This study by Gallup Polling, however, suggests that such a scenario is unlikely. Hillary Clinton consistently leads her nearest rival by more than twenty points in national polls -- a rare feat in Democratic primary history and something that has occurred only twice before. In three of four Gallup polls taken in 1979, Ted Kennedy led Jimmy Carter by more than twenty points; in twelve of fifteen polls in 1999, Al Gore was ahead of Bill Bradley.
Gallup's study argues that the analogue to Clinton's 2007 dominance in national polling is Gore's lead in 1999. It also distinguishes Clinton's frontrunner status from Kennedy and Hart's:
Kennedy and Hart ultimately lost their nomination bids, but their large leads came much earlier in the campaigns. Kennedy's candidacy lost its steam when Jimmy Carter's popularity surged in late 1979 following the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Hart's 20-point lead occurred in the last poll taken before he suspended his campaign after the press was able to confirm rumors he was having an extramarital affair.Gallup concludes that Clinton should "play it safe" to avoid jeopardizing her lead in the polls and approves of her recent emphasis on issues "that Democratic primary voters may not necessarily endorse, but that may position her better for the general election campaign against the Republican."
But national polls don't tell the whole story. We don't nominate our Presidents by a national primary, after all. Instead we allow two random states, unrepresentative of the demography of the whole nation, to decide for us. That's why Hillary, for her own part, is refusing the "inevitable" label, at least in Iowa. Yesterday, she told supporters that she is campaigning as if she were running "ten or twenty points behind" her closest rivals.
No comments:
Post a Comment