Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Why polls don't matter

By Edward Copeland

As the media continue its relentless quest to anoint Hillary as the Democratic nominee before a single vote has even been cast, it should be noted a very interesting poll from this time in 2003 that MSNBC aired this morning.

I've tried in vain to find a link to it, but it's very instructive. Of course, everyone knows that Howard Dean was thought to be a lock at this point in the 2004 campaign, but I'd forgotten the specifics of the Des Moines Register poll that equates to this weekend's survey that showed Hillary first, with Edwards and Obama in a virtual dead heat for second place among likely Iowa caucusgoers.

In 2003, Dean was leading and Dick Gephardt was polling second, with about the same gap in poll numbers as Hillary now holds in Iowa over Edwards and Obama. What I'd forgotten though was who was polling third. Any guesses? None other than Censorin' Joe Lieberman with 10%. Edwards was in fourth with 9%. John Kerry, the eventual winner of the Iowa caucuses, wasn't even a blip at this point. We also know that Edwards rolled up to an impressive second-place finish, Dean imploded before the scream, Gephardt quit the race and Lieberman never went anywhere. We've got a ways to go until any vote is cast and no one can say what will happen. BTW, at this point in 2003, Dean was way ahead in the national polls as well and had a gargantuan lead over everyone else in New Hampshire polling. Polls don't mean squat.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • Agreed. The polls for both parties are too premature. Many Americans aren't even paying attention to the debates and candidates. Also, who knows what events/dirt emerges that affect a candidates position.

    It will be interesting to see what happens.

    By Blogger TorchofLiberty, at 12:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home