Time to put the Presidential polls into perspect - from August 2003

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

From an August 29, 2003 poll:

Howard Dean - 25%
Dick Gephardt - 21%
John Kerry - 16%
Joe Lieberman - 12%
John Edwards - 6%

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/2003_08.html

At this point 4 years ago, Kerry and Edwards didn't even combine to be the front-runner. Dick Gephardt didn't even make it past Iowa. So before anyone goes off worrying that only Clinton or Obama have a chance to win our nomination, just remember that today's score doesn't mean a damn thing and will almost assuredly change.

[saracat]

1. but it should be noted that the campaigning didn't start nearly as early!

[beastieboy]

2. Not one of those candidates was as well known as the top 3 this time.

There is no comparison.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Actually, that exacerbates my point.

As other candidates gain name recognition, support will begin to chip off the front runners. Many people answer one of those three because they're the only ones that anyone has heard of at this point. Over the next 6 months, as people get more serious in paying attention to the campaigns, they'll learn more about other candidates. This is especially troublesome for Clinton with her rather high disapproval ratings, which indicates that many voters are still looking for someone better.

[Catchawave]

3. Here's a good one :)

Cattle Call 2004: 10/29 :evilgrin:
by kos
Wed Oct 29, 2003 at 12:07:24 PM EDT
Last rankings: 1) Dean, 2) Clark, 3) Gephardt, 4) Edwards, 5) Kerry, and 6) Lieberman.

1. Howard Dean
Back in the lead in most national polls, extending his lead in NH, and holding tight with Gep in Iowa. Average debate performance considered a win for him, as the front-runner "wins" unless he's knocked down. Just got slammed hard by Al Sharpton (enraged apparently by Jesse Jackson Jr.'s endorsement of Dean), earning Dean vocal support from prominent African Americans like Donna Brazille (I'm calling this tussle a draw). Finally picks up a union endorsement, though the big one (SEIU) is still up in the air.

2. Dick Gephardt
More polls showing a narrow Iowa lead. Getting much better press. Hints that the establishment want him as the "anti-Dean". Probably has had the most consistently good debate performances of all the candidates.

That said, Gep and Clark are nearly interchangeable at this point. Gephardt actually leads in a couple of early primary states (even if they are home-turf states), which is more significant than Clark's national poll performances. But the most important factor for the number 2 slot is Gep's ground operation. His wide-ranging union support gives him a politically experienced ground army, ready-made and in place to promote Gep's efforts, while Clark is still putting the pieces together.

3. Wesley Clark
Seems to be back on the trail. His zingers against Bush yesterday were political gold. Still, he lost valuable time, while his campaign operation is still being built out (does he have a campaign manager yet?).

4. John Edwards
His supporters trot out "Turtle and Hare" analogies, and that's fine. Edwards has been a turtle. The question is whether the hares (Dean, Clark, and maybe even Gephardt) will decide to kick back and take a nap before crossing the finish line.

South Carolina still seems to be in Edwards' control, which means Clark will have to lay some artillery Edwards' way sometime soon. Watch these two candidates, as they are one of the three marquee matchups in the early goings. (The other two are Dean/Gep in Iowa, and Dean/Kerry in NH.)

5. John Kerry
Things are looking increasingly distressed for the guy. His latest debate performances have been solid, but without the breakout moment to help regain ground on Dean. Thus he's forced to go increasingly negative, which doesn't seem to be working with the party loyalists who will elect our nominee.

6. Joe Lieberman
His national poll numbers seem to have stabilized, though he's no longer ahead in any state with a primary before mid-March. Has gotten off a few good anti-Bush zingers, but they smack of too-little too-late.

7. The others
Still background static.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2003/10/29/12724/618

[wyldwolf]

5. Dean didn't lead by 20+ points

[William769]

7. Why bother?

They refuse to explain that one.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. To whom do you refer when you use "they"?

I don't even have a candidate yet.

Furthermore, I have yet to see 20+ points. Best I've seen is a 15 point Clinton lead.

[William769]

10. You figure it out.

It's pretty obvious.

