Dean losing 60-37% to Bush; Clark 7% better

[_Jumper_]

Even Lieberman is doing better than Dean against Bush according to a recent Gallup poll, despite media saturation coverage of Dean and virtually no coverage of Clark...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. Link? (eom)

DTH

[_Jumper_]

3. It is in today's edition USA Today

I will try to find a link.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Gallup page here- Clark down 16 to Bush- Dean 23.

Clark is definitely doing better than Dean gap wise.

Bush 56 to Clark's 40 = 16 point gap
Bush 60 to Dean 37 = 23 points.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031218.asp

[MoonRiver]

113. I don't know how anybody could not understand the obvious fact

that Clark is hugely more electable against * than Dean. I mean this is a no brainer.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

124. Yep. Same with Kerry

but brains seem to be lacking these days.

Full disclosure: I don't belive these polls mean that much before an actual campaign, but if you look at the material you are working with- Dean is a huge risk, since his foreign policy/national defense resume is non-existant. Kerry and Clark are the only ones who can go toe to toe with Bush.

[_Jumper_]

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

BTW, what does "DTH" mean?

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Dec. 15-16, 2003. N=847 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

.

"If were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: , the Democrat or George W. Bush, the Republican?" If undecided: "As of today, do you lean more toward , the Democrat, or Bush, the Republican?" Names rotated

.

George
W. Bush Howard
Dean Neither
(vol.) Other
(vol.) No
Opinion
% % % % %
12/15-16/03 60 37 1 - 2
12/11-14/03 52 44 2 - 2
11/03 53 44 1 - 2
9/03 49 46 2 1 2
.

George
W. Bush Wesley
Clark Neither
(vol.) Other
(vol.) No
Opinion
% % % % %
12/15-16/03 56 40 2 - 2
11/03 50 47 1 - 2
9/03 46 49 2 - 3
.

George
W. Bush Joe
Lieberman Neither
(vol.) Other
(vol.) No
Opinion
% % % % %
12/15-16/03 59 38 2 - 1
11/03 52 46 1 - 1
9/03 48 47 3 - 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[boxster]

56. It's an abbreviation of DoveTurnedHawk's username.

:D

[_Jumper_]

62. Doh!

Why didn't I realize that? :mad:

[Bucky]

106. These numbers look like gibberish. Why even post if it looks like this?

Think about your poor readers, young man. We're all looking to you to sort this out!

[bearfartinthewoods]

71. the media push for dean is becoming obvious, even to the local pubbies

it was THE topic at our tuesday politico.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Of course.....that's why the right wing want Dean!

MORE FROM RW SITE POLIPUNDIT...STILL CHEERING DEAN ON!

http://polipundit.com/
Dean Lead Grows

Howard Dean's lead is growing nationally and in New Hampshire.
posted by PoliPundit at 5:41 AM Link to this post | Comments (7)
SEE THE 7 COMMENTS BELOW

Isn't Rasmussen the one that so badly messed up the 2000 polls or I am thinking of someone else? I am just wondering because it is hard to believe that Dean is that far ahead nationally because before it was very close between him and Clark.
JeffP | 12.17.03 - 8:26 am | #I
found this link that has a listing of recent Dem national polls. Dean's lead of 15% over Clark is on the high side, but not out of line. These polls are all over the place.

Polls

I will post it as my homepage in case I messed up the HTML.
JeffP | Homepage | 12.17.03 - 8:33 am | #
Jeff,
Rasmussen did indeed screw up the 2000 polling. He had Bush up by 8 or 9 point right up to election night. His website at the time, "Portrait Of America" shut down a short time later.

I'm looking at the polls, too. They are all looking very good for Dean. I'm waiting for the one where Dean's vote surpasses his nearest competitor and the "no opinion" choice as well.

In Rasmussen's poll he's 5 points behind (a significant improvement from a month ago!),

Dean: 26%
Lieberman: 13%
Not Sure: 18%
Leiberman and Not Sure: 31%
Scott Elliott | Email | Homepage | 12.17.03 - 12:53 pm | #
Any idea why so many pollsters like Rasmussen got it wrong in 2000. Was it the DUI story? Was Bush really ahead or was the vote for Gore always understated? I'd be interested in people's thoughts.

FWIW, I think Zogby was the only one who got it right in 00. I hate to say that b/c his analysis drips with liberal spin, but his numbers were good.
Thomas Gordon | Email none | 12.17.03 - 2:33 pm | #
Thomas,

Any idea why so many pollsters like Rasmussen got it wrong in 2000.
Rasmussen and the Battleground poll - voter.com - were the ones who missed it the most as I recall - they both had Bush way ahead.

