Are the polls wrong about Kucinich?

Kucinich moves to second place in innovative candidate website activity ranking

| December 2003

The same internet statistics that predicted within less than one percentage point the percentage Howard Dean won the the Moveon.org internet primary by shows Dennis Kucinich ahead of all the candidates except Howard Dean, who holds a strong lead on Kucinich as well. And in the California Democratic Council (CDC) Vote, Howard Dean took a commanding first place with 56.11 percent of the vote with Dennis Kucinich placing second with 17.19 percent and Wesley Clark with 14.48 percent.

Kucinich is now, with a usual estimate of two percent support in most polls, where Clinton Was in the Months before the Start of the 1991 Primaries. But the congressman's very strong showing in web activity is a very positive sign that suggests pollsters who poll just a few hundred people may be wrong about Kucinich. The Alexa.com stats used in this article that show Dean, then Kucinich in the lead, ahead of the pack, are based on data from hundreds of thousands of internet users. The CDC vote was based on votes from delegates, representing 130 Democratic clubs and county central committees.

David Swanson, Kucinich Campaign press secretary told OpEdnews.com, 'There are a number of examples of candidates who were, during these early months, dismissed as fringe, no hope candidates who were low in the early polls, who were either nominated in the primaries or who had a big impact at the convention and in the early primaries. This was completely unexpected by the mainstream media. Those examples include Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

When asked what he thought of the mainstream media's suggestions that Al Gore was playing 'king maker' with his endorsement of Howard Dean, that it might have clinched the nomination for him, Swanson replied, 'The polls that may be most significant, though getting the least attention, are the ones showing that the majority of the voters know nothing about any of the candidates, so it's an open field. There have been a number of polls that put 'un-decided' in first or second second place. There are two big problems with the pundits saying that it's wrapped up this early in the race. First, there's no historical background for this. Where people are in the polls does not predict how things will turn out.'



'Second, telling people things are already set discourages people from voting and participating in the democratic process. The winner of past elections has been 'nobody'-- more people have chosen not to vote than to support anybody. President Bush was elected by 17% of the public.

Here's how the numbers look for the leading candidates:.