Polls are useful snapshots but unreliable crystal balls.

[saltpoint]

Here's one that's kind of interesting from 2003:

_ _ _ _ _

ABC News Poll. Sept. 10-13, 2003. Registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were --see below--, for whom would you vote?"

--the first percentage is ALL voters; the second is LIKELY voters.

Joseph Lieberman 21 / 19
Howard Dean 15 / 20
John Kerry 14 / 19
Richard Gephardt 14 / 15
Wesley Clark 6 / 6
Al Sharpton 5 / 5
Carol Moseley Braun 4 / 4
John Edwards 3 / 4
Bob Graham 3 / 4
Dennis Kucinich 2 / 3
None (vol.) 3 / 0
Wouldn't vote (vol.) 2 / 0
No opinion 8 / -
_ _ _ _ _

[KharmaTrain]

1. Polls Are Obsolete The Moment They're Issued

Yes, they are a snapshot in time...and depending on how they're conducted is how the data is interpreted. Usually it's to verify if something done during the survey period was effective...something tangible to gauge...or as a reflection of the marketplace...measuring a competitor's strength or weakness. It can't be used to predict the future as much as to create a history where the person using the polling can see if they are heading in a proper direction. It's like looking in your rearview mirror.

I joke that at this point in '91, the leading Democrat was Mario Cuomo with the late Paul Tsongas not far behind. Robert Kennedy didn't enter the 1968 primaries until after New Hampshire. Yes, the polls are always amusing at this time since they're usually nothing more than a reflection of popularity and name recognition as it is to actual electoral support.

[saltpoint]

2. Tsongas certainly did have his supporters. I encountered them in

Arizona that year while I was careening back and forth between Jerry Brown's people and Tom Harkin's people.

You could hardly turn a corner without running into a Tsongas event.

You mention Mario Cuomo. He'll always score the highest possible rating for me. He is a titan who could not and likely would not dumb-down to run for president. But a Democratic win in 08 might result in a Cuomo appointment to the Supreme Court.

That would give Mssrs. Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas something to fret over, wouldn't it?

[KharmaTrain]

6. I'd Love To See Mario On The Court

Looking at the depth and diversity of the Democratic party I see a lot of very excelent choices for cabinet and judicial positions in the future. The loss in '04 pained me greatly cause I knew Requihst was on his last Gilbert & Sullivan bars and that his assholiness would get to pick someone for the court. I went into a funk for weeks just on that thought after the election.

The only caveat to this year's primaries is how the corporate media has turned the electoral process into a reality show...no sooner was the '06 election done than the '08 election was front and center. There's no breathing room and next year's election promises to be a very long and brusing one as the nominees will all be cast by March.

Cheers...

[saltpoint]

7. Yeah. I wish the media were more represented by Jim Lehrer and

a few others and less by Candy Crowley and Brit Hume.

I'm grateful for the good ones, of course.

It's going to be a wild year. France showed up in the 80% range to vote for their president. That lays down a standard that will be tough to meet.

[EFerrari]

3. Have you seen this? Possible Bloomberg/Nunn ticket

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1508787

[saltpoint]

8. Yes. But I'm repressing it!

Never did care for Mr. Nunn.

Not voting for Bloomberg either, but would vastly prefer him to Nunn.

In fact, I'd prefer None to Nunn.

Hi to ya. Hope all's well your way.

[EFerrari]

11. Repression is highly underrated.

tgif, Old Crusoe

:)

[saltpoint]

13. -- -- --

:thumbsup: :hi:

[GreenTea]

4. And are useful tools to dictate and control the what the people will do.

[saltpoint]

9. They can be, or not. Lieberman leads in the Sept. 2003 poll.

That just didn't work out very well for Lieberman.

He had to skip Iowa because his internal polls showed him losing to Richard Speck, Charles Manson, Judas, Jim Jones, the Boston Strangler, and Mohammed Atta.

Then he got crunched in New Hampshire.

The poll from 9-03 claims he's the frontrunner.

He found out soon enough that he wasn't.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Thanks, but I'm fluent in Obvious.

[saltpoint]

10. But the polls indicate clearly that Lieberman would win. And he did.

Right?

[Deja Q]

12. And limited to the people they poll.

Random chance or otherwise, any poll is worthless unless every body is counted.

[Beerboy]

14. That's a fairly astute observation . nt.

nt

[AtomicKitten]

15. I find ouija boards so much more accurate.

I love the daily predictions made with such certainty here at DU!

[EFerrari]

16. I'll stake my Tarot deck against that ouija board.

[AtomicKitten]

17. this was dead-on accurate in the third grade

[EFerrari]

18. :Lol!

Yes, it was. :)