…what are the polls really telling us, and how solid are they?
Here’s why I try not to get wrapped around the axle every time a new poll comes out. This one, from left-leaning PPP, has Gingrich up over Romney 47-17. But primary electorates can be very volatile.
In November 2007, guess who the front-runners were in Florida? If you guessed Obama and McCain, you get the game show buzzer.
In a hypothetical matchup of the front-running presidential candidates, Democrat Hillary Clinton leads Republican Rudy Giuliani in Florida by 51 percent to 42 percent, according to a poll taken this week by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
The poll nearly reverses the results of a Mason-Dixon poll taken in Florida earlier this month, which indicated Giuliani led Clinton by 50 percent to 43 percent.
It’s hard to tell whether the contradictory results reflect shifting opinions over a couple of weeks, different polling methods or an ambivalent electorate. Perhaps it merely indicates a volatile, wide-open campaign that could shift several times before the Florida Primary on Jan. 29 and the general election next November.
That’s from November 28, 2007, analogous to this week in the election cycle. The first sentence almost reads like bad comedy now. Neither Giuliani nor Clinton ended up winning their nominations, though both were “front-runners” in Florida in late November 2007. Rudy totally flamed out. Hillary got steamrolled by Captain Hopenchange and his back-up singers in the media.
I’m not going to turn from that and then argue that policy matters, look at the candidates’ records, etc. The fact is, of the group of major candidates on both sides who were looking for victory in Florida in 2007, the least credible and least experienced of the bunch ended up winning the whole thing. Giuliani would have been a better president. Hillary would have been a better president. Maybe. She couldn’t have been a whole lot worse. Neither of them won.
Do polls matter? Well, they make for splashy headlines and blog fodder. They make fundraising either easier or harder depending on where you rank in them. But they’re not necessarily predictive at this point of how the vote will actually turn out.
Well, I can guarantee you that no one who was at 2% in that 2007 poll ended up winning.
FL was largely meaningless on the dem side as no one was campaigning there.
On the GOP side Rudy’s strategy was always flawed as didn’t even bother trying the first 4 states and banked on waiting until FL.
Newt, otoh is not only up big in FL, he’s also up in IA and SC which come before FL. Bit of a different situation.
Polls at this point are actually very predictive.
Look at the IA polls from Dec 1, 2007. They were pretty accurate in terms of where things stood. Same with the other states. Not necessarily who would win, but they did give you the state of play.
No, you can’t say who will win at this point. But we can start to say who won’t win at this point. For example, I think everyone would agree Santorum won’t be the nominee. Same for Huntsman. Same for Paul. Same for Cain. Same for Bachmann. Same for Perry(when youre at 2% in FL it’s just not happening for you). We can start to see how things will go.
Gee, somebody else gets it.
I don’t feel so desperately isolated any longer.
I do not remember Giuliani actually ever leading in FL against the other Republicans. Who care how he polled against Hillary? I believe it was Romney and McCain leading in FL at this point. I could be wrong.
Giuliani banked it all on FL, because he thought he could get the snowbird votes. He did not understand that those folks are generally Democrats.
You have to compare apples to apples. Giuliani was the squishiest of squishes. He should be a Democrat. So, despite blowing $30mil in FL, and tens of mils elsewhere, he got exactly 0 delegates. None. Nada. Zilch.
McCain got a surprise win in NH, then took the momentum to SC. He won there, by talking more strongly on Conservative things and on foreign policy. Iraq was the main issue. He opposed water boarding (taking the liberal media position) He was a war hero, and most of the others hadn’t served.
Today, the main issue is not really the economy, but reform of government – the cause of the problem. That’s why Romney is doing so poorly. There is no way in hell he is going to be viewed as the guy to bring change to DC. Gingrich has actually managed to do that in the past, so he does not suffer as much from squishiness as Romney.
Giuliani could be a Democrat on social issues, but not on anything else. He restored law and order to NYC, after the disastrous term of Mayor Dinkens. He is a fiscal conservative, and absolutely committed to strong national defense.
Giuliani decided not to endorse Dede Scozzofava (the RINO in the NY23 congressional district. When asked why, he said that his first impulse was to endorse her–he figured the opposition was only objecting to her social positions. He changed his mind when he looked at her whole record–he said “She’s not a Republican on any issues at all.”