From the Post Politics Hour
Every weekday at 11 a.m. ET, members of the Post political team take your questions about what's going on in Campaign 2008. Today, an excerpt from Chris "The Fix" Cillizza. The full transcript can be found by clicking here.
Avon Park, Fla.: A couple of months ago, you wrote an article about what national polls in presidential primaries mean. But you didn't go into wether a lot of stock should be put into that. I'm not so sure that you should. For example, today an NBC national poll shows that Hillary Clinton has widened her lead over Barack Obama. But two ARG polls show him tied with her in New Hampshire and ahead in South Carolina. Shouldn't that change how the media covers the Democratic race?
Chris Cillizza: It's an intriguing question and one that I wrestle with on a daily basis.
If you just look at national polling, then Sen. Clinton and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the clear favorites for their respective party nominations.
If you just look at early state polling, then former Gov. Mitt Romney is the favorite on the Republican side and former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Clinton are the co-frontrunners on the Democratic side.
The nominating process has traditionally been a state by state affair, which, in theory, should render national polls less important than state polls in places like Iowa and New Hampshire.
But, with more than 20 states including behememoths like California, New York and Georgia voting on Feb. 5, the process has become more nationalized than ever before.
So, national polls may matter more now than they ever have in past nominating contests. Or not.
I'm sure that answer will clear up any doubts you might have....
The comments to this entry are closed.