Intensity of Republican Support for Bush the Highest since Reagan in 1984
Here’s the chart from the Pew poll. Study it and let’s talk:
I mock the polls all the time, particularly the horse race parts, because I have a low opinion of human nature, or a high opinion of ambition and self-interest: take your pick. The pollsters are in business with a product to sell, and truth is at best a by product. But having said that, the internals are almost always fascinating, revealing, and loaded with truth.
This chart says the following:
– no candidate has ever lost with strong supporter intensity greater than 35%, and Bush has 39%
– Bush’s strong support is the highest since Reagan in 1984
– the other elections in which strong support was 39-42% were landslides
– the 32% strong support attributed to Kerry is more properly ABB (anybody but Bush)
So it appears likely that Bush will win, as all the polls have shown for a long time. However, there are some other important elements of the numbers to note. (1) Kerry’s strong support of 32% shows that the anti-Bush sentiment is incredible and not likely to evaporate; (2) Bush’s soft support of 9% is very low by historical standards and is another perspective on the extent of the electorate’s polarization; (3) there is fade in the soft support numbers, which will affect both Bush and Kerry.
On the last point, I note the following: Johnson’s projected 64% turned out to be 61% on election day; likewise, Bill Clinton in 1996 got only 49% versus the forecast 52% — they were Democrats. Reagan got 59% versus 57% forecast in 1984; Bush 41 got 53% versus 53% forecast in 1988; Nixon delivered his 61% forecast in 1972 — they were Republicans. Therefore we ask: do polls tend to overrate Democrats and underrate, or fairly rate, Republicans? So perhaps we should expect to see better numbers for George Bush 43 on this basis alone. Or not.
Second, this is the only election since 1960 with both candidates’ strong support in the 30′s. The Kennedy/Nixon election had Nixon with 35% strong support versus 33% for Kennedy. Nixon lost, but had the higher intensity of support. This statistic would only acquire meaning in the context of a defeat for Bush, since Nixon lost and returned to win in 1968.
Conclusion
The easy conclusion is that George Bush is likely to win, but that the election will be fairly close, on the order of 52%, 47%, 1% — give or take. The more profound conclusion is that we have a major cultural problem in this country that needs to be corrected.
The Mainstream Media have conducted a campaign against George Bush based on lies, cover-ups, and a virtually total abdication of professionalism on major issues. These range from the SwiftBoatVets through Rathergate, to Deep QaQaa, and many other offenses including, crucially, the airbrushing of our enemies and their atrocities. Reagan certainly had his problems with the MSM, but, in this observer’s view, the relentless equation of Iraq and Vietnam — Abu Ghraib/My Lai, Fallujah/Tet, etc. — has created the low 9% level of soft support for President Bush. George McGovern would have been eviscerated by the liberal media of that time, had he accused his fellow WWII veterans of being war criminals. Not so today, when the executive and editorial offices of the Mainstream Media are staffed by Vietnam draft dodgers.
I’ll have much more to say on this after the election.
UPDATE
Having just read Powerline, I think much of the Mainstream Media is engaging in appalling behavior. CBS 60 Minutes has been looking for stories that undermine our resolve in a time of war. Powerline notes a similar request. If we are serious about war, we have to be serious about such behavior. So far we have treated it as a parlor game.
Beldar has a list of journalists who have tried to do their jobs.