if bush beats( generic) dem by 9%, yet bush beats dean by 20%

[bearfartinthewoods]

what does that tell us?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm top of the page

CBS News Poll. Dec. 21-22, 2003. N=685 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).

(bold added by me for people who are picky about their polls)

maybe, that despite all the money raised and all the money spent on campaign commercials and all the FREE press, dean still polls twice
a badly as "dem".

just imagine of some of our other candidates had been getting even a fraction of the free exposure that dean has gotten, where would they stand today?

maybe dean's strengths don't work against bush? maybe another candidate can offer a message that is more aligned with what people expect from "dem"?

we still have a chance to find out. it's not too late to make this primary season a true test of which "dem" will work best against bush.

if dean is truly the cream of the crop, he will still rise, even if he isn't anointed by early wins in Iowa and NH. or it could be that we find a "dem" candidate that can do better than lose to bush by 20%.

[SHRED]

1. It tells us...

...that the corporate controlled media wants Bu$h INC. for 4 more years.

[Rose Siding]

2. Carter was beating Reagan by 28% at this point in his race

So it tells us we're ahead of the game.

snip>
MARK SHIELDS: I want to say one thing, Margaret. At this point in 1980, Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter 61-33 in the Gallup Poll and in June, he had climbed all the way to 32 percent. And, in retrospect, it became my goodness, Reagan was always an inevitable victor. Bill Clinton at this point was running third behind both Ross Perot and George Herbert Walker Bush. So don't get ready for the inaugural yet.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec03/sb_12-26.html

[bearfartinthewoods]

6. and what was the attraction of reagan against carter?

his "morning in America" campaign.

and dean concentrates on despair and anger.....

and at this point of the process, Clinton was polling in single digits. i'm asking for people to look again at our current single digit candidates so they may have the same chance to bloom as Clinton had.

[Nazgul35]

10. "dean concentrates on despair and anger....."

nice RW talking point....

I should hope that you would spend some time actually listening to what Dean is saying.....nothing he says focuses on despair and anger...sorry but you are just wrong......

and in answer to your first post, this means nothing at all...

What the poll actually says is that some of the respondents are withholding their support for certain candidates but are expressing their eventual support for whomever the Dem nominee is....

People are still hoping that their candidate will win, and won't abandon them in polling because of the signal that will send...

And taking polls does not carry the same costs as actually voting does...

See how easy it is to interpret things?

[bearfartinthewoods]

18. if i'm wrong..nothing changes.

dean is still the cream and a full, competitive primary will prove it.

if i'm right, and the primaries are nullified by early wins, we may miss this cycle's Clinton.

i don't see the need for the rush to coronate an early winner. what is the strategic advantage of disenfranchising all voters who don't live in Iowa and NH?

[polpilot]

12. Dean only brings 'despair & anger' to his opponents. He's the brightest

light for his supporters as we 'TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!"

Dean '04...Bringing despair & anger to his opponents!!

[beyurslf]

13. Morning in America

was the 1984 re-election theme.

[Scott Lee]

15. I guess you don't know much about Dean's campaign then

Because "taking your country back" is an act of hope, not anger and despair. Anger and despair lead to ennui and apathy: the antithesis of the Dean campaign.

Nice try, though.

[bearfartinthewoods]

29. it obviously plays well to those who feel the need to take it back

but what about those who are not pissed? what about the majority of the people who feel the course of our country is NOT essentially wrong but just needs a slight course correction? we are talking about winning a majority of ALL the voters, not just the pissed off wing of the dem party.

Right Track/Wrong Track Polls listed chronologically.

University of Pennsylvania National Annenberg Election Survey. Dec. 17-21, 2003. N=996 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.


"Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction, or do you think things are seriously off on the wrong track?"

.........Right Direction ......Wrong Track .....NotSure
12/17-21/03 ....47 ................42.............. 11
12/14-16/03 ....45 ................44 ..............11
12/9-13/03 .....38 ................50 ..............12
11/28-12/1/03 ..41 ................51 ...............8

please note the trend. now there is no guarantee this trend will continue to break for bush but why lock ourself into a candidate that relies on the trend changing?