Was it the DUI story?
That story certainly had a big effect on the final numbers. As PoliPundit has stated, undecided who would usually break for the party out of power (GOP) broke instead for Gore by a 5 to 1 margin. The effect Bush's DUI had on the vote was the biggest story of the election - besides Florida, of course.

Was Bush really ahead or was the vote for Gore always understated? Yes and yes. Bush's lead vanished the last couple of days (see above). The polls who missed so badly had two problems.
1. They overestimated Republicans in their samples.
2. They underestimated the Democratic's GOTV machine. Remember this election was the Dem GOTV effort's last hurrah.

That's two things we won't have to worry about next year. T
Scott Elliott | Email | Homepage | 12.17.03 - 2:50 pm | #
...darn truncation!

There will be no more DUI stories, and the GOP's GOTV has matched the Dems'.
Scott Elliott | Email | Homepage | 12.17.03 - 2:52 pm | #
Well, it's happened.

"I'm waiting for the (poll) where Dean's vote surpasses his nearest competitor and the "no opinion" choice as well."

The latest Gallup poll shows Dean at 31%. Second-place Leiberman(13%) and Other/None/NoOpinion(15%) add up to 28%. Now we can truly say Dean is not only a front-runner but the prohibitive favorite as well.

I don't see anyone catching him.
Scott Elliott | Email | Homepage | 12.17.03 - 6:07 pm | #

[Jerseycoa]

72. I keep getting PolPundit

mixed up with CalPundit and almost lose my composure. :eyes:

[Patriot_Spear]

4. Win the primary, then you can worry about Bush*.

No offense, but as a Dean activist I'm working hard to win the primary.

All these Bush* matchup polls don't mean anything to me.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I suggest

that you start connecting the dots. To be that myopic doesn't serve you in any way. To not look at the big picture is somewhat scary, I would say.

[Patriot_Spear]

23. I suggest you deal with the reality of the primary so far...

Dean supporters are not mindless dupes and we believe strongly in Howard. So far our collective effort has propelled him to the forefront and filled his warchest.

if you compare his campaign to Clark's, clearly Dean is out maneuvering the General. I suggest you look at that 'big picture' carefully.

Let's try to be respectful of each other.

[_Jumper_]

30. We need to avert disaster

We are en route to hitting a massive iceberg called "Republican landslide" and we need to be warned about it.

[Patriot_Spear]

38. Sorry, 'Avert Disaster' is not a platform for a campaign...

I'll be happy to read why you think Clark is a better candidate- but this particular reason has little value for me.

Second guessing Karl Rove is a bad basis for supporting cadidate, unless you happen to be Dionne Warwick or one of her psychic friends!

:hi:

[shivaji]

104. The same ICEBERG warning was issued in 1992 for Clinton

nt

[bearfartinthewoods]

84. oh yeah...maneuvering...ok..i got it!

all the gafs and faux pas have actually been a clever ploy to monopolize media coverage.

finally...it makes sense!

[Justice]

91. I respect Dean

and am happy you are ready to respect Clark and Clark supporters. I look forward to your respectful posts!

[shivaji]

102. Clark is a johnny come lately who has been

on all sides of the issues. First he was for Iraq war, now he says it was wrong. First he was a repug, now he is a democrat. Furst he wants to protect jobs here then he says its OK for India to get outsourced computer programming jobs....on and on and on.

Clark has ZERO political experience. Clark is disliked by all his superiors and most of his equal ranked generals. I guess his ego must have rubbed them the wrong way. I don't suppose Clark gets a SINGLE endorsement from any military generals.

But in the end, if Clark is so smart, it should be easy for him to beat Dean in the primaries! We will soon find out.

[_Jumper_]

I'm working to beat Bush

Some candidates simply have a much better chance of winning. There is too much at stake to gamble just to make a statement, in my view.

[Patriot_Spear]

43. Like I said, support your candidate...

Win if you can. I'll support mine.

[boxster]

85. Wow, that is (unintentionally, I'm sure) hilarious.

Bush matchup polls mean nothing to you, yet your signature has a big Bush re-elect poll graph?

I thought you said you were focused on the primary. What does a Bush re-elect graph have to do with that?

Too funny.

Next time, don't chastise someone for focusing on the general election when you're doing the exact same thing. It's a tad hypocritical.

Besides, Bush matchup polls are a lot more indicative of voter intent than generic re-elect numbers will ever be.

