« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Comparison of 2008 to 2012; or Chill Out Folks

Many seem to be freaking out because of the current polling numbers. There is no need to get het up about it. Sure I’m annoyed that Romney isn’t 15 points out in front as he would be in a sane world, but what exactly about the last five elections made you think this would not be close?

In 1992 the winner received 43% of the vote.  In 1996 he got 49%. In 2000 he got 48%. In 2004 he got less than 51%. In 2008 he got less than 53%. Look at those numbers and explain to me why you thought this would be easy?

Our nation is very closely divided. Get used to it for a while.

Now about those polling numbers. Yes, some polls are garbage and they are very easy to pick out.  Gallup and Rasmussen are not garbage (and neither is the RCP Average). That doesn’t mean they are without flaws but it does mean they are serious polls that try to get it right. There are a couple other polls I trust but to avoid argument I’ll stick with those two at the moment. In fact let’s look at Gallup specifically.

As of yesterday’s release, September 10th,  Gallup has Obama at 49% and Romney at 44%.

Now let’s jump back four years.

On September 10, 2008 Gallup had President McCain at 48% and Obama at 43%. For ten consecutive days following the GOP Convention in 2008, Gallup had President McCain ahead of Obama, including 6 straight days where the margin was 3 to 5 points, and two days where President McCain hit 49%.

Now can’t everyone see that these post-convention numbers mean virtually nothing? If Obama is still up five points in three weeks that’s another matter. If he’s up five in late October that will not be good. But early September polls aren’t reliable indicators of how November elections will  turn out.

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    President McCain said, the day before Lehman Bros. fell, that Lehman was sound and in good shape. That was 14 September 2008. On that day, he led Obama by the margin you indicate.

    Following Lehman’s demise on September 15, McCain’s numbers went downhill.

    Inquiring minds want to know why McCain made such a statement. Why he didn’t have access to information of Lehman’s impending doom (which was known to the insiders on September 14). Why he was allowed to self-destruct.

    Obama should not and would not have won in 2008. He won only because McCain miraculously self-destructed over Lehman — a completely preventable event.

    • barleycorn

      According to my figures taken from Gallup’s site it went like this:

      9-10 M 48 O 43
      9-11 M 48 O 44
      9-12 M 48 O 45
      9-13 M 47 O 45
      9-14 M 47 O 45
      9-15 M 47 O 45
      9-16 M 47 0 46
      9-17 M 45 O 47
      9-18 M 44 O 48
      9-19 M 44 O 49

      As can be seen, McCain’s lead was dwindling well before the Lehman bankruptcy filing on the 15th.

      I certainly agree that how McCain handled the economic meltdown hastened his demise but I don’t agree that Obama “won only because McCain miraculously self-destructed over Lehman”.

      What I did not mention in my post above was that Obama lead by large margins in the weeks leading up to the GOP convention. In fact on the second day of the Republican Convention Obama lead McCain 50-42.

      McCain’s lead in early September was a classic convention bounce buoyed in large measure by the excitement generated by Sarah Palin. It would have required a far more talented candidate than John McCain to maintain an advantage that large in a horrible Republican year.

      • Viet71

        McCain could have won if GWB had given him the data on Lehman.

        Just that simple.

  • naraht

    In only two of the last 11 elections has the party in the lead two weeks after the Incumbent Convention, not won the election: 2008 and 1980 (when it was a tie two weeks after the convention).