polls, today and yesterday

If you have any interest in today's world whatsoever, you will be aware of the constantly fluctuating set of polls presented to us concerning the presidential election. Every week we are given a new set of information showing how popular, or unpopular, our candidates are. We are so captivated by this data that we analyze it like the talmud, with each uptick or downtick containing enormous ramifications. Surely, some perspective is needed.

An invaluable, and suprisingly overlooked relief is offered by comparing this year's polling data with 2004's data. It seems so long ago, but even I am suprised by how the dynamic of today's race differs (in a good way) from that campaign. Here are too graphics, side by side, of the data on a national basis. Red's bush, Blue's kerry, Yellow is Nader.











Now, I couldn't find a linegraph for this year's polling. But here's the gist - Obama's been ahead since Jan, with his greatest lead around July. In September the gap narrowed considerably until Mccain overtook him on the second week for one brief shining moment. Today, as of September 25, Obama has regained the lead by about 3 points.

Compare this trajectory to four years ago. There Bush was ahead the vast majority of the time by a rather large percentage compared to today's candidates. The only time Kerry broke even was after his convention and during the debates. If the Kerry camp had Obama's numbers today, they would be quite happy.

How do you feel about this kind of comparision? Is it valuable, or does it deceive more than it reveals?