Latest NEWSWEEK Poll: War, Bush and Clark (Clark Leads With 16%)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

Registered voters are split -- 46 percent yes, 47 percent no -- on whether they'd like to see President George W. Bush re-elected to another term, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. In a test match-up against President Bush, 43 percent of registered voters say they'd vote for retired Gen. Wesley Clark or lean toward voting for Clark, compared to 49 percent who'd vote for Bush or lean toward Bush. By comparison, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry trails Bush by 50 percent v. 42 percent of registered voters, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean trails Bush by 52 percent v. 38 percent and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt trails Bush by 53 percent v. 39 percent, the poll shows.

Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, Clark registered a significant uptick compared to last week's Newsweek Poll. Last week 43 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners had "never heard of" Clark; 36 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners had a favorable opinion of him and six percent had an unfavorable opinion. This week, only 27 percent had never heard of Clark; 49 percent had a favorable opinion and 11 percent had an unfavorable opinion. In the current Newsweek Poll, Dean fared worse: 41 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners had a favorable opinion of him, 12 percent were unfavorable and 32 percent had never heard of him. And regardless of which candidate they supported, Democrats and Democratic leaners felt that Clark would be "most likely" to defeat Bush if nominated: 28 percent for Clark v. 20 percent for Lieberman, 15 percent for Gephardt, 12 percent for Dean and 9 percent for Kerry, the poll shows.

Clark leads all Democratic contenders who are currently in the race with 16 percent of the vote among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, the poll shows. He's followed by Dean with 12 percent of the vote and Kerry and Gephardt follow with both getting 10 percent of the vote.

Forty-two percent of all registered voters say Clark's military background makes them feel more confident in his ability to deal with national defense and security issues than any of the other democrats running for president, the poll shows. But 40 percent say it doesn't make them feel more confident.

Fifty-six percent of all registered voters say the fact that Clark has never held political office doesn't make much difference in whether or not they'd support his candidacy for president; 13 percent say it makes it more likely to support him and 23 percent say it makes them less likely to support him.

<...>

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030927/nysa010a_1.html

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. All Clark, All the Time, Baby!

He will continue to be the big story, IMO! I am amazed that more people across the US have heard of Clark than Dean. That is the power of the free media, and I'm glad Clark is able to use it so well! Having a media-savvy, media-friendly candidate is of great importance, especially given the Thugs' insane monetary advantage.

Go Clark!

DTH

[madmax]

4. Newsweek cover story:

'Who is this G.I.' with a great pic.

[Julien Sorel]

6. I thought the pic was lousy :/

[madmax]

12. I like the one DU posters use

Ok, maybe not great but the camera doesn't hate Clark they way it does bush*. The smirking chimpster.

[NashVegas]

44. FREE Media?

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Hee hee hee ho ho ho.

[goobergunch]

2. They're doing weekly national tracking polls?

:shrug:

National polls are meaningless IMHO.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. Not At All Meaningless

I am not one of those who overly inflates the importance of IA and NH.

National polls also certainly filter down to the state level, in that people in IA and NH will also be reading these polls, and it will make them think and consider and raise name recognition.

DTH

[goobergunch]

7. I don't necessarily think that IA and NH should be extremely important

However, they are. But Clark IMHO doesn't have to do better than third in NH to remain a viable candidate (which he is now polling at).

What I want to see is how he's doing in SC. The Edwards poll had Clark at second. If Clark does well on 3 February and then continues to do well throughout the month (as the WI poll indicates he may), then he'll survive to the decisive Super Tuesday.

[Julien Sorel]

5. This isn't meaningless to me:

Registered voters are split -- 46 percent yes, 47 percent no -- on whether they'd like to see President George W. Bush re-elected to another term, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. In a test match-up against President Bush, 43 percent of registered voters say they'd vote for retired Gen. Wesley Clark or lean toward voting for Clark, compared to 49 percent who'd vote for Bush or lean toward Bush. By comparison, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry trails Bush by 50 percent v. 42 percent of registered voters, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean trails Bush by 52 percent v. 38 percent and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt trails Bush by 53 percent v. 39 percent, the poll shows.

In fact, it means almost everything to me.

