California poll-October 2003: Clark 17%, Dean 14%, Lieberman 14%

[zulchzulu]

Imagine predicting anything in August when the numbers in October in 2003 showed what obviously didn't happen...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-10-15-poll-california_x.htm

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was at 9%, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri 5% and Al Sharpton 4%. Carol Moseley Braun had the support of 3%, and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio 1%.

Thirty-two percent said they were undecided.

"You notice that two of the three leaders — Clark and Dean — are running as political outsiders and that might be significant," DiCamillo said. "People are looking for a change, they want someone offering something different."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Surely you jest. You are comparing a three point lead to a 30 point lead?

And Dean wasn't collapsing in California like Obama is.

[wyldwolf]

2. that's exactly what he's doing. Yes, it is kinda funny.

[zulchzulu]

3. I have the other person on I...what was the point...

Lemme guess... you don't like President Clark?

[wyldwolf]

4. "Surely you jest. You are comparing a three point lead to a 30 point lead?"

[zulchzulu]

7. That poll was in OCTOBER 2003...count on your fingers how many months August is...

...away from October... can ya do that?

Bask in overconfidence all you want. I like that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. A 30 point lead in August is hardly comparable to a 3 point lead in October

Moreover, to compare a candidate at 17% to a candidate at 49% is absurd. HRC has a much larger base in CA than Dean ever did and hence has much larger margin for error. Plus, her chief competitor in California is losing ground in virtually all CA polls as people get to know him better.

[wyldwolf]

9. October is about, oh... 6 weeks from now.

:rofl:

[zulchzulu]

12. So who won California in 2004 primary? Clark, Dean or Lieberman?

It had to be one of the three, right?

:eyes:

Hmmm... maybe not...

[wyldwolf]

15. did the winner then erase a 30+ point lead? hmmm... maybe not.

[zulchzulu]

18. Relax. Time will tell.

Support your candidate. I'll support mine.

I thought this poll might give you a reality check. Of all the Clinton fans that I've had to put on Ignore, you still are not. You were... whatever.

I'm getting tired of pissing contests on polls that don't show much to me...if Obama was ahead by 80%, I'd still be doing what I do...grassroots support with the people on the street. As this poll suggests, the polls are always wrong or skewed. They can be good indicators of things, but when you drill down into the data in most polls this early, you find people are not really even sure about where the candidates actually stand on issues.

Flame away...or not.

[wyldwolf]

20. sorry - other than the state in question, there is no comparing these polls

[zulchzulu]

27. Actually...

Click on this little puppy:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/04/elec04.prez.new.hampshire.poll/index.html

Dean was ahead of Kerry by 32% or so in New Hampshire less than a month before the primary. Who won New Hampshire?

[wyldwolf]

31. Actually we're discussing California and not New Hampshire

[zulchzulu]

32. So California is a state and New Hampshire isn't... oh...OK....

You wanted an example of how a candidate could lose 30% in three months and I showed an example where a candidate lost 30% in three weeks.

Welcome to political analysis. Watch and learn.

[wyldwolf]

34. the topic of the conversation is two California polls

And trust me.. a newbie like you who can't stay on topic certainly can't teach me "political analysis."

[zulchzulu]

35. Dude, you got schooled and now you call me a "newbie"

If you had any grain of political analysis, you would not be pimping for Clinton like you do. That's a dead giveaway.

You get the last word. I have stuff to do.

[wyldwolf]

42. you said that in the past tense yet I see nothing of the sort

:shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Remember the good old days when polling mattered and no firm was deemed to be inaccurate?

It is hilarious how polls from firm after firm have been declared, without evidence of course, to be invalid or even rigged (no one whined when Obama was only 4 points behind HRC in the CNN poll in April, for instance) and polling irrelevant over the past 2-3 months...

[Drunken Irishman]

10. It's not about margin, it's about outcome.

California is not going to matter to Hillary if she can't have a solid showing in Iowa and then New Hampshire. If she comes in third in Iowa to Edwards and Obama, her campaign will most likely be done and those numbers would plummet.