[Bucky]

108. Pardon me while I go shake my head in mild disbelief

Patriot Spear writes:
No offense, but as a Dean activist I'm working hard to win the primary. All these Bush* matchup polls don't mean anything to me.

I think you've taken your eye off the ball then, mon ami. Please think thru what you're saying. Essentially it boils down to "It doesn't matter whether we win the election or not; Being the Democratic nominee is far more important."

These polls should make you think long and hard about your choice. They should also make you want to work within your campaign to change the way your candidate is percieved. I don't think policy wise there'd be much difference between Clark, Dean, Edwards, or Kerry. But the perception of what Dean is like will do lots of damage to the Democrats in November. Nothing outside of November matters and right now the November voting public favors Bush over Dean by a 5 to 3 margin. That's a potential landslide loss.

I don't expect Deanies to switch their allegiances, but you damn well better start worrying about the end game and the consequences of losing then.

[bearfartinthewoods]

121. no offense but that thinking is foolish imho

suppose a race was held among Ford motor products. the race was to be a showcase of the abilities of all the products to decide which vechicle would be entered into a race with a GMC truck.

the Ford people decided to pick the fastest of the vechicles in the race, a souped up mustang, which then lost badly in the competition against the GMC truck because the race course was off road and the Mustang could not take the bumps and ruts.

the point is, of course, that the flashest vechicle, the one that is leading the pack may not be the best in the long haul when the going gets rough and bumpy. the Ford people were so impressed with their speedy Mustang that they forgot what kind of vehicle they would be competing against.

[Zomby Woof]

5. the backlash cometh

Dean keeps putting his foot in his mouth more and more every day. The "inevitability" of his nomination doesn't seem so inevitable these days. All to the better...

[cspiguy]

8. Where did you get the cool Dean Icon?

:P

[Sean Reynolds]

11. If his nomination didn't seem so inevitable these days, he'd be dropping.

All latest polls have him WIDENING his lead.....do tell how he's losing steam.

[_Jumper_]

13. Actually, it looks more and more likely

Gore's decision to play kingmaker has immensely helped Dean. That being said, I hope people realize what the cost of a Dean nomination will be before it is too late!

[Sean Reynolds]

6. Too bad Clark isn't polling better where it counts......

And that's with primary voters.

You can't beat Bush if you don't win the nomination. Clark, Kerry, Lieberman are ALL slowly falling behind Dean.

[_Jumper_]

12. We can't beat Bush period with Dean

Dean is the Democrat's titanic.

[LuminousX]

17. Nice opinion

[Sean Reynolds]

18. GOOD!

I still hope he wins the nomination. I'd rather lose the presidency on value rather than win it on fluff!

[_Jumper_]

32. Then why not support a real progressive like Kucinich or Sharpton?

n/t

[Sean Reynolds]

37. I *DO* support Kucinich.....

Read my sig.

I support Dean over DK for many reasons, in which I've posted here before. BUT will GLADLY support Kucinich if he wins the nomination.

[_Jumper_]

44. Why isn't a real progressive your top choice?

"I'd rather lose the presidency on value rather than win it on fluff!"

[Sean Reynolds]

50. Because I LIKE Howard Dean.

I like what he did in Vermont, I like how he's running his campaign today. He may not be as progressive as Kucinich, but IMO he does have value; NOT fluff.

[onehandle]

36. hoo boy

That's useful.

ABB, Baby!

The nominee will be my candidate.

[Sean Reynolds]

41. I'm almost ABB

Won't support Lieberman, but will support the rest. Does not mean though I will vote for Clark in the primary JUST because I THINK he has a better chance at beating Bush.

[bearfartinthewoods]

86. how can you say that and still support dean

i wouldn't mind losing so much if it was losing with a real liberal.

[readmylips]

31. Crude comment Joe Lieberman....

Hi Joe, just keep attacking your own democrats like Zelli Millier.

[_Jumper_]

33. I'm trying to throw the Democratic Party a life preserver

;)

[mrgorth]

46. Just get back to work

for your man, Eagle fan. What you're doing here doesn't work.

[Democrats unite]

Do you not have a clue?

Bushspeak does not work here remember?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. Wrong. You can't beat Bush if you can't beat Bush.

[retyred]

80. How simple yet well stated

"You can't beat Bush if you can't beat Bush"....My hat's off to you sir!


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[deminflorida]

16. Only in Iowa and New Hampshire....

Clark is gaining in S.C. and Arizona, and outright pounding Dean in Oklahoma...If Dean beats Gephardt in Iowa watch for him to drop out and then Clark will start pounding Dean in Missouri as well.

