Why Bush will Win! According to Gallup.

[??????????]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=12970

You must be logged in to read this quote.

{Mr Burns voice} Excellent..

[HennessyXO]

LOL, go ahead and dream on.

[King]

LOL, go ahead and dream on.

Did you book your flight back from another planet yet Hennessey?

[Citizen James]

It misses a few valid points - first,  the conventions are usually long over by Labor day and the bounces have petered out - something that we have to wait a few weeks to confirm.    Second, as many will point out on numerous rules of thumb, history is not destiny.   It used to be said that no republican could lose New Hampshire and win the election.   Mr. Bush lost New Hampshire in 2000 and now occupys the white house.

Remember, two months before the first primaries pundits were claiming Dean would have the nomination in a runnaway.     Of course if you're certain a Bush victory is inevitable, feel free to stop campaigning and take a well deserved rest.   After all if the die is cast, you might as well take it easy.

[The Duke]

It misses a few valid points - first,  the conventions are usually long over by Labor day and the bounces have petered out - something that we have to wait a few weeks to confirm.    Second, as many will point out on numerous rules of thumb, history is not destiny.   It used to be said that no republican could lose New Hampshire and win the election.   Mr. Bush lost New Hampshire in 2000 and now occupys the white house.

Remember, two months before the first primaries pundits were claiming Dean would have the nomination in a runnaway.     Of course if you're certain a Bush victory is inevitable, feel free to stop campaigning and take a well deserved rest.   After all if the die is cast, you might as well take it easy.

Bush won new Hampshire.  Check the 2000 result.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html

[AuH2O]

I think his error pretty much sums up the validity of his input.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I think his error pretty much sums up the validity of his input.

He was right on the fact that usually the conventions were LONG over by Labor Day.  History does NOT make destiny.  I have a feeling Kerry is going to go back to the sensible arguments he made against Bush in the primaries, and really do well in the debates.  Kerry has been a late surger in almost every election he's ever been in as well.  

[Citizen James]

It misses a few valid points - first,  the conventions are usually long over by Labor day and the bounces have petered out - something that we have to wait a few weeks to confirm.    Second, as many will point out on numerous rules of thumb, history is not destiny.   It used to be said that no republican could lose New Hampshire and win the election.   Mr. Bush lost New Hampshire in 2000 and now occupys the white house.

Remember, two months before the first primaries pundits were claiming Dean would have the nomination in a runnaway.     Of course if you're certain a Bush victory is inevitable, feel free to stop campaigning and take a well deserved rest.   After all if the die is cast, you might as well take it easy.

Bush won new Hampshire.  Check the 2000 result.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/index.html

I missed the word primary.  My appologies.

[AuH2O]

Kerry is not a "late surger." He is a vulture.

His reputation is based off 2 elections:

1) 1996, Senate- Three words: William. Jefferson. Clinton.

2) 2003/2004, Democratic Primaries- left for dead as a candidate, only to win Iowa with a good ground game and complete Dean screw-up. The reality is, he didn't come from behind to win the primaries-- he won the very first one and carried his momentum through.

Had Edwards had a little better organization in Iowa, he would be the nominee.

[afleitch]

Kerry is indeed a late-surger, and to go back to Iowa, Dean only screwed up his campaign (and how!) AFTER the results were announced. Kerry was expected to win in New Hampshire anyways, due to geography, after that It was anybodys game. To get back to the point, I just don't trust Gallup, they only seem to get it right where its not possible to get it wrong! People who say 'Gallup predicted Clinton would win in 1996 and Reagan in 1984 because on Labor Day, carry the one, divide by six...blah blah' or words of that affect, should look at themselves and look at the polls again. Bush leading Kerry by 14 points in Missouri!! Come on- at least Zogby gave a more realistic result, yet you all seem to love taking the rip out of them. Gallups name is mud in the UK because they couldn't predict a thing election after election. If the methodology is off, the poll is off, and you scrap it, plain and simple.

[Democratic Hawk]

When Kerry's up against it he comes out fighting - he must focus on his strengths and his opponents weaknesses. He must set his agenda and it looks like he's got his backside into gear.

Dave

[nomorelies]

Republicans had the latest convention ever so they can politicize 9/11 and forget that the man who killed 3,000 people still runs free.

[TheBulldog]

Even the best analysts can be wrong, and gallu is not one of the best analysts

[mddem2004]

States I read their analysis and frankly I came away with the feeling that Kerry is just as likely to win at this as he is to lose.

One thing missing from their analysis IMO is the fact that Bush is a sitting incumbant. I view comparing "open" races to Incumbant races akin to comparing apples and oranges.

That said, I took from their analysis the following:
1) Yes Bush is ahead
2) This plays to the "odds" that Bush will end up the eventual winner, based SOLELY on historical trends.
3) Its not an insurmountable lead by any standard. They give it a better than 50/50 chance to close within a statistical dead heat.

My own take is that this thing will close once again to a statistical dead heat and will be decided solely on two things:
1) Who has the better GOTV machine
2) Events yet to come or events outside both candidates hands will make the final impressions an an electorate that.....
a) Is Split basically 50-50 on Bush's Job Approval.
b) Is Split basically 50-50 on Bush's handling of the economy.
c) Is Split basically 50-50 on whether the Iraq war was the right decision or not.

There are few elections I think that are as vulnerable to last minute events that may decide the election as this one.

[ATFFL]

Kerry got help in Iowa from Gephardt's murder/suicide attacks on Dean.  Gephardt sacrificed his own chances at the nomination in excahgne for killing off Dean's campaign.  This is why I thought he would get teh VP spot, he did more for Kerry than anyone else, possibly including Kerry himself.