Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (6779)	11/23/2003 9:14:59 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

Do you ever bother to read what people post to you? I distinctly remember sending this cautionary note on the silliness of tout or relying on early polls. They are meaningless. moore-info.com Moore Associates (a Republican polling firm) provided this historical view: By Hans Kaiser & Bob Moore RE: Presidential Polls, October 2003 As the political season gears up and the poll data starts to fly, we thought it would be helpful to provide you with a little perspective on early presidential polling. While early polling can give some indication of where the candidates are today, it generally has little bearing on where the electorate will be on Election Day. We thought you might be interested in some historical data over the years to show you how these numbers can jump around. The greatest swings can be seen with a candidate we all remember as winning fairly handily in both his races: Ronald Reagan. In January of 1980, Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter 33% to 62%, but by March the race had closed considerably and Reagan eventually won by 10 points. In October of 1983, Walter Mondale actually led the Gipper 50%-44%. As we all know, Reagan ended up winning that race, 59% to 41%. Further evidence that early numbers have little bearing on the eventual outcome of a Presidential race can be seen in the 1988 race between George Bush and Mike Dukakis. While Bush led Dukakis by 12 points (52% to 40%) in April of 1988, by July Bush was trailing 37% to 54%, a swing of 29 points. By November the race had swung back 29 points and Bush eventually won by 8 points. The 1992 race was no different as all three candidates led the field at one point between April and November. In fact, in May of 1992, Ross Perot actually led with 39%, while Bush came in at 31% and Clinton had just 25%. A month earlier, Bush was sitting at 44%, while Clinton had 25% and Perot 24%. However, by July Clinton had pulled ahead and remained there until the end. The point here is that poll numbers today mean little. The candidate who runs against George Bush will need to stand up to intense scrutiny and offer more to the American people than simply “I am not George Bush.” To defeat an incumbent President a candidate needs a disaffected electorate demanding change and a message that will withstand withering attacks. The candidates who are currently savoring favorable poll numbers against President Bush have a very long way to go. ******** AS, your poll "data" is completely meaningless. Let's talk about Kerry's pathetic record of inconsistency and waffling or something that matters. :)