[LuminousX]

20. That is great, more power to Clark

Let him win the nomination if he can. That is better than telling everyone to 'give up' on their chosen candidate.

[Sean Reynolds]

22. Firstly, Dean is gaining in SC...

Remember a few months ago he was FAR behind Clark, Edwards and Sharpton - he took the lead.

If Dean wins by 10+ points in Iowa, he may have the nomination locked up.

[LuminousX]

14. At the end of the day, all we can do is vote

Vote for who we think makes the best President. That, in my book, is Dean. Asking me to alter my beliefs based on polls is absurd. If the Republicans want to run against Dean, good for them, but again, I'm the one who chooses who I will vote for.

Got it? Good.

[Democrats unite]

19. But that only hold true for people voting for Dean?...

Or any of the candidates. Because in my book it's Clark.

Gotit? good

[LuminousX]

21. Yes it holds true for everyone

Glad you get it.



Of course I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion based on polls or Republican talking points.

[deminflorida]

26. The Dean people will start to become more and more upset as

the weeks follow.. Keep a sharp eye on the polls concerning Feb. 3 states that's where they will really see themselves in the mirror. Oh I sorry I mean we'll see them in the mirror, the rear view mirror that is.

[LuminousX]

29. If that is the case, then I will congratulate Clark. Until then...

the reality of the situation is Dean is still pulling ahead.

[Sean Reynolds]

35. Yup, that is the reality...

EVERY single poll that has come out this week shows Dean's lead growing. Whether it's national, or at a state level.

Remember when Dean was behind Clark, Edwards and Sharpton in SC? Now he's atop them all. Remember when Dean was polling on 3% in PA? Now he leads that poll too!

[Julien Sorel]

24. Then enjoy the 4 more years of Bush,

the extra Republican Senators, and the extra conservative Supreme Court judge (or two) that you will be getting.

Got it? Not yet. But you will.

[LuminousX]

27. LOL... I despise arrogance.

[Julien Sorel]

34. Nice retort.

Who do you think the Bush SC nominees will be? I wouldn't be surprised to see Bork dusted off and trotted forth. The wingers never did get over that one. Of course, he's a little old -- they'll want someone young, who can keep the SC conservative for decades to come.

[LuminousX]

47. Obviously, if Bush got the chance

he would nominate all sorts of atrocious people.

NOTHING you've posted has offered proof that Dean will lose or proof Clark will win. You've stated opinion and have continued to stress them as if the opinions/suppositions/hypotheticals are Platonic Truths that cannot be denied.

Let the game play out, see if Clark can win the nomination. According to what you are saying, Dean should start slipping soon (has he peaked? is he imploding?)

That is the way to test hypotheticals. State them, state what would prove them false, and then run the test.

Hypothesis: Clark will overtake Dean in the polls.
falsified by: Clark NOT overtaking Dean.
Experiment: Watch the polls.

Or perhaps you are saying that the voters in the primaries are completely off their rockers and are damning the Democratic Party's chances. Well, again, you can attempt to work against that, but your efforts in convincing people to switch from the people they currently support to Clark are what needs to be measured. That is done through the primaries once again.

You must get Clark to win the nomination. That is all that matters. Repeating, over and over that Dean can't win won't work. Saying the Republicans WANT Dean won't work. People make up their minds internally, not based on outside factors like that. Why should I care what the Republicans want? Why would they have a say in my choices?

This type of gamemanship is just flat out annoying. I know, you will continue because something inside of you is driving you to do it. Perhaps you think it is a good strategy. If Clark wins, I will commend you on it. Until then, it is just a nuissance and blocks the discussion of real issues.

[Julien Sorel]

55. You are trying to change the subject from Dean to Clark.

This isn't about Clark, but about Dean, and the rather glaring fact that he's electoral cannon fodder. I realize that because you have a fixation on your candidate that you assume everyone is motivated by a similar fixation. You are wrong.

Dean is a loser. Polls, electoral common sense, expert opinion -- all these have Dean a big loser. The fact that I oppose Dean, as I will point out yet again, has nothing to do with Clark, everything to do with Dean, and his weakness as a candidate.

So in your abortive attempt at logic:

Let the game play out, see if Clark can win the nomination. According to what you are saying, Dean should start slipping soon (has he peaked? is he imploding?)

Point to where I said that, and the rest of your post has meaning. Otherwise, it is what it is: an attempt to obscure the simple fact that Dean represents the best chance for the Democrats to become a marginal party. But when that happens, you can console yourself with the thought of what a great president Dean would have made, while the rest of us are demonstrating against the latest outrageous decision of a Bush-packed Supreme Court.

