Montana Poll: Dean Most Electable Against Bush

[tsipple]

All the Democratic candidates still lose against Bush in Montana, but this news story reports on the latest polling results showing Dean strongest against Bush in one of Bush's must-win states. Here are the results, with other candidates' fall-off from Dean's performance noted in parentheses.

Bush v Dean: 55% to 33%
Bush v Clark: 55% to 29% (-4)
Bush v Lieberman: 58% to 30% (-6)
Bush v Gephardt: 57% to 27% (-8)
Bush v Kerry: 58% to 26% (-10)

December 8-10, N=625, "regular" registered Montana voters, MOE=+/- 4, conducted by Mason-Dixon.

Note that Kerry and Gephardt are definitely (statistically significant) weaker against Bush than Dean. (Somebody should ask them why they say they're more electable, as the polling evidence continues to pile up saying it's a load of hooey.)

Dean's apparent ability to run strongest in Bush's "home turf," if it continues, would force Bush to spend resources in more states defending his base electoral votes. That would position Dean well in the electoral vote chase in 2004. Also, higher support even in "Bush states" can contribute additional volunteers and funds to Dean's candidacy.

This poll did not rank the Democrats (for purposes of the nomination contest), so those data are unavailable at present. Montana holds its Democratic primary with New Jersey on the last day, June 8, 2004, and will likely not help decide the nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I wonder what the questions were....

I wonder how many in montana know who Clark is? Also noting that Dean has become the Teflon Media Cocoon "he's the one" candidate, and considering the "operation ignore" Clark underway on behalf of many in the media for Karl Rove.

What the Repugs internet pundits are saying is quite a different story. That could explain that Clark is lower than Dean ON THIS POLL!

Here is the post from www.polipundit.com:
> > Give, Give, Give
> >
> > To everyone who took up my call to donate to Howard
> > Dean in June, here's your new assignment: Give all
> > you can to John Edwards and/or John Kerry.
> >
> > The rationale is simple:
> > 1. We still want Dean to be the nominee so that
> > President Bush can crush him and have long
> > coattails.
> > 2. The biggest threat to a Dean nomination is no
> > longer Dick Gephardt, John Kerry or John Edwards.
> > It's Weasel Clark, for all the reasons outlined
> > below.
> > 3. To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote
> > totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and
> > South Carolina.
> > 4. In New Hampshire, donating to neighbouring-son
> > John Kerry will help ensure that Clark won't surpass
> > expectations by finishing ahead of Kerry.
> > 5. In South Carolina, Clark can be stopped by
> > neighbouring-son John Edwards.
> >
> > Donating online is easy. Just click here to donate
> > to Kerry or click here to donate to Edwards.
> > posted by PoliPundit at 7:07 AM Link to this post

[tsipple]

2. More than a little condescending?

I wonder how many in montana know who Clark is?

They do get TV in Montana! And newspapers. And radio. And Internet. How else would they hear about the Governor of Vermont?

Montanans would be no more unaware of Clark than any other state's residents, with the possible exception of people living in early primary states like New Hampshire.

So it's a Karl Rove conspiracy why Wesley Clark apparently doesn't run as well against Bush in Montana as Howard Dean? Are you being serious?

[slinkerwink]

3. lol----that's the funny part---she is actually being serious

;-)

[Cheswick2.0]

14. why would they know who Clark is?

:shrug:

Don't they have TVs and internet?

[Josh]

4. We're not going to win Montanna -

if we do, we're taking 40 states.

[LuminousX]

7. Which is why we have to try to win Montana, and Texas, and Florida, ...

[tsipple]

11. 50-State Campaign!

Any winning Democrat ought to run interference in Bush's "base," to throw him back on the electoral defensive. Dean has energized supporters to go do that.

Would you believe Dean has been to Idaho three times already?

[CMT]

5. that's good

I think Dean can run well in the west and give Bush some trepidation in states like Montana, Nevada, and Arizona.

[dusty64]

6. I'm surprised at these

crappy results despite the fact Montana has a VERY unpopular governor and many are angry about a LOT of the rightwing policies. What gives?

[AP]

8. Mont. is VERY conservative. Not at all cross-section of America.

[dsc]

9. Clinton carried Montana

not once but twice.

[tsipple]

10. Montana's Vote for President

Actually, I believe Montana voted for Clinton in 1992 but voted for Dole in 1996. Let me double check...

Yeah, Dole beat Clinton by 3 points there in 1996 (with Perot running a very strong third).

In 1992, Clinton got 3 points over Bush #1, but it took Perot's 26% (!) to do it.

Note that in 2000 Nader got 6 percent of Montana's vote, and another couple points went to other third parties. Montana likes third parties.

All that may explain why Dean is doing so well in this poll (and others). He's apparently grabbing a share of Perot voters and keeping the Nader voters in his camp.

[AP]

12. In 2000, Bush won Montana 58-33.

It's considered a swing state (a state voting Dem in one of last three elections) because it went for Clinton in 92, but it's one of only three states that voted for clinton in 92 but not in 96, so it's not that much of a swing state.

[tsipple]

13. AP, Very Astute

Note also that we're still over 10 months away from the 2004 general election, and Dean is already running stronger than Gore was in Montana.

Dean is holding the President three points below his 2000 showing there and equalling Gore's performance.

That's just amazing this far ahead of the election, and no other Democrat is doing that. I'll also add that, in the Mountain West, Iraq (pre- or post-Saddam, doesn't matter) is not popular, so that could be working well for Dean in that area of the country.

[AP]

15. If that's how you want to read it...

However, I think MT'ans aren't as disturbed by Dean's fiscal conservativism because they're not all that liberal. I don't hink Dean's going to win MT (92 was the only election in last 6 the Dems have won) anyway, and I don't think that because conservative MTans go for Dean slightly more than more liberal Dems indicates that Dean will have appeal to swing voters in states with different demographich make-ups.

[tsipple]

16. Reading this poll

<I>...I don't think that because conservative MTans go for Dean slightly more than more liberal Dems...</I>

Where do you get that information out of this poll? Actually, it looks like Dean is holding the Nader voters better and/or attracting more Montana independents and even Republicans than any of the other Democratic candidates.

Of course that's suggestive of Dean's appeal to swing voters.