Dean Was Polling At 9% On 10/1/03

[DemocratSinceBirth]

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

[calteacherguy]

1. These posts are becoming laughable.

There is nothing to be learned about 08 from 04.

NOTHING.

She'll be a great President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. That Wasn't My Point....

eom

[calteacherguy]

3. Oh, O.k. nt

[JaneQPublic]

25. Dean was polling at 42% in NH on 12/4/03

30 points ahead of his closest rival.
http://zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6437

[Joe the Revelator]

8. "She'll Be a great President"

Why are you so scared to allow people to vote?

[calteacherguy]

10. "Why are you afraid to allow people to vote." What a BIZZARE statement.

As if I could prohibit people from voting!

:crazy:

[Joe the Revelator]

13. You're feeding the inevitable meme...

...based on early polling, as if actual votes don't count. Its pretty disgusting.

[calteacherguy]

21. So I'm supposed to keep my opinons to myself? nt

[earthlover]

27. The Hillary Gaggle is really keen on that inevitability meme.....

They further it every chance they get. Then, when challenged, they say something like....when did any of them actually say it! Pretty predictable, and even more tiresome.

[Trisket-Bisket]

18. Thanks

So many here want the primaries RIGHT NOW! I can wait. How bout you?

[goodgd_yall]

20. Looks like you made peace with HRC's Lieberman/Kyl vote n/t

[msongs]

4. wish howard was running again... nt

[EST]

5. Wow!

If Dean was still polling 9% after he'd been out of the race for nine months, he was really something.
I guess I just don't understand politics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Good Catch

TY

[Joe the Revelator]

9. Maybe I should be the one to edit

...my apologies.

[EST]

16. Sorry!

I was trying to be gentle...:toast:

And I'm beginning to think I really don't understand politics.

[earthlover]

7. And on January 7/8 Kerry was polling at 7%...down from 8% in November!

Good thing early polls are a total absolute predictor of who will be the inevitable winner! HAHAHA

[calteacherguy]

11. Good thing this is 2003! Ha ha!

Oh, wait....it's 2007....

[earthlover]

17. Early leads may evaporate.....people so far behind they have to re-mortgage their house can win....

[calteacherguy]

22. In 2004, there was no Hillary Clinton. nt

[goodgd_yall]

23. Shouldn't you be correcting homework? n/t

[karynnj]

24. Yes, she was - but she thought 2004 was not winnable

[earthlover]

26. Like Hillary is some sort of god head....

I really think your objectivity is a bit clouded by your new love.

My one and only point was that Kerry was way way WAAAYYYYY behind in the polls as recently as January, yet he won running away....coming from behind in the last two to three days before Iowa.

It was supposed to be a race between Dean and Clark. Kerry was so far behind, he basically dropped out of new hampshire campaigning, remortgaged the house to put everything into a last gasp desperation shot at Iowa. It worked, and from there on he was on a steam roller.

I hate to break it to ya...but Hillary is human too. She is NOT inevitable, insurmountable, unbeatable/

Polls are just snapshots in time. If you don't understand that, you miss their entire function!

At this point in time, Hillary has the lead. That's all. No more. And no less.

Now, maybe Hillary will hold on to her lead. She certainly has a lot of support from both sides of the aisle....to get the nomination that is.

But maybe she won't.

Let's talk about this in February. Until then, polls are curiosities at best.

[BadgerLaw2010]

28. No, but she has one hell of an organized, controlled machine.

The Democrats haven't seen anything like this in a long time.

Expecting her to blow up is unrealistic.

[earthlover]

29. It is the voters, not the machine, who actually vote....

Kerry did not have a well-oiled machine going into Iowa. He had some good organizing as did Dean....

Amazing thought...the voters get to have their say too!

Who said anything about her blowing up? She MIGHT be off-putting by merely a condescending laugh or two....

Dean's machine was derailed by the voters. So could Hillary's.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. This is the sort of fact-based thread what causes unrest...

In actuality, Dean was at 65% because the pollsters wanted to install Dean, who was a DINO or something. Then Kerry's grassroots effort rose up to crush him. I remember it like it was yesterday...
Good times!

[Cameron27]

14. !

:spray:

[durrrty libby]

15. Polls are fun..weeeeeee

[goodgd_yall]

19. The difference between the 10/03 polls and 10/07 polls

In 2003 there was no clear leader. It looks like there was 2 t0 4 percentage point differences between several candidates. However, what is interesting is the jump from mid-January 2003 to February 2004 in support of Kerry---BIG jump. Once the primaries come around people make their final decisions. I think before then people are still in the possibly-maybe stage.

[ozone_man]

30. And 31% in Dec. 18-21.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 18-21, 2003. Registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents (from a total sample of 1,001 adults). Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were , for whom would you vote?" Names rotated
12/18-21 12/10-14 10/26-29 10/9-13
% % % %
Howard Dean 31 20 17 17
Richard Gephardt 9 6 14 14
Joseph Lieberman 8 12 13 10
John Kerry 8 7 8 11
Wesley Clark 7 7 14 14
John Edwards 5 2 5 2
Al Sharpton 4 7 7 3
Carol Moseley Braun 4 3 3 4
Dennis Kucinich 2 2 2 2
Other (vol.) 1 - - -
None (vol.) 5 12 5 9
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 1 2 1 1
No opinion 14 20 10 13

It's good not to peak too early in a presidential contest. Perhaps Hillary is at that point? Several more months before the primaries start, so things can change quickly. Ask Howard Dean. :)