Poll: Dean Pulls Away In Dem Race

[skipos]

NEW YORK, Dec. 17, 2003

(CBS) Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has pulled away from the field in the Democratic Presidential nomination race: his support among Democratic primary voters nationwide has risen in the past month, and held steady after the news of Saddam Hussein's capture. But the race remains open: more than half of Democratic voters still have no opinion of Dean, most have not made up their minds for sure, and large numbers remain undecided.

CHOICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE
(Democratic primary voters)
Howard Dean 23%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 10%
Richard Gephardt 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
John Kerry 4%
John Edwards 2%
Carol Moseley-Braun 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml

[Virginia Dare]

1. Sharpton was polling above Kerry?

:wow:

Lieberman at 10%, Edwards at 2%. Damn, things change, don't they?

[blm]

2. This was the corporate media's distortion of the primary race. Not Dean's fault

that they chose to over-report his numbers and ground game while under-reporting Kerry's numbers and his strength on the ground in Iowa - numbers that they likely knew about since November's Jefferson-Jackson dinner.

[Dawgs]

3. When was the Iowa caucus in 04'?

I'm wondering how much it will be different this time with the vote so close.

[madfloridian]

7. I believe it was January 18.

Dean dropped out in February 18, and began DFA on March 18.

[frazzled]

4. Well, that was a national poll in which 38% were still totally undecided

In Iowa that December, it looked a little different, at least according to one Pew poll I was able to find. Dean was polling 29% support, Gephardt 21% and Kerry 18%. Edwards was polling only 5% support. (http://people-press.org/reports/print.php3?PageID=770).

Dean, as we recall, did not have a strong ground organization, and when he and Gephardt started bickering, it allowed Kerry (in a statistical tie with Gephardt at that time in Iowa) to pull ahead. I guess. I am still recalling everyone's surprise that he won, and even greater surprise that Edwards came in second.

But Democratic candidates learned from Dean's all-internet, little organization campaign: they are disciplined and focused on the game this time. I still wonder if the numbers are as off this time as last, or if last time was an anomaly, or a party-inside job, or what. I guess we'll know in a few weeks.

[Stop Cornyn]

8. This confirms that state polls are slightly more relevant than totally irrelevant national polls,

but even post-Iowa state polls are ALMOST totally irrelevant because the results in New Hampshire and all points thereafter will be irretrievably altered by the results in Iowa.

The results in Iowa will likely

1) give the winner a 10% or larger bump going into New Hampshire,

2) give the second place finisher a smaller bump,

3) cause the third place (and lower) finishers to suffer a drop, and

most importantly, (4) cause one or more candidates to withdraw from the race.

For example, in September Biden said he'd drop out if he didn't finish third or better in Iowa (a month later he lowered expectations to say he'd stay in the race if he came in fourth so long as he finished very close to the third place finisher). If Richardson beats Biden for fourth, or if Biden finish fourth by a large margin, presumably Biden will drop out. Maybe Dodd or Richardson or both will follow suit, depending who comes in fifth or lower. Where do the supporters of withdrawn candidates go in New Hampshire? That's unpolled.

In summary, national polls totally irrelevant because primaries and caucuses go state-by-state instead of across the nation, state polls of the 49 post-Iowa states barely relevant because they will be wholly revised by the results in Iowa, and Iowa polls are notoriously unreliable because you can only roughly approximate the caucus effect through a poll.

What does this mean?

Looking at past results, Obama, Edwards, and Hillary will probably each get better than 10% of the delegates (most likely a good deal better than 10%), Richardson and Biden will probably get less than 15% of the delegates (most likely a good deal less than 15%), and Dodd and Kucinich will probably get less than 5% of the delegates (quite possibly zero delegates).

It is unlikely, but still possible, that one of the two second tier candidates could finish ahead of one of the top tier candidates, and it is unlikely, but still possible that one of the three third tier candidates could finish ahead of one of the second tier candidates.

[vireo]

5. Support is firmer this time, with fewer undecideds

Overall, Clinton's standing in Iowa and New Hampshire is no better than Howard Dean's at a comparable point in the 2004 presidential campaign. However, Clinton has stronger support in all three states than did the former Vermont governor. Indeed, there is considerably more strong support for each of the three leading Democratic candidates in Iowa – Clinton, Obama and John Edwards – than there was for Dean and the other leading Iowa contenders four years ago.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=374

[rinsd]

6. While its a good cautionary note to not count one's chickens before they hatch, 2008 is not 2004.

There are far less undecideds and support seems much firmer with each candidate holding larger core support.