Don't bet the presidency on polls 1 year out

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: Analysis: Don't bet the presidency on polls 1 year out
By Bill Schneider
CNN senior political analyst

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- It's one year until Election Day 2008. Do the current polls tell us anything a year before the election? Yes, they tell us something, but you have to be careful.

The polls tell us Sen. Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination and Rudy Giuliani's the Republican front-runner. So is it all over, before it even begins? Be careful with a poll, says New Hampshire Institute of Politics Director Paul Manuel. "It's not a predictor. It's a tool. It's a useful way to understand what's happening at that moment and nothing more."

Let's look at the record of polls taken a year before the election. Polls predicting the Democratic nominees have mostly been wrong. Surveys taken in November 1971 predicted the Democrats would nominate Edward Kennedy or Edmund Muskie. In 1972, the Democrats nominated George McGovern. In November 1975, the polls predicted Kennedy again. The next year, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter. In early November 1979, the polls predicted Kennedy would defeat Carter for the Democratic nomination. He didn't. In 1987, Jesse Jackson was the Democratic front-runner. In 1988, Michael Dukakis was the Democratic nominee. Watch the accuracy of previous year-ahead predictions » Mario Cuomo led the Democratic field in November 1991. In 1992, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton. Howard Dean was well on his way to getting the Democratic nomination in November 2003, until John Kerry took it away from him.

Only twice have polls the year before correctly predicted the Democratic nominee. Walter Mondale in 1983 and Al Gore in 1999. Both won the nomination the following year. And both were current or former vice presidents....

***

This time, the Democratic front-runner has a bigger lead. And the Democrats say they're more satisfied with their choices. So this time, the Democrats look like they may have an orderly succession. And the Republicans may have a free-for-all. A topsy-turvy year.

When it comes to predicting the general election winner, the record of the polls a year out is actually pretty good....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/schneider.one.year/index.html

[rasputin1952]

1. A year out, and just look at how WE can't come close to ...

having anything near a consensus on DU...:eyes:

Anything can happen in two days, much less a year. I have no idea who the D candidate will be; illness, death, some new sordid scandal...it's up in the air, and will be for quite some tiem. Heck, some new candidate might pop in, not have any money, and still sweep the competition away simply because he/she can speak openly and honestly at what they would do that would benefit the nation.

I think everyone is just plain sick of the whole process simply because of the absurd length of this cycle's battle.

[Perry Logan]

2. DUers probably don't need this warning. Overconfidence is definitely not a problem here.

[ginchinchili]

3. You're making the dangerous assumption that Hillary would win....

in a general election. The polls mean even less about the general election and Hillary is, shall we say, an exceptional candidate. There are a lot of people who don't want 24 years of nothing but Bushes and Clintons in the White House. She is not the most qualified candidate, so the reasons for her strength, to some degree anyway, are superficial. She would make a weak candidate in the general election, but I have faith in the Democratic Party to show greater wisdom this time around.