[LuminousX]

59. Got you confused with DeminFlorida

You are right, you never said Clark would overtake Dean.

glaring fact Fact?

Polls, electoral common sense, expert opinion

National polls are meaningless at this stage of the game. They are guides and ways to perk up press reports. The only polls that matter are state polls. And even then, you can't poll on the General Election when you have 9 candidates. There is too much distortion.

Electoral Common sense? When is that a 'fact?' And common sense tells us that he who wins the nomination is the one who has the best chance of winning. That doesn't always hold true, but that is why you can't call it a fact.

Expert opinion? Find me an expert who says one thing and I'll find you who says the opposite. The endorsements Dean has racked up are impressive 'expert testimonials.' But again, Kerry also has one of the best selection of endorsements I've seen thus far.

Come back when you have facts, not opinions, suppositions, and hypotheticals. You won't win through Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

[Julien Sorel]

67. I'm not going to bother with

most of your post, which is simply your opinion and a couple of logical fallacies.

But what interests me is your 'endorsements' comment. People endorse candidates for lots of reasons, not necessarily because they think they can win, and in some cases, specifically because they think the candidate can't win. Many poeople are jumping on the Dean bandwagon because they think it's inevitable he will win the nomination, and want to present as strong a front as possible in a general election. Some others are jumping on hoping to get money, some because of a desire to change internal DP politics -- all sorts of reasons. Clinton has implied rather publicly that Dean is a weak cnadidate, but if Dean wins the nomination, he will almost certainly endorse him. Does that mean that Clinton changed his mind? Spare me the nonsense about endorsements.

[LuminousX]

68. Please, point out my logical fallacies

Seeing that I made sure to only keep it to truisms, I would love to see where I made an error.

And are you saying it is 'my opinion' that 'your facts' are actually 'your opinions?' That is hilarious.

Okay, I will accept that I am only giving my opinion in regards to that matter.

Cheerio.

[Julien Sorel]

73. A couple:

National polls are meaningless at this stage of the game.

Opinion disguised as fact.

Come back when you have facts, not opinions, suppositions, and hypotheticals. You won't win through Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Fallacy of complex questions.

I really don't post here to give lessons in logic. I realize it's more evidence of my arrogance, but you'll just have to deal with it.

[LuminousX]

75. Come back when you have facts...

ROFL!!

That wasn't even a logical argument, that was color to the post. I can see how it confused you though.


And regarding the 'national polls thing' see the thread regarding the NBC poll. I agree it is something that needs to be tested (even though it has been tested since we started polling Presidential campaigns and hasn't been proven wrong yet.)

If the numbers don't dramatically change between now and November, I will admit that it is an incorrect statement. If the numbers do change dramatically, then it is a correct statement.

[Julien Sorel]

87. LOL

'Color.' Riiiight. I see lots of 'color' in your posts.

Sorry, November is too late for my tastes. The statement, 'polls are meaningless at this point' is incorrect, no matter what happens between now and November. Polls now may not have as much meaning as they do in November, but that doesn't make them 'meaningless.'

[LuminousX]

92. Definitely meaningless for the purpose you want to use them for

Not meaningless to get a snapshot of the electorate at this point in time.

So you agree that the poll numbers are going to move, that the numbers we see today will not be the same we see in November or even in February. Thanks.

[Julien Sorel]

98. No, as a matter of fact, I don't.

That would be another logical fallacy (straw man). The poll numbers might change between now and November, but then again, they might not. Of course, even if they do change, they don't have to change for the better -- they could easily change for the worse. So not only did you try to put words in my mouth, but the words you tried to put in my mouth helped your cause not at all.

More 'color,' obviously.

[LuminousX]

103. More color

nah, just goading.

Straw Man: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Seeing that I wasn't attacking any argument but presenting my own, it can't be a fallacy. Hmmm... want another lesson? $20/hour.

[Julien Sorel]

107. Kool-aid is colorful.

So you agree that the poll numbers are going to move, that the numbers we see today will not be the same we see in November or even in February. Thanks.

Is strawman: 1) falsely attributes a statement to me. 2) Implies this statement somehow bolsters your point, which would obviously make it an attack on my own.

This is rapidly becoming a typical Deanite playground-type discussion. Maybe it's time for recess.

[LuminousX]

122. When losing, resort to calling Dean voters cultists

Nice retort

[slinkerwink]

53. same here too

;-)

[Julien Sorel]

57. The mediocre, and less than mediocre, so often do.

[LuminousX]

60. More arrogance. Congratulations on your hubris

lol

[DoveTurnedHawk]

88. Arrogant, Yes. But He's Also Right About His Analysis, IMO. (eom)

DTH

[LuminousX]

93. Which analysis, about people being mediocre or regarding

the polls, etc.?

