6 reasons why 2008 is not 2004

[rinsd]

One cannot brush off Hillary doing well in polls by simply referencing 2004 because of several factors

A) the "don't know" numbers are lower this time around (usually around 10 to 15% while in 2004 right up to IA it was 20 to 25%).

B) None of the candidates in 2004 topped 30% in national heats prior to primary voting, let alone 40%.

C) None of the candidates in 2004 had a lead greater than the don't know numbers.

D) Most of the candidates in 2004 struggled to top 20%. This year two have been above that all year. Edwards in 3rd has a higher percentage than some poll leaders did in 2004.

E) None of the candidate in 2004 had the name recognition of Hillary. In fact at this stage of the game the big 3 for the Dems have far better name recognition (90% or greater) than the field in 2004.

F) In 2004 head to heads with Bush, there were at best 2 Democrats with marginal leads. In 2008, all of the Big 3 beat every one of the GOP candidates with non-Rudy candidates trailing badly.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

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

Does this mean Hillary's election in inevitable? Certainly not.

It just means 2008 is not 2004 so please find a new meme. ;-)

[Awsi Dooger]

1. I'll add another reason, one that uses the old polling

Hillary showed strength among Democrats even as a non-candidate in late 2003. There were two polls showing her clobbering Howard Dean in hypothetical polls in late '03, at the same point Dean had a huge lead among the announced candidates. So Dean was already a phenomena yet Hillary polled way ahead. Those polls are in that second link you posted, a Quinnipiac poll and an Ipsos poll.

[rinsd]

2. Thanks, I had missed that angle.

[blm]

7. Best known and she had a promotional book tour -

Hillary had her book come out in 2003 and Bill had his book come out in June2004.

Fly on wall at TeamClinton HQ:
Let's make sure the public doesn't get the opportunity to learn more about OTHER Democratic leaders and become familiar with THEM.

[madfloridian]

3. So none of the others even measured up...is that what you're saying?

Now come on, Hillary was in the WH for 8 years and is running with a former president beside her.

Not a single candidate in 04 had such an advantage.

Frankly, for Howard Dean to come on the scene and become a power in the party was quite amazing.

The arrogance about Hillary is getting overdone here. It is always nice to have a former president beside you.

But then, since I don't have to worry about voting in the primary....frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

Until someone shuts up Nelson and other Florida aristocrats...many of us won't vote in primary except for the tax bill.

I am getting more emails and calls recently saying the same thing.

The world does not revolve about Hillary.

[rinsd]

9. No, I'm not saying that at all.

It was not a critique of the candidates, merely their circumstances in the election.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I think Hillary, Edwards, and Obama are ALL electable.

[Milo_Bloom]

5. You are kidding, right?

"A) the "don't know" numbers are lower this time around (usually around 10 to 15% while in 2004 right up to IA it was 20 to 25%)."

This is untrue.


In previous polls that had one column that accounted for Other/None/No Opinion and they had numbers like this:

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

CNN POLL 9/19-921
Other/None/No opinion 16%

CNN poll 12/5-12/7
Other/None/No opinion 10%

In our current polls when you factor Al Gore (who should count as Other) in, the numbers are IDENTICAL to 2004

Take the latest CNN poll

Al Gore = 13%
Unsure = 3%

Which = 16%


"B) None of the candidates in 2004 topped 30% in national heats prior to primary voting, let alone 40%."

This is untrue

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

CNN Poll 12/11-12/14

Howard Dean 31%


"C) None of the candidates in 2004 had a lead greater than the don't know numbers."

This is untrue.

Look at almost all of the polls

Howard Dean topped the combined Other/None/No opinion in nearly EVERY poll from September to January.



2004 is a good history to pay attention to, as there is little reason to think it won't happen the same way it has in the past.

[rinsd]

8. Actually A is true.

Look at the averages of the don'tknow/others. They are lower this year.

Gallup always seems to have low don't know numbers. This year its hovered around 5%.

B should have made allowances for Dean's single foray in one poll over 30%.

And for C "Howard Dean topped the combined Other/None/No opinion in nearly EVERY poll from September to January.

I wasn't talking about Howard Dean's numbers there.

I was talking about his lead over his next competitor which rarely exceed the don't know numbers though I was a bit too absolute in my statement.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. No, actually it is NOT.

A is 100% false.

Look at the numbers

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

Between 15-25% fell into the other/not sure column.

In 08, it is EXACTLY the same.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

The mistake you are making is considering Al Gore an actual candidate instead of combining those numbers into OTHER where they belong.


Add Al Gore's Numbers to the "unsure" numbers and they track 04 nearly IDENTICALLY.

CNN/USA/Gallup 2004 9/8-9/10 Poll 17% in Unsure/Other Category

CNN 2008 9/7-9/9 Poll 16% in Unsure/Other (Al Gore) Category
Gallup/USA 2008 9/7-9/8 Poll 22% in Other/Al Gore/Unsure category

FOX 2004 9/23-9/24 Poll 26% in Unsure/Other/Wouldn't vote category
FOX 2008 9/11-9/12 Poll 22% in Unsure/Other/Al Gore/Wouldn't vote category



In reality, 2008 is tracking 2004 quite well and the numbers prove that out very nicely.

[rinsd]

18. Polls that include Gore, also,remove him and the other/don't know # remains virtually unchanged.

"The mistake you are making is considering Al Gore an actual candidate instead of combining those numbers into OTHER where they belong."

See subject line. Because those firms also poll without including Gore we have some idea who the 2nd choice is. It basically splits off boosting each of the candidates (Hillary with a possible slight advantage) and the not sure numbers are about the same.

Also in polling not including Gore at all, the unsures are around 10% or lower.

"In 08, it is EXACTLY the same."

We both made mistakes with absolute statements.

