2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow Fast Can It Change? Iowa Caucus Polling - December 2003 and December 2007
The Iowa Democratic Caucus was held on January 19, 2004. On December 2, 2003 Howard Dean was leading the pack with 26% supporting him, with Dick Gephardt in second at 22%. John Kerry was in third at 9%, and John Edwards was fourth with 5%.
On January 7th, less than two week out, the numbers were different but the ranking was the same: Dean 30%, Gephardt 23%, Kerry 18%, Edwards 11%.
The actual results on January the 19th were: John Kerry 37.64% John Edwards 31.83%, Howard Dean 18.02%, and Dick Gephardt 10.06%.
Source Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries%2C_2004#Iowa
The changes in how Democratic candidates fared between pre-caucus polling for the Iowa Caucus and the actual results on January 3, 2008 were not quite as dramatic, but they still were major. I found this data from ARG (American Research Group) for the Iowa Primary Contest. For point of reference, ARG was ranked tied for 5th out of 20 polling operations for their accuracy in predicting the final outcome of the 2008 presidential elections. Source: http://www.politisite.com/2010/08/06/poll-accuracy-in-the-2008-presidential-election-rasmussen-pew/
12/16 - 12/19/2007
Clinton 29%
Obama 25%
Edwards 18%
12/26 - 12/28
Clinton 31%
Obama 24%
Edwards 24%
12/31 - 1/2/08
Clinton 34%
Obama 25%
Edwards 21%
Actual Iowa Results on January 3, 2008
Obama 37.6%
Edwards 29.7%
Clinton 29.4%
Not to be misleading, the Real Clear Politics (RCP) composite polling data for Iowa that year was more accurate in the final days than ARG was for the Iowa contest (but harder to break out comparative figures out of), though composite figures for the weeks before those final days were similar.
For the period 12/26/07 through 1/02/07 RCP predicted:
Obama 30.8%
Clinton 29.2%
Edwards 26%
It should be noted that while both Joe Biden and Bill Richardson were only polling in single digits, they each still under performed by several points on the night of the actual caucus.
Here is something from the Gallup organization that is worth pondering, but while you do please note that it was published on January 6, 2004. In other words, it does not include data from the 2004 and 2008 races
"There have been 10 races over the last 50 years in which there was a significant contest for the Democratic nomination: 1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2000. (The omitted years of 1964, 1980, and 1996 were ones in which a Democratic incumbent president ran for re-election with little or no opposition.)...
...In fact, in only 4 out of the 10 elections (Adlai Stevenson in 1952, John F. Kennedy in 1960, Walter Mondale in 1984, and Al Gore in 2000) did the front-runner in late December/early January win the Democratic Party's nomination. In all other instances, someone else came from behind as the primary season unfolded."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/10120/history-shows-january-frontrunner-often-does-win-democratic-nomination.aspx
One final point. National opinion polls can react strongly to he results of early caucuses and primaries. Let's go back to the 2004 Democratic contest again and look at how national opinion polls correlated to early states results. Remember, Iowa voted on January 19th and NH on January 27. Here is a snapshot from a CBS national opinion poll taken shortly before those contests, and one a month later. Source:
http://pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
Shortly before the 2004 Iowa Caucus, national polling:
1/12-15/04
Dean 24
Clark 12
Gephardt 11
Kerry 7
Edwards 5
One month later it looked like this
2/12-15/04
Kerry 53
Edwards 7
Sharpton 4
Kucinich 1
Other 12
It is a little bit early to be talking about the 2016 presumptive Democratic nominee.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)I am not talking about literal straw polls, just saying that all we have now are still just opinion polls based on sampling - actual voter results on the day of the election(s) may vary. They certainly have in the not distant past.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)When they start talking about their candidates, many Hillary supporters won't have a leg to stand on. Many will find themselves drifting over to Bernie's side of the room....
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)They can melt away quickly in that type scenario.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)As the first nominating contests grow closer, Clinton's supporters are firmer in their choice (58 percent) than Bernie Sanders' supporters (47 percent).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-nyt-poll-hillary-clinton-continues-to-lead-democratic-field/
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)a handsome prince will arrive on a magic carpet, climb up to your tower and sweep you off the feet. You two will then go to the magic kingdom full of unicorns and rainbows to live happily ever after.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I've been saying for weeks that the important thing is which candidate has momentum coming out from xmas and the new year. Trying to call things now is just wildly presumptuous.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)This time not much to pull from. But I guess anything is possible.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)So much depends on how much firm rather than soft support a candidate has going into the actual voting. Front runners can bleed votes quickly if allegiances to them do not run deep.
artislife
(9,497 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)and did not take them seriously enough. The Obama campaign outsmarted them and out hustled them. They are not going to let that happen this time. If fact if anything they are going to turn the tables and outsmart and out hustle the Bernie campaign.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)But political campaigns are notorious for developing tactics that respond to past weaknesses.Nothing wrong with that. They should do that. However they don't always see how the next new political wave functions until after it crashes over them. All I'm saying is that it is premature for conventional wisdom to be confident that it has triumphed
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But the caucuses dont really lend themselves to a "new political wave function". They have lots of strict rules and procedures that will restrict any attempts to apply new political tactics. The only tactic I see the Bernie campaign using that might actually upset the apple cart if they can figure out some way to get all those new millennials to actually show up and participate.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Caucus rules are established and knowing how to play "that game" is critical. but the underlying reality of a caucus compared to a primary is the invisible filter that tends to result in only the most motivated being there to participate. If the formula changes for that, old voting models become less useful. If polling samples don't assign the correct weight to different groups of potential voters - they get thrown off.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Bernie's supporters will do the same. Unless Hillary bribes her supporters with free pie or something.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Guaranteed.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)online sometime Sunday/Monday.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Something that Hillary's side sorely lacks
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Why do you think he only finished third in Iowa when he was leading the polls in the months leading up to the caucus?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)So doesn't Dean's relatively poor showing in Iowa not bode particularly well for Sanders?
blm
(113,043 posts).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Why did Dean do so poorly?
blm
(113,043 posts)support since Nov while Kerry was gaining. Corporate media was locked into a narrative, and some were even using their privilege to urge Kerry in December to get out of the race, altogether.
Kerry worked the ground personally in Iowa while media frenzy around Dean 24/7 was making it impossible for Dean to do that - they were treating him more like a rock star than a candidate - hard to talk to real people that way.
blm
(113,043 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 14, 2015, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)
I knew by November that Kerry was gaining a lead on the ground in Iowa that would be insurmountable, even though he was being ignored heavily by the media, and some of those mouthpieces (including Dem 'strategist' class) were even saying Kerry should drop out.
chillfactor
(7,574 posts)rurallib
(62,406 posts)Until about 2 weeks before the caucus date when I drove by a big yellow "Firefighters For Kerry" sign. I turned to my wife and said "we are in trouble. Those guys are organized."
We went to the caucus and watched half the room walk to the Kerry side.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Many leftist Dems blamed Gephardt for the IWR due to his support of it in his leadership role in Congress when it passed. Many of the same Democrats remembered Kerry's important role in Vietnam Vets Against the War - so he had some progressive creds.