Des Moines Register Dem. Presidential Poll

[NorthSideSox72]

Clearly you don't know politics.

 

Using 1992 as an example, Paul Tsongas was polling better than Bill Clinton because Clinton dodged the draft, had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers, and was the Governor of a "small state". Clinton went on to win the Presidency, even though he was a little known candidate.

 

We could go all through history with this: James K. Polk. Jimmy Carter, for two other examples.

 

Just because people are unknown pre-Presidential race doesn't mean a damn thing.

 

I am confident enough to say that Muskie couldn't have won where Carter did, Tsongas would fail where Clinton didn't.

 

I like Bayh. Very much. But Presidential races are long, grueling affairs, and being unknown isn't that much of a handicap. Certainly not in climates like today's which are conductive to newer faces.

 

 

 

I had to read the first sentence three times to make sure I read it right. Are you serious?! You think I don't know politics because I think one unknown candidate is more likely to win than another? When Bayh is a lot more well-known outside Iowa than Vilsack is?!

 

You, my friend, are hilarious. And besides, looking at your line about being unknown is irrelevant, its pretty clear who here isn't too aware of the world of politics. Awareness of name is in fact one of the most important factors in national politics - a fact which I assumed most people were aware of, simply as a matter of common sense. And your other unrelated examples have no connection whatsoever to the personalities at hand. Using the logic of your example (Tsongas v Clinton), you think Tsongas is Bayh and Clinton is Vlisack? Not really. My post, which you replied to, was about 3 candidates NOT in the top four in this poll anyway (a poll which, again, is ridiculously too early to mean anything significant).

 

 

But please, continue posting. This should be entertaining.

 

 

That's is very well said these contests have grown to be so long starting right after the midterms are done. You really could go on and on with the dark horses infact this point of 1990 the front runners for the '92 elections were Gephardt and Cuomo. But they backed out so there is no telling who could win the nomination maybe somebody not even on the map yet.

 

Which was exactly my point - which seemed to be missed entirely.

[BHAMBARONS]

 

 

I had to read the first sentence three times to make sure I read it right. Are you serious?! You think I don't know politics because I think one unknown candidate is more likely to win than another? When Bayh is a lot more well-known outside Iowa than Vilsack is?!

 

You, my friend, are hilarious. And besides, looking at your line about being unknown is irrelevant, its pretty clear who here isn't too aware of the world of politics. Awareness of name is in fact one of the most important factors in national politics - a fact which I assumed most people were aware of, simply as a matter of common sense. And your other unrelated examples have no connection whatsoever to the personalities at hand. Using the logic of your example (Tsongas v Clinton), you think Tsongas is Bayh and Clinton is Vlisack? Not really. My post, which you replied to, was about 3 candidates NOT in the top four in this poll anyway (a poll which, again, is ridiculously too early to mean anything significant).

 

 

But please, continue posting. This should be entertaining.

Which was exactly my point - which seemed to be missed entirely.

 

Yep you are also right on anybody can win an election. Tsongas most likely would have won in 1992 but having just got back from fighting cancer then I believe the cancer came back again during the campaign and died like in 1996 or 1997.

 

 

Thank you. I don't care which side of the aisle the poll is for, it is so early, that poll is only useful to line my catbox with. Get back to me in a year from now...

 

Really a year and half I won't look at numbers until January 2008. It looked like in 03 that Dean would be a run away winner and he didn't even make it to super Tuesday. But your right these polls are way to early.

[Gregory Pratt]

I had to read the first sentence three times to make sure I read it right. Are you serious?! You think I don't know politics because I think one unknown candidate is more likely to win than another? When Bayh is a lot more well-known outside Iowa than Vilsack is?!

 

You, my friend, are hilarious. And besides, looking at your line about being unknown is irrelevant, its pretty clear who here isn't too aware of the world of politics. Awareness of name is in fact one of the most important factors in national politics - a fact which I assumed most people were aware of, simply as a matter of common sense. And your other unrelated examples have no connection whatsoever to the personalities at hand. Using the logic of your example (Tsongas v Clinton), you think Tsongas is Bayh and Clinton is Vlisack? Not really. My post, which you replied to, was about 3 candidates NOT in the top four in this poll anyway (a poll which, again, is ridiculously too early to mean anything significant).

 

 

But please, continue posting. This should be entertaining.

Which was exactly my point - which seemed to be missed entirely.

 

No, no, you didn't make the point that one unknown was more likely to win based on anything that had merit. You made the point that Bayh was higher in the polls and that means that he's likelier to win than Vilsack, and I said that that's untrue and that early polls mean nothing. Don't mischaracterize your comments or mine, thanks.

 

 

I can click the emoticons, too.

 

I didn't say that Clinton was Vilsack and Bayh was Tsongas. All I did was point out several relevant examples to show that early polls means as much as an emoticon.

 

Here's what I had said: "Vilsack has as much of a chance as Bayh or Richardson, for sure."

