Polls from late 2003 (a lesson in how meaningless current ones are!)

[Sparkly]

I know it's easy to get excited about possibilities for the happy day when Chimpy leaves his little throne. It's like shaking the presents under the tree, imagining and hoping and just enjoying the musing about what might be...

And of course, the media plays to this, inventing battles between candidates A and B, breathlessly citing polls, and even telling us who the "presumptive" nominee is, with confident certainty!! Yesterday, Pat Buchanan (filling in for Tucker) announced the segment on 2008 (supposed) candidates, asking, "Does it mean anything?" Why are they spending time spinning "stories" they even ask such a question about? (More hilarious, about Clinton, he said it's unusual for a "frontrunner to be at only 10%." So what makes her a frontrunner?)

I wanted to find polls from December 2002 (as I posted elsewhere, I couldn't find any) but here are some from late 2003. This shows how much meaning polling has even NEXT year at this time!!

Examples:

Zogby, November 3-5, 2003:

Howard Dean 15
Wesley Clark 10
Dick Gephardt 9
Joe Lieberman 9
John Kerry 7
Al Sharpton 4
John Edwards 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
Carol Moseley Braun 2
Other 6
Not sure 34

ABC, September 10-13, 2003

Joseph Lieberman 21
Howard Dean 15
John Kerry 14
Richard Gephardt 14
Wesley Clark 6
Al Sharpton 5
Carol Moseley Braun 4
John Edwards 3
Bob Graham 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
None (vol.) 3
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 2
No opinion 8
Bob Graham n/a

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

I'm just saying, let's take all these WAY early polls, media-made rivalries, and "expert" predictions with a large grain of salt. Candidates have barely even begun their announcements! :hi:

[Eurobabe]

1. Oh, come on Sparkly, we have no lives

and need something to fight and speculate about... ;)

[Sparkly]

4. Just fight and speculate with a grain of salt!

:hi:

[Eurobabe]

8. Nah, it's more fun to slam each other & our candidates

so that by the time the primaries come, the CONS have all their talking points. Sad but true.

[Sparkly]

9. That's a point!

Wonder why the media doesn't have cartoonish graphics of McCain and Giuliani wearing boxing gloves and fighting each other?

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I found one Sparkly

On November 13, 2002, according to a Quinnipiac University poll, 32% of Democrats thought Al Gore should be the 2008 Democratic nominee, followed by 22 percent for Hillary Clinton, 11 percent for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and 8 percent each for Senator Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, and Missouri U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, with 4 percent supporting North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

I put that in a blog I'm about to post tracing polls and Democratic front runners over the decades. If you look at the polls for 2004 they went up and down like a roller coaster. Lieberman was high then he went low. Clark was high, then he was low, then he was high, then he was middling. Kerry was middling, then he went high, then he went low, then he went high. Edwards was middling, then he went low, then he went middling, then he went high, etc. etc.

[Sparkly]

3. Are you sure the Quinnipiac poll is national?

I found some that were statewide only (New Jersey and New York).

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. It says it was

"November 13, 2002 - Gore Runs Best, But Bush Tops All Dems, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; American Voters Say Keep Cheney Or Tap Giuliani

Former Vice President Al Gore runs best among Democrats who might challenge President Bush in 2004, but Bush is a double-digit winner in any hypothetical race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=477

[Sparkly]

6. Thanks! I hadn't found that one!

Interesting poll. So since Gore and Clinton didn't run, the predicted battle at that time would have been Daschle and Lieberman... :rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. And Gephardt. Don't forget Gephardt. All the Goliaths. n/t