Gallup: History Shows January Front-runner Usually Loses Nomination

[Donny247]

Here's some good news for us Clark supporters:

"Less than half of Democratic presidential candidates who led in national Gallup Polls of Democratic voters in early January of 10 different election years since 1952 went on to win the nomination. In 6 out of 10 years, the front-runner in January stumbled or withdrew and a secondary candidate ultimately received the bid. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean leads in most national polls as the year 2004 begins, but the historical analysis suggests that his eventual ascension to the Democratic nomination is by no means assured."

Even Clinton was behind at this point in 1992! We should send this out to all these media whores who keep going on about Dean's "inevitability."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr040106.asp

[LuminousX]

1. So they should change what they say based upon historical evidence

They should be forced to mention "January front-runners often lose the nomination?"

What exactly do you hope to accomplish? How do you want them to change?

[democratreformed]

2. Good God! Haven't you learned not to post good Clark stuff on here?

LOL!

[TexasSissy]

3. Yes, I saw this reported on TV this morning.

It's as if all the media political pundits have suddenly gotten amnesia and don't remember any prior political races.

[IrateCitizen]

4. Another not-so-rosy piece of info for Clark supporters...

Not once has a Presidential candidate of either party skipped the Iowa Caucus and still gone on to secure the nomination.

Clark is not participating in the Iowa Caucus.

Not that I'm pro-Dean or anti-Clark, but you can pick out just about any historical trend that will rule out every single candidate up there. It's like the inevitable, "The Dodgers are 0-3 this season in night games on grass following day games on artificial turf with over 50% humidity."

[Donny247]

13. Nice try!!

There is one example of a candidate skipping the Iowa Caucus and then winning the nomination: William Jefferson Clinton!!! Hahaha!!

[The_Counsel]

15. And As the Original Post Indicates...

...4 out of 10 front runners have gone on to win the nomination, as predicted. We can go on like this for days, but why?

Funny thing about numbers: they don't lie, but they'll say anything you want them to if you cook 'em enough... ;-)

[MoonRiver]

25. Woo Hoo!

Check mate!

Goooooooo, General Clark!!!

[TexasSissy]

22. Not quite the same thing.

First, how many have skipped the IA caucus? If NONE have, then there is no history to go by.

Second, does skipping and losing big time equate to the same thing? If so, plenty have "lost" IA (whether by skipping or just losing big) have gone on to secure the nomination. Namely Clinton.

[redqueen]

5. This is good news for anyone

that doesn't care for Dean's platform and wants to avoid being herded into his flock based solely on money and polling.

Here's your evidence, supporters of other candidates.

There is absolutely no reason to 'get in line' before the primaries are over.

Gore, Dean, and anyone else who tries to tell you that you should can stuff it.

[The_Counsel]

6. Not Tryin' To Bash, But...

..does "6 out of 10" really constitute "usually"? It seems to me that's not much more than half the time. Should Dean win the nomonation, for example, that brings it to 6 of 11, which may as well be half also.

I would think 7 or 8 out of 10 would be more in the "usually" range.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. You want media analysis that goes beyond surface appearance?

Good luck.

[cjbuchanan]

8. I guess the big phrase this year is "front-loaded"

This is the quickest race in the history of primaries. One must remember that JFK did not even announce his candidacy until the sixth of January in 1960. This race will be decided in less then two months.

This does not mean that Dean will win, but we cannot just look at history to guess our results.

[rock]

9. Trends don't vote

Just like polls (they don't vote either).

[yellowcanine]

10. Exactly

and just as with stocks, "Past performance is not a predictor of future yields" ' or something like that.

[onehandle]

11. Gosh, this sounds familiar...

Oh, right. I've been saying this for months.

The media is actually reporting this?

gallup...well...sorta.

[rogerashton]

12. So, 40% of January leaders DID win ...

What percent of candidates who were NOT leading in January ultimately won the nomination. 5%? 2%?

The correct question is this: does the January leader have a better shot than any one specific candidate who is not leading in January? I'm betting he does -- and I'm betting that the proportion of those in second place in January who got nominated is freater than the proportion of those in third place, and so on -- though second place is probably close to first place. I wouldn't be surprised if, say, 30% of those in second place in January were nominated. And after third place, I'm guessing that proportion drops real close to zero.

[On the Road]

14. Perfectly True, BUT...

The come-from-behind scenario they're portraying is usually one in which the leader is either a previous nominee or a well-known candidate with establishment backing who is overtaken by an insurgent with more popular support:

1952: Stevenson over Truman
1972: McGovern over Muskie and Kennedy
1976: Carter over Humphrey
1988: Dukakis over Hart

This is bad news for better-known candidates like Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt.

You could argue that 2004 resembles 1988 or 1992, which featured a large number of candidates and no odds-on favorite (at least after Hart dropped out in 1988). That would suggest that Clark has a good shot.

But I can't think of a case in which a lesser-known candidate surges into a clear national lead and then relinquishes it. Especially this late in the process. January is like April a few decades ago. If there's a surprise, it has to be soon.

[The_Counsel]

16. Truman Ran In '52?

"1952: Stevenson over Truman"

Wow!

Did Truman really have the balls to run in '52? I was thinking he was all-too-happy to leave the Oval Office by then. Hell, by most accounts he never really wanted the job in the first place...

Ya learn something new every day...

[On the Road]

19. Well, I Was Just Going by the Article

They showed Stevenson behind Truman (and maybe Kefauver, I can't remember). I don't know that era well enough to know the details.

[yellowcanine]

18. Yep, you nailed it.

If Lieberman were in 1st place now I would guess he would have a 40% chance of getting the nomination. Question is, what are his chances now that he is probably in 3rd place at best?

[zulchzulu]

17. President Tsongas, President Hart, President Muskie....

Yep...

[Nederland]

20. 6 out of 10?

Not a very convincing pattern. You might as well flip a coin....

[TexasSissy]

23. Exactly. That's the point. You're catching on.

Being an early lead means nothing.

Who says Dean supporters can't learn new tricks?

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. We've never had such a front-loaded primary season before

This thing may be over by the biginning of February. In years past, no votes were even cast at that point.

[TexasSissy]

24. I think it'll go until March. Some will drop out by February, but

then there will be two or three strong ones left.

[jpgpenn]

26. Iowa and NH are not good guide markers.

Those 2 state do not represent the majority of America. The real race starts after these 2 states are out of the way. Lets not forget this!