 

You said that Bayh had a better chance because of polls, then you went back and agreed with this: "there is no telling who could win the nomination maybe somebody not even on the map yet." which is just about what I was saying about dark horses.

 

Grab some bench.

[minors]

It won't matter anyway a Republican will win

[NorthSideSox72]

No, no, you didn't make the point that one unknown was more likely to win based on anything that had merit. You made the point that Bayh was higher in the polls and that means that he's likelier to win than Vilsack, and I said that that's untrue and that early polls mean nothing. Don't mischaracterize your comments or mine, thanks.

 

 

I can click the emoticons, too.

 

I didn't say that Clinton was Vilsack and Bayh was Tsongas. All I did was point out several relevant examples to show that early polls means as much as an emoticon.

 

Here's what I had said: "Vilsack has as much of a chance as Bayh or Richardson, for sure."

 

You said that Bayh had a better chance because of polls, then you went back and agreed with this: "there is no telling who could win the nomination maybe somebody not even on the map yet." which is just about what I was saying about dark horses.

 

Grab some bench.

 

Your circular reasoning is bizarre. Perhaps you are misunderstanding things here. I'll reiterate and try to clarify my main points:

 

1. Vilsack is a nobody outside Iowa, and barring a major shift in things, has little chance. He only polled 10% in the state is he is governor of, for pete's sake! At least Bayh and Richardson are widely known and popular in their regions.

 

2. This poll is too early to mean anything much, since candidates like Bayh, Richardson, and yes Vilsack, have yet to begin campaigning. Therefore, the poll leaders are just popular holdovers for all purposes. And since its one state, it doesn't paint any real picture of name recognition nationally.

 

3. National polls, not Iowa polls, do indeed reflect that Bayh and even Richardson are more well-known that Vilsack. This is prior to any of the three of them campaigning. So again, while anything can happen in the next year or two, Vilsack doesn't appear to have built enough of a name for himself yet as his first stepping stone. He is therefore a step or two behind them, and they in turn are a number of steps behind the big 3.

 

Here is a neat link:

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

 

In the polls where both Bayh and Vilsack even appear, in 2006 polls (and using the most recent version of each), here are the percents for each of them:

 

Bayh, Vilsack

2, 0

1, 0

3, 0

2, 0

 

Notice a trend? Vilsack polls so low he is given a '-' in all four polls, near zero support. He is an unknown. Bayh is certainly no world-beater either, of course, but its clear he has more name recognition at least.

 

What did surprise me, I must admit, is that Richardson was actually better off than either of them it appears, at this point.

 

 

It won't matter anyway a Republican will win

If the Dems are stupid enough to run Kerry or Clinton out there? Then very possibly.

[Rex Kickass]

Iowa Caucus has just as much to do with organization as it has to do with the candidate themselves. Because if the people polled don't go to the caucus meetings, it doesn't matter who they want to win.

[Gregory Pratt]

1. Vilsack is a nobody outside Iowa, and barring a major shift in things, has little chance. He only polled 10% in the state is he is governor of, for pete's sake! At least Bayh and Richardson are widely known and popular in their regions.

 

And for awhile, Bill Clinton was losing Arkansas to George H.W. Bush in 1991 and 1992. You keep bringing up polls that don't mean anything, and I'm quite tired with your circular posts. Anything can happen, but Bayh and Richardson > Vilsack, who isn't even known!!!

 

Blah blah blah.

[NorthSideSox72]

And for awhile, Bill Clinton was losing Arkansas to George H.W. Bush in 1991 and 1992. You keep bringing up polls that don't mean anything, and I'm quite tired with your circular posts. Anything can happen, but Bayh and Richardson > Vilsack, who isn't even known!!!

 

Blah blah blah.

Not once did I say polls don't mean anything. They mean a lot. I said this poll, in one small state, at this time, is pretty irrelevant. And that any results related to that state's governor are even more irrelevant. Further, even if you assume the poll has some validity, the fact that Vilsack couldn't do better than 10% in his own state is pretty indicative of his poor chances in a Prez run.

 

But if you'd rather not accept those pieces of different information, you go right ahead and believe whatever you'd like.

[Gregory Pratt]

Not once did I say polls don't mean anything. They mean a lot. I said this poll, in one small state, at this time, is pretty irrelevant. And that any results related to that state's governor are even more irrelevant. Further, even if you assume the poll has some validity, the fact that Vilsack couldn't do better than 10% in his own state is pretty indicative of his poor chances in a Prez run.

 

But if you'd rather not accept those pieces of different information, you go right ahead and believe whatever you'd like.

 

My stance is and has been that polls this early don't mean s***, and it's only until after New Hampshire that they mean anything. Name recognition this early in the game? Means nothing. Opinion ratings? Mean nothing.

 

At least, in most cases. With new people. With old people, like Hillary or Newt Gingrich, they mean a lot because they're unlikely to change. The public's view of them has been shaped by over a decade. When it comes to Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Unknown Politician, it doesn't mean much.