Cautionary Tales About Polls

Barack Obama is running biographical campaign ads in Iowa; this Batlimore Sun article goes into just how unknown Obama is in Iowa:

Because his opponents often subtly suggest that he is too inexperienced to lead the nation, his campaign says it is trying to counter that notion by increasingly fleshing out his biography before he ascended to the national stage. “We think his experience is an asset, so these ads are designed to ensure people know the entirety of his career,” said Tommy Vietor, Obama’s Iowa press secretary.

But it is clear from Obama’s audiences that much work remains to be done, if voters are going to learn enough about him to go out on a cold winter night and spend a few hours caucusing for him.

Sheila Denburger, who is thinking about supporting Obama in the Iowa caucuses, said she knew only three of six questions asked. And that was after watching his TV ads and skimming his second book Tuesday evening.

This isn’t just about Obama; it underlines the big advantage of notoriety that the likes of Giuliani, McCain, Clinton, and Edwards all have.

Take this recent anecdote regarding Giuliani:

Giuliani’s supporters lavish him with praise for his handling of 9/11. At a recent Giuliani event, many said they could not recall any specific thing Giuliani did the day of the attacks. But, they say, Giuliani’s very presence in the streets of Manhattan after the attack — a stark contrast to President Bush, who was absent from public view for hours after the tragedy — displayed strong leadership and courage.

“He took control,” said Carolyn Mercadante , 70, a Delaware voter who came to see Giuliani speak. “Just the fact that he was such a presence there” in New York the day of the attacks, said 67-year-old Bill Uranko of Middleton, Del., when asked to explain what impressed him about Giuliani’s Sept.11 performance. “You could see he was visibly moved by what happened.”

It’s always tempting to look at the polls and predict what will happen based on them. But especially this early, it generally does not mean -that- much, because candidates are still getting their message out to voters, which, even in an election where the timetable has been bumped up, does not mean it will happen overnight.

I do think consistency in the polls even during down cycles for candidates can be be telling. For instance, anyone that supports McCain now will probably never change their minds. But it’s risky to look at surging numbers and say how definite they are; Dean is the empirical example of that. The practical meaning behind it, though, is that
voters are still learning who candidates are. And as frustrating as that can be for people who already know who the candidates are, it can’t simply be ignored.