Survey of what Americans want in a President. Dennis got 68%

[genius]

What Americans Are Really Looking For In A President
by Natasha H. (age 12)

In 2004, will the voters pick a pre-packaged popular guy, someone who speaks straight from the heart or someone they agree with on all the issues?

Long ago, the schools reportedly used to tell stories about George Washington and a cherry tree and call Abraham Lincoln Honest Abe. People looked to our country's leaders as examples of honesty and integrity and children were asked to emulate these qualities.

Then in 1963, President John F. Kennedy was killed and the world was expected to believe a story about a miracle bullet and a lone gunman that were less credible than the events in the movie "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes." As Americans noticed inconsistencies and seeming impossibilities in the official version of the JFK assassination, they started questioning their government and started asking whether individuals working for the government then, or under previous administrations, had been involved in the orchestration and/or cover-up of the execution of a U.S. President.

The government scandals, since Jim Garrison showed the Zapruder film, have been numerous and the public has become more and more dubious of the integrity of the government with each one. Some people have even come to think of dishonesty as something that cannot be removed from the face of the government.

-snip-

http://debateusa.com/featured/hull_richter.htm

You might want to read this fast. DebateUsa does not have archives.

EDITED BY ADMIN FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS

[no name no slogan]

1. ...and somehow he's not "mainstream" enough to win! (n/t)

[loyalsister]

4. She polled activists

It's hardly a mainstream sample.

[JohnKleeb]

5. you have to rain on our candiate's parade

please LS dont do that. I bet you wouldnt like it if I did the same to yours.

[loyalsister]

7. Didn't mean to rain

Recognizing the fact that a sample is biased doesn't invalidate data completely, but it helps put the data in perspective.

[JohnKleeb]

12. Its ok but please

understand this young girl is doing a great service better than myself I must say for Kucinich.

[loyalsister]

18. What it would mean to me re: my candidate

I understand that you appreciate the positive coverage, and I'm very glad that you are seeing something that pleases you. My only point is this, the researcher here sought anti-war activists at least at the demonstration. A willingness to do that once does indicate a desire to get a result. This increases the possibility that most of the data could be slightly skewed in the sense that it doesn't represent a very large cross-section of voters.
This would be important to me in my future assessment and strategy because I would be sure that I don't relax. I would continue to work as hard as I have been and wouldn't let a positive news bring unjustified overconfidence.
It's important to be most critical of these polls when it's your own candidate, because you want to find the flaws so that you know where to focus energy of the campaign. On the last campaign I worked on, we spent hours tearing down our own polls to find these things out. Then, that assessment guided the last piece of literature that we distributed.

[Mairead]

8. 'Activists'? Why do you think so?

Because she polled people who said they'd probably vote in the primary? Lots of people *say* they're going to vote in the primary, so I don't see how that translates into 'activists'.

[loyalsister]

9. read.......

"410 people were surveyed at a variety of places, including beaches, anti-Bush protests, churches, and shopping malls."
Anti-Bush protests are not places to go mining for neutral samples.
It sounds like this person was looking for a tip-off that the crowd would lean left before polling. She said this was in conservative parts of California. She had to find primary voters. The problem is that if your only polling people who are proud to be leftist, you're not getting a very representative sample of what you'll see in the actual election.

[Mairead]

13. I did read it

but I didn't fixate on 1 of 4 places, as you apparently did. Or are you really trying to claim that shopping malls, beaches, and churches are venues where one finds only activists? Shopping malls!?!

[genius]

14. She got a sample of people who are interested in their government

and who care enough to vote and to be sure to get others to vote. It's better than taking a sample of people who are going to sit home and do nothing in the next election. Activists, as you call them, risked their lives by the millions to close down cities in America when the Iraq war started. Just think of how powerful they will be when they get to the polls. Also, she indicated that the anti-Bush people were just one one of the groups she sampled and she sampled in Orange and San Diego Counties in California. It's not as if she surveyed people in L.A. or San Francisco. Looking at the trends of voters registering as Democrat to vote in the upcoming election, her sample may turn out to be much more accurate than most of polls out there. Incidentally, mainstream never decides elections.

[Tinoire]

16. Your loyalty is blinding you!

How the hell did you get "She polled activists" out of that?

That was one of the most desperate spins I've seen all day.

[diamondsoul]

2. Well crap! I can't open the page. n/t

[TeeYiYi]

3. It opened for me. PM me if you want the text. ......n/t

TYY

[hippywife]

6. Excellent job, Natasha! n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

10. Think back to 1980

On issues, polls shows voters agreed with Jimmy Carter. But they voted for Ronald Reagan.

Issues should decide elections, but often -- usually, I'd say -- they don't. Charisma, personality, physical appearance, height, head of hair, vague general impression, etc. That's how a lot of voters, probably the majority of them, decide which candidate to vote for. Like it or not, that's the way it goes.

[no name no slogan]

11. IF you play by "their rules"

you'll end up with Reagan. That's the problem with the Dems since the 80s-- we seem to want to "out-Republican" the Republicans. We've been playing by their rules. And, since they have been writing the rules, they've won over and over.

We need to start writing the rules. People in this country are fed up with the political BS spewed by your average politician who tries to be "electable". People see right through it, and dismiss him/her as "just another politician". Look at the voter turnouts in presidential election years-- 50% is NOT something to be proud of.

People want to vote for candidates who are NOT afraid to make a principled stand. Look what happened in 2002 to the Democrats who tried to out-Republican their Republican opponents, and compare them to the ones who stayed true to Democratic Party values. Hint: the "new Democrats"/DINOs lost their seats, while the "real" Democrats retained theirs.

Let's win 2004 OUR WAY, not theirs.

[genius]

15. Good point

Let's elect a Democrat we can believe in.

[Tinoire]

17. This only confirming Newsday's Poll that has Dk at 54.3% now

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-prez2004story,0,5467485.htmlstory?coll=ny-nationworld-nation-utility&vote8594962=1


Who Will You Vote For President?

3.3%
George W. Bush (422 responses)

3.8%
Carol Moseley Braun (495 responses)

33.1%
Howard Dean (4292 responses)

0.3%
John Edwards (36 responses)

2.0%
Dick Gephardt (255 responses)

0.2%
Bob Graham (23 responses)

1.2%
John Kerry (156 responses)

54.3%
Dennis Kucinich (7037 responses)

0.4%
Joe Lieberman (48 responses)

1.4%
Al Sharpton (184 responses)

12948 total responses