Those unhelpful ’08 polls

I see this morning that there’s a new Zogby poll (not yet online), conducted for a Democratic firm called WhatsNext Communications, on how Dem voters feel about prospective presidential candidates in 2008.

The results were fairly unexpected considering the names included in the mix: Hillary Clinton led the field with 32% support, trailed by John Kerry with 16%, Al Gore with 12%, and John Edwards at 9%.

This comes on the heels of a Gallup poll earlier this month, which offered similar results: Clinton 40%, Kerry 25%, Edwards 17%.

It got me thinking: how did the polls look at this point four years ago, looking ahead to the 2004 race? Not surprisingly, voters’ preferences so far in advance proved to be of little value at the time, which should give us a pretty big hint about how valuable these polls are now.

Zogby, for example, did a poll shortly after the end of the 2000 race about Dem preferences for the next cycle. Only seven candidates were above 1%. Gore led with 36%, followed by Hillary at 18%, Bill Bradley at 7%, Dick Gephardt at 5%, Jesse Jackson at 5%, Bob Kerrey at 3%, and Joe Lieberman at 3%. In other words, the top four candidates from the 2004 cycle — Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean — weren’t mentioned at all four years before they led the field.

A Fox News poll shortly after the 2000 election offered similar results: Gore led with 31%, Hillary was right behind him at 30%, while Bradley and Gephardt barely broke into double digits. None of those four was a factor in the race, and three of them weren’t even candidates.

My point is this: 2008 is a long way off. I’m as guilty as anyone of looking ahead to that race — the end of the Bush presidency will be an enjoyable day for us all — but before anyone takes these latest polls seriously, remember that they’re largely measuring name recognition. Many of the candidates who will likely play a major role in the next presidential race have not yet risen to national prominence, so these polls tell us almost nothing.