Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:00 PM

Interesting polling in 2004

It appears Dean was consistently leading in the polls by double digits well into January, but somehow in February fell to a distant second place -possibly after one candidate won both iowa and new hampshire. Almost as if those two states have a large impact on public opinion. I believe it is very likely that the candidate -however they are polling now, who wins both IA and NH will win the democratic nomination.

https://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

13 replies, 799 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

13 replies	Author	Time	Post
Interesting polling in 2004 (Original post)	Tiggeroshii	Jan 2020	OP
Country has changed (demographics)	JustAnotherGen	Jan 2020	#1
Something else happened in Iowa that year	Renew Deal	Jan 2020	#2
You mean, of course, Dean coming in a mediocre third place in Iowa?	brooklynite	Jan 2020	#11
The disappearance of Dean from the media after he said he would break up the	rurallib	Jan 2020	#12
That was exactly what I came here to say	Bettie	Jan 2020	#13
Fivethirtyeight.com covers this.	Sloumeau	Jan 2020	#3
Does 538 say anything about the chances of winning the nomination after winning both IA and NH?	Tiggeroshii	Jan 2020	#4
The following link should help you with that.	Sloumeau	Jan 2020	#6
Thank you!!	Tiggeroshii	Jan 2020	#7
Carter came second in Iowa after "non committed"	question everything	Jan 2020	#9
Since "non committed" is not actually a person, I am going to give it to Carter. eom :)	Sloumeau	Jan 2020	#10
Hmmmm. What else happened?	TidalWave46	Jan 2020	#5
No, not interesting. In 2004 we did not have "social media" twits and insta-something	question everything	Jan 2020	#8

Response to Tiggeroshii (Original post)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:08 PM

JustAnotherGen (30,632 posts)

1. Country has changed (demographics)

Since then.

Regardless of who the nominee is - I'll be voting for the Democratic Party.

However, especially after ALL the polls said one thing in 2016 . . . and we had poor results -

I'm not watching the polls. I'll vote my head, heart and wallet regardless of any polls.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Response to Tiggeroshii (Original post)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:08 PM

Renew Deal (81,074 posts)

2. Something else happened in Iowa that year

That had a big impact on NH.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Reply to this post

Response to Renew Deal (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 03:05 PM

brooklynite (87,113 posts)

11. You mean, of course, Dean coming in a mediocre third place in Iowa?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Response to Renew Deal (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 03:32 PM

rurallib (60,849 posts)

12. The disappearance of Dean from the media after he said he would break up the

media conglomerates?

Followed by the media's relentless replaying of the "Dean scream" to make him look like a fool? The media is not our friend, just ask Hillary (but her emails) Clinton.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Response to rurallib (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 03:34 PM

Bettie (14,957 posts)

13. That was exactly what I came here to say

but you beat me to it!

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Reply to this post

Response to Tiggeroshii (Original post)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:08 PM

Sloumeau (2,657 posts)

3. Fivethirtyeight.com covers this.

If someone goes to the following link...

[link:https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/iowa/|

Fivethiryeight.com talks about how winning Iowa raises or lowers the odds of winning the nomination.

Basically, they say that winning Iowa means the person has an 80% chance of winning the nomination. Why can't they say 100%? Because of people like Bill Clinton who did not win either Iowa or New Hamshire but still won the nomination. How did he do it? Well, Bill Clinton was from the South, and he swept the South. This means, even if you don't win Iowa or New Hampshire, you can still win if you do well in the South. Anyone doing strong in the South? Oh, you, Joe Biden? OK, so even if Joe Biden doesn't win Iowa and New Hampshire he can still win by doing well in the South.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Response to Sloumeau (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:13 PM

Tiggeroshii (11,088 posts)

4. Does 538 say anything about the chances of winning the nomination after winning both IA and NH?

I totally get the Clinton thing, but no candidate won both states in that case.

And thanks!

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Reply to this post

Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:43 PM

Sloumeau (2,657 posts)

6. The following link should help you with that.

Check out this link:

[link:https://www.npr.org/2016/01/31/465016222/how-predictive-are-iowa-and-new-hampshire|

It shows who won Iowa and New Hampshire, both Democrats and Republicans since 1976. The winners are shown in two, easy to read images.

Notice that the following people won both Iowa and New Hampshire since 1976 and they all went on to win the nomination. Fifty percent of the time, they also went on to win the General Election:

1976: Carter won both--Got Nomination--Won General
1980: Carter won both--Got Nomination--Lost General
1996: Clinton won both--Got Nomination--Won General
2000: Gore won both--Got Nomination--Lost General
2004: Kerry won both--Got Nomination--Lost General
2012: Obama won both--Got Nomination--Won General

The following people won either Iowa or New Hampshire and then got the nomination. One out of three times, they went on to win the General Election:

1984: Mondale won in Iowa--Got Nomination--Lost General
1988: Dukakis won in 1988--Got Nomination--Lost General
2008: Obama won in Iowa--Got Nomination--Won General

Since 1976, the following people won neither Iowa or New Hampshire but still went on to win the Nomination and the General Election:

1992: Bill Clinton lost both--Got Nomination--Won General

So, what does that tell me? Based on the past, if anyone wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, their odds of winning the Nomination are quite good. If, however, two different people win Iowa and New Hampshire, The odds of one of those two people *combined* winning the nomination is probably in about the 75% to 80% range. This means that each of the two winners' individual chances of winning the nomination might be around 40%.

Here's where it gets tricky. If those two winners are facing someone who is strong in the South, like Joe Biden is, and if that person sweeps the South, that person can override their two wins. Just as Bill Clinton was the Southern exception in 1992, Joe Biden could be the Southern exception in 2020. It means that if Joe Biden does not win Iowa or New Hamshire, he still has a shot at winning, albeit maybe about a 20% chance of winning. However, if he does really well in the South, as could happen, he could very well do it.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Response to Sloumeau (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 13, 2020, 02:50 PM

Tiggeroshii (11,088 posts)