Answering Your Questions: McCain = Gore? (Update)

Reader "Average Joe" asks: "McCain's talking point for today is that they are "roughly" where Al Gore was at this stage of the game in 2000. Is it true ? I am inclined to believe this is true in the national numbers but I guess this misstates completely how much the electoral college situation has gotten out of hand for McCain. Also was Al Gore better positioned financially or did he "come back" on the strength of his last-minute message (or W's driving record) ?

Answer.

Only in a very technical, misleading way could the talking point be considered true.

There was, in fact, a single poll that showed Al Gore roughly 10 points ahead of George W. Bush at this point. Polls throughout October gave Bush a narrow lead. (39 of 43 polls taken in the week before the election gave Bush the lead.)

On 10/24/00, the Gallup tracker had the race tied.  Other polls were all over the map.

Note, that, in 2004, a poll of polls for 10/24 showed roughly where it wound up at, with Bush slightly leading Kerry.

And state-by-state, the margins are way different. Obama's doing much better in 2008 than Al Gore was in 2000 in the battleground states.

So there's no comparison.

Comments

Did you mislabel that or are those actually the Kerry numbers instead of Gore numbers?

Posted by Jeff | October 24, 2008 12:04 PM

Are we talking about Al Gore or John Kerry? You have both names listed -- Gore in the question, Kerry in the column...

Posted by Nick | October 24, 2008 12:04 PM

Marc, your chart compares Bush and Kerry. I think you meant to write "Gore."

Posted by Rob G. | October 24, 2008 12:05 PM

And your link is to 2004, not 2000 stats.

Posted by jesse | October 24, 2008 12:07 PM

No, he didn't mean to write Gore, he meant to copy a completely different chart. Following the link, that chart is indeed Bush-Kerry. Which probably means his commentary is based on Bush-Kerry as well.

Posted by Anon21 | October 24, 2008 12:07 PM

See, this is why I don't want a blog.

Posted by Barbara | October 24, 2008 12:07 PM

Are we at least talking about the same poll? Ignoring all the huge contextual problems, can the statement even be considered literally truthful?

In other words:
- In 2000, Poller X had Bush +10 on 10/24.
AND
- In 2008, Poller X has Obama +10 on 10/24.

Or, as I suspect, they're just saying:
- In 2000, "some" poller had Bush +10 on 10/24.
AND
- In 2008, "some" poller has Obama +10 on 10/24.

Posted by DB Cooper | October 24, 2008 12:08 PM

Thanks a lot for answering my question Marc !

Posted by Average Joe | October 24, 2008 12:13 PM

See, the above comments are why Marc closed comments before - showing up his half-assedness.

His page view count must be in the toilet to reopen them.

Posted by James | October 24, 2008 12:15 PM

Actually James, I closed comments because of the attacks on my weight and sexuality.

I've never hidden my weight - how could I? - and while I don't proclaim my sexuality like Andrew, if anyone asks, I do tell them that I am gay.

Which is why the constant sexual reference offended me - the idea that it is something shameful is a sad concept which is thankfully, dying a death along with racism.

Posted by Marc Ambinder | October 24, 2008 12:20 PM

Here is what I can find from CNN in similar timeframe from 2000.

CNN/TIME POLL
October 25-26
Likely voters' choice for president

Bush 49%

Gore 43

Nader 3

Buchanan 1

Sampling error: +/-3% pts

linky: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/cnntime.poll/index.html

Posted by Kali | October 24, 2008 12:21 PM

Marc,
Here is a link to a poll done on October 27, 2000. I would say that this would be 'roughly' equivalent to where we are now in the horse race between McCain and Obama
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/cnntime.poll/index.html
Notice the margin? Bush was leading Gore by 3. Gore's September lead had vanished.
McCain should not compare himself to Gore, but rather to Reagan, the only nominee in the past 50 years to come from behind late in the race and win.

