Remember the 2004 Presidential election? Incumbent President George W. Bush defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman to win his second term in office.
Lieberman sure was a lackluster campaigner, eh?
Wait, that's not right. It was Bush against Dean, wasn't it? The Democrats nominated Howard Dean, who went on to lose after a campaign marked by gaffes and slipups.
Wrong again, of course. Lieberman and Dean were never presidential nominees. And yet, for a while, political commentators were positive that their poll numbers put them so far ahead, they couldn't lose.
As of late July 2003 showed Lieberman consistently out in front among Democratic primary voters, sometimes by over 10 points. If you were a donor looking to contribute to the likely winner, you'd probably have put your money on the senator from Connecticut.
Obviously, his lead didn't last. It was an inflated, illusory lead, formed primarily because, early on in the campaign, voters only recognized only Lieberman's name among the hopefuls, from his time on Al Gore's ticket in 2000.
It was a case study in how the media tends to anoint a political frontrunner based solely on the strength of his or her polling months before the primary, disregarding fundraising, campaign organization, message strength and personal appeal. But hey, if it served to teach a lesson to the good men and women who help form those opinions, then so much the better, right? Lesson learned.
Except not really. You see, Lieberman was usurped by Howard Dean, who became the new media golden boy and the new leader in the polls. Instead of recognizing that perhaps Dean was as vulnerable himself as Liberman had proven to be, the media blithely declared him the new frontrunner - despite the fact that his rise came at the expense of the guy they had previously declared the inevitable nominee.
And, surprise! The same thing happened again. John Kerry, a low-key figure in the polls, had been quietly organizing the best get-out-the-vote effort in Iowa of any Democratic contender. This ground game swept him to victory in Iowa, and the resulting momentum carried him through New Hampshire and on to the nomination.
It seems as though the quickest way to lose a presidential bid is to have the mainstream news organizations declare you unstoppable.
In fact, history is replete with examples of early poll leaders falling short of their hype. In 1964, Republican Nelson Rockefeller was assuredly going to be his party's nominee, according to the early polls. Instead, Barry Goldwater won that title. In 1972, Ed Muskie was the clear favorite for the Democratic candidacy. George McGovern's insurgent campaign surprised and ultimately defeated him.
And 1992 gave the country a young Arkansas politician named William Clinton, whose surprisingly strong performance in the New Hampshire primary earned him the nickname "The Comeback Kid," and, eventually, the nomination. Clinton had been written off as dead prior to his strong New Hampshire showing. The smart money had all been on Paul Tsongas.
I could go on and on. There are plenty of other examples.
The point of all this isn't to declare that polls are worthless. They're actually surprisingly accurate. It's to remind everyone that at best, they're snapshots - momentary flashes of the status of a race. They're great at illuminating the present, but don't look to them to predict the future.
Just ask President Lieberman.
Michael Sherry is a junior majoring in poltical science. He can be reached at michael.sherry@tufts.edu.
