Polls: A reminder from 2007/08

[crazytown]

Obama was 20 points behind right up to the Iowa Caucuses. On election night he said "You know, they said this day would never come".

[mcar]

1. Way too much attention being paid to polls right now

[MBS]

19. Agree 100%. n/t

[Hortensis]

26. That's for sure. Knowing that, can't help checking

while it all grinds on anyway, failing meaningful happenings.

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. Good reminder

Every single Democratic candidate is infinitely better than MF45.

But during the primary, I wish people here would go back to the archives and other sources to remind themselves why certain previous candidates were polling at 0, as in that graph. I know that the corporate media will be pushing for an "establishment" candidate, but that is not our best candidate.

We need a genuine liberal. Several, in fact, to get the country where it belongs.

[elocs]

40. Yes, we need a proud member of the Democratic Party as our nominee.

You know, a "Democrat".

[FoxNewsSucks]

41. Like who?

Joe Manchin? Heidi Heidkamp?

There are several examples of actual Democrats whose voting records suck. As far as I know, Sanders has caucused with the Democratic Party throughout his career. I'm pretty sure he's never voted to confirm someone like Kavanaugh. Nor has he endorsed a republicon in their election.

I care about the voting record and positions of someone more than which letter is after their name. As long as someone caucuses with Democrats and votes liberal, and opposes rightwing judges.

I understand how some people like Manchin are needed to give the head count in the Senate or House because of the state they are from. But I am amazed at how they are given a pass for so many shitty votes when someone who supports Democrats more is not. It makes no sense.

BTW, how did pandering to republicons help Heidkamp or Claire McCaskill in the Blue Wave? I think that if McCaskill had gone into rural parts of Missouri and explained how liberal policies would help them and how tRump policies were fucking them over, she might have likely won. But she ran on "see I'm not much different" .

As I said, the Democratic Party is supposed to be the liberal party, and we need a real liberal with bold decisive policies and plans that will stop republicons in their tracks and start the work to undo the unbelievable damage they have done.

Sanders or Warren. Either will do the job.

[myohmy2]

42. +1

...

[elocs]

43. Gee, are they running? No, but plenty of good Democrats are.

I am undecided but Bernie Sanders will never, ever get my vote unless he is the nominee and I don't see that happening.

[BeyondGeography]

3. The pattern will of course be repeated

As, unfortunately, will the overemphasis of national polls from here until early February when actual votes are first cast.

[crazytown]

8. Iowa is critically dependent on the ground game.

HRC's campaign didn't see it coming. This year, the consensus is that Elizabeth is ahead at this stage, with the other campaigns attempting to catch up. It's was a pattern repeated time and again in 2008 - Obama's people had got there first, and Warren is attempting to replicate this time around. In April she said, she had visited all 50 States (and Puerto Rico).

[philf99]

4. Someone here posted

John Kerry was at 4% prior to the Iowa caucuses

[MBS]

18. That is correct.

At the 2004 convention, I remember James Carville recalling that at about this time 16 years ago, Kerry "was not only toast, but buttered on both sides." Things only started to change in mid-late fall.

[highplainsdem]

5. I don't see anyone at all like Obama among the candidates trailing Biden.

[Skya Rhen]

6. +100,000,000,000

[BeyondGeography]

7. And I didn't see a 76-YO HRC making one verbal misstep after another in 2007

All front runners are not equal either. See how that works?

[highplainsdem]

13. I suggest you google

hillary clinton gaffes

for reminders of how much she was criticized for gaffes.


You are correct that all front-runners aren't equal.

But a front-runner who can maintain a strong lead for 10 months against a field of a couple dozen rivals -- a few of whom are very strong, well-known and well-funded -- is a strong front-runner.

[BeyondGeography]

23. I remember a very sure-footed candidate who killed it in the debates

An Obama-level candidate (ie once in a lifetime) was the only way she could lose. The bar just isn't as high this time.

[crazytown]

28. "An Obama-level candidate was the only way she could lose"

Yes. And even after Super-Tuesday, HRC had some notable wins. And looking back, the for all the hand wringing here, the collapse of Lehmann meant it didn't matter who the party had nominated.

[crazytown]

9. Obama didn't become 'Obama' until after Iowa.

20 points behind, he was said to have no chance. I would say he didn't start really becoming 'Obama' until NH, when he gave the 'Yes We Can' speech.

Is it time for Obama to Panic
Obama’s falling way behind Clinton in the polls. What should he do?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/09/is-it-time-for-obama-to-panic.html

[highplainsdem]

11. Unless you think Harris or Booker can win in Iowa and that victory will suddenly

give them all or most of the support Biden now has among black voters, we aren't going to see a repeat of what happened in 2008.

Black voters aren't supporting Biden in much greater numbers than they're supporting Warren or Sanders because they don't think either of those two are electable.

Black voters support Biden because they know him and trust him, and because they tend to be more moderate Dems, rather than very liberal Dems.

