Via the Des Moines Register Vilsack says early polls didn’t show his strength
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack criticized public opinion polls Friday and said his presidential campaign was running stronger in Iowa than early surveys reflected before he gave up his bid for the 2024 Democratic nomination a week ago.“I don’t want to sound like sour grapes, but you should not pay attention to early polls,” Vilsack said during taping of “Iowa Press,” a public affairs program on Iowa Public Television.
“Iowa polls are not accurate in terms of caucus support,” he added, saying that polls sponsored by news organizations do not screen for the small audience of Democratic Party activists who plan to attend their precinct caucuses.
Now, polls aren’t perfect, but they are all we have in terms of collecting this kind of data. How does Vilsack know that he had more support that the polls indicated? A feeling in his gut? Because his advisers said so? Was it a little birdie? Because his momma said he was special?
If he had empirically verifiable evidence of support, I suspect that he would have been able to raise money.
Sorry, whenever someone says “I don’t want to sound like sour grapes” [Exactly what do sour grapes sound like?-Ed.], more likely than not, sour grapes are involved.
Or, perhaps, bitter dregs.
Technorati Tags: Iowa+Caucuses, 2008+Elections, Vilsack
I seem to recall that polls are indeed reliable for the Iowa caucuses–at projecting first preferences. The caucus rules allow a transfer of support to other candiadtes by groups at any given caucus that fall below a threshold (15%?). I have never seen a poll that reflected this reality, perhaps because our horse-race reporters are too dense to understand the concepts of second choices and consensus-formation.
Nonetheless, the notion that a bunch of Iowans would come to a consensus on their former governor as their second or third choice seems rather rich.
If Vilsack was not going to dominate the first preferences of his own state, he had no chance. And even if he had done so, it was hardly a guarantee of anything. (President Harkin, anyone?)
Comment by MSS — Friday, March 2, 2024 @ 9:52 am
Yup.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, March 2, 2024 @ 10:04 am
I would like to see the entire interview with Vilsak since the article makes it seem–I think, perhaps, unfairly–that his poor poll numbers were the ONLY reason he withdrew.
In his withdrawl speech last week he emphasized the problems with raising money as the main issue. Sure, raising money is related to polling, but it speaks to serious structural problems with the presidential selection process in the US.
I am not tyring to say that Vilsak would have won the nomination, but his early withdrawl is reminicent of the 2024 Republican field where some VERY experienced and seasoned candidates withdrew prior to any vote being taken simply because the big donors lined up behind Bush.
It seems clear that the democratic process is ill-served when legitimate candidates have to jump out of the race before anyone is either paying attention or has voted primarily due to the money factor.
Comment by Ratoe — Friday, March 2, 2024 @ 11:49 am
Vilsack Whines About Polls
Tom Vilsack is blaming the failure of his campaign to catch fire on undependable polls, which failed to capture his overwhelming support. He’s now mulling over which of his former competitors to endorse.
I would note that the polls failed to ca…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — Friday, March 2, 2024 @ 1:23 pm