New NH poll, Dean 25, Clark 19, Kerry 19

[DaisyUCSB]

http://web1.whdh.com/features/articles/hiller/A144/

http://www.suffolk.edu/suprc/pres/jan19_04/chart001.htm


It's early, but we're already seeing the impact of Iowa here in New Hampshire. Just as the race has tightened there, it's tightening here, too. But while Iowa has a four-way fight for first, the battle to win New Hampshire is now between three candidates.

Howard Dean is still on top in our exclusive 7News-Suffolk University poll with 25 percent. But John Kerry and Wesley Clark --at 19 percent-- are both close enough to catch him. All the other candidates are way back. Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and Richard Gephardt limping along in single digits, not yet real factors in this race.

Twenty percent--one of every five likely Democratic primary voters here--is still undecided. And how they decide will decide this primary. Our tracking poll will detect their movement, and let you see all the trends as we move toward the primary next Tuesday. And just in case you're not certain, here's how daily tracking polls work:

[Guaranteed]

1. It's all gonna depend on what actually happens in the Iowa caucuses.

Whoever wins is gonna get a massive boost for NH.

[Jackson Smith]

2. If Kerry wins Iowa: WATCH OUT

If Dean wins Iowa I don't think it gives him as much of a bounce. Kerry winning would be seen as an "against all odds" type of victory. He would have huge mo going into NH, where he already is well-known and has a network of supporters. Kerry taking Iowa and NH could seal the deal potentially. It could get crazy.

[Guaranteed]

6. But I think Dean winning would be a massive morale killer

for the rest of the candidates. They thought they had a chance, things started looking good...but then BAM! reality comes down like a hammer. And it's the hardest fights that are the toughest to lose.

You ever see a baseball team lose a 13-inning playoff game? They NEVER bounce back.

[Jackson Smith]

7. I disagree completely. Dean has already lost IMO.

He isn't unstoppable BY ANY MEANS. He's looked horrible the past week.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. I can give ya 20 million rea$on$ why you're wrong.

Dean is still a VERY formidable candidate. Don't kid yourself by believing otherwise.

[Jackson Smith]

10. Did I say he wasn't formidable?

He has lost some of his luster though, IMO. Regardless of what happens tonight.

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. "Dean has already lost IMO."

Sorta hard to read that statement any way but the way I did. :shrug:

[Jackson Smith]

12. Lost Iowa

He has "lost" in a sense. He was up double digits a week ago. Now he might lose. He's lost his "unstoppable" tag.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. When was Dean up double digits in Iowa?

[Cuban_Liberal]

8. Very true.

That's why Edwards is holding down expectations. We'll take 3rd, and proudly so. :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. It's Clark :vs: Kerry for the title of anti-Dean.

Dean has united a majority of Democrats -- against him.


Once it's clear who the anti-Dean candidate really is, that candidate's momentum will be unstoppable.

[kcr]

4. Not neccesarily

Its not clear that Kerry would get the relatively nti-war Clark voters, and its not clear that Kerry's voters would neccesarily break for Clark, considering some of his domestic positions. Losing edwards, kerry and/or Clark doesn't neccessarily hurt Dean.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

15. We've had polls here that shows Kerry is #2 of Clarkies & vice-versa

I'm one of those Clark/Kerry people myself.

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. I don't agree.

I see no evidence to support that contention; you are, of course, entitled to hold that opinion.

[maxr4clark]

13. There is no anti-Dean

As much as Dean supporters would like you to believe that Dean defines this race for the nomination, it simply isn't true. Clark and Kerry are running campaigns based on who they are and what they believe.

Dean is the only candidate running as an "anti-"somebody; he ran for all of 2003 as the anti-Bush, without defining statements about what he would do as President on foreign policy or tax policy or even healthcare. Clark has wasted no time in defining his positions on both foreign and domestic issues, and on the domestic issues plenty of people say are more progressive than Dean's, and very much in line with progressive Democratic values.

Kerry has yet to show us that he has the television presence that he will need to defeat George Bush. Kerry will also have a difficult time running against Bush, when he has voted in the Senate for some of Bush's most controversial legislation, including the IWR. I like Kerry's domestic policies just fine, but again I see Clark as having the better vision and more ability to articulate foreign policy than Kerry.

Please read the transcript of the testimony Clark gave to the Armed Services Committee, the very one the RNC claims is his political downfall. The version I've linked to gives the testimony of Richard Perle and the comments of the members of the ASC--the whole story, not just Clark's written remarks. It gives Clark's specific recommendations to the Congress about how to address the situation in Iraq. In hindsight it is clear that Clark assessed the situation in Iraq VERY accurately, including the importance for planning for a short campaign and the kinds of things that would be necessary in an occupation--and he calls it an occupation, not the "liberation" of the Iraqi people.

The transcript makes it clear that Clark did not support the President's position on the war, and that he is neither a Republican, nor a warmonger, nor rash to decide or act. If this is the sort of attack Clark will face in the general election, Clark will do very, very well against Bush, simply by telling the truth.

Dean is to be commended for being against the Iraq war from the start. It is one thing, though, to oppose the war in the press as a governor, and quite another to be invited by the Armed Services Committee to give expert testimony on the war, and to oppose it there. As for Dean's comment that he thinks Clark is a Republican, well, I think the interaction between Perle and Clark in the transcript bears on that, as well.

Clark is no anti-Dean. He is, however, a respected, thoughtful leader with a progressive agenda. He is far more knowledgeable and credible on foreign policy than either Dean or Kerry, or even Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. He has put out solid, innovative domestic policies that compare well with the other Democrats' policies in independent evaluations. If we don't nominate Clark, the country will lose its opportunity to have the best President since FDR, at a time when the country and the Democratic party really need him.

[Mz Pip]

16. Weird prediction

made yesterday on some talk show - the question was who would be the two candidates after the dust settles. Someone said Clark and Kerry. It seemed so odd considering how everything has played out up until now.

This race is wide open and it may not be settled until California, which is kind of funny since things are usualy pretty much decided by time it gets to us.

MzPip
:dem:

[Clark4VotingRights]

17. Wow, Wes is a single digit back.

Within the margin of error?

[DaisyUCSB]

18. but Kerry is back

I see a 3 way race, for 1st

[DaisyUCSB]

19. bump

bump