Posted by Byron Vierk | October 24, 2008 12:21 PM

Relevant answer on the Gore analogy:

That said, the candidate who was ahead in most polls two to three weeks before the election ended up winning every time. (Gore briefly polled better than Bush in 2000, but that was for just one out of the last 21 days. Similarly, Carter polled better than Reagan in 1980, but for only three out of the last 21 days.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/814/

Posted by kevin McNamara | October 24, 2008 12:25 PM

Here is data that is actually relevant to the question:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/tracking.poll/index.html

Posted by skyler | October 24, 2008 12:26 PM

Marc,

Don't let the haters get to you. You're in a no-win situation on the whole balance/fairness issue, as you realize based on your discussion with Sully. Keep up the good work. Little slips like Gore/Kerry are easy to fix and nobody is immune.

Posted by Martin | October 24, 2008 12:27 PM

Here's Charles Franklin's attempt to trace the trends in 2000 and 2004. While Gore was behind up until the election, on average he was on average only about 3 points behind in the last ten days. McCain is currently 8 points behind in the Pollster.com average.

Posted by br | October 24, 2008 12:28 PM

Remind me exactly why McCain wants to be compared to Gore? Because Gore lost by the smallest possible margin (3 Supreme Court votes)?

Are they just hoping for a reasonable loss instead of a shellacking?

Posted by Kali | October 24, 2008 12:30 PM

Also, quit hating on Marc. Just because he enabled comments doesn't mean you are required to be an asshole when he makes a mistake. It's much more productive just to link him to the correct facts.

Posted by br | October 24, 2008 12:30 PM

I can tell you one thing, Barack Obama will crush McCain by alot more than 462 votes... When the margin is shown to be 10M+ Votes, this junk about ACORN is out the door and the GOPers better roll over as a mandate has been created.

Seriously, Bush took 462 votes and created two wars and bankrupted the country... 10M votes = Obama can do whatever the heck he wants to

Posted by Steven R | October 24, 2008 12:34 PM

I'm not an everyday reader, I don't remember anyone anywhere ever criticizing Marc for his sexuality. Maybe I missed them.

I do remember many commenters criticizing Marc's willingness to lend his credibility to all sorts of incredible Republican arguments. Marc has given the Clinton and McCain campaigns the benefit of the doubt long after they proved they could and would exploit him mercilessly.

I always assumed this was why the comments went away.

Posted by Eric | October 24, 2008 12:35 PM

Here is a comprehensive presentation of polling data from 2000:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm

The results are all over the map, but the polling generally did show a modest Bush lead, albeit narrower than Obama's current lead. And unlike this year, there were some polls showing a Gore lead. Here are the results from from 10/25-10/27 (note that the comparison to October 24, 2000 is inapt given that the 2000 election took place three days later in the calendar). The first number is Bush and the second is Kerry:

10/27:

ABC: 47/46
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP: 49/42
NEWSWEEK: 49/41
REUTERS/MSNBC: 44/43

10/26:

ABC: 49/45
CNN/TIME: 49/43
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP: 52/39
HARRIS: 48/43
REUTERS/MSNBC: 43/45
VOTER.COM: 43/40

10/25:

ABC: 48/45
CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP: 49/42
DEMOCRACY CORPS: 44 /46
REUTERS/MSNBC: 43/45
VOTER.COM: 45/40

Posted by DAZ | October 24, 2008 12:36 PM

Marc - I may not always agree with you on the politics at issue (and I have told you so) but you're dead-on right in your comment. Haters, go home. Provide insights and facts, not derogatory statements, personal statements. That sort of trash should not be countenanced.

Posted by rts | October 24, 2008 12:36 PM

Marc,

Thank you for answering the question. As to references of your weight and sexuality...

I agree with you that it's offensive.

My Mom still says, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything."

More people should live by this rule.

Posted by Wendi | October 24, 2008 12:38 PM

The version of the talking point I heard was from McCain himself two days ago on Imus where he said he was where Bush was in 2004 vs. Kerry in a Washington Post poll. Maybe the talking point changed in 48 hours, but I checked the ABC/Post numbers from 2004 and not only is this factually weird but as Marc points out, the poll of polls numbers from 2004 bear out his point. Kerry rarely led nationwide in the weeks leading up to the election and never led by the sort of margins McCain is facing today.