Iowa is still too close to call and those California numbers will change considerably after Iowa.

Look at it this way. Kerry was polling in at only 9% during this poll in August, yet won the California primary with 64%. That's a swing of 55%, an even greater margin than Hillary's current lead.

Clark, who had 17% of the vote, was out by the time the California primary rolled around and Dean -- who was at 14% in August of '03 -- came in at 4%. Edwards went from polling at 1% of that year, to finishing second in the primary with 20% of the vote.

The point? It's not about the margin, it's about the outcome. Surely if Kerry can rise 55%, it's plausible Hillary can drop a 30-point lead. These polls will only matter AFTER Iowa. If Hillary wins Iowa, she will win the nomination. If she comes in 2nd in Iowa, she still has a shot, but it'll be considerably harder and if she comes in third, pack it up, because her campaign will most likely be done. And that 30-point lead won't matter at all, because Iowa is going to be a major factor here.

[zulchzulu]

11. Whoa...you're scaring them... their head might explode...

I guess you're a "Hillary Hater" too...

:sarcasm:

[Drunken Irishman]

13. heh, Hillary very well may walk to the nomination, but...

People are forgetting how big of an impact Iowa really has on this campaign. It makes or breaks candidates and sets the tone for the primary season. There have been more instances in the Democratic primary season of the front runner losing front runner status in Iowa than keeping it, and I'm not counting re-election campaigns and Vice Presidents running for president.

Iowa and then New Hampshire sets it all up and currently Hillary is in a dead heat with Obama and Edwards in Iowa, while she has a nice lead in New Hampshire (but remember, Dean did too). If she doesn't have a good showing in Iowa, those numbers in New Hampshire will fall and it will be a snowball effect.

This isn't about attacking Hillary, it's just a Dean supporter from '04 cautioning her base to take these numbers with as much skepticism as possible. Not because I don't think she will win -- she very well could, but because politics can change with a gentle push. If I'm Hillary right now, my focus is on Iowa's poll numbers and not California. And while she should be excited that she leads there, it's not going to mean much if she can't have a solid showing in Iowa. A 3rd place showing will set up an Obama-Edwards primary and not a Hillary-Obama/Edwards one, which means once the California primary rolls around, she could be a 2nd tier candidate.

[zulchzulu]

14. Exactly...

The first four states (that's our little secret) will make the momentum go one way or another on February 5. Frankly, I don't like how the primary season is woefully front-loaded, but that's the game this time around.

Your analysis is spot on.

[rinsd]

17. No, he's not obessesed with Clinton's penis like you are.

[rinsd]

16. The primary was on March 2nd when Kerry & Edwards were basically the only ones still running

A 3rd place in IA is not a death sentence for either Obama or Hillary though Edwards would have some serious problems.

For one thing, Hillary is now leading quite handily the NV primary poll. A win there could soften any blow from a 3rd place finish. Especially if that 3rd place finish ends up being close to 2nd place.

Obama has no real expectations for him in IA.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. I would say if Obama, Edwards or Hillary finished 3rd in Iowa, it would be a big blow.

Maybe they could somehow salvage their campaign, but Dean also had a 21-point lead on Kerry this time in 2003 (http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/008320.html). And by December of '03, a month before the NH primary, Dean held a 32-point lead over Kerry in the New Hampshire primary (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/04/elec04.prez.new.hampshire.poll/index.html).

After the Iowa caucus, Dean's lead evaporated. As Kerry led 31% to Dean's 21% in January of 2004, just a couple weeks after the Iowa caucus. (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003095.html). So while Hillary might have a solid lead now, just realize that one bad showing in Iowa can completely erase it and most likely will.

The only polls that matter to me are Iowa and to a lesser extent New Hampshire. However, even I know NH polls will be swayed by Iowa results.

[rinsd]

24. Well Dean is kind of a special case because the double whammy of the 3rd place finish & the Scream

But yes IA has an outsized effect downstream.

"So while Hillary might have a solid lead now, just realize that one bad showing in Iowa can completely erase it and most likely will."

