Are the polls wrong about Kucinich?

[info being]

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-12/articles/11008-1.html

"Kucinich is now, with a usual estimate of two percent support in most polls, where Clinton Was in the Months before the Start of the 1991 Primaries. But the congressman's very strong showing in web activity is a very positive sign that suggests pollsters who poll just a few hundred people may be wrong about Kucinich. The Alexa.com stats used in this article that show Dean, then Kucinich in the lead, ahead of the pack, are based on data from hundreds of thousands of internet users. The CDC vote was based on votes from delegates, representing 130 Democratic clubs and county central committees."

[goodhue]

1. most certainly

but I've been saying that for months

[HFishbine]

2. It doesn't matter

right or wrong, Kucinich is a needed voice in the debate. If the polls prove to be wrong, all the better. If they turn out to be right, we'll still be better off for having had Special K in the race.

[Ficus]

3. we should all support Dean

and get behind the "eventual" nominee right now! Anything less is helping Bush...

/sarcasm

[brainshrub]

4. That's like saying:

"Your either with us or the terrorists."

ON EDIT: Oops...I didn't see the /sarcasm.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. Do we usually believe the polls?

Now that I've seen firsthand the corporate media trying to marginalize Kucinich, and a bunch of media people go on record saying they were ignoring him because his ideas were "dangerous", it doesn't sound so crazy that the polls are false.

[Armstead]

10. Can you clarify that?

and a bunch of media people go on record saying they were ignoring him because his ideas were "dangerous",



Who said that? Inquiring minds want to know.

[library_max]

6. That's only a poll of Democrat true-believers on the internet.

That's not a poll of probable voters, not even a poll of probable Democratic primary voters. Why not just poll only Kucinich supporters and be done with it?

[goodhue]

7. The CDC vote was not an internet poll.

It was a vote of California party leaders. Kucinich placed second in voting around the state by members of the California Democratic Council. See results: http://www.cdc-ca.org/result03.htm

[library_max]

8. Okay, but

a) California is not the whole country, and
b) party leaders do not decide primaries. Voters decide primaries.

[goodhue]

12. yes

and nothing has been decided

[redqueen]

9. Indubitably, yes.

And we'll be getting some proof in about a month or so. :D

[goodhue]

11. kick n/t

[Kanary]

13. ummm, dupe..?

[goodhue]

16. is it a dupe?

if it was post 24 hours before the other thread?

[John_H]

14. I think they're off by a factor of at least 2

I bet he's somewhere in the 2.5-3 percent range, which puts him near Edwards.

[neebob]

15. I hope so!

Whoever posted a few days ago that Clinton was polling 6 percent at this time in 1991 made my day.

On edit: Make that in 1991, not last year.

[youngred]

17. For the country's sake

I hope so. I think Kucinich is being underestimated and will start getting more and more noticed in the months ahead

[Moderator]

18. dupe

Please continue the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=898846&mesg_id=898846


Thank you.

DU Moderator