While looking at those numbers, I examined the Pennsylvania point some in McCain's camp (and Ed Rendell to be fair) have been making about how that state is somehow different; RCP's PA numbers from 2004 make it clear that, if anything, the polls underestimated Kerry's 2004 margin of victory there. So, let's stop hearing this noise about how PA is somehow un-pollable or prone to mysterious results. If PA polls change over the next week, then that's something I would like to hear more about.

Posted by John C | October 24, 2008 12:41 PM

Take a lesson from your colleague TNC and moderate the comments. No one should be able to get away with vulgar comments directed at your sexuality or weight. Delete, delete, delete. The internet is full of nasties, and there's no reason to suffer them.

That said, comments are a good thing - I stopped reading this blog when you disabled them - because sometimes you DO make confusing mistakes or you DO seem to be taking evenhandedness to an illogical extreme. As a reader, it also seemed to me that your opinion crept in at inappropriate moments. Opinion is fine, but you're obviously attempting something different here than an ordinary blog. Hence the "reported," bit in your blog's subtitle.

Posted by Margaret | October 24, 2008 12:43 PM

Pollster has the graphs, but they have not been updated.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/polling_trends_in_2008_vs_04_a.php

They have Obama at +8, and he is now at +8.2 but much closer to the finish line!

Gore over preformed the polls by about 2.5%, while Kerry under preformed by about 1%.

So McCain needs to gain 6 points to get in as "good" of a position that Gore was in 2000.

Posted by Chris | October 24, 2008 12:45 PM

I don't get it. Marc didn't make a mistake. First he was talking about Bush/Gore, and then he was talking about Bush/Kerry.

Posted by Nick | October 24, 2008 1:33 PM

I followed that CNN link from October 2000 and saw a related article on the Electoral College, with this not-so-prescient segment:

But there were potential faults in the system. The last time that was evident was in 1888, when Grover Cleveland, a Democrat running for re-election, narrowly won the popular vote. But Benjamin Harrison won more electoral votes by winning -- by slight margins -- in a number of key states.

"If we had that again, where somebody won the election without winning the popular vote, the system would be changed in an instant," said Epstein.

Posted by King | October 24, 2008 1:56 PM

In 2000 the Gallup tracking poll was useless and on 2 November the Bush drunk driving story broke.

Posted by Dave | October 24, 2008 2:00 PM

I second Margaret's comment. And I, for one, vow to stop calling you a McCainihack (mostly in my mind) since you chose to explain your rationale for disabling comments.

People are sometimes jerks (me included). But you are under no obligation to tolerate that behavior.

Posted by slag | October 24, 2008 2:25 PM

Marc -- Obviously there is a lot more info at the average voter's disposal than there was in 2000 thanks to bloggers and the web. My question is:

Do you think 2000 changed how campaigns are run with Gore winning the popular vote but not winning the Presidency? And if so, doesn't that make national polls pretty much meaningless for the campaign strategists?

Isn't it possible that even if McCain is where Gore was in 2000 that it's not really an apples to apples comparison because of the shift in how campaigns are managed?

Posted by Jill | October 24, 2008 3:13 PM

Hi Marc, I quoted your post and I hope a trackback will appear - but since our trackback function seems to work rather haphazardly, here's a link and summary already:

McCain 2008 = Gore 2000? Matching the numbers from Gallup, ABC, TIPP and Zogby
Observationalism

Steve Schmidt attracted attention today with his claim that McCain is, polling-wise, about where Gore was a week before the 2000 elections. I had a graph up earlier charting how Obama's current Gallup numbers compare with how Kerry, Gore and Clinton fared, and this is a good occasion to update that post and expand it, by also looking at the ABC, Zogby and TIPP tracking polls from 2000, 2004 and 2008.

Posted by nimh | October 25, 2008 12:36 AM