Lies, Damned Lies, and Polls

The Captain reports Dean is losing ground among Dems, while Bush's numbers are the strongest ever for a sitting President going into an election year. The numbers come from a CNN, USA Today, and Gallup poll.

Says the Cap'n:

"The numbers seem to show that Dean's support isn't wavering as much as Clark has drawn support from other Democratic candidates. Clark's status as the Clintonista's man in the race as well as his perceived unique ability to carry foreign-policy and national-security gravitas into the general election will probably continue to make him the natural magnet for voters who abandon other Democratic candidates as their campaigns become more hopeless. If Dean is to win the nomination, he has to hope that either he can expand his base or that all nine of his competitors stay in the race until the end."

I can see this happening - although if I were (shudder) still a Democrat, I'd pick Lieberman; foreign policy is my big issue (domestics will basically take care of themselves if left alone), and he's the only Democrat candidate who sounds like he should be trusted with a driver's license, much less the nation's foreign policy.

But wait! Just last week, the Dems were crowing about a Time/CNN poll that showed "Bush over Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean by 51 per cent to 46 per cent, according to the Time/CNN poll," allegedly within the range of statistical error.

Huh-wha?

The key factor came later in the latter poll:

Still, only one in four poll respondents said they were paying "very close" attention to the 2004 election at the moment

I'd be very interested in seeing a poll of likely voters. The GOP always does better - and it's a more accurate sample (albeit hard to gauge this far before the election).

Posted by Mitch at January 7, 2004 06:35 AM