[Jack Rabbit]

62. Ah, yes! Nothing seriously wrong with Bush! Just get on the bandwagon!

Ms. BFW, your entire case against Dean (and several other candidates) is built on the fallacy argumentum ad populum. If the public thinks so, it must be so.

If a survey says that a whopping majority of the public thinks the Earth is flat, that does not change the fact that it is round. Decisions made assuming the truth of the flat Earth hypothesis are more likely to be bad decisions than good ones.

America needs more than a simple course correction. The very fact that Bush is allowed to continue to sit in the oval office is an affront to democracy. He lost the last election. He has used his power to remunerate his cronies and restrict civil liberties. He governs America as a banana republic dictator. This needs to be opposed.

Also, no matter how much you may twist and turn to justify it, the invasion of Iraq was predicated on nothing but lies and damned lies. Saddam was a paper tiger. He presented a threat to no one. He had no unconventional weapons and he had no ties to al Qaida, let alone any connection to the September 11 attacks. As a result of believing Bush's lies and acting on them, we have wasted time and resources that could have been better used to pursue terrorists. Half of the army's combat divisions are on occupation duty in Iraq protecting Halliburton from a population that would like us to leave and allow them to govern their own country. Doing nothing and leaving Saddam in power would have been an ugly, unpleasant choice, but a better one given the quagmire in which we now find ourselves.

In terms of determining what I believe to be right, it doesn't matter that a majority of the public still believes that nonsense about Saddam being in league with Osama in planning the September 11 attacks. It is a deliberate lie. The invasion of Iraq, partly predicated on that lie as well as many other lies, has been a moral and pragmatic disaster.

At this stage of game, I am not going to support a candidate who repeats those lies just because a majority of the public has been deceived. Should such a candidate become president, what assurances do we have that he will pursue wise policy? What assurances do we have that he will not repeat Bush's follies simply because the public believes things that are not true? I want a president with honor and courage, one who will tell the truth, whatever it may be. A candidate who is cowed by public opinion polls into repeating the urban legends on which Mr. Bush has based his policies has neither honor nor courage.

Bush's lies are best countered with the truth. I want a candidate who will tell it. Even if that candidate loses to Bush as a result, the country will be better for hearing the truth than it would be replacing Bush with another coward and liar.

Consequently, at this moment, I favor those candidates, like Dean, Clark and Kucinich, who at the very least question the wisdom of the invasion and aren't afraid to say why. Present public opinion be damned. The majority will come around if it hears the truth, hopefully before November.

Meanwhile, our time would be better spent exposing Bush's lies rather than suggesting that we have something to fear from nominating a candidate who will tell the truth.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. What happened to everyone who was saying that they liked the anger???

Am I on the right board???

[bearfartinthewoods]

47. not "everyone' was saying it.

i think the silent majority is starting to speak.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Morning in America was Reagan's re-election theme

Morning in America was Reagan's campaign theme in 1984, when he ran for re-election. In 1980, the theme was The time is now for Reagan. That stresses the need for change, not a misty view of America through a video version of a Norman Rockwell illustration.

Reagan ran against Carter's record in 1980. And Carter's record was double-digit inflation, souring gas prices and the paralysis over the hostage crisis in Iran.

While I believe history will be kinder to Carter than the voters were in 1980, the fact is that any Republican could have beaten him. Indeed, Reagan may have actually been one of the weaker candidates the Republicans could have nominated. Many who voted from him had serious misgivings about him.

In any event, Reagan did not run a schmaltzy campaign against Carter. He stressed Carter's perceived weaknesses. It worked.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. my bad.. you are right!

[RetroLounge]

51. "and dean concentrates on despair and anger....."

bullshit. you obviously have an agenda and an axe to grind, and also obviously have never seen Dean speak.

So here is your favorite response:

POOP!

[WiseMen]

22. Flawed Comparison. Note Bush and McCain was Out-Polling Gore Dec. 1999

Sad that you have to have to go back to Reagan/Carter to find some example of to match Dean’s disastrous situation. Unfortunately, the comparison is flawed:
1. In 1980 the election cycle was did not start this early.
2. Reagan was not the undisputed front-runner.
3. Carter had to deal with a failing economy and Iran Hostage.

