The anti-Bush vote doesnt translate into proDemocrat votes

[Bucky]

Here's our excuses:
1. It's still early in the process
2. Voters haven't gotten to know our candidates yet
3. People instinctively support the president in a time of war
4. Polls! Ha! What do polls know? No one called me!

These are pretty good excuses. But, and this is the big but, they only cover up the unpleasant news. We are in trouble. I'm not pessimistic by nature, but the odds against us are long. Here's what polling shows according to Polling Report.com:

Bush against a generic Democrat:
44%-40% (CBS News/New York Times, Dec. 14-15)
44%-33% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 14)
48%-41% (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, Dec. 5)

But at the same time, here's the "Bush should be reelected" numbers:

44% (deserves reelection) - 46% (time for someone new) (Zogby, Dec. 4-6)
45% (yes, reelected) - 50% (no, not reelected) (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12)

So the generic Democrat loses while the "reject Bush" option is more popular. That is, even when people want to see Bush gone, the idea of electing a name-brand Democrat is less popular than keeping Bush in. So now when we compare the actual candidates, that is when we get more specific and before the Rove attack machine is turned on and focused on smearing whoever we nominate, we get this:

Bush v Dean:
51%-39% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 13 - preCapture)
52%-31% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 14)
52%-44% (Gallup, Dec. 11-14)
49%-42% (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12 (poll where 50% said Bush should go))
51%-40% (Quinnipiac , Dec. 4-8)

Bush v Clark:
50%-34% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 13 - preCapture)
51%-25% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 14)
49%-43% (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12 (poll where 50% said Bush should go))
50%-41% (Quinnipiac , Dec. 4-8)

Bush v Lieberman:
51%-42% (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12 (poll where 50% said Bush should go))
51%-40% (Quinnipiac , Dec. 4-8)


So the more specific we get, the better Bush's election chances get. There is a serious PR problem that Democrats have, and all the echo-chamber, self reinforcing trash talk that we do here at DU plays into that overall pro-Bush dynamic. We need a candidate who can transform that anti-Bush sentiment into pro-Democratic sentiment.

This is the soul of my concern about a Dean nomination. I don't think his laudable anger is transferable to voter sympathies or transmissible to the anti-Bush vote. In a time of war, swing voters are going to look at specific character issue that spell out stability and security; in a time of fear, they will look for comfort food candidates. And Bush is positioned to give them that.

If swing vote people were going to vote out of anger, they'd already be signed up for Dean. His challenge is to move out of anger mode and into comfort food mode. Given the current temperament of his supporters and his own words, I don't have much confidence that he can expand beyond his base.

[JoeMemphis]

1. Here's a Novel Idea!!

Democrats should make jobs the main focus of their campaigns. Not special-interest pandering, not the war, but something EVERYONE (including angry Republicans) can relate to.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17412

[Cheswick2.0]

2. just curious

what special interests do you think democrats should stop pandering to?

[JoeMemphis]

3. Well ...

I know that each major party goes after special voting blocs. Nothing wrong with going for voters on gay marriage, antiwar, whatever, issues. But hardly anyone in the current field has campaigned on a single campaign promise that can reach the independents and moderates.

To be clearer, I mean that the Dems have to have a positive overall theme. Job losses have affected DUers, Freepers, and everyone in between, and is clearly an issue that Bush is weak on.

The current Dem candidates should take a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook. The campaign theme was the economy, the economy, the economy. Today it should be jobs, jobs, jobs.

[damnraddem]

4. The issue isn't Democratic excuses. It's Democratic tasks.

The major task is to translate no-on-Bush votes into pro-Dem votes. To do that, Dems need to:
1) stop attacking each other;
2) speak to the issues;
3) have something meaningful to say about the issues; and
4) look half-way acceptable.
Aside from Lieberman, any of the Dem hopefuls for prez can do this. Other Dem politicos need to do likewise. The Democratic Party does not own any votes, including no-on-Bush votes -- it has to earn them.

[reachout]

5. Polling

I'm not one of those people who is anti-polling. I know enough about the evolution of the science to understand that it really has become quite sophisticated and is considerably more reflective of reality than most people here give it credit for.

That being said, I wish the organizations that do these polls would stop going with national numbers and instead concentrate on key states. The popular vote is meaningless in a presidential election. There are less than a dozen states where the next presidential election will be decided (really probably about four or five, but I'm being optimistic about what is in play).

Now, the electoral map shows a likely solid Bush victory, and I don't think that's entirely inaccurate at this point. However, without current polling specifically in the battleground states the picture is pretty fuzzy. Really, asking someone in Texas or California if they will vote for candidate X tells us nothing (yes, despite all the doom and gloom after Arnold's win, CA will go Dem..count on it).

Still, I concur, anyone underestimating the task of defeating Bush fails to grasp the reality of American politics in 2004. I really wish I lived in one of the serious swing states and could make a difference locally.

[TexasPatriot]

6. adding another

Bush v Dean:

60%-37% (Gallup, Dec. 15-16)
51%-39% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 13 - preCapture)
52%-31% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 14)
52%-44% (Gallup, Dec. 11-14)
49%-42% (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12 (poll where 50% said Bush should go))
51%-40% (Quinnipiac , Dec. 4-8)

Bush v Clark:
56%-40% (Gallup Dec. 15-16)
50%-34% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 13 - preCapture)
51%-25% (NBC News/Wall Street Journal , Dec. 14)
49%-43% (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12 (poll where 50% said Bush should go))
50%-41% (Quinnipiac , Dec. 4-8)

Bush v Lieberman:
59%-38% (Gallup Dec. 15-16)
51%-42% (Newsweek, Dec. 11-12 (poll where 50% said Bush should go))
51%-40% (Quinnipiac , Dec. 4-8)

---

I would argue that Clark's numbers against Bush are holding better than the others. Whether that is a fluke of these idiot polls or not I dont know - but let's see if it continues (and no, i'm not interested in Zogby polls).