OPINION & EDITORIAL
Recent polls reveal… absolutely nothing
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Hahn:
- Recent polls reveal... absolutely nothing (December 4, 2007)
- 'Right to bear arms' stands up to scrutiny (November 27, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- The pitfalls of holistic admissions (November 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Primaries deserve mature thinking (October 18, 2007)
- A capital offense (January 19, 2004)
- 'Oprabama?' No thank you (December 10, 2007)
- Presidential dress rehearsal loses plot (August 31, 2007)
- President Bush's trip to Latin America disingenuous, selfish (March 8, 2007)
by Mike Hahn
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
It's that time of year again. No, not Christmas, but the
sprint to the finish in those all-important early primary states of Iowa and
New Hampshire.
That's right. In just five short weeks, the longest
presidential campaign in history will actually have its first votes. To
celebrate the season, nearly every pollster in the United States is coming out
with their take on which candidates will win, place and show in the first two
legs of the presidential triple crown.
Grabbing the biggest headlines of the last week, Illinois
Senator Barack Obama has replaced his colleague, New York Senator Hillary
Clinton on top of every major poll in Iowa. Is this really news, though? I
mean, really, the race has been going on for the better part of a year already
and it would be only natural for the polls to fluctuate, right?
Anyone who has been paying attention to politics in the last
few months knows that any major change in the polls — especially on the
Democrats side — has been actually quite unusual. Since the major announcements
of the candidates, there have been only two national frontrunners: Hillary
Clinton for the Democrats and Rudy Giuliani for the Republicans. Mr. Obama and
former North Carolina Senator John Edwards have spent the entire year jockeying
between the second and third positions among the Democrats. But now for the
first time multiple polls have shown that Hillary Clinton is not the inevitable
Democratic nominee.
Despite the media's shocked reaction at the change in the
polls, no one should really be shocked by this.
Mrs. Clinton, though certainly in possession of one of the
best national organizations in American political history, is disliked and even
despised by a large portion of the American people. The idea that she would
have an uninterrupted coronation in her race to the White House has always
seemed a little absurd to me. Indeed, many liberals with whom I have discussed
the presidential race have admitted to me that they quite nearly refuse to vote
for Mrs. Clinton. So the notion that someone could overtake her is not really
that farfetched.
Also, we need look no further than four years ago to
understand just how wrong the polls can be — not only about "frontrunners," but
also about all the candidates in general. Does the name Howard Dean sound
familiar? This was the man who was going to change everything. He had the
"Deaniacs," he had the online fundraising, he had the youth energized, he had
everything — except the votes. Polls going into the Iowa caucuses showed Dean
was likely to win comfortably, but he didn't. He lost. John Kerry somehow
pulled off an upset and went from a distant fifth to a solid win. Is it so
inconceivable that something similar could happen this year?
There are many other examples of underdogs coming from
behind to win in Iowa. In 1972, George McGovern was receiving less than 5
percent in the national polls less than two weeks before Iowa, and somehow he
went on to win the nomination.
The truth is that with the new compacted primary schedule no
one knows what is going to happen after Iowa and New Hampshire. Will the winner
— or the surprise finisher — get a bigger bounce into South Carolina and
"Tsunami" Tuesday? Or will the schedule favor national polls?
The answer is that no one knows.
On the Republican side, with no one really separating
themselves from the field, well, the field is wide open. Anyone, with the
exception of Congressmen Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul — sorry guys,
but the good doctor just doesn't have a chance — has the potential to win the
nomination. The polls in the early states change so often that I don't even
know why they keep on conducting them. The race boils down to this: None of the
candidates is perfect, but there's something to like in all of them so we — Republicans
— have no idea who we will vote for.
It really just comes down to who works for it the hardest and who gets there at the right time. So sit back, ignore the polls, ignore the talking heads on TV who say they know who will win, ignore everything you just read if you want to and wait for the only poll results that matter: the ones on election day.
Mike Hahn (mhahn@badgerherald.com)
is a senior majoring in political science and history.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 3:02am):
A most contradictory article. We're told to ignore the polls, they mean nothing. We're told of Kerry's and McGoverns upsets, yet like so many others talking heads in the media you have informed us the the good Doctor cannot win. I guess I don't follow your logic.
You don't go on to explain why Ron Paul cannot win. Could it be that that all the publics hears about him are words like kooky, nutty, fringe, etc and seldom do we hear an honest examination of Paul's views. Or about his integrity? Or the fact that he's never sold out?
"None of the candidates is perfect, but there's something to like in all of them so we -- Republicans -- have no idea who we will vote for."
I think you were suppose to use "are" instead of "is" (that one always gets me too). This republican does know who he's voting for. He's voting for the person who actually represents true republicanism. The rest IMO are imposters.
Ron Paul is the story of the season. You appear to be missing it. Maybe you should follow your own advice and ignore the polls and the MSM talking heads and acknowledge the Ron Paul Revolution. It's undeniably here.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 4:35am):
If you're going to say Ron Paul won't win the nomination, can you at least try and make it sound like a reasonable argument; say, "Ron Paul will likely win NH, but just like Buchanan and McCain, he won't be able to take SC."
Sounds a lot more reasonable then "Even though Ron Paul's raised $10 Million this quarter, even though he has 70,000 meetup group members, even though he draws large crowds in every region of the country, even though he's won most of the straw polls, even though he's polling at 7-8% in all the early primary states, and ahead of Fred Thompson in NH, he still has as much of a chance as Duncan Hunter."
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 6:25am):
Do you really think that Ron Paul supporters are not going to vote in the primaries?