A more relevant comparison is the Bush/Gore numbers in 2000. Notice below, that at same time in Dec. 1999, both major republican opposition candidates polled ahead of the incumbent Gore. This advantage is usually necessary for the outside party to overcome the power of incumbency.

Registered Voters' Choice in 2000
Bush 55%
Gore 42
Sampling error: +/-4% pts
Registered Voters' Choice in 2000
McCain 52%
Gore 44
Sampling error: +/-4% pts


The real similarity between Reagan and Dean is that both are view as relatively unqualified to be President. The republican party overcame the early deficit by appealing to American pride and machismo calling for a tough foreign policy and the treat of war against Iran. Do you think Dr. Dean is in a position to do this?

[Rose Siding]

28. It's about change in both instances

How many voters do you know that wouldn't love to take a run at corporate control of govt? How many think things are swell so everyone in Washington should keep their jobs?

The media will be flummoxed again by Dean's ability to frame the debate, as they have been all year.

[bowens43]

3. Didn't you post this once before?

It had no validity then either. Dean is not running against bush. The primaries have not even begun. Polls that pit any of the candidates against bush at this stage are meaningless.

[bearfartinthewoods]

5. no, i haven't posted this before

and the and any thinking that dismisses the general election is losing siight of the goal.

[Scott Lee]

17. HA! That's what they do.

Many of Dean's most active detractors take one or two themes and repeatedly pound them, with Goebbelian determination, on to the forum until they can "stick".

Which they never really do, and don't manage to make a single convert in the process.

[mikehiggins]

33. Okay. Now let's post this

Many of Clark's most active detractors take one or two themes and repeatedly pound them, with Goebbelian determination, on to the forum until they can "stick".

Which they never really do, and don't manage to make a single convert in the process.

Now, let's pick up that mirror and take a good look.

Let the voters decide.

[Scott Lee]

35. Really? Show us, Mike, some of the memes against Clark

with sources that provide evidence they are relentlessly drummed at DU.

Thanks.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

61. Dean is not running against Bush?

Of all the candidates he has attacked Bush most vocally and visibly and you say he is not running against Bush?
WTF?

[lurk_no_more]

4. But if repugs vote dean in the primary

and bush in the general, doesn't that make the poll right? Oh I get it now, that's your point.....bush beats dean, but really...does anyone need a poll to tell us this?

Voting in your opponent seems to work quite well for Republicans in a lot of the local elections, why not the GE, they wouldn't even have to re-register Republican till after the election.


Food for thought from….“JAFO”

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. it's a possibility that pubbies may cross over in the primary.

who knows who they'll vote for? if this whole "rove wants dean" theory is correct, i guess they vote for dean? i still have trouble with the idea but i guess it could be true. the fact that no one of import on the pubbie side seems to be attacking dean is starting to be obvious and obviously odd.

that really has nothing to do with my point though.

i'm saying that the numbers show dean falls short of the concept of "dem" as in a democratic candidate.

i'm saying that there are ten percent fewer people willing to vote for dean specifically than are willing to vote democratic in general.

and i'm saying we still have time to figure out why that is and do something about it before we get locked into anything.

[bread_and_roses]

7. If the other "major" candidates

were speaking out on the omissions, distortions, manipulations, prevarications that Bush used to justify this war, we would begin to see a shift in public opinion and not have to worry about nominating a candidate who supports this criminal, Imperialist war.

I do not support Dean, I hope he does not get the nomination. He is weak on almost every issue that matters to me: progressive taxation, universal health care, institutional racism, corporate give-aways, civil liberties...you name it. But I can understand why those of his supporters who are against the war will not consider one of the other "viable" candidates.

Kerry, for instance, has a far better progressive record But he wants it both ways re: Iraq...he wants to garner the "war support" votes and the "anti-US occupation deaths in Iraq votes" by saying that SH was a threat, that his capture makes US safer, but Bush is mishandling the occupation.

The irony, of course, is that Dean's own "anti-war" stance is pretty feeble.