It wouldn't surprise me if the latter was true -- it is the generic Clark message, isn't it?

[Sean Reynolds]

28. And if Clark loses?

Can we blame you? I mean if Dean loses, god knows you'll blame all of us.

Got it? Good!

[Julien Sorel]

42. You can blame whom you please.

But nominating the best chance against Bush is hardly blameworthy. Nominating a guy your opponents are begging you to run on the cover of a national magazine, on the other hand, is the act of a fool, and fools deserve all the blame that can be heaped on them.

[Sean Reynolds]

49. Best chance?.

How can you say Clark is the best chance? Don't you know that we've got a little less than a year left until the elections? A LOT can happen in that time - how the hell can you say Clark is a better choice? Because of polls FROM December, 04?

[_Jumper_]

52. Clark's deficit vis-a-vias Bush is almost one-third less than Dean's

This is despite the fact that Dean has received saturation media coverage for months while Clark has received virtually no coverage. This should raise a red flag.

[LuminousX]

51. Best Chance? Pure Conjecture

[Julien Sorel]

58. Apparently you didn't read the poll that started this off.

Apparently you didn't see the National Review cover, or hear Karl Rove, or Bill Safire, or Tucker Carlson, or Bob Novak, or Chris Matthews, and on and on. Pure conjecture, all.

[LuminousX]

61. Pure Conjecture and Opinion

Obviously you didn't realize that national polls are fairly meaningless at this stage of the game. And polling on the General Election this far out is also introducing a ton of error into the calculation.

The pundits all want to say something and if you let the Republicans do the thinking for you, that is your choice. Stop asking me to allow them to have a say in my decision. They don't.

[_Jumper_]

63. The size of the difference between the Clark and Dean deficits...

...should at the very least be a cause for concern about a Dean candidacy. He has received 24/7 coverage for month and Clark still does almost one-third better than him against Bush.

[LuminousX]

64. It should be on the radar screen

but since it is so far out there, it is more important to focus on winning the primaries. The winner of the nomination is going to get the post-convention bounce. A 7 point gap just isn't enough to fret about at this point. Enough to take note, but not enough to drop out of the race. Not even enough to gear up a major opposition offensive. If it were 20 points... yeah, the campaign would have to start making some difficult decisions about what they are trying to accomplish.

[Julien Sorel]

70. National polls are evidence.

And nice try about 'pundits doing my thinking for me.' The opinion of experts is also evidence. When all the evidence starts piling up on one side, it becomes more and more safe to draw conclusions. There's an awful lot of evidence on the side of Dean = loser, and all you have on your side is 'Wait. The election is a long ways off. Things can change.' Things can change for the worse, too. Like the economy can get even stronger. Like the war in Iraq can get even better. Like Bin Laden getting captured or confirmed killed. Waiting, in the face of so much evidence, is dangerous and foolish.

[LuminousX]

76. But wait, where is this evidence you speak of?

Let's lay it all on the table.

[demnan]

25. The dispiriting thing

is that Bush still wins regardless of whether it's Dean, Lieberman or Clark.

That makes me really want to :puke:

[_Jumper_]

40. An "unnamed Democrat" still beats Bush head-to-head

All is not lost. I just think the election will be close and we need to maximize our chances of victory.

[Myra]

45. I'm more optimistic about my candidate, General Clark

But then he's not the sacrificial lamb being offered up by the media
for BushCo to carve to bits. There's reason to feel gloomy about Dean.

[demnan]

48. Believe me, regardless who the candidate is

whoever runs against Bush will be raked over the coals and have his reputation trashed. That is a fact. Those bastards play for keeps.

[Myra]

69. They do play for keeps

They are bastards.
I do think it'll be much harder for them to trash four star
General Clark, esp in BushCo's "war time." And I really want
to see Clark's intelligence and poise up against Bush's
earpiece in a debate.

[TLM]

79. I think you are wrong... Clark will be EASY to trash.

He was fired from his command for giving rediculously bad orders to confront the russian forces that could easily have escalated the conflict.

He'll be smeared as having no ability to deal with decision making in stressful situations.

They'll paint him as General Queeg, a power hungery liar who will tell people what they want to hear.

They will act like Clark has no ability to lead the nation in this time of war, and that Bush does. And what's Clark going to say?

"I dropped 20,000 bombs on Kosovo and was able to hit 13 tanks!"

