Zogby Weighs in on Dem Candidates (GOOD ANALYSIS)

[liberalpragmatist]

Good article. His polls are erratic -- always somewhat different from everybody else's, which means sometimes they're right (the last-minute election 2000 poll) wrong (2002 texas senate candidate ron kirk polling 48-49 on election day, losing 43-55). On another note, I personally think this new poll that has Dean leading Kerry 42-12 in NH's probably off the mark, though I definitely think Dean's leading Kerry by 15-20 pts.

Anyway, here's some excerpts:
> http://www.uticaod.com/archive/2003/12/03/news/21234.html

The 2004 election is going to be a close one, Utica pollster John Zogby said during a lecture at Herkimer County Community College Tuesday night.

"You will not know who is going to win at 10 or 11 o'clock election night," he predicted...


"The blue states are getting bluer and the red states are getting redder," he said, referring to the colors used to distinguish which states went Democratic and which went Republican in the 2000 election.

In assessing the nine Democratic candidates, Zogby said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is the man to beat.

"Howard Dean rode on an issue," Zogby said. "The drumbeat of going to war with Iraq. 'I oppose the war, I'm for the little guy.'"...

"There is a Gephardt scenario," he said, explaining that if Gephardt wins in Iowa and then comes in third or better in the New Hampshire primary, he will be in a strong position to take many Southern states.

Though he called Massachusetts Senator John Kerry the smartest of the candidates, Zogby said Kerry speaks so much about the subtle nuances of the issues that voters can't digest his message.

"To run a successful campaign on the presidential level, you have to be able to relate your message on a bumper sticker," Zogby said, adding he believes Kerry has not been able to do this.

"He looks Lincolnesque, he looks like a president," Zogby said. "But it's hard to see a Kerry scenario." ...

Asked about Hillary Clinton's presidential potential during an audience question and answer session, Zogby said he thinks the Democratic senator and former first lady could win in 2008. And he thinks she will win.

"She wants the White House," he said. "She'll be elected in 2008."...

"Whoever the Democrat is, they'll walk in with 45 percent of the vote automatically," he predicted. "I don't think the Democrats are assuming George W. Bush is going to win. The Democrats smell blood in the water."

[whirlygigspin]

1. sounds right

kickers!

[Zan_of_Texas]

2. Maybe Zogby wasn't wrong.

wrong (2002 texas senate candidate ron kirk polling 48-49 on election day, losing 43-55).

Maybe the Zogby polling was right, and the election was fixed. Ever think of that?

I watched Perry and Cornyn on TV that night, in their two hard fought races for Texas Gov and the open Senate seat.

They were smug. They looked like the cat who ate the mouse. They were elbowing each other.

THEY CALLED THE RACE THEIRS BEFORE THE ANALYSTS OR CNN! They claimed victory with way less than 50% of the vote in, and left the Houston analyst, brought in special to do the live TV election night, temporarily speechless, because the race hadn't been called yet.

HOW DID THEY KNOW THEY WON? I wonder, I really wonder.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

3. I'm not a huge Hillary fan

and I hope that in 2008 we're talking about 4 more years of Dean or Clark (or any Dem, really), but the thought of Hillary as President brings me immense glee, just because of what it would do to the freepers. I think many of them would just turn to stone or leap off a cliff. Or -- ha! -- leave the country!

If we lose in 2004, it will be the only thing that will bring me comfort.

[NNadir]

4. We are not going to lose.

Not in an honest election anyway.

If Hillary is going to make it as President, it will have to be in 2012.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

5. Fair enough

Even then, it will be SWEET to watch the Freepers and really all Republicans flip out when she runs and wins.

[Bucky]

6. I hope you're right. I think you're wrong

There's a lot of denial going on our side of the fence right now (or at least in DU). The "honest election" comment is telling. We can't just win in the BBV universe. We have to win big and beyond the margin of plausible theft.

[dusty64]

7. Hmmm.

If he thinks Hillary will win in 2008 that means he is giving 2004 to chimp. He honestly thinks she could win nationally, I think he's been hitting the crackpipe.

[Frodo]

8. She COULD win nationally

She's polarizing, but that polarization gurantees that the issues under debate are HERS, not what she thinks about her opponent's.

Now were all debating what we think about Bush's policies. We aren't seen as advancing ideas.

Against anyone bu Bush, it will be HER ideas that form the debate.



The real test will be her re-election to the Senate. If Rudy (or potentially Pataki - to a lesser extent) runs against her in '06 he COULD beat her.. If she's the former losing one-term Senator married to the former President she doesn't get the nomination (especially if the party continues downhill - the Clinton's will bear more and more of the blame). If she win's handily against Rudy she becomes the presumptive nominee for '08

[beyurslf]

9. We don't have to lose in 04 for HRC to run in 08

T. Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980. If we win in 04 I think it depends where the president stands whether or not she would challenge.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. Assuming that their is no Nader (spoiler) then...

Dem Wins: 51.4% Rethug Looses: 48.0% Other: .6%

...this is how close it could be.