99% sure Clark DOES do better than Dean v. Bush

[maxr4clark]

This is in reply to a post on another thread, but it is it's own topic and deserves to be seen and discussed on its own.

Here are three national polls from reputable polling organizations, all taken this month, all with 3% margin of error, that show Clark does better against Bush than Dean does. Although only one (the Gallup) shows by itself Clark does better than Dean beyond the margin of error (95% confidence), the other two show the same trend and boost that confidence to around 99% (based on 1%, 2%, and 3% differences with a 95% confidence level at 3%; if you want me to explain the math just ask).

Bush v Dean: Newsweek 53-40, Quinnipiac 51-40, CNN/USA/Gallup 60-37
Bush v Clark: Newsweek 53-41, Quinnipiac 50-41, CNN/USA/Gallup 56-40

Sources and quotes are given below for each poll. Some of these polls were conducted after the Gore endorsement. Also remember that Dean has been running forever, everyone knows his name; Clark is still showing less than complete name recognition, as well as a growing approval rating among those who have heard of him. This issue is not going to go away, Dean supporters. For whatever reason, Dean does not match up as well as Clark against Bush, and I suspect the reason is foreign policy experience (sure Bush didn't have any when he ran in 2000, but he does now; whether Gore as VP could claim foreign policy experience is not as clear).

1. Newsweek: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031220/nysa012a_1.html
Bush gains significantly against each of the Democratic frontrunners in a head-to-head matchup, taking a double-digit lead against each for the first time. If the general election were held now, Clark and Lieberman would have the best chance against Bush; 53 percent of registered voters would vote for or lean towards voting for Bush, while 41 percent would vote for or lean towards Clark. In second place is Lieberman; 52 percent would vote for or lean towards Bush, 40 percent for Lieberman. By comparison, Dean trails Bush by 53 v. 40 percent and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt trails Bush by 54 v. 38 percent, the poll shows. In the last Newsweek poll, Clark had the best chance against Bush (43 to 49 for Bush) and Dean was second (42 to 49 percent for Bush). …snip…
For this Newsweek poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,010 adults aged 18 and older on December 18-19, 2003. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. This poll is part of the December 29 issue of Newsweek (on Newsstands Monday, December 22).

2. Quinnipiac University: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/december/1211_poll_bush_dominates.shtml
Clark fares best against Bush in the poll losing 50-41 percent. Dean and Lieberman are defeated by Bush 51-40 percent, and Kerry loses 53-38 percent.
The Quinnipiac telephone poll of 1,071 registered voters across the United States was taken December 4 through December 8 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

3. CNN/USA Today/Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031218.asp
An incumbent president's job approval rating is usually a good indicator of his electoral strength, so it's not surprising that Bush now fares better against Democratic front-runner Howard Dean than he did before the capture. In the three days of polling from Dec. 11-13 Gallup found Bush barely beating Dean, by 50% to 46% among registered voters. That four-point lead mushroomed to 23 points, as Bush now leads Dean among registered voters by 60% to 37%. …snip…
Bush's current lead among two other Democratic candidates is also substantial. Among registered voters, the president enjoys a 59% to 38% lead over Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, and a 56% to 40% lead over retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Neither Lieberman nor Clark were included in the Dec. 11-14 poll, but they were pitted against Bush in a Nov. 10-12 poll. At that time among registered voters, Bush led Clark by three points (50% to 47%), and Lieberman by six points (52% to 46%). …snip…
These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,000 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 15-16, 2003. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points.

[Gloria]

1. Thanks for this info...

kick

[Kahuna]

2. La la la la. I can't see you... If I can't see it, it isn't true.

:P
</sarcasm>

[maxr4clark]

3. Three polls significant at 95% is 99.9875%

I think 99% confidence from three independent, respected polls, all of which agree on their trend, should be a sufficient amount of evidence for this blog, especially since most opinions on this blog aren't supported by anything approaching two independent lines of statistically significant evidence.

I'm tired of this particular issue. I don't remember seeing a single national poll of the X vs. Bush variety that shows Dean doing better than Clark against Bush, no matter what month it was taken in (since Clark entered the race, of course).

What I'd like to know is, why doesn't Dean poll as well against Bush as Clark or (less recently) the other Democratic contenders? My opinion is that it is either about foreign policy, or that Dean has mostly run against Bush, rather than putting forward his own solutions and running on their strength.

The flipside of that question is, why is Dean doing better than the other Democratic contenders for the Democratic nomination? Here I think there are two clear answers: (1) Dean is not a Washington insider, and (2) Dean has capitalized on the anti-Bush sentiment for longer and more effectively than the other Democrats.

