Harris Poll 8/19/04: Bush and Kerry Neck and Neck

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Harris Poll has historically been the most accurate, because they poll people who plan to vote (as opposed to random subjects), and their methodology has been consistent for decades.

The results are interesting, and here's a taste:

The presidential election is still very close. Neither President George W. Bush nor Senator John Kerry is campaigning hard, but neither has found a way to pull ahead. In the latest Harris Poll, the two candidates are tied 47 to 47 percent among likely voters. The only Harris Poll to find either candidate to have a clear lead was in June, when a poll taken shortly after President Ronald Reagan?s death reported a ten-point Bush lead. We believed (and reported) this to be a blip caused by the good feeling surrounding the memories of the popular Republican president and President Bush?s success in associating himself with the public?s good feelings about him.

Another indicator of how close the presidential race is now (which does not necessarily mean it will be close in November) is that President Bush?s latest job ratings (48% positive, 51% negative) are worse than the equivalent ratings of recent presidents who were re-elected for a second term (Clinton, Reagan, Nixon) but better than those of his father President George H.W. Bush and President Carter, who both failed to win re-election, at this time in their campaigns for re-election.

However, in August 1976, President Gerald Ford?s ratings (48% positive, 45% negative) were slightly better than President Bush?s current ratings, and he went on to lose a very close election to Jimmy Carter that November.

See more detailed info here.

 

[DealMonkey]

With numbers this close, I wonder how many states will have mandatory recounts?

<shivers>

Thank god we will have UN election observers in place.

 

[arsbanned]

The depressing thing is that his numbers are that high. *shakes head*

 

[UltraQuiet]

It'll be interesting to see if the President gets a "bump" after the RNC. Most polls show Kerry didn't get much of one which was atributedto the low number of undecided voters. I tend to agree with that analysis but we'll see if the post RNC numbers bear that out.


Edit: Why are Bill Frist's numbers so low?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The depressing thing is that his numbers are that high. *shakes head*

No kidding.

Amazing how many brain-dead people there are in this country.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The depressing thing is that his numbers are that high. *shakes head*

Perhaps we need to get the boys from the Alabama ANG on the talk show circuit to stomp down those numbers a bit.

:evil:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: arsbanned
The depressing thing is that his numbers are that high. *shakes head*

No kidding.

Amazing how many brain-dead people there are in this country.

Dont ya just love how liberals(yes i know you claim to be republican), think those that disagree with them are brain dead.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Dont ya just love how liberals(yes i know you claim to be republican), think those that disagree with them are brain dead.

That got me thinking. There are gay Republicans (i.e. the Log Cabin Republicans) ... does that mean it's possible there are liberal Republicans? I guess it's a possibility. Certainly there are socially liberal Rs -- Ah-nuld comes to mind. Eh, I dunno, just something to ponder I guess.

 

[chess9]

One of my friends just told me at dinner that GW is the first President he's ever trusted! I almost wet myself. Of course, the guy's 82 and getting senile (but still a great guy). With 9 at the table we had 5 Dems and 4 Republicans. Of course, that's actually pretty surprising given the demographics of the group.

Yeah, this is going to be a squeeker again. I see I'll have to be hammering the keys here on election night like I did 4 years ago. Wasn't that a hoot!

-Robert

 

[Vadatajs]

Wow that harris site is riddled with typos. Hopefully, their polling technique is more solid.

Journalists often describe a close race, where a poll shows a small gapbetween two candidates as a "statistical dead heat." HarrisInteractive and most other leading firms never use this phrase because webelieve it is misleading. It implies, wrongly, that there is an equalprobability that either candidate is ahead and that (wrongly again) there is nodifference between (say) a two-point lead for one candidate and a two-point leadover the other. The term "a dead heat" should only be used when thepoll shows the candidates to be exactly equal. If one candidate is aheadby even one percentage point, there is a probability (if not a big one) that heor she is actually ahead, so it is wrong to describe this as a "statisticaldead heat."

Bullsh1t, if the gap between the two is less than the margin of error, then it is a statistical dead heat. They have a point if the gap is greater than the margin of error, but considering that the small samples used for these polls are generally not representative of the public at large (despite the fact that they may actually be random samples), because they only poll likely voters; those who voted in the last election.