Every presidential election there is always a buzz surrounding the first primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina, and now Florida, get attention in a diversity of ways. These states get more visits, more rallies, more pictures are taken, and more babies kissed. Another election essential that shows up is polling. The national and statewide polls are adding up already, but some question the early bird validity.
In an article from Pollster.com, primary polls that are taken several months in advance are given a skeptical eye. Do people know already who they want to vote for? At one point, I thought I knew, but now I'm not so sure. The poll in this article reports around 85% of voters being fairly certain of who they are voting for between Iowa, NH, and SC.
The media and the polls have a great deal of influence over the primary scene and polling data at this point. They call it a "horse race" for a reason. The front runner gets all the attention while those not in first are pinned as losers and tend to receive more negative attention. Is that the case in this election? It seems Clinton has been getting more attention, some positive and some negative, but more than the runner's up. The same could be said for Giuliani. Are folks like Kucinich and Brownback sitting on their couches? Why aren't they in the news? Or maybe these candidates are doing a better job of getting positive media attention, like with Clinton's Health Care sweep this weekend. The Times speaks Clinton's weekend.
If you have made up your mind this early in the race or not, I believe it is hard to deny the constant polls telling you who is the likely winner. Even President Bush couldn't bite his tounge when it came to talking about the '08 prospects. Article. It's real nice to root for the underdog, but who doesn't like a winner?
This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 421: Party Politics in America at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