I think Clark is also strong on both of these points: he is even more of an outsider than Dean is, and Clark is very effective at criticizing Bush's foreign and domestic policies. As more of the Democratic core gets to hear Clark, and get over the "stigma" that he is a general, I think more core Democrats will come to realize that Clark has far more credibility for criticising Bush's foreign policy, AND can offer far better solutions to the problems Bush has created than Dean does or can.

Whether this process will happen quickly enough to give Clark the win at the Democratic National Convention is the only issue I see. If Dean does get the nomination, I suspect quite a few Democrats may end up with nomination remorse, believing that Clark would have been a better candidate.

So let's not let our fellow Democrats down, huh? After all, Democrats shouldn't let Democrats nominate anyone but Clark.
:grouphug:

[maxr4clark]

4. oh and another one

There is of course the possibility that Dean is being supported by some Republicans for the Democratic nomination who aren't willing to say they support him against Bush, too. Republicans can claim they're likely Democratic primary voters. They might even vote in the Democratic primaries, since there is no need to vote in a Republican primary this year.

Karl Rove has certainly said he'd like to see Dean as the Democratic nominee. Does that count as a separate line of evidence that Dean wouldn't fare as well as Clark against Bush? I think it does. Hmmm. By my count, that's two independent, significant lines of evidence, and two corroborating (yet not independently significant) lines of evidence.

Shall we discuss the results of state polls next, or do Dean supporters concede the point that Clark is doing marginally better than Dean in head to head matchups against Bush?

[Egnever]

6. By all means pull out the state polls

[jadesfire]

9. who has been a democrat for, what, 3 months???

Sorry,

The video of him late last year praising the administration and saying how well they had done was enough for me to know that he is not a Democrat, no matter how much he spouts the rhetoric now.

I know this has been off the radar for a while but it is important. We need someone who has an impressive military background (which Clark does) as well an impressive understanding of diplomacy (which Clark has a limited amount of) AND an IMPRESSIVE DEPTH of knowledge on DOMESTIC ISSUEs (OF WHICH CLARK HAS NONE!!!)

There is only one candidate who has all of these, the only candidate who will beat George W. Bush:

JOHN KERRY

[arcos]

11. I would like to refresh your memory...

There are several that show Dean doing better than Clark.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Dec. 14, 2003. N=512 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.3.


12/14/03
Bush 52
Dean 31

Bush 53
Clark 28




Marist College Poll. Oct. 27-29, 2003. N=788 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

Bush 49
Dean 41

Bush 55
Clark 36



Others have shown them with exactly the same results:



FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 18-19, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

11/03
Bush 49
Dean 36

Bush 49
Clark 36



http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

The truth is, polls for the general election this early are mostly useless. When considering electability, of course you have to consider Al Sharpton loses by 35 or 40% to Bush, but the difference between Clark and Dean is in most cases statistically insignificant. In a lot of polls Clark does better than Dean by 1% or 2%, within all the polls' margin of error.

Remember polls in December 1999?

December 20-21, 1999: If Vice President Al Gore were the Democratic Party's candidate and Texas Gov. George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: George W. Bush, the Republican, or Al Gore, the Democrat?

Bush 53%
Gore 42%
Sampling error: +/-4 percentage points
http://www.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/22/poll.cnn/


Nearly every Democratic presidential candidate would probably be very near the "unnamed democrat" who was slightly ahead of Bush a few days ago. Currently Bush is enjoying the Saddam capture, but his numbers will return to normal in a few weeks.

Oh, and by the way... this is not a blog, it's a discussion forum.

[maxr4clark]

12. Thanks...

very good points, all.

[Egnever]

5. Although only one (the Gallup) shows by itself Clark does better than Dean

For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points.


Dean versus bush 60-37 add 3 for dean and you get 57-40
Clark versus bush 56-40 take 3 from clark and you get 59-37

Nitpicking yes but still within the margin of error and dean beats clark.

So none of the polls fall outside the margin of error.

However national polls are not to be trusted still. But I will admit it is a good result for wesley.

[maxr4clark]

7. Repost: Three solid, independent lines of evidence

As your word "nitpick" suggests, I think you recognize that if the 95% margin of error is +/-3%, then a 3% difference yields 95% confidence. You are correct that none of the three is outside the MOE; however, the main point I was trying to make in this analysis is that enough polls within the MOE add up to higher confidence overall, at the expense of combining them into one line of evidence rather than separate lines.

