Another killjoy reminder about 2008

May 9, 2007

I hate to do this (again), but periodically, it’s worth remembering that national 2008 presidential polls are almost completely useless right now. We all want to know who’s up, who’s down, who’s the frontrunner, who’s fading, who’s struggling, etc. But national polling just doesn’t have much predictive value at this point.

I’m reminded to write about this after seeing a post from Ben Smith this afternoon. Smith’s post includes a pretty graph showing Hillary Clinton maintaining a comfortable lead over the last three months over her primary rivals, followed by Barack Obama in second, and John Edwards and Al Gore trading places periodically for third place.

We get so buffeted by the steady stream of polls, and the rise of Barack Obama is such a fun story for reporters to tell, that it’s worth stepping back for a minute to note that there’s no longer any evidence that that’s happening.

The best place to look is Real Clear Politics’ average of polls which, as Doug Schoen pointed out to me today, was correct in every single Senate race last cycle.

And that average, above, just doesn’t show a whole lot going on. (These are polls that include Al Gore; his supporters’ second choice, according to various polls, is Hillary.)

So just to take a breath, surrender to Mark Penn, and reassert a basic fact about the shape of the race: Hillary’s clearly in front.

Fundamentally, I don’t really disagree with any of Smith’s analysis. I think Hillary Clinton is, at this point, clearly the frontrunner.

But I nevertheless believe putting any stock in national polling data at this point is a mistake.

I realize the presidential race is already in full swing, but we have seven months to go before a single voter actually casts a ballot.

Looking at polling for the 2004 race is helpful.

* At this point in the last presidential race, Joe Lieberman led in every single national poll. Dick Gephardt was second. By the time voters went to the polls, Lieberman didn’t compete in Iowa, and finished fifth in New Hampshire. Gephardt finished fourth in Iowa and quickly dropped out of the race.

* With four months to go before the Iowa caucuses, a national Zogby poll showed John Kerry running fifth with 7% support. John Edwards was in seventh, with 3% support (slightly behind Al Sharpton).

* With six weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, a national ABC News/Washington Post poll showed Howard Dean with more support than his three closest competitors combined. He went on to lose every primary in which he competed.

* With four weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, a national AP poll showed John Kerry in sixth place — with half the support Joe Lieberman enjoyed.

You get the picture. National polls gauge name recognition, particularly seven months before anyone actually votes. Hillary Clinton is the most well-known candidate, so she finishes first. It’s not complicated.

Ben Smith said there’s “no evidence” to support “the rise of Barack Obama.” Sure there is. He raised an extraordinary amount of money in the first quarter, is attracting ridiculously large crowds across the country, and received contributions from more individual donors than Clinton and Edwards combined. That’s quite a bit of evidence, polls notwithstanding.

Look, Hillary Clinton is a tremendous candidate running a terrific campaign. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see her do extremely well in the primaries and get the Democratic nomination. Given all the factors, it’s foolish to suggest she’s anything but the frontrunner, a position she may very well never relinquish.

But these national polls aren’t telling us anything useful. Something to keep in mind.

Since when has facts stopped the media from writing the story they want to write?

  • CB, Hilary is the Dem’s anointed one. Her friends at Faux (including Murdoch) want it that way. All hail Queen Clinton! /end of sarcasm.

  • Clinton is still the overwhelming favorite.

    She has about a 45% chance of winning the nomination
    Obama has about a 30% chance.

    If you think those numbers are significantly wrong then you can make some real money.

    PS – Kerry was way down before Iowa in 2004. He had about a 4% chance. There were some people who made 20 times their money who bought at exactly the right time

  • So just to take a breath, surrender to Mark Penn, — Ben Smith

    When rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it? I wish I knew how to represent “up yours” via ASCII…

  • “He [Dean] went on to lose every primary in which he competed.”

    Oh Carpetbagger! I seem to remember the good Doctor winning the Vermont primary in 2004. Did you forget, or were you not here at that point?

    *****
    I appreciate the Clayton Williams reference, Libra, #4. He basically handed the TX governorship to Ann Richards with that statement.