If these guys had no trouble going after Max Cleland, John McCain, and Al Gore... Clark would be no problem at all.

[HFishbine]

96. And don't forget

The arguments against Bush cronyism would be muted by a candidate who worked as a paid lobbyist.

[TLM]

74. Exactly... these Clark folks seem to think

that Clark is immune to attacks... and the fact is he is the most open to attacks given his record and his total lack of capaign experience.

Clark is the weakest candidate running, easily... because he's running as a better warrior than Bush and we will not beat the republicans in a who is the biggest warrior pissing contest.

Clark being fired from his command means he will be attacked as incompetent and all that boost they think the military image will give CLark will be gone when the ROve crew smear Clark's military service.


Dean is the best fighter running and has shown he can bitch slap those who attack him... he's the guy to run. Dean is the only candidate running who isn't bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Clark has so much support he can't raise 50k with a week worth of begging... Dean raises 50K in 3 hours.

[shivaji]

105. are you optimistic about Clark beating Dean in primaries?

It should be a piece of cake since general Clark is so smart, brilliant, and a scholar.

[mjv135]

39. I don't get it.

Dean gets his campaign noticed by dissing the war resolution, never mind that he didn't actually have to put his balls on the line and actually cast a vote, now we find he DID support a resolution for unilateral war. Split hairs all you want, for someone who made an entire campaign out bashing the people who DID actually have to vote, and even one who didn't-Clark- this should've really hit his integrity question. It didn't. He made a huge charachter issue out of campaign financing, then completely reversed himself. It didn't matter. Screamed at Bush for keeping so much of his administration secretive, then refused to un-seal his own administrations records. Didn't matter.
Why does this man remind me SO MUCH of George W. Bush?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

54. That's how low the whole process has sunk

Many Dean supporters are willing to look the other way on all these matters because they hate Bush so much.
It will come back to bite us big time if we nominate him.

[deutsey]

65. Once again...

Dean said as early as September 2002 that if Bush made a convincing case that Saddam posed an imminent threat, he would have supported military action. As an antiwar protester who supports Dean, I've known this for quite some time, and I don't see where he has changed his position.

Why is this so new to so many people here?

BTW: I used to be a Kerry supporter, but IWR had no part in my decision to leave his camp. Although I disagreed with his vote, I've defended him here on DU for voting on IWR as he did.

[TLM]

81. "now we find he DID support a resolution for unilateral war"

No he did not. To claim that biden lugar was a resolution for unilateral war is either wholly uninformed or wholly dishonest.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 2, 2002

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today said that a bipartisan Senate compromise on a resolution allowing the President to use force to oust Saddam Hussein is far more faithful to the Constitution than the blank check resolution being lobbied for by the White House.

"Thankfully, this compromise embodies the lessons learned from the Gulf of Tonkin incident," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Granting the President a blank check to engage in overseas adventures is a recipe for human tragedy. This compromise resolution acknowledges those lessons."

In its letter to the Senate, the ACLU reiterated that it is neutral on whether the United States should go to war. However, it told the Senate that it remains firm in its conviction that the Constitutional obligations on Congress to make decisions about war need to be respected, especially with foreign policy questions of this magnitude.

The new resolution, negotiated by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Former Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN), eliminates most of the similarities between the resolution the President wanted and the disastrous Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to a decade-long morass in which tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives.

Specifically, the Biden-Lugar compromise:

Clearly identifies the enemy. The proposed resolution closes the door to regional adventures in the Middle East. Under the proposed compromise, the President would have to seek additional Congressional authorization if he wished to widen the conflict in the region.

Spells out clear military objectives. Congress would hold a tight leash on the current conflict. This would be in marked contrast to its role in the Vietnam War, which was lost in part because of nebulous war aims. The Biden-Lugar compromise realizes the folly of sending troops into harm's way without delineating the specific military objectives to be accomplished.

Reaffirms the American conviction that war-making power should lie with the people. In contrast with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Biden-Lugar compromise would respect the ongoing prerogatives of Congress during military engagement. The Constitution demands that American military decisions involving the use of force rest only with the people's representatives in Congress.

The ACLU's letter on the Biden-Lugar compromise can be found at:
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

[_Jumper_]

90. IWR-lite would not have changed anything

We still would be in Iraq today.

[stickdog]

83. Now you find out?

What the fuck were you doing when we were all protesting Bush's warmongering?

Because Dean, Kucinich & Sharpton were on our side while the rest were standing with Bush in the Rose Garden or shilling for him on CNN.