Oh I am well aware of it. I think she needs at least a 2nd place finish then another 2nd and win in either NH or SC.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. We can agree on that!

:toast:

[zulchzulu]

25. Iowa's results will be very telling this time around

Thanks for citing the huge number differences in polls even up to December in 2003, where it seemed all but apparent that Dean was pretty much assumed the nominee.

That's not dissing Howard; I like him, but the polls illustrate how the first votes practically make them irrelevant.

Iowa is needed by Edwards and if Clinton does a distant third (which I think she will), it could make her showing on February 5th her Waterloo. Obama can't obviously take anything for granted either.

[rinsd]

6. Comparing apples and oranges.

A) The CA primary in 2004 didn't happen until March 2nd (far better than the later primary before). While it was close enough to the start of the primary season to have some impact, it was no where near the importance it holds now on Sooper-Dooper Tuesday. There has been more focus on the election this year in CA because of that.

B) 3 pts separate the leader and the tie for 2nd place with all three almost double by the undecided vote. Compare that to Hillary's 30 pt lead. Hillary's lead now is almost what the undecided vote was then.

[William769]

19. Seriously it's time for you to step away from your key board.

Your losing it. I know from experience last Month i took a break and it did wonders for me. Your fixation is getting the best of you.

[zulchzulu]

21. I'd say you're a tad fixated. I'm just showing how polls this early can be a tad off

You can agree to disagree. I ain't going away.

I have all the other people on Ignore except you and the Wolfster, and of course the others I responded to.

Based on the poll I cited, was Clark, Dean or Lieberman the Democratic nominee in 2004? Remind me.

:rofl:

[William769]

23. Please remind me how they are the same as Hillary and the one's running now?

Please remind me how the Gephardt factor will work against Hillary this time around. There are other variables to throw at you also. I'll just give you these two to start with.

[zulchzulu]

26. Gee, let me fire up my crystal ball.... hold on...

:crazy:

[William769]

28. Well it looks like you used your crystal ball for your first answer to me.

So shouldn't it already be fired up?

[zulchzulu]

36. Seriously, how old are you anyway? College grad?

I'm aghast at your simpleton responses. What the hell did a crystal ball analysis have to do with you telling me to "get away from my keyboard"? Gazzoinks?!?

:crazy:

I'm not responding to your response, since I'm sure it will be pathetic. Have a good evening.

[William769]

39. Another one bites the dust.

:rofl:

[thatsrightimirish]

29. 2003 does not = 2007

And Clark definitely does not = Clinton

[zulchzulu]

37. Wow. Lookee! It's Captain Obvious!

I wouldn't expect you to actually have a thoughtful analysis.

Perhaps you can tell all of us WHY 2003 is not 2007...

:popcorn:

[thatsrightimirish]

41. see below

:D

[thatsrightimirish]

40. Because

The Democrats were in terrible shape with a weak field in 2003. And Clark was a horrible campaigner unlike Clinton.

[zulchzulu]

43. That's all you got?

Actually the field in 2004 was pretty good. Kerry (who actually won), Clark, Edwards, Kucinich, Dean and even Gephardt were certainly not bad. It's easy to say that they all suck now if you have no real interest in analyzing the dynamics of that primary season.

As my OP points out, the race has really hardly begun in earnest. Wait for it.

[thatsrightimirish]

44. oh yeah

Gephardt and Kerry were so inspiring. Clinton and Obama are big names, none of the 04 candidates were in my opinion.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[PatSeg]

38. Polls are for the MSM

Real people don't make their decisions based on polls, but political pundits LOVE them.

Thanks for the reminder that we still have a long way to go and there will be many surprises.

[Yukari Yakumo]

45. *sigh*

Dem '08 /= Dem '04
'nuff said

If you want to draw parallels with the '04 Dem primaries, a better fit would be the '08 ReThugs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. Excellent Point! As the poet said, "Don't speak to soon while the wheel is still in spin

and there is not telling who it will be naming. For the loser now will be later to win. For the times they are a changing."

---------



Congressman Dennis Kucinich on the issues:

http://www2.kucinich.us/issues