Putting Q2 Fundraising into perspective

[wyldwolf]

Q2 2003-2004

Howard Dean - $7.6 million
John Kerry - $5.9 million
John Edwards - $4.5 million

THIRD Quarter - 2003 (three months before the actual delegate selection process in Iowa)

Howard Dean - $14.8 million
John Kerry - $4 million
Edwards - $2.1 million

FOURTH Quarter - 2003 (days before Iowa)

Howard Dean - $14 million
John Kerry - $2.1 million

Clearly, "excitement" over Howard Dean, as is being defined by many as money raised and amount of donors, did not translate into votes, nor does it ever.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Now Will You Put Early Polling In Perspective Too?

Will you demonstrate how early polling has little to do with who gets the nomination?

I'm sure that was the next thing you were about to post, no?

[wyldwolf]

2. Certainly - six months or so out of Iowa

Six months before Iowa, Joe Lieberman led the eventual nominee by a mere 2%.

Four months before Iowa, Howard Dean lead the eventual nominee by just 8%.

Hillary Clinton leads Obama by substantially more. AT THIS POINT, six months out, Obama has considerably more ground to make up than Kerry had.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. How Far Ahead of Gephardt Was Kerry At This Point?

Just curious.

[wyldwolf]

5. six months out, he was behind Kerry by 2%. Four months out, he trailed Kerry by 5%

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Looks To Me Like Like Gebhardt Was Kicking Kerry's Ass In August

http://miva.dmregister.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?extras/iowapoll/poll.mv+file=prez0308

Which is pretty much how I remember it.

Here's an article that indicates that Dean had twice Kerry's numbers in January (24% v 12%), just days before the poll.

So - early poll data in Iowa is, at best, loosely correlated to later poll data. And later poll data is only loosely correlated with the outcome. As a person who works with statistics, I'd say that makes the correlation between early polling data and outcome almost nil.

$5 says that if you find a statistical analysis, it'll show that early contributions are a better indicator of eventual outcome. I suspect that 2004 was an outlier because only Dean had figured out how to use the Internet. Now everyone knows how to do this.

[wyldwolf]

11. Hardly an ass-kicking - single digits.

We can show poll numbers all day. But the topic was Q2 fundraising, then someone mentioned polling from the same time in 2003.

But even in your local Iowa poll, Gephardt led by single digits.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Dean Leading By Double Digits Just Days Before The Poll

Face it - the evidence is clear that early polling data is not particularly correlated with outcome.

[wyldwolf]

16. yes, but you asked about Gephardt... and we're discussing six months out from Iowa

Face it - you keep changing the focus. First we're six months out from Iowa. Then you declare Gehardt was giving Kerry an asskicking, then you change the focus to Dean. :shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

18. So It Looks Like You And I Agree

That early polling data is of zero utility.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. President Connolly and President Gramm?

==$5 says that if you find a statistical analysis, it'll show that early contributions are a better indicator of eventual outcome.==

It is interesting how suddenly fund-raising numbers have become so sacred over the past few days. We did not hear about this when HRC was expected to beat Obama in fund-raising in the first quarter, nor did we hear this when HRC matched him in the first quarter.

John Connolly had a huge fund-raising advantage in 1980 as did Phil Gramm in 1996. How many primaries did they win? Dean won only his home state for all his fund-raising prowess (raising 3x more than Kerry over the final 9 months of 2003...).

[rinsd]

9. Here's the polling from that time.

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

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. How about one week or so before Iowa?

Dean led the eventual nominee by 13% in the national polls and the second place finisher by 16%. Clark was a solid second (13% to Dean's 20%) while everyone else was in a close pack ranging from Gephardt at 8% to Kucinich at 2%.

I love how Obama supporters invoke 2003-2004 to argue that their candidate will eventually overtake HRC and win (since these BO fans like to paint the race as a two-way contest). What they ignore is that the second place candidate--whose candidacy had many parallels to Obama's candidacy--flamed out even worse than Dean that year.

[Forkboy]

4. To recap:Hillary didn't get as much as Obama.

[wyldwolf]

6. To recap, Kerry didn't get as much as Dean.

[Forkboy]

7. And Dean also led in the polls.

So I guess neither the money OR the polls are indicative of very much at this point.

Glad we can agree!

[wyldwolf]

8. No, actually, Lieberman did - by single digits

Six months before Iowa, Joe Lieberman led the eventual nominee by a mere 2%.

Four months before Iowa, Howard Dean lead the eventual nominee by just 8%.

Hillary Clinton leads Obama by substantially more. AT THIS POINT, six months out, Obama has considerably more ground to make up than Kerry had.

But the interesting thing about this discussion you and I are having is Clinton supporters on DU are not claiming current polls means she'll be the nominee.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. what people are excited about is the fact that a quarter million people donated. not the money part

[wyldwolf]

13. Howard Dean had more donors in 2004. People were a lot more excited about Bill Bradley in 2000

[illinoisprogressive]

14. Because Dean flamed out doesn't mean anyone else will. different people and time.

Dean is Dean and no one else is. You cannot compare one person and their experiences with another person with different experiences and thinking. That is just dumb.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. The notion that money buys votes is an absurd one. That is the point

Yes, Obama is not Dean. If his candidacy resembles any candidate from last time it is Clark (both candidacies were based on early opposition to the war, both entered late with great media fanfare, both were declared to be "the savior" from the unelectable frontrunner, both were painted as the only alternative to the seemingly "inevitable" frontrunner, etc.). Of course, many BO supporters forget that HRC is not Holy Joe either. ;)

[rinsd]

17. Something else too, Bush raised $292M for the primaries running un-opposed.

That will not happen this time where a candidate can basically air negative adviertising against his GE opponent (or potential opponents).

The GOP are gonna need most of the money they collect to win the primaries.

[zulchzulu]

20. This desperate spin about lower expectations from Team Clinton brought to you by...

....people who want to make you believe that success by Obama is really like Howard Dean in 2004. Repeat after him: Obama=Dean...Obama=Dean...

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

23. zulchzulu's comment: MOE +/- 6%

[rinsd]

24. !!!!!!!!

:spray:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

30. zulchzulu's follow-up comment: MOE +/- 8%

[Ethelk2044]

25. Nor did the polls, If the polls were correct in 2004 we would have Kerry. The exit Polls showed he

was favored to win. Do we have Kerry? No we have the ASS Hole Bush

[rinsd]

26. Obamaniacs need a new talking point. Kerry was literally robbed.

Though I seriously can't wait for the 1st poll that comes out showing Obama with a lead to watch you guys fall all over yourselves to tout it.

[Ethelk2044]

27. No Talking points. Is Kerry in the White House. HELL NO

[rinsd]

28. Does that have to do with faulty polling or a stolen election?