"In reality, 2008 is tracking 2004 quite well and the numbers prove that out very nicely."

Except it isn't. Name recog for the big 3 is much higher and the polling has been much more stable all summer. Both the 1st and 2nd place candidates in polling this summer have been attracting far greater percentages than in 2004. Edwards' percentage in 3rd place tops some poll leaders from 2004.

Again this doesn't not mean Hillary will be the nominee simply that 2008 is not 2004.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. That's a different issue...

The point is that same number of people are either unsure or looking outside the current candidates.

Greater name recognition allows for some consolodation of the numbers, but what 2004 showed us clearly is that people are willing to bolt from their candidate, no matter how "stable" the numbers appear. Howard Dean ran stably over 20% all summer and all winter, until he lost Iowa and then dropped to single digits.

Kerry fell like a rock throughout the summer and early winter, until he won Iowa and then shot to over 50%

You can draw some distinctions between 2004 and 2008, but they are, in reality, tracking very closely. Between 70 and 80% have chosen a candidate. No candidate has a majority of support. Any choice made is as subject to change in 2008, as it was in 2004.

[rinsd]

24. All bets are off on polling once voting starts.

As you said and the polling data clearly states, once IA was over Dean's numbers plummeted and Kerry's skyrocketed.

I see the 2008 race as far different from 2004. I see 2004 more like 1988.

Even though there are less candidates, I see 2008 more like the 2000 election.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. 1988=1992=2004=2008

In that there is no presumptive nominee/heir to the throne.

IN all cases there are more people AGAINST each individual candidate than there are for them.

Even when they force a 2 way race on people, Hilary can't comfortably get above 50%, as she only hit 55 with a +-5 when they made it "Hilary v Obama". That is obviously not a strong support level.

[blm]

6. In 2003-2004 the best known Democrats were supporting Bush publicly on

terrorism and Iraq war strategies.

And made headlines throughout a June 2004 that were very positive for Bush.

In 2008 there will be no rigged machines as they have now been outed by RFK and by Rather.

In 2008 the best known Democrats won't be supporting Bush's strategies instead of the Dem nominee's as they did in 2004.

In 2008 there will have been a DNC chair that worked for four years to strengthen the party infrastructure in states where the previous chairs oversaw collapse.

In 2008 the election process will be more secure so the winning Dem can actually take office, as opposed to Gore and Kerry who were blamed for the PARTY'S longterm failure to counter the RNC's vote stealing tactics.

In 2008 BushiNc is at its weakest. In 2004 it was at its STRONGEST until the Dem primary candidates and nominee pummeled Bush relentlessly to bring down his poll numbers DESPITE the complicity of the corporate media with the Bush WH.

Kudos to ALL the Dem primary candidates in 2003 and the 2004 nominee who decisively won every debate and won a difficult election that the DNC then allowed the RNC to steal.

[Netbeavis]

10. plus neither side is running an incumbant...no boost

GWB got a huge boost by just being able to fly around, campaign staff en-tow, on AF1. Just having all of that logistics being taken care of is a big advantage for an incumbent.

Basically, both sides start the race at the same place. No head starts.

[BenDavid]

11. To all those that say HRC cannot be

elected because of her high negatives. Well, excuse me, but to those Obama and Edwards supporters that keep trying to throw everything at her are going to be pissed to know according the cnn/gallup HRC's negatives are now below 40...uh huh 39%....Now that is good news and the other, her favorable rating is 51%.....

I understand the first vote is still 4 months away, but if I were a candidate I sure as hell would want to go into the Iowa vote with the lead and the same is true of New Hampshire and South Carolina.....One thing I would like to put out here. Those polls that show HRC in the lead are true. They are true because there is polling being done outside of the msm's polling and they show the same results...HRC is constant.

Thanks
Ben David

[renie408]

12. How does Hillary poll only amongst Dems against other Dems? just curious. n/t

[rinsd]

14. Real Clear Politics has every poll under the sun.

Nationals heats, primary state polls, head to heads etc.

Their editorial sucks balls but they do a good compilation of the polling

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[renie408]

15. Thanks. That is one place I wouldn't have thought to look! n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

28. There's also Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

[JNelson6563]

16. Ok, this highlights what I said yesterday

You post facts and figures worth considering, good stuff....until....

It just means 2008 is not 2004 so please find a new meme.

Using history as a point of reference is not meme-like, it's an applicable line of reasoning. It's a darn shame you had to ruin your otherwise informative, innocuous post with your snideness.

Julie

[William769]

25. Your right it's not meme-like.

It's just plain stupid.

[renie408]

27. Thank you for that thoughtful analysis. n/t

[William769]

29. Your welcome.

:)

[Perry Logan]

17. Thanks for the info. But...did ANYBODY ever say 2008 is 2004?

Thank God it's not, say I.

[renie408]

19. MEA CULPA!!! It was me...

In another thread the poster was touting all these poll numbers to show that Hillary was our next nominee. I made some comment about Pres. Lieberman (referring to Lieberman's lead in the polls in late August/early Sept of '04)and got slapped on the wrist. The OP is basically a cut and paste of the post from that thread.

[rinsd]

22. Oh no you are not to blame.

Maybe part of the inspiration for the OP but no blame.

[rinsd]

20. Its a churlish response to polls being posted now.

When a poll is posted showing Hillary in the lead you can guarantee that at least once during the thread someone will say Lieberman was ahead. At least that is what worked for the summer.

The comment has evolved to now where Dean is referenced because the Lieberman's leads were small and were practically gone by Sept. Dean had better numbers than Joe-mentum so it seemed a closer comparison.

I aimed to disprove that though I got carried away with some absolute statements.

[William769]

23. Just about everybody who tries to debunk Hillary doing great in the polls.