We are the only people fired up about this election. Everyone else is just picking the people that they think can "Beat Hillary" or "Beat Rudy"...
What a complete joke the media and "electoral process" has become.
N B (December 4, 2007 @ 6:50am):
"The answer is that no one knows."
"sorry guys, but the good doctor just doesn't have a chance"
You have rosy future in politics...seeing how you are able to contradict yourself so quickly.
Since you are correct that these polls are an unlikely source for accurate prediction...exactly what are you basing your opinion on...a gut feeling?
Ron Paul DOES have a chance...one that grows stronger each day. Go Ron! www.ronpaul2008.com
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 7:30am):
Once Bernie Kerik gets out of the federal penitentiary, he'll be a good VP for Giuliani, 9/11.
Hillary, despite her political machine, is turning people off BECAUSE of her political machine. Willard Mitt Romney has a similar problem.
Huckabee vs. Obama... could we have a choice between two nicer guys? I think Jimmy Carter should let these guys borrow his sweater vests.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 9:42am):
Mike don't write off Ron Paul just yet. His only setback is the Republican Party's refusal to acknowledge him as a serious candidate. In reality, he is clearly the frontrunner. Everyone knows it.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 10:23am):
oh boy mike, ron paul is on yo' ass.
shiiitt!!!
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 10:55am):
How can anyone even take that man seriously?
there's no chance you guys, no chance
but, ya know when I think about it, serious doesn't have much to do with it anymore.
Our system and the people that run it, as well as run for it, are no different from one another, some can just say things better than others.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 12:34pm):
Paul would make a good VP for Kucinich... but I don't the interests and politicos of either party would let either candidate advance that far. Nor do I think Paul would stand much of a chance in the primaries... while he's raked in the cash and his supporters flood every message board conceivable, all the "support" is coming from a select few of libertarians with significant Internet and financial resources.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 12:43pm):
So you tell us that the field is wide-open and that it's "anyone's game" then you proceed to tell us Ron Paul has no chance, despite polling higher in NH than McCain and Thompson, and raising more money in donations this quarter than any other republican candidate? He also has the largest single-day campaign fundraising total in campaign history, and the biggest one is yet to come (watch the news on December 15th).
You're just as bad as Fox News, Mike.
As a member of the CR's here, I'm ashamed that you are trying to pigeonhole Ron and relegate him to a "longshot" position, when clearly, he is not. Look at these responses if you need proof.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
Does anyone actually know how seriously insane the positions of Ron Paul are? C'mon, anarchists, quit posing as far right republicans. If you hate government, start an anarchy club; just don't call yourselves libertarians.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 1:23pm):
What do you mean Paul is polling better than McCain in NH? Go to RealClearPolitics.com. THe average in NH for McCain is 15.5 and Paul has 6.5. How is that beating him? Paul Never even comes close to McCain in NH.
Even in South Carolina McCain is beating Paul soundly (so is the rest of the field). Give it up. He ain't gonna win.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 2:17pm):
Hmm... not as many indignant pro-Paul posters as I thought there'd be, considering that it's already mid-afternoon. Are they starting to learn that the carpetbombing of internet discussions is turning people away, or is the BH only posting one or two representative samples of their messianic babble?
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 2:52pm):
Does anyone else see the "crazy" in Ron Paul's eyes? I do.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 2:59pm):
"while he's raked in the cash and his supporters flood every message board conceivable, all the "support" is coming from a select few of libertarians with significant Internet and financial resources."
Actually, it's the complete opposite. All of Ron Paul's cash comes from tens of thousands of individual small donors. It's the top tier candidates who's fundraising comes from the few, the rich, and the elite.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 3:01pm):
"C'mon, anarchists, quit posing as far right republicans."
Please, most real anarchists would be ashamed to call themselves libertarians in this country. Ron Paul is as far right as we are left. Some stances mesh well, like not funding foreign dictators of any persuasion, but most others are absurd. Really, Libertarians here are not fancy anarchists, but spoiled kids that took econ classes too seriously.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 6:21pm):
Hsu knew there'd be a Sax scandal involving Slick Willy, instead of a Sex scandal !!!
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 6:33pm):
Regardless of your attempts at smearing Paul, he is the only candidate for the republicans who is talking seriously about reducing spending and our foreign presence. Our currency's value is the lowest it's been in years, and he's the only one who seems to care.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 8:01pm):
6:33. I think this administration has done wonders toward your goal. Once the dollar is worthless, we'll be just another Switzerland. Well, I take that back, Switzerland spends money on their infrastructure.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 8:39pm):
yes 6:33, please let's return to the gold standard so we can have a stable currency.
Anonymous (December 4, 2007 @ 10:43pm):
"Our currency's value is the lowest it's been in years"
What do you expect? The USA has been spending much more than it makes for years. Some day the rest of the world may stop trading actual goods for paper of questionable value. Then the $hit will hit the fan.
Maybe we should just Argentina them?
Anonymous (December 5, 2007 @ 11:44am):
Ron Paul? Please. You got Democrats and independents registering as republicans just to vote for him. You got newly registered teenagers who are voting for him and when I ask why, they are like, Duh! we're on the Ron Paul Revolution. They don't even care about the issues, it's just a fad to them. Want a true conservative? Then vote for Duncan Hunter. Not Mr. Ron (I'm sorry we offended you, you had every right to blow us up) Paul.
Anonymous (December 6, 2007 @ 11:15am):
I love people like Mike. Says one thing then spins another........
Ron Paul is going to win.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
