Ignore the 2008 Presidential Polls

Guest Post by Anonymous Liberal

Despite the fact that it’s still 2006, there seems to be a new 2008 presidential poll released every few days. The latest, a Pew poll, reports the following results:

Republicans

Rudy Giuliani……….27%
John McCain……….26%
Condoleeza Rice…..21%
Mitt Romney………..7%
Newt Gingrinch…….6%

Democrats

Hillary Clinton……..39%
Barack Obama…….23%
John Edwards……..10%
Al Gore…………….10%
John Kerry…………7%

So what does this mean? Is Hillary a lock? Is Giuliani in the driver’s seat? No and no.

The bottomline is this: these polls are all but meaningless. Perhaps nothing illustrates this point better than looking back at polls from this point in the last election cycle. For example, a Fox News poll conducted in January of 2003 (which was closer to the election than we are now) reported the following results:

Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%

In fact, throughout 2002 and much of 2003, Joe Lieberman led in virtually every poll. Did that mean that Lieberman had some deep base of support among Democratic primary voters? Of course not. All this reflected was the fact that Lieberman had the highest name recognition of anyone in the field by virtue of his status as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000.

Most primary voters don’t really start to pay attention until much closer to the election. They don’t know who many of the candidates are, and even when they do, they often don’t know much about them.

Take Rudy Giuliani, for example. He polls well because most people know who he is. But I suspect most Republican voters don’t know very much about the guy, and the more they learn, the more likely they will be to reconsider their support. Conversely, most Republican primary voters don’t know who Mitt Romney is. But, like Howard Dean in 2004, Romney may well emerge as a real contender as we get closer to the actual primaries.

The Democratic side is even more interesting. Four out of the five candidates topping the polls are people who have significant name recognition. Gore, Kerry, and Edwards are all former national candidates. And Hillary is, well, Hillary. But notice that the least well known (by far) among the five, Barack Obama, is already polling at 23%. That strikes me as far more significant than any other data point in the poll.

And, of course, you always have to be on the lookout for the person who will inevitably emerge from total obscurity to become an important player. It happens almost every cycle.

Long story short, don’t read too much into these polls.

On a final note, since this is likely to be my last guest post before Steve’s return, I just wanted to say thank you for all the thoughtful comments to my previous posts. I read each and every one of them (even though I didn’t always have time to respond). I hope you’ll stop by my site in the future and contribute there as well.

And, of course, a big thanks to Steve for inviting me to post here for a few days. It’s been a privilege.

I have to believe the name of the next president of the United States does no appear on any of the lists above. Out of a population of 300 million, I’m sure we can do better than that.

  • Thank you Michael. You’ve done a great job of stirring the stew here. See ya at The Reaction.

    If the pollsters got organized they could poll every American voter by 2008. Now that would a sample.

  • The only hope the GOP can even dream of having is to bring in a new player that’s free from the 9/11 fiasco of Bushesque pandering. Rudy hasn’t got it; he’s the cleanest of the bunch, simply by not leaping into the mudpit with both feet. The other four are lost causes.

    Dem-wise, I think the current power-team is Hillary/Barack—not necessarily in that order, either One carries the Clinton Legacy—still powerful enough to shine through the muck of the Reich blogosphere and the tantrum-children at FOX who “play” at being journalists—in duality to her own demonstrated expertise; the other has shown acute professionalism and comprehensive strengths that all-too-many senior politicians repeatedly lack (and for which there is no contender in the GOP ranks to afford even a lackluster rendition).

    McCain has that “extra” weakness to explain. Didn’t he threaten to commit suicide a while back? Obviously, a man who demonstrates such mental imbalance—clearly caused by Nam-era flashbacks—should never be allowed to hold such an important job as POTUS. One bad dream later, he pushes the red button and nukes China.

    I would NOT want to have to explain to my kids why their swingset glows in the dark….

  • “Ignore the 2008 Presidential Polls.” — Post by Anonymous Liberal

    My sentiments exactly! The whole fascination with 08 is largely media-driven, pundit speculation at this point and a close relative to celebrity obsession. Look at what happened to George Allen over the course of just a few months. Until recently, Allen was considered by some a viable 08 candidate!

  • It’s funny that the actual candidates for 2008 are fourth in both lists 😉

    We have no idea who is going to run, but in reality my money at this point would be on Richardson…

    … if the odds were right 😉

  • Thanks for “guesting”, Anonymous Liberal; enjoyed your posts.

    As for ’08 and polls… I really need to find that Shakespeare quote from the Merchant of Venice (I think) about “nobody’s paying you any mind, Mr Bennerdict”. Who cares, at this point? The pundits have nothing better to do, so they’re spouting off some hot air. Me, I will have VA legislature elections (’07) to think about before I bend my mind to the presidential ones. And, anyway several names were missing on that Dem list — Richardson, and Clark, and Bayh, and Biden among them. Not to mention those who haven’t even thought about it yet but are likely to emerge in a year or so.

  • It’s bad for the press; now that the election is over, they know they should be concentrating on boring stuff like *policy*; running 2008 polls is a way to avoid having to get down to actual *work*.

  • I think Edwards’ support is being underestimated (Olbermann never considers him a serious contender), especially as his economic populism comes more to the fore. The party bosses love Hillary, but the electorate doesn’t, and Obama is sort of along the same lines (substitute black for woman) — just another damn Ivy League lawyer. (Obama might make a good veep candidate for Edwards, though.) Richardson is appealing, but not well-known enough, based largely upon coming from New Mexico; forget Gore and Kerry, who are simply there on name recognition.

  • Why on earth is no one mentioning Al Gore? Do people actually believe what he’s been saying about not running for president? Give me a break. Trust me, the Clinton’s are very aware of who their most formidable competitor will be and let me tell you definitively it is not Obama, Edwards, etc. It is Al Gore. Expect him to announce in May when he releases his new book. The blogosphere and grass roots of the Democratic party will then explode in support and the real Gore/Clinton match will begin.
    http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

  • Comments are closed.