So there isn't anyone positioned the way Obama was in 2008.

[crazytown]

14. I have no doubt VP Biden is in the 'box seat'

I am reminding people that the future remains to be written. You would expect no less for someone supporting a candidate behind in the polls. On Iowa night we will have something tangible. After SC, we will know more.

[highplainsdem]

21. I agree that the future remains to be written, and we can still see an upset, maybe a series of

upsets.

I just don't think that Obama's success after Iowa is the best possible analogy for what might happen.

The surest path to Warren or Sanders edging Biden out would be for one of them to step aside and the other to gain all or most of their support -- and then increase that support by at least a few percentage points -- but the polls indicate it's more likely the supporters of the candidate dropping out will scatter, with about as many going to Biden as to anyone else.

If that doesn't happen, one of the candidates trailing Biden has to really catch fire with the electorate with some stunning campaign moment, and it would have to be something historic.

Or Biden could stumble, or give up his campaign.

But I definitely don't want to see our frontrunner, who's crushing Trump in the head-to-head match-ups, weaken or drop out when so far none of the others has shown any ability to reach Biden's level of support in a crowded field.

[crazytown]

24. Disclosure - I have one big wish for Iowa

a shocking result for the Independent Senator from Vermont. Whatever I may think about 2016, Senator Sanders is the candidate I can most easily imagine losing the GE. Whether Biden, Warren or Harris comes first is a secondary concern for me.

[highplainsdem]

25. I don't expect Sanders to drop out even if he loses badly in Iowa.

[honest.abe]

16. I think the only possibility is Harris.

If she could somehow win Iowa there might be a groundswell among black voters... although I dont, at this point, see how she can match what Obama did on 2008.

[Bradshaw3]

29. I don't see Biden being like Obama at all

Even as he runs on Obama's coattails.

[highplainsdem]

30. He doesn't have to be. People like and trust him because he's Joe Biden.

I haven't seen ANY indication that any of the black voters who support Biden have him confused with Obama.

[emmaverybo]

31. There is THAT glaring difference. NT

[jcgoldie]

35. I do!

[Ponietz]

10. The 'Game Over' meme isn't very effective

[Vegas Roller]

12. Except ...

Obama had left wing support in the Northern caucuses and 80% African American support in the South and everywhere else.

Not a fair comparison.

[crazytown]

15. From memory

HRC was polling above 50% in SC before Iowa. Polls are polls - an imperfect guide to the future.

[Vegas Roller]

17. My statement stands

Obama was a phenomenon one sees once every 100 years. None of those currently running come anywhere near his charisma and authentic appeal.

[crazytown]

20. And as I said, that phenomenon was not predicted (at all) by the polls up to Iowa

This is an OP about the veracity of forecasts from polls.

[MBS]

22. Thanks. Timely and appropriate reminder. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

32. As your graph shows - it was essentially a two-person race between Hillary and Obama nationally.

Edwards was, for most the campaign, at least ten points behind Obama and only registered above 15% briefly - in September and then shortly after he finished second in Iowa.

Beyond that, there was only three candidates registering above 10% on average (Hillary, Obama and Edwards).

Right now? There are three candidates already averaging above 15% (as opposed to two) - Biden, Sanders and Warren. And there's four candidates above 5% (Harris).

The field wasn't split. It really was a two-person race. 2016 is split. Sanders and Warren are literally two viable candidates polling right by one another. The comparison isn't valid, IMO.

Moreover, Obama's Iowa numbers were significantly stronger than his national averages.

On Aug. 28th, 2007, literally at this point in the 2008 campaign, Obama was actually TIED with Hillary (statistically) in the RCP average of polls in Iowa.

Currently? Biden leads by +8 points over Warren on average.

That's a huge difference. Biden's lead is smaller in Iowa than it is nationally - but not by much. Hillary's lead was 20+ points lower in Iowa than it had been nationally.

[LanternWaste]

33. Of course polls don't matter... until they validate our own desires.

A sentiment we get to watch every day.

Polls don't matter until they do. It's magic.

[crazytown]

34. ...

[treestar]

36. Every election has variables

they are all different. This is no way guarantees that another candidate will get the nomination. None of them are Obama, anyway.

[LincolnRossiter]

37. Last Three Cycles from RealClearPolitics

On Aug. 23 in previous election cycles ...


Polling leader Eventual nominee?

2016 Democrats Yes
Hillary Clinton

2016 Republicans Yes
Donald J. Trump

2012 Republicans Yes
Mitt Romney

2008 Democrats No
Hillary Clinton

2008 Republicans No
Rudy Giuliani

Source: RealClearPolitics

[crazytown]

38. No frontrunner lead as clearly as HRC in 2007

Polls - even unanimous polls, are an imperfect forecast of the future, that's all.

[LincolnRossiter]

39. Well the fact that it's only 3/5 (though 3/3 during the last three primaries) demonstrates that

a polling lead at this point in the race doesn't guarantee victory. But it's also probably worth more than nothing.