I feel like saying "A pox on all your houses." Unfortunately, I can't...the political work I do will benefit whichever Dem gets the nominee, no matter how inadequate I find him...

edited for last sentence

[November 2004]

8. Excellent post!

BTW, Edwards does support progressive taxation; though, I doubt he will get the nomination...

[November 2004]

9. It seems as though

none of your opposition posters on this thread noted the good way you added bold for the numbers.

Personally, I don't trust the polls...certainly not at this early time in the campaign.

[beyurslf]

14. It probably tells us the same thing

about Clark (41), Lieberman (40), and Gephardt (38). They are all lower than the generic polls against an unnamed.

[bearfartinthewoods]

24. i don't think it does say the same thing because of the exposure factor

no one has had the benefit of the massive media exposure that dean has. the media is stuck on dean. at first it was the novelty of him. then it was the success of his internet/money machine. and now, the constant flips and flubs.

none of the other candidates have had the exposure he has had. if the primary continues beyond the first three contests and the attention is spread out among the candidates, we may get a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of all the candidates as they are perceived by all the voters, not just the most activist.

[NicRic]

16. I have no joy is saying......

that I dont believe Dean has any chance of beating bush in 2004 ! In fact I wish I could honestly say the opposite. I want so badly to see bush lose in 2004, that I want to see someone come to the fore front with wider appeal .We must get the ones on the fence and also we need to get the vote out big time. If Dean is the Dem choice I will vote for him ,however I wish I was more sure of his ability to unseat bush !

[SayitAintSo]

19. Good point .... While I don't hang my hat on polls......

Your point is one that has consistently bothered me as I analyze them. I don't claim to understand them but there HAS to be something there with this... It can't be ignored.

[Clark4Prez]

20. It's early in the game

You know, I find myself thinking back to '92 alot. (Maybe because we were facing George Bush then and now, maybe because we kicked his ass back to Maine, or maybe its the last time I became really excited about politics, I dunno).

In December of '92 a Presidential candidate came to visit an elementary school in Tampa. The total number of people there to see him, one and two reporters. The candidate was a guy named Bill Clinton. He didn't have a chance the pundits said. The Democratic core voter would not go for him, too conservative. After all he was pro-death penalty, supported the Iraq war, aided industry in their pollution of his home state, involved in good old boy style politics like the GOP, no way, Jose'. Its gonna be Harkin or Tsongas all the way.

Well I like the quote from this week's fund raising email from Trippi, one of Dean's supporters said, "We are saying (screw) the pundits." I think that is a good philosophy for all of us, regardless of the candidate we support.

[Clark4Prez]

23. Bush win is not a sure thing

I thought this was an interesting quote:

"Yet many Democrats noted that the Democratic contest at this stage in 1991 looked much as it does now, with the nomination unclear and the general match-up against a popular President Bush looking very uphill.


"Clinton wasn't even a candidate at this point," said Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who hasn't backed a candidate yet. He and several Democratic governors spoke about the campaign during a recent meeting of the National Governors Association in Indianapolis."
Knight Ridder's Washington Bureau Aug. 27, 2003



http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/steven_thomma/6632191.htm

[bearfartinthewoods]

26. i believe it was posted here before that Clinton was polling 6-9%

in december of that cycle. this is my point. this cycle's Clinton, if there is one, will never get a chance to surface if we anoint dean, this early in the game.

[On the Road]

21. It Tells Us That People

don't select a candidate in a poll who they've never seen, but who they've been told is an angry radical gay-loving peacenick George McGovern.

Glad to see the statistics on Reagan -- I hadn't seen that before.

And BTW, the Republican's chances are not as strong as national polls would suggest. All those southern and western states are going to go overwhelmingly for Bush. Everyone knows that. It's how Bush does in the swing states -- FL, PA, MO, WV, and many others -- that will determine the election.

[GOPBasher]

25. It looks like we're in trouble.

Lately I really try to stay away from conversations that could turn into flame wars, but I'll say a few things here. First of all, I LOVE Dean, I think he'd make a great President, and if he's the nominee, I'll support him 100%. Having said that, it doesn't look like he can beat Bush. The Right Wingers are praying for Dean to be the nominee; they're eyeing a Reaganesque landslide. The polls are looking very bad for Dean, and we have other people who poll much better against Bush than he. I'm for Clark, b/c I think he has the best chance of beating Bush.

