1991: Bill Clinton had 3% support in September polls

[Turn CO Blue]

Mario Cuomo had it all wrapped up.

1975: Jimmy Carter had 1% support in October polls. Hubert Humphrey (23%) and George Wallace (19%) were the only two viable candidates and were duking it out for the nomination.


It is STILL anybody's nomination at this point. Any candidate could stumble. Any candidate could surge - just like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter surged.

----
Disclaimer: I have chosen no current candidate, and I am against no current candidate. I am only speaking to the near-superstitious belief in early polls around here. The data is soft this far out. Remember how nobody on DU trusted the polls or pollsters after the 2004 election? All the sudden, the polls are gospel around here.

[bigtree]

1. good example

things change

[gateley]

2. K&R Thank you.

[NC_Nurse]

3. Thanks for that.

I'm sick of the polls personally. Let's talk about issues, plans, pros and cons of each candidate...NOT the fuckin' polls.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Can I See A Clinton 92 Link?

eom

[Turn CO Blue]

7. Here

Yeah, I'm trying to get it from the Gallup Brain (official archive site of Gallup), but a lot of their old archives are blank or come up funny.

In the meantime:

Gallup Guru blog
<http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/> Scroll down past the Gore story...

~snip~
A Sept 13-15 1991 Gallup poll showed the following standings for the Democratic candidates:

Mario Cuomo.....31%
Jesse Jackson...14%
Jerry Brown.....11%
Tom Harkin......5%
Douglas Wilder..4%
Bob Kerrey......4%
Bill Clinton....3%

and


The January 18th, 2007 Gallup Poll had a paragraph that said this:

As a point of reference, Bill Clinton was in eleventh place among Democratic candidates in a February 1991 poll of Democrats; a little more than a year later he had zoomed to the top of the list.

<http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26170>

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. TY

Wow...That's amazing and a testament to what an adroit politician he was; probably top five of the twentieth century ...At least in America which is my only frame of reference...

[Turn CO Blue]

11. Clinton is still amazing. Wish we had a President who could

string 3 words together...sigh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The Funny Thing Is I Don't Remember Him Being That Low In The Polls

He was like a phenomenon...He was a great campaigner...I like when he said "I'll be with you until the last dog dies."

[Turn CO Blue]

14. Yep. See my post lower about Bill struggling to win primaries

[liberalpragmatist]

5. I'm not sure how applicable '92 still is

Now, I agree that it's still early enough for things to change; nothing is set until the voting takes place and primaries and caucuses - especially Democratic ones - tend to have some surprising twists and shifts (at least compared to the pre-primary campaign).

However, the race is at a FAR more intense phase than in '92 or, for that matter, even '96 or '00. In fact, the only race that was close to being this far along was 2004.

The fact is that in 1992, almost nobody paid any attention to the presidential race until, at earliest, summer of '91. I think some survey showed that the network news shows played an average of 8 minutes of coverage over the first 6 months of 1991. This year, it added up to 3 hours or so.

So the race is far more visible earlier, and much more competitive at this stage than at a comparable point in '92. And in 1992, you lacked the internet, which has drastically increased candidate visibility. Had the internet been at the same stage in 1992, we would ALL have known who Bill Clinton was.

Honestly, the best analogy would be '04 - Howard Dean looked very inevitable (granted, by different metrics than Hillary does), and then at the last minute, was basically knocked out after Iowa.

Reasons to think Hillary might actually have this in the bag include the fact that (a) her lead in the polls is WAY beyond that of Howard Dean's, who had something like 20% nationally; (b) Bill Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular with the Democratic base (if not all of the lefty blogosphere) and those good feelings carry over to his wife; (c) Hillary is probably the most disciplined political candidate in the business - she isn't likely to make a major gaffe or stumble seriously in the ways that other candidates do. The danger (for those of us who don't want Hillary) is that this becomes something like 2000; where despite positive press coverage for Bill Bradley, Al Gore steamrolled him in the campaign and was basically anointed.

I'd bet that Hillary has a harder time than that, but if she wins both Iowa and New Hampshire (which polls show she very well could do), it's probably finished for the others.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I'd Like To See Some Documentation

Clinton was pretty much a "player" despite his doomed speech at the 88 convention that went on too long...

In fact I can remember looking at Michael Barone's Almanac Of American Politics in 84 or something and reading that Clinton was an upcoming politician to watch...

[Turn CO Blue]

10. Clinton didn't do really well until the summer of 92

Tom Harkin won Iowa. Tsongas won New Hampshire, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, and Utah - if he wouldn't have run out of funds, who knows?. Even after Clinton won Illinois, Jerry Brown won Colorado.

In other words, Clinton had to claw his way to the nomination despite his command in the polls in the summer. After all, opinion polls don't really count for anything in states that caucus with delegates or in primaries unless the voters actually show up.

[aquart]

8. Exactly. It is ridiculous to anoint a winner BEFORE the vote.

[Turn CO Blue]

12. hey let's let the people decide!