidate, but Obama is now running better than Clinton in most polls out of California.


by CA Pol Junkie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (2.00 / 1)

The issue with this claim is that both you and I know that Obama is playing defense, not offense, in the Great Lakes and Pacific NW.  Furthermore, the electoral votes of Obama's "battleground" states add up to a an Electoral Vote total far less than that of HRC.

If even John Kerry needed to fight for PA, you can bet Barack Obama will need to as well.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Obama is crushing McCain by absurd numbers in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and New Mexico (odd, since Hillary narrowly won there...).

Additionally, polls have Clinton in danger of losing Wisconsin and Iowa, or flat-out behind in both of those states...and right now both candidates need a boost vs McCain in New Hampshire.

As I argued earlier, I don't think Clinton's support among white voters in current polling is genuine, leading to a question of accuracy of current polling...but even if accurate, your assertion that Obama is on the defensive and Clinton on offense is simply not correct.


by NYMinute on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

Some errors on your thinking.

California: Obama beats Clinton in last SUSA poll49-43 AND Obama does better than Clinton in head to head match-ups in CA

NC and VA are within the MOE of Obama vs McCain
He puts those in play and Clinton doesnot.

He beats McCain in CO and Clinton doesnot

Total electoral,votes are 37

He win's IA and she doesnot total Electoral votes 7

Total 45


by BDM on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING (none / 0)

A relevant point in that snippet is the fact that Dukakis was the Dem nominee, while Bush was only the presumed nominee.  Once Bush was able to focus on his rival instead of the party process, he gained strength.  I see a parallel there.  

To be making electability forecasts based on today's polls will be just as wrong until we select a nominee.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM EST

Re: BREAKING (Gallup): Dukakis takes 17 point lead (none / 0)

The basic point is that anyone referencing presidential polling in May as an argument towards "electability" is either being dishonest or hasn't the slightest idea what they're talking about.  

Hanlon's razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. "


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM EST

so what you're saying is... (none / 0)

...that Clinton's electablity is based on something unmeasureable (truthiness maybe?).  clearly losing the most contests, trailing in delegates and getting crushed in the national polls means YOUR WINNING!   Her lead in popular vote is debatable at best (less than 1%), based on FL&MI which PREVENTED both candidates from campagning, leaving the results up to name recognition.  If this is a campaign about name recognition we could've saved a whole lot of money by handing the nomination to clinton.  if she can truly believe that those results would be the same w/campaigning she is off her rocker.  

EPIC FAIL WITH THIS BLOG.


by brettjay on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM 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.

Login
Username:

Password: