Barone: The depth of the polls explained.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Link

Read it for yourself, long.

...

But there is something else that is curious about the numbers in the polls, when viewed over the whole course of the campaign since John Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination on March 2. Blogger Steven Den Beste has prepared an interesting chart. Den Beste charges that pollsters "deliberately gimmicked" the results, "in hopes of helping Kerry." I don't agree with that at all. But he has made another interesting observation. Eliminating some of the peaks and valleys of the Bush and Kerry percentages in realclearpolitics.com's average of recent polls, Den Beste shows that Bush's percentages have tended to rise over time while Kerry's have risen much less if at all.

He draws the Bush long-term trend line from a low point around 43 percent in May, when the media were full of stories about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, to higher numbers around 45 percent in July and August, then up to the 49 percent level he has reached today. His long-term Kerry trend line runs through the 44 to 45 percent level in the spring to the 45 to 46 percent level in August, after the Democratic National Convention, to the same 45 to 46 percent level of today.

...

Today's polls, if translated into election figures, would produce something like a 51 to 47 percent Bush win. Interestingly, those are the percentages by which Karl Rove's party-building model, William McKinley, beat William Jennings Bryan in 1896. I have a theory—I can't prove it; it's just a theory—that in these polarizing times there are low ceilings on both of our political parties. Both are unacceptable to near majorities of the voters. My theory is that the ceiling on the Democrats is about 51 or 52 percent and the ceiling on the Republicans is a little higher, about 53 or 54 percent.

The theory about the Democrats can be tested by looking at the 1996 and 2000 elections, when the Democrats were the incumbent presidential party in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity—the best posture in which a party can run. Bill Clinton in 1996 won with 49 percent of the vote; if you add in one third of the Perot voters (they were mostly anti-Clinton that year), you get 51 percent. Al Gore in 2000 won 48 percent of the vote; if you add in two thirds of the Nader vote, you get 50 percent. Starting with 1994, Democrats have not won more than 48.5 percent of the popular vote for the House of Representatives; they did that in 1996 and won 48 percent in 1998 and 2000 and 46 percent in 2002. John Kerry, currently averaging 45 percent in today's polls, which would translate into something like 47 percent in an election, is running some distance below the ceiling, in this view.

It's not so easy to test my theory that Republicans have a 53 or 54 percent ceiling. Their best performances in the past decade have been in House elections, 52 percent in 1994 and 51 percent in 2002. George W. Bush is not running this year as an incumbent in a time of apparent peace or, in public perceptions, a time of apparent prosperity. (Actually, the economic numbers are about where they were when Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996, but Old Media consistently report economic news more pessimistically when Republicans hold the White House than when Democrats do.) For Bush to be ahead after the pummeling he has taken from Old Media and from the Democratic-funded 527 organizations' $60 million-plus ad runs is a considerable achievement. But of course running ahead two weeks out is not the same as winning the election. For a definitive assessment of the polls we must wait for the election results.

[TexasTiger 12,969]

Link

Read it for yourself, long.

...

But there is something else that is curious about the numbers in the polls, when viewed over the whole course of the campaign since John Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination on March 2. Blogger Steven Den Beste has prepared an interesting chart. Den Beste charges that pollsters "deliberately gimmicked" the results, "in hopes of helping Kerry." I don't agree with that at all. But he has made another interesting observation. Eliminating some of the peaks and valleys of the Bush and Kerry percentages in realclearpolitics.com's average of recent polls, Den Beste shows that Bush's percentages have tended to rise over time while Kerry's have risen much less if at all.

He draws the Bush long-term trend line from a low point around 43 percent in May, when the media were full of stories about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, to higher numbers around 45 percent in July and August, then up to the 49 percent level he has reached today. His long-term Kerry trend line runs through the 44 to 45 percent level in the spring to the 45 to 46 percent level in August, after the Democratic National Convention, to the same 45 to 46 percent level of today.

...

Today's polls, if translated into election figures, would produce something like a 51 to 47 percent Bush win. Interestingly, those are the percentages by which Karl Rove's party-building model, William McKinley, beat William Jennings Bryan in 1896. I have a theory—I can't prove it; it's just a theory—that in these polarizing times there are low ceilings on both of our political parties. Both are unacceptable to near majorities of the voters. My theory is that the ceiling on the Democrats is about 51 or 52 percent and the ceiling on the Republicans is a little higher, about 53 or 54 percent.

The theory about the Democrats can be tested by looking at the 1996 and 2000 elections, when the Democrats were the incumbent presidential party in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity—the best posture in which a party can run. Bill Clinton in 1996 won with 49 percent of the vote; if you add in one third of the Perot voters (they were mostly anti-Clinton that year), you get 51 percent. Al Gore in 2000 won 48 percent of the vote; if you add in two thirds of the Nader vote, you get 50 percent. Starting with 1994, Democrats have not won more than 48.5 percent of the popular vote for the House of Representatives; they did that in 1996 and won 48 percent in 1998 and 2000 and 46 percent in 2002. John Kerry, currently averaging 45 percent in today's polls, which would translate into something like 47 percent in an election, is running some distance below the ceiling, in this view.

