Polls??

[renie408]

When do you REALLY pay attention to polls? I have been listening here and other places and everybody posts polling numbers, but then nearly everybody pretty much says that polling numbers don't mean a lot right now. I know that Clinton was doing poorly in the polls until after the first primaries. When do you look for a candidate to make a move? And when is it GOOD to be the front runner? I know that some of the Dean people are psyched by his (maybe? Depending on what poll you read) leading now, but isn't it better to NOT lead until you get closer to the primaires? Aren't some of the problems he is having now part of being the front runner and why you don't want to break out too early?

[PAMod]

1. PAC's follow the polls very closely

They wouldn't want their "investment" to go to waste.

I follow them in the same way I look at the baseball standings every morning. It's fascinating to see the movement from poll to poll.

You have to admit, it is interesting to see if a candidate gets a bounce or not from an announcement or a major policy statement. You kinda get a feel for what's coming.

Also, you can often relate how pointed or shrill a candidate becomes to their place in the polls.

[w4rma]

2. I can't imagine why a candidate wouldn't want to break ahead of the pack

early. The sooner the better. The sooner that happens the more likely the candidate will be able to pick up the lion's share of free press. The farther ahead, the more momentum the candidate gets from being the likely nominee.

[sandnsea]

3. Wait until Edwards leads a poll

You'll post it too. Especially after you've seen polls, with other candidates in the lead, posted for months. This isn't personal, I hope you know what I mean.

[rock]

4. I don't put much faith in them

But many people do. It irritates me when I see a poll that I know is untrue (sometimes there's other statistical evidence that shows it couldn't be so).

[clar]

5. ah yes, polls

The conventional wisdom goes something like this: Nationwide polls don't signify much 15 months out from a general election. Statewide polls have a greater signifcance in places like IA and NH, 4.5 months prior to the 1st caucus and ist primary. It kind of makes sense when you consider that the candidates have been stomping all over these two states for the past year.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. Bingo.

IA, NH and SC at this point. National polls, in December and January, will start becoming increasingly accurate and will reach true significance in mid- to late February.

[rbnyc]

6. Polls---another symptom of our addiction...

...to predictability.

Personally, I think the most useful polls are in The Lounge at DU. Everyone knows they indicate nothing in terms of measurably reflecting reality. They're just a fun way to frame something you're thinking about. From years of doing market research, I don't care how much scientific method you try to infuse into the polling system, they are no more valid than a poll in the Lounge but are so dangerous because they pretend to be. And as perception creates reality, they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the world is created out of this fearful watchfulness, instead of out of inspiration.

[cjbuchanan]

8. Take a little, give a little

First off, all match up polls (Bush v Dean, Kerry, Braun, your unmarried 52 year old uncle) are worthless at this point because the issues that drive the campaign have not been decided and most people do not have a clue who the non-Bush person is.

National polls at this point are also worthless since most they mainly judge name recognition. Also, since the primaries are not a national contest, it matters little.

State by state polls do mean something provided an independent group with a good history of polling does them.

When it comes to being the front-runner, it is never too early. Think in terms of sport (let's say basketball) for a moment. Would you rather be 10 points up or down with two minutes left? Back to politics, the front-runner gets a lot of free press. This leads to name recognition. This leads to more donations. The more money a candidate has, the more the press sees her or him as the front-runner. The cycle thus starts itself over.

The downside is everyone else goes after you (look how many hits Dean is taking these days). However, this can also be a good thing. If a candidate makes it through all these hits with little damage, she or he looks even more like the front-runner. Also, any candidate that attacks the front-runner is acknowledging, in some way, that they are not the front-runner. They know that if they want press coverage, they need to mention the other person's name. Please note that I am talking about nation press and that there are exceptions to this.

When it gets down to it, if you are the front-runner, you have a lot of control over the race and control is everything in politics.

Just my thoughts.