Now as you Dean people get ready to flame the living sh*t out of me, please remember one thing: I do like Dean lot; he's make a great President. I'm just worried sick about Bush winning in 2004. How many wars and how much debt can we take?

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. i didn't post this to depress people

the contest against bush id what it is.....

so many of the factors that govern the outcome are almost out of our hands.

our problems with the media are a given.
we really can't even hope that iraq gets screwed up enough to affect him.
the economy is out of our hands.

the one thing we can do it pick the man that is best suited to go against him. anytime you are choosing a champion, the first consideration should be how he stacks up against the opponent.

if the other guy is a sucker for a left hook, you look for a south paw. if the other guy has a longer reach, you look for someone who is extremely good on his feet, who can dance around him and wear him down.

it's not so much a matter of who is the best technical fighter we have, if that fighter plays into bush's strengths and cannot exploit bush's weakness.

[formernaderite]

41. I'm pretty nervous too

This is my first post so bear with me.
I'm with you, of all the candidates I emotionally connect with Dean. As a former Naderite, I'm attempting to move beyond my heart and think with my head. That said, I will still vote for Dean in the primary, but have had strangely disturbing conversations with friends who chastised me for voting Green in the 2000 election.
A few of them, happen to be former (lower level) Clinton appointees who got unbelievably high paying jobs in 2001, and are now willing to give Bush a second look. Maybe they're nervous living in DC and New York, because of 9-11. I don't know...I do know none of the nine interest them. They no longer berate me for Al Gore's loss in 2000, of course I did live in a state that was a safe electoral vote for Al.
Obviously I'm someone who is willing to vote for higher ideals and lose. Although I'd love to see the White House return to saner hands, I'm beginning to think it may be wiser to concentrate time and money on the House and Senate races.
In terms of the other candidates, I'd gladly vote for Kucinich, I know that won't help either. I think Clark would probably do best against Bush in a head to head....but frankly I don't care for him and his late leaning leftward tilt. Nice joining all of you.

[adadem]

50. Welcome to DU, former!

[CTLawGuy]

27. it means that

75% of people arent paying attention to the election and do not really know who Dean, or any dem for that matter, is, but they know they want a Democrat.

Most people who vote, don't really pay attention this early, even Democrats in late primary states arent paying attention.

The point is, the GE is a wide open ballgame.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. i agree and my point is if 75% of the people aren't paying attention yet

maybe the wise course would be NOT to pick a candidate yet....to wait and see who really resonates with the rest, the vaste majority of the people before we lock ourselves into one candidate.

[msanger]

31. so who should we be supporting?

Since dean is so obviously a flawed candidate, which of the other candidates do you suggest we support?

[HFishbine]

32. Yes, indeed. Who would you recommend? (n/t)

[Scott Lee]

36. Why, one of the LESSER popular candidates, of course!

Doesn't that make sense? Why in the sweet world would the Democrats want to put up their most popular, best funded candidate against Bush-hole?

[bearfartinthewoods]

39. most popular with whom?

the current poll range shows he is most popular with between 16 and 31 percent of dems.

to win the general we need a helluva lot more than that. it's my position that a full primary season will be a better indicator of who the most popular candidate is, closer to the election.

if dean is the best, he will still be the best in June. what's the hurry?

[bearfartinthewoods]

59. smiling like a cheshire

[BootinUp]

34. The poll that was really scary

was the NH poll back in early December showing Dean at 29% against Bush. Anyone still have a link for that one?

[adadem]

52. My biggest concern,

living in a very conservative pug community, is that Dean (especially) won't draw the liberal and moderate Republicans who
are fed up with shrub much less the Independents and swing voters. Some of the other Dem candidates will be able to do this much easier.

[Padraig18]

53. I live in a conservative Republican area...

There is a great deal of independent and moderate-Republican support here for Gov. Dean. :shrug:

[Padraig18]

37. It tells us that America doesn't know our candidates yet.

We'll see what the numbers are in, say, 9 months...