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. And don't forget

he REFUSES to promise NOT to appoint pro-life federal judges to the bench. Pro-chioce will NOT be a "litmus test" for Dean. DO NOT trust anyone who cannot make that VERY simple pledge.

[deutsey]

66. Sounds like Bush has already defeated many DU'ers in their minds

Me? I support Dean, but I'm going to fight for whomever gets the nomination. My gripe is against Bush. If we as Democrats are too stupid to realize that and unite around the nominee en masse, then we deserve to lose. The only problem is, I believe if we lose the election, we also lose what remains of our republic.

[_Jumper_]

77. I'll support the eventual nominee

I just think we need to maximize our chances of winning.

[Jerseycoa]

78. Polls are dizzying lately

I think I might swear off until after New Years. :crazy: But I said that yesterday, too.

[stickdog]

82. Gallup = Bush's Whore

Obviously, Dean is Bush's worst nightmare for Gallup to push bullshit like this.

[wyldwolf]

89. What a hysterical sour grapes post! Bad news for Dean means..

...Gallup is Bush's whore. Not proof. No link. But typical.

[stickdog]

99. Here's the proof.

Do the consistently higher Bush approval ratings than Fox News do anything for you?

[wyldwolf]

100. Nope! Because...

It appears ABC has always had Bush higher than Gallup. Are they Bush's #1 whore and Gallup #2?


Who is #3?

#4?


In some quarters, several polls have higher Bush approval ratings than Fox News.

The graph proves nothing... but speaks volumes about your opinions.

[Bucky]

111. But it's a cool graph anyway.

It's interesting even if it doesn't support the poster's thesis. Another thing worth noting here is that Fox's findings, despite my expectations, are about on par with everybody else's.

[stickdog]

117. 1) ABC/Whorington Post, 2) Gallup, 3) Fox

The evidence is clear.

[wyldwolf]

119. There is no "evidence" - other than some polls skew higher than others...

...no evidence they are "Bush's whores."

[Bucky]

109. Yes, that is completely obvious. < /sarcasm >

Clearly the Gallup Organization is sacrificing their entire hard earned reputation in order to ensure the reelection of Bush, whose sole concern in 2004 is that he might have to face the invincible juggernaut that is Howard "Bulletproof" Dean of Vermont.

Uh-huh. Now tell me another one.

[in_cog_ni_to]

94. My wish came true!

Yesterday I saw a poll with Bush against Dean, of course...that's the ONLY candidate running, you know..:eyes: and I was wishing I could see a Bush against Clark poll. This is great. Just goes to show you, Clark's got what the people want! Go Clark!

[West Coast Democrat]

97. Bush 52% Gore 39% (Gallup Poll Taken Oct 24-26, 2000)

Why do DUers continue to take Gallup Polls seriously? Do I need to post this link again? I've posted this a few times in the last week.

Gallup polls taken in late October 2000 (about 1 1/2 weeks before the election) showed Gore getting TRAMPLED by Bush in the 2000 presidential election!

Bush 52%
Gore 39%
Nader 4%
Buchanan 1%
The survey of 851 likely voters was conducted October 24-26 and has a 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/tracking.poll/

[Andromeda]

115. Thanks for posting this...

of course, it's not going to matter to those who want to hang on to the myth that gallup polls are always right.

All during the 2000 election campaign Bush led Gore about 5-10 percentage points and Gore ended up getting 500,000 more popular votes than Bush.

Polls are just a tool used for measuring public opinion and are not infallible.

[WiseMen]

123. Should have been taken seriously. Should have seen: Nader a Disaster

[MIMStigator]

101. Another red flag

nt

[shoopnyc123]

110. I have a psychic feeling...

...that Rudolph Giuliani is going on Bush's ticket as VP...

[chaumont58]

112. But none of them win! Maybe we should just call off the election

After all, look at the money the nation would save. Could another tax cut be in the works?

[WiseMen]

114. DEAN has succeeded in Destroying MAJOR DEMS but Stands to Loose to Bush

[stickdog]

118. How? How has Dean destroyed the other Dems vis a vis Bush?

I hate crap arguments like this.

[wyldwolf]

120. Crap arguments like this?

Gallup = Bush's Whore

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3053&mesg_id=3426&page=

Here's the proof

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3053&mesg_id=3906&page=

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[LiberalBushFan]

116. These polls don't matter, the way I see it.

Because Dean knows how to FIGHT BACK! When he loses in a conservative landslide, he'll definitely yell and complain about it and get his fans all riled up! (or perhaps I should replace "conservative landslide" with "landslide in favor of the more conservative conservatives")