[wyldwolf]

11. here ya go

August 14, 2007 CNN/Opinion Research: Clinton 44%, Obama 24% 20 pt. lead
August 9, 2007 Gallup: Clinton 48%, Obama 26% 22 pt. lead

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Look wyldwolf...

You know I'm not a DLC basher. Just last week, we battled "those types" in another thread. The point with my poll is not to bash Hillary Clinton. All I'm saying is that there's a very long way to go and opinions do change, even 20+ points drastically.

[wyldwolf]

16. yes, I know. But opinions will have to change dramatically and quick

there really is nothing Obama and Edwards can do at this point. Hillary will have to beat herself. 20+ points is huge and it appears to be solid.

[zeemike]

6. Did you watch the Iowa Caucasus then?

There is a difference between then and now
Then the DLC wanted to stop Dean and they did so by the Gephart people leaving in droves to go with Kerry
Now the DLC favorite is Clinton and no such desertion will take place.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Quit the DLC boogeyman bullshit.

Not only is it not true, it's flatly ignorant. They do not wield that much control or power.

[zeemike]

12. Well I don't know anyone in the DLC

So I cannot pas judgment on than as food or bad or honest or corrupt ether.
I only see the results. They get the candidate less likely to win and bush gets every thing he asks for, and while the re thugs had the congress then there was a plausible excuse but not now.
I am tired of the excuses and I have lived long enough to know that when all you hear is excuses that you are being gamed. Good cop bad cop works every time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. You know more than half of the candidates that won in 2006 were DLC right?

[wyldwolf]

15. zeemike... honestly...

I only see the results. They get the candidate less likely to win

From 1968 to 1962, the Democratic presidential candidate only one once - and only because the public saw the GOP as being too corrupt. When we lost, we lost big. Electoral landslides. These were not DLC candidates.

On the presidential level, the DLC is 2-2 (although most of us believe Al Gore definitely won and John Kerry probably won.) On the congressional level, the DLC's record is very impressive and most of the Dem governors today are either DLC or consider themselves "New Democrats."

[zeemike]

17. Again Wyldwolf I don't know who is DLC and who is not.

I have no way of knowing sense I am not in Washington and not privy to the inner circles of power.
All I know is that true change never comes for one reason or the other and there are always excuses, plenty of them and most of them are really thin and transparent.
When you are being gamed it is necessary for you to acknowledge it for what it is before you can stop playing the game.
We ran Kerry in 04 because the Powers that be told us we need a military man to compete against bush and we bought into it. remember how satisfying it was to see Kerry at the podium salute and say "Reporting for duty? And in spite of running a bad campaign and repeating several times stuff like "I was against the war before I was for it" he actually won and the re thugs had to steal it again,
I suspect that we will select the candidate who will not reform but keep things mostly the same even though they will give lip service to health care and things like that no actual change will come form it.
Bottom line is they win no matter what party is in the white house.

[zulchzulu]

18. I was in Iowa as an observer in 2004 at the caucuses

I am not in any way part of the DLC.

What I saw was a caucus, which by the way is a fascinating process, and it was apparent that Dean's campaign had done some bad things in Iowa. It's not Dean for the most part, it was his campaign team.

While spirited and enthusiastic, the Dean supporters had exhausted the Iowa caucus goers by election day due to not even getting any real canvassing training and wearing an orange hat when they showed up. The campaign had been hammering people with phone banking that had so many repeats that people were complaining that they were getting a dozen phone calls a day. Mailboxes were full of expensive campaign literature in multiple copies daily. It was a mess. I've talked with people who had worked on the campaign in Iowa and they said it was disjointed, possibly also due to Joe Trippi not even returning phone calls to Howard Dean becuase he was scared of losing his job, hence he holed up in Burlington, VT for the last weeks there.

Additionally, the people who said they would caucus for Dean didn't show up. In Iowa, essentially it's all about the ground game and not annoying the caucus goers. The candidate with the best ground game and most people showing up get the victory.

Don't blame the DLC for Dean's loss. Blame Joe Trippi.