Here is the more complete answer on this question that I posted in the original thread last night. I think we need to get beyond this question of electability, on which there are grounds for disagreement about who is the better candidate, and ask the more important question: who would be a better leader for our country for the next four years?

- - - - - - -
Firstly, two independent significant lines of evidence is the standard for scientific discussion, not three. This is an informal discussion, not a formal one, so a reasonable request wouldn't even require two. Your request for three polls is therefore not reasonable.

Nevertheless, there _is_ statistical evidence that Clark does better than Dean in one-to-one matchups _this month_; I posted it in another thread. Your position, that there is no difference between Clark and Dean vs. Bush, is refuted with a 99% confidence. What is truly surprising about this is that Clark is behind Dean in the race for the Democratic nomination, and he _still_ polls better in one-on-one matchups with Bush. That is highly unusual, and should not be ignored. Let's call that one significant line of evidence.

Then there are the other lines of evidence. Bush plans to run on foreign policy; so far all he has run on is foreign policy. Dean has no background on foreign policy, and has only made his first attempt to formulate his foreign policy in the last week. Dean cannot compete against Bush on foreign policy. In contrast, Clark can. He has a whole career in foreign policy, and has successes he can point to that compare favorably to Bush across the foreign policy board. That's two significant lines of evidence.

The third line of evidence is the expert testimony of one Karl Rove. Rove says he would rather face Dean than Clark or Kerry. He is not some pundit whose opinion means nothing; he is Bush's campaign manager.

In short, then, despite your unreasonable insistence on having three lines of evidence rather than the two typical in a formal discussion, or the one that is more appropriate for an informal discussion, there are three solid, independent lines of evidence that Dean does not match up as well as Clark against Bush--and not one that I've heard that Dean matches up better against Bush than Clark does.

I don't have anything against Howard Dean. I just see plenty of evidence that we have a better candidate available in Wes Clark; not just for winning the election, but for being President afterwards. As I've said before, I'd like to hear more evidence that Dean would be a good President, beyond whether he will or will not be the Democratic nominee. The fact that Dean's year-plus campaign, largely against Bush's foreign policy, has not produced any alternative foreign policy plans until just this past week REALLY worries me as far as what kind of President he might be.

[LuminousX]

8. Fatal Flaw

These polls all assume the election is being held now and does not reflect that attitude and opinion of the electorate in November. One of the reasons why the primary system works is it is a slow aggregation of voter opinion.

If you wish to turn over our selection process to the process you've described (using three credible polls and whichever Democratic candidate does better against the Republican polls gets the nomination) then I suggest you submit that recommendation to the DNC.

[maxr4clark]

10. your flaw is off topic

I wasn't suggesting we change the selection process; Dean supporters who say "it's over, give up" are trying to change the selection process.

I was saying there is evidence that Dean would not fare as well against Bush as Clark would. This is precisely the right time to make this point: before the primary votes are cast. I'm sorry you don't like the message; I wouldn't either if I supported Dean.

The only reason I started this thread at all is in response to a Dean supporter who was trying to hold evidence that Dean may not be the best candidate to an unreasonable standard. Your claim that this thread is suggesting we change the selection process is another way to wrongly dismiss a valid point.

[9119495]

13. What if Clark could get 55% per cent of the

popular vote and Dean 53%? We would still win (assuming the electoral votes come with us with margins of that size). Would it be good of me to switch from Dean to Clark? No--because I think Dean will change America for the better MORESO than Clark (and I like Clark a great deal). Head to head against Bush I think Dean, Clark, and Kerry, and possibly Edwards could win.

[LimpingLib]

14. Whats Clarks "universal health plan" already?

Forgive me if he finally unveiled it , I got tired of waiting.

Let me guess the ability to go in to any hospital and pay a $2000 bill just for saying hi to the doc? That kind of "universal" health ?

Im eagerly anticipating your plan Wesley?

Or is is a plan that lets people deduct their petty INCOME tax (as opposed to the heavily taxed Payroll load average Americans have to endure)burden while having to choose an insurance company that drives already high prices up another 20% (thus wipping out by 3 fold whatever savings are gained) ?

Man if the conservatives continue their strangle hold on the media these options might be considered "reform" or "left wing" which Wesley the little general Clark would just dive right into. Glad Dean has promised to break up the monopolys that tax loophole sucking corperations have created in the media. Otherwise we will never be able to "win" when "winning" is little more than electing a canidate that proposes nothing more than status quo strengthening policys .

[eileen_d]

15. Wait no more!

No need to make stuff up...
http://clark04.com/issues/healthcare/