[Raya]

42. Fallacy Here: Dean GE Vote has been GOING DOWN with MORE PRESS

% Independent and Republican voters likely to vote for Dean has been GOING DOWN with increasing PRESS COVERAGE.

The level of PRESS Given to Dean is already way more what has been
given in the past to a candidate AFTER New Hampshire. I have been through 5 campaigns, and I tell you the coverage of Dean is unbelievably high. Dean appears in almost Every Network Newscast Every Day.

Reality is that your average middle-America voter rarely takes in much info about guy from the party out of office even on election day. Their vote is really based on vague impressions, prejudice or tradition.

Whether we like it or not Deans Free Press Honeymoon will soon be over guys. Too many negatives have shown-up in his campaign and his record. Even my Dean supporter friend are on pins-and-needles worried about what my come out next.

Anyway, the Republican onslaught will gather momentum as soon as it certain Dean has sealed the nomination. THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS!

[Padraig18]

49. Prove that it's going down, please.

The polls simply don't support your assertions, in the first place, and the fact remains that a huge percentage of the electorate can't name even ONE Democratic candidate, in the second. National polls are absolutely meaningless 10 months before the GE--- absolutely meaningless.

[Hep]

43. Good Lord!

The sky is falling!

[Duder]

45. It tells us...

That a generic Dem will always do well in the polls because people tend to imagine someone like a movie star.

As for any of the candidates versus Bush, all the polls suggest that there is no significant difference. At this stage the eventual nominee has not positioned themselves to run against Bush in the GE yet. This is one reason the primaries have been moved up because the sooner there is a nominee, the sooner that candidate can start taking a position for the GE, which is beneficial to the Dem candidate.

[Cheswick2.0]

48. ROFL

:hi:

and how is your candidate doing?

[adadem]

54. Will you be ROFL

when shrub takes a second oath of office? I won't...I'll be back in DC protesting again..only this time I'll probably get locked up for life for insulting asscroft and pals.

[Cheswick2.0]

55. no but I will when

you change your ID and come back as a reincarnated Dean supporter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Well, you should support Rufus T. Generic.

Sounds bland enough for the DLC/RNC.

[auntpattywatty]

57. A sitting president vs. a candidate who most people have not even heard of

yet is silly.

[Padraig18]

58. Shhhhhh!!!!!

You're destroying carefully cobbled-together pseudo-arguments about why we should all abandon Dean. Please consider their delicate feelings! :P

[indigo32]

60. Bear... I believe you are honest in your concerns

I've always respected your opinion. So let me say this. MOST of us understand that there is no annointing at this stage. The primaries WILL happen no matter what is said on this little message board, or even by Al Gore (who I think mostly did what he did for his own political reasons). I support Howard Dean... he's proven to me he's got the ability to put together a well oiled machine... and withstand quite a bit of flak. I don't agree with everything he says...but there are several issues I really appreciate his stance on. So, let the best man win.

[bearfartinthewoods]

63. thank you for your thoughtful response

my use of the word anointed was poorly chosen, i'll admit. the primaries will continue, of course. my plea is to Iowan and the folks in NH to protect my vote and the votes of everyone who can't vote until after march. quick early wins by any candidate will
truncate the process and i don't want to see that happen.

the bush we oppose today may not be the bush we oppose in november.
there are too many things that could change in the interim. given that, i think it's foolish to lock ourselves into a candidate this early in the process.

i know many people who are new to politics feel it's all over now. they don't realize that traditionally, the primaries WERE the process by which we choose. i realize that things have changed but what has really happened so far? only the money raising and not the voting or the vetting. i fear we make a BIG mistake if we settle on who can raise the most money as the criteria for victory.

i'm hoping that people who may not yet be sure will vote for the process to continue so we can see continue to watch and see who the best man is.

again, thank you for your response. and please don't take this in any manner other than completely sincerely. any chance i get to speak with a dean supporter who is willing to share their thoughts and offer something more than attacks or "POOP" i am heartened. it helps remind me that there are good, intelligent people in the dean team.