  • Just think of all the time still remaining for all those “front-of-the-pack” types to beat each other silly. By the time they’re done, it’ll be Kucinich v.Putin for the ’08 WH run….

  • Polls are meaningless as the nomination depends upon the state contests, and voters in states like Iowa and New Hampshire don’t decide to the last minute. At one point, Kerry was even trailing Al Sharpton in the polls.

    A lot will happen between now and next January, and if the past is any indication, Iowa and New Hampshire voters will take this all into consideration and make up their minds in the final hours before voting.

    Clinton and Obama are obviously both in good positions. Edwards, while trailing in the polls, might do better than the polls suggest due to his strength in Iowa. We say in 2004 what a victory there can do.

    It is hard to see one of the second tier coming on to win, but there is a long time to go and it is not impossible. On the one hand, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter came from no where to win, but they also weren’t facing three candidates who were as strong as Clinton, Obama, and Edwards appear to be. At this point I doubt anyone besides Gore can break into the top three, but front runners have been shot down in the past any at this point anything can happen. Just ask former front runners like Edmund Muskie.

  • If these “news”stories are so silly (and I agree they are) stop talking about them.

    I especially get the feeling that if these “news”stories about polls had your boy Obama charging up the ladder, you’d be less inclined to tell everyone to remember “it’s too early to mean anything.”

  • Things are pretty different this year. The attitude towards candidates is different, and with the creation of essentially a “national primary day” there’s only so far that comparisons to last time can go.

    But it is very far out still, much too far to claim that Clinton has it won.

  • The only way that I can see Hillary being knocked out of frontrunner status is if her continued refusal to apologize for her Iraq War vote starts to eat into her support. And, if that happens, her conservative handlers will have her come out and apologize for her vote.

    I would bet that she’s the nominee.

  • Oh Carpetbagger! I seem to remember the good Doctor winning the Vermont primary in 2004. Did you forget, or were you not here at that point?

    Just to clarify, Dean had already suspended his campaign by the time of the Vermont primary. That’s why I worded it that way — he lose every race in which he competed. He technically didn’t compete in Vermont because he’d already closed up shop.

  • I can’t overstress what a colossal, tragic mistake it would be to nominate Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation.

    HALF THE COUNTRY DOESN”T WANT HER, CAN’T STAND HER, WON’T VOTE FOR HER. Those perceptions are about as likely to change as public perceptions of FDR or Reagan or LBJ. In the public eye, her story has been told. There is NOTHING she can do to change any of that.

    Among those who won’t vote for her under any circumstance (rightly or wrongly) are millions, literally millions of disaffected moderate Republicans and independents, who are disgusted with the zealotry and incompetence of the other party and very open to supporting a Democrat–but not a Clinton. Unless the Republicans somehow nominate Gingrich–and that ain’t happening–they’ll get those votes, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to mint millions of new Democrats will pass us by.

    There’s also the down-ticket problem. If 18 or 20 House freshman Democrats won last year in Bush 2004 districts, do you think it will make it easier or harder for them to defend for a second term–typically the toughest re-election race in the House by far–with the despised Hillary Clinton atop the ticket? If we lose 15 of those races, and one or two other districts flip, it’s bye-bye majority.

    A similar problem will lessen our chances to defend and expand in the Senate. Perhaps the only way the Republicans hold Colorado next year is by demonizing Hillary Clinton–who’s less than beloved in the libertarian West.

    Finally, there’s the royal family point. I don’t suppose this bothers others as much as it bothers me, but I’m just fucking sick of Bushes and Clintons. I’d like to banish them all, along with retainers, pollsters, dirty tricksters, spinmasters and other syncophants, to an isolated island somewhere and just let them run against each other until the world ends.

    Please, please, please… Anybody But Hillary.

  • Haik, @5

    My reference wasn’t to Clayton Williams, whom I don’t know from Adam (didn’t start paying attention to US politics til ’00 and the stolen elections). I learnt it as being a quote by Oscar Wilde.

    • Comments are closed.