CBS: Early Polls Often Unreliable or "Whatever happened to the Lieberman-Gephardt ticket?"

[zulchzulu]

In June 2004, polls were indicating that people would like a Lieberman-Gephardt ticket. Alas, DU mates...let's do a hats off to President Lieberman and the wonderful job that Dick Gephardt is doing as VP. After all, the polls can't be wrong, can they?

Snip:

"So what's going on in early campaign polls? Potential voters often choose candidates they are familiar with. Many announced candidates are simply unknown quantities. Even after his years in the Senate and a previous presidential run, 55 percent of Americans interviewed in an April Gallup poll still could not say whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden. The earliest polls say more about name recognition than likely votes.

New candidates — such as Sen. Obama — often gain support in early polls when they enter the race. Voters don't yet know a lot about them, and what they know comes from the generally positive coverage, as well as the new entrant's effective status as "none of the above." For example, in January, more than half of registered voters who said they would vote in a Democratic primary/caucus had no opinion one way or the other about Obama. But 40 percent were favorable, and only 3 percent were not.

And then of course, there are the phantom candidates, not yet in the race, whose appeal says more about the candidates currently in the race than about how well the non-candidate will fare if he or she does join in. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson fits this category.

So was there real change in the Democratic horserace in the last few weeks? Was Obama first up and then down? Probably not. These early polls tell us about voter feelings, but they often have not been particularly good predictors of what will happen in an election.

After all, four years ago, in June 2003, the Democratic leader in the Gallup Poll was Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 election. Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt was running second. Whatever happened to the Lieberman-Gephardt ticket?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/20/opinion/pollpositions/main2955109.shtml

[TeamJordan23]

1. Kerry was barely running ahead of Sharpton at this point in the last election. nt

[illinoisprogressive]

2. You forget about landlines. the polls are done on landlines and most people have cells or online

[zulchzulu]

3. My landline is purely used as an answering machine

I bet many people use their mobiles as a primary phone device and let their landlines be used for answering machines or get rid of them. On edit: I also use my cell phone's answering system as well...

I know many people (usually younger 18-35) who only use a mobile device. They will never get called for these polls...

[thoughtcrime1984]

4. the early polls are a joke, but for some reason

the same few people pepper the board with them. I have a feeling that Obama will be the one left standing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Kerry and Edwards were battling with Mosley Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich before Iowa

1/8/04

1) Dean 20%
2) Clark 13%
3) Holy Joe 8%
4) Gephardt 7%
4) Kerry 7%
6) Moseley Braun 4%
6) Edwards 4%
8) Kucinich 3%
9) Sharpton 2%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[smalll]

6. Back in wintry February, people told us that polls were meaningless a year out -

Today, at the cusp of July, people tell us the polls are meaningless.
Half a year from now, in January 2008, we'll here a lot about a week being a "lifetime in politics"
And when she wins super-duper giga-Tuesday on February 5th, people will say she can still be stopped.
And when she isn't (stopped that is) people will talk about a delegate revolt, and tell us how long it is from March 2008 to the summer's convention.
And when she finally wins in November a year and a half out ... what will you say?

What would they say, back in '01, if you could have told young DU back then that though the election was stolen from Gore, and would be weaseled away from Kerry, that it the end, when Bush was well and truly done, America would pronounce its verdict upon that sorry era by replacing it with the other half of that "two-for-the-price-of-one" team of the glorious Clinton Administration -- that when that happy day of restoration arrived, so many here would be weeping and gnashing their teeth? What would they say? Oh, irony!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. I am sure someone named John Kerry disagrees on the importance of polls before the voting begins

;)

[MalloyLiberal]

8. She won't win in NOvember a year and a half out

She will lose. Welcome President Romney. President Thompson. President Guliani. President Condosleeza Rice.

[smalll]

9. We have the tide in our favor this time - we just have to not fuck it up -

I trust no-gaffe Hillary more for that than lazy Obama or gaffe-a-week Edwards. People say %52 won't vote for her -- One, that number won't rise, only fall -- that is all from dried old dessicated negative mud that when they throw it, it won't stick. Wanna talk cattle futures? The Rose Law Firm? Bring It On!

Plus, I'd be interested to see this Mason-Dixon poll breakdown. I bet enough percentage points of that %52 (not that many, but enough, maybe five or so) are self-declared liberals, like many here, who when push comes to shove a year and a half for now will NOT vote for Nader, but will hold their nose and vote for Mrs. Clinton. She's not a great inspirer, but she is competent, hardworking, and presidential even.

Keep in mind: America has heard all the old stuff about Hillary. America doesn't yet know that Obama's middle name is Hussein. They haven't paid attention to the gaffes of the intelligent-but-lazy that Obama makes regularly ("quiet riot"/ "first responders" when the debate question is really about "how do you fight those terrorist bastards") etc. They don't yet know about the recreation barn, about the hedge fund to "learn about poverty." Give 'em time, they'll know -- the Repub mud machine will make sure they do. All that fresh, wet, slimy mud. (As oppposed to the powdery old cow-pies they'd throw at Hillary.)

And another cool thing about her: if SHE runs, it's not US who will look obsessed, running against the evil Bush (who isn't running again) -- it will be THEY who will come across as the haters-- running against the Clintons? Running against a successful two terms? After Dubya? Ha! It is to laugh! But that's what they will do with Hillary. It will be so sweet to watch them destroy themselves. Let them be the haters, not us!

[AndyTiedye]

10. Negatives Go Up Over Time, Not Down. 52% is Horrendous. Hang-it-Up Horrendous

There is nothing Hillary Clinton can do to reduce those negatives,
especially in the general election when the Mighty Slime Machine opens up on her.

[snowbear]

11. Malloy... Don't you give us any credit?

Just because the MSM keep shoving her down our throats and telling us her lead in insurmountable.. then in the next segment, they tell us know unelectable she is with liberal Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans and that up against anyone -- she loses.

With all the data we'll keep seeing over the next eight months, do you honestly think that the Democratic Party will put out the most vulnerable candidate? The candidate least likely to win? The candidate most polarizing?

Nope. As time goes on - the concern will grow louder and louder.

Don't worry -- we will nominate the right candidate!!