Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
EARLY POLL SIGNIFICANCE (IF ANY)
National polls as charted here by Real Clear Politics show Barack Obama holding a consistent if small lead in head-to-head pairings against John McCain. In the 19 most current polls going back to the beginning of May, Obama was ahead in 18 and tied in the 19th. Going further back to the beginning of April he led in 29 polls, was tied in five, with McCain leading in just three.
Four caveats, all but one of which merit caution for Democrats:
- It’s early. Mike Dukakis was crushing George H. W. Bush in the early summer of 1992 and we all know how that turned out.
- Though lately he does seem to be gaining some distance in the aftermath of his primary victory, Obama’s leads are often within the margin of error
- There may be a social desirability effect here in which respondents are telling pollsters they are voting for Obama when they ultimately will not.
- Finally, and this may work against McCain, these are head-to-head matchups that ignore the possibility of former Republican congressman-turned-Libertarian-agitator Bob Barr or former Libertarian-turned-Republican-agitator Ron Paul skimming off the top of McCain’s totals.
Still, overall, Obama is in good shape for early June.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (12)
"It’s early. Mike Dukakis was crushing George H. W. Bush in the early summer of 1992 and we all know how that turned out. "
I could see a lot of voters regretted voting for Bush Sr., but I don't think the Duke was a declared candidate in 92.
Posted by: am | June 12, 2008 2:58 PM
"Mike Dukakis was crushing George H. W. Bush in the early summer of 1992 and we all know how that turned out."
1988--right?
Posted by: David in Nashville | June 12, 2008 2:59 PM
Yeah, that famous Bush victory over Dukakis in 1992. Goes along with Dole's victory over Clinton in 2000.
Posted by: Total | June 12, 2008 3:46 PM
Tom, as to point 3, the fact that Rasmussen polls (computerized) are showing the same numbers gives some hope against the Bradley effect.
Also, as to point one, don't you think people are a lot more aware of the candidates and their positions at this stage than they were in 1988?
Posted by: joel w | June 12, 2008 3:55 PM
Is this really good news for Obama? With Bush's dismal approval ratings and polls showing the country is on the wrong track, Obama should be crushing McCain now.
Posted by: CMR | June 12, 2008 4:07 PM
I could see a lot of voters regretted voting for Bush Sr., but I don't think the Duke was a declared candidate in 92.
Yeah, I remember a Johnny Carson joke from when he was considering running again. "He's already working on his concession speech."
Posted by: Dilan Esper | June 12, 2008 4:12 PM
Beyond the national polls, various state are confirming the trend, now showing him leading in all the key states Gore and Kerry carried, including all the big Midwestern states except Indiana, plus Ohio and Iowa and New Mexico(which Kerry lost). The Northeast down to the Potomac looks secure, as does the West Coast. Additionally, Obama is also running surprisingly well in North Carolina (two points down in poll out today) and Virginia (tied). Louisiana and Mississippi are also not slam dunks for McCain, perhaps reflecting the memories of Katrina. And Florida is tightening, as well.
Posted by: Edward Furey | June 12, 2008 4:23 PM
With Bush's dismal approval ratings and polls showing the country is on the wrong track, Obama should be crushing McCain now.
Exactly.
And Dukakis was up 14 points in California that same year (1988, that is).
That was back when polls were somewhat reliable, though, which they haven't yet been.
Posted by: Cal | June 12, 2008 4:54 PM
Cal, piss off. You're a troll and a Republican hack.
Posted by: T. Paine | June 12, 2008 5:16 PM
National polls as charted here by Real Clear Politics show Barack Obama holding a consistent if small lead in head-to-head pairings against John McCain.
With Bush's dismal approval ratings and polls showing the country is on the wrong track, Obama should be crushing McCain now.
McCain has been hamstrung for money. Barack has not. Barack has spent about 250 million to date....McCain less than 90 million.
One would think that Barack would do better. If McCain had as much money, he would trounce BTMN.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2008 5:22 PM
And none of this means anything, since we elect presidents via the Electoral College, not by popular vote. Regardless of the meaningless overall numbers, Obama has real EC problems, which the McCain campaign hopes to exploit (they're already quietly admitting that they think they may well lose the popular vote, but still feel they can win the EC). Why does the press make such a big deal about the popular vote polls, when the popular vote is essentially meaningless?
Posted by: beckya57 | June 15, 2008 3:00 PM
rolex replica rolex replica
Posted by: replica rolex | December 19, 2009 11:29 AM