It's not so easy to test my theory that Republicans have a 53 or 54 percent ceiling. Their best performances in the past decade have been in House elections, 52 percent in 1994 and 51 percent in 2002. George W. Bush is not running this year as an incumbent in a time of apparent peace or, in public perceptions, a time of apparent prosperity. (Actually, the economic numbers are about where they were when Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996, but Old Media consistently report economic news more pessimistically when Republicans hold the White House than when Democrats do.) For Bush to be ahead after the pummeling he has taken from Old Media and from the Democratic-funded 527 organizations' $60 million-plus ad runs is a considerable achievement. But of course running ahead two weeks out is not the same as winning the election. For a definitive assessment of the polls we must wait for the election results.

113628[/snapback]

The last time a Republican Presidential candidate topped 50% was in 1988 against a very weak candidate. Four years later that same guy got about 37% of the vote. In fact, 1988 was also the last time a Republican Presidential candidate got more Americans to vote for him. No wonder Barone has a hard time proving his Republican cieling theory. There aren't any recent facts to support it.

[DKW 86 7,433]

The last time a Dem got 50%+ was in 1976?

[TexasTiger 12,969]

The last time a Dem got 50%+ was in 1976?

113638[/snapback]

Yeah, Barone can find facts to support half his theory-- the Dem half, but the 53-54% Republican part is just his partisan speculation.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Barone a Rep? He is as big a Left Hack in the media as it gets.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

The last time a Dem got 50%+ was in 1976?

113638[/snapback]

you know, this is surprising...something i hadn't thought about. didn't reagan get something like 60% in his reelection campaign?

further, 1976 has to be tainted data, given the backlash against Ford due to Watergate.

when, prior to 1976, did a dem get 50%+... not 72, or 68...1964? 40 years? i hope they're not "due".

<<research>>

according to this site, carter squeezed out 50.1% in 1976... and in 1964, Johnson got a whopping 61.1% of the vote...but one must again wonder if that election was tainted by the recent events.

all interesting, but somewhat useless facts, i suppose.

ct

[CarolinaTiger 0]

just as an addendum:

kennedy got less than 50% also. i'm done now...this site shows all the results.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i lied

one last thing:

not since 1944 did a dem get over 50%...save 1964 and 1976...both years with traumatic events that could be viewed as affecting outcomes.

FDR kicked booty in each of his 4 elections, w/ the last one being in 1944. i'm truly done now with this... honest.

ct

[TexasTiger 12,969]

Barone a Rep? He is as big a Left Hack in the media as it gets.

113659[/snapback]

He must disagree with you on a single issue, like immigration. He's a Republican. Left Hacks don't write for Townhall:

     

Townhall.com is the first truly interactive community on the Internet to bring Internet users, conservative public policy organizations, congressional staff, and political activists together under the broad umbrella of "conservative" thoughts, ideas and actions. Townhall.com is a one-stop mall of ideas in which people congregate to exchange, discuss and disseminate the latest news and information from the conservative movement. Townhall.com is committed to inform, educate and empower the public through this emerging electronic medium.

The member organizations and columnists that we have chosen to feature on Townhall.com do not necessarily agree on every issue, yet that is why Townhall.com believes our community is of value. An interactive, open and honest debate of the issues within the conservative community will help us all in the fight against those who would sacrifice the individual and freedom for political gain and big government.

[DKW 86 7,433]

LINK

Michael Barone is Senior Writer, U.S. News & World Report. Barone grew up in Detroit and Birmingham, Michigan. He was graduated from Harvard College (1966) and Yale Law School (1969), and was an editor of the Harvard Crimson and the Yale Law Journal.

Mr. Barone served as Law Clerk to Judge Wade H. McCree, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from 1969 to 1971. From 1974 to 1981 he was a Vice President of the polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates. From 1981 to 1988 he was a mem­ ber of the editorial page staff of the Washington Post. From 1989 to 1996 and again from 1998 to the present, he has been a Senior Writer with U.S. News & World Report. From 1996 to 1998 he was a Senior Staff Editor at Reader's Digest.

Mr. Barone is the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. The first edition appeared in 1971, and the 16th edition, The Almanac of American Politics 2002, appears in August 2001. He is also the author of The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again (Regnery, 2001) and Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan (Free Press, 1990). His essays have appeared in several other books, including Our Harvard and Be­ yond the Godfather. Over the years he has written for many publications, including the Economist, the New York Times, the Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press, the Weekly Standard, the New Republic, National Re­ view, the American Spectator, American Enterprise, the Times Literary Supplement and the Daily Telegraph of London.

Mr. Barone is a regular panelist on the McLaughlin Group, and is a contributor to the Fox News Channel. He has appeared on many other television programs.

Republican? Sure doesnt look that way to me.

Must be a Jew too...