I consider myself a student of history, especially political campaign history. So, from time to time I like to compare Presidential data from 2003 to present day polling information. Understanding that I’ve spent some time dismissing the relevance and truth of polling “results”, I need to acknowledge that the data is still representative of something — we just don’t know what that “something” is.
Using information gathered from the American Research Group, it’s surprising to see the results of a November 20, 2003 New Hampshire poll. At that time, 21% of expected primary voters were undecided (for more than today), Gov. Howard Dean had the support of 38%, trailed by Sen. John Kerry at 17%. Sen. John Edwards was holding remarkably static at 4%, as was our very own Sen. Joe Lieberman, and then-Congressman Dick Gephart was fading quickly.
Five months later, following a decisive victory in Iowa, Kerry won the New Hampshire primary with 39% of the vote. Dean followed with 26% after this precious moment after the Iowa Caucus:
General Wesley Clark held third with 13% and Edwards with 12%.
February 3 was the decisive blow by the Kerry campaign, winning five of the 7 primary contests, finishing third in Oklahoma to Clark and Edwards and second to Edwards in South Carolina. Edwards followed by doing extremely well in Virginia and the remainder of the southern states and solidified his position as the preferred Vice-Presidential candidate on March 2, finishing second to Kerry practically everywhere (excluding Vermont, which Dean won handily).
So, what does this tell us about present day Democratic Presidential campaigning? Virtually nothing except that the race is still very much wide open (least among the top four candidates) and – considering the political diversity of same - that the running mate of the eventual nominee will most likely come from the list of present Democratic candidates.
Posted by gmyd 