[goobergunch]

8. 32% haven't heard of Dean according to this

I think Clark is getting a "bio bump". I'm still unclear about his stance on many issues, although the town hall meeting last night helped to explain many of his positions.

[Julien Sorel]

9. And 27% had never heard of Clark.

Yet Clark is still in striking range -- and Clark, not Dean, has been the object of an intense smear campaign. I wonder what Dean's numbers would look like if he had endured a similar amount of abuse in the past couple of weeks.

[CMT]

13. you missed the smear campaign the DLC

launched against Dean when he began rising in the polls?

[Julien Sorel]

14. Nothing close to what Clark has endured.

If the 'smear campaign' was so effective, why is it that 32% of voters have never heard of Dean?

[CMT]

15. I don't think that the General has been smeared

We keep hearing about him leading in the polls and the guy many of the Washington crowd wants as president. I don't see the smears. If your asking why people are questioning his Republican past, I think that is legitimite.

Actually I'm glad that Dean has a 32% unfamiliar rating. It means that he has a good chance of winning converts. It also explains why he may be trailing Bush by a wider margin than Clark in some of these polls. Both Clark and Dean have a similar unfavorable rating.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

16. The RW Smear Machine Has Been Working OVERTIME Against Clark

Rush is 24/7 anti-Clark these days. So is Novak. So is Drudge (I was amused to see HIS ENTIRE SITE devoted to the "breaking" story about the RNC dinner). So are all of the rest of the whores.

There are also plenty of negative media stories out there, too.

Clark has been subjecting to withering fire these past 1.5 weeks. I am frankly amazed he's weathering it so well, as this poll bears out. I am hopeful that he's got the teflon, and if he does, then IMO he will win!

DTH

[maggrwaggr]

17. You obviously haven't been watching FAUX news

they've been running pretty much a 24-hour-a-day smear campaign against Clark.

Talking about how he was "fired" because of bad "integrity", how he flip flops, how he's really a republican and a political opportunist, it just goes on ad nauseum ....

[Zuni]

23. You must never tune into the RW talk radio

They are attacking him with the kind of venom reserved for Hillary.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. Very True

Every other candidate was kind of dismissed as a joke, that was their weapon, condescension and humor.

Clark, they are taking seriously to the point of being desperate. That is very telling, IMO.

DTH

[Padraig18]

51. Trust me, he's being smeared!

As someone supporting a candidate who is smeared here on a DAILY basis, I know a smear when I see it! I don't appreciate having it done to my candidate, and I refuse to do it to another candidate and will not condone others who do, either. :grr:

[The Magistrate]

52. Hear Hear, Sir!

In our intramural competition to select the best candidate to defeat these reactionary reptiles currently in power, we must not do things that might hobble the Party's candidate, whoever that might prove to be, in the Presidential election we must win at any cost.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

53. Sadly, Dr. Dean Appears Not To Have Received the Memo

On Face the Nation this morning, Dean disgracefully misrepresented Clark's position and views on being a Democrat.

I was a staunch defender of Dean; no longer. I will certainly vote for him if he is our party's nominee, but I am incredibly disappointed to see his true colors as "just another politician" desperate to obtain the power and trappings of the Presidency.

DTH

[CMT]

10. all of them are in the thick of it

Zogby had a poll showing both Clark and Dean lose by ten points.

Most people don't know much about any of our candidates and the fact that all of them are in the thick of it against Bush is telling. There are current polls out which indicate that Dean and Clark are neck and neck. Clark is getting a bump due to his coverage--fine, Dean got it too. In polls where people have been paying attention such as New Hampshire we have two polls since Clark got in which give Dean double-digit leads.

[Kahuna]

36. Clark is trending upwards in state polls too...

if this trend continues he will be in good shape by the primaries.

[Another Bill C.]

11. Too good to be true?

Clark's candidacy got a lot of national attention and he's recognized throughout most of the country. Few know his positions or agenda but most know that they get a good feeling when they see him on TV — about as deep an analysis as most voters are inclined to make.

Dean is presently an "eastern" candidate. He doesn't get much press or TV exposure west of Ohio. Whether he would make a better president or not is not as relevant to most voters as is their perception based on a 10-second TV spot. If the clips shown on TV continue to be the ones where he attempts a Bucky Beaver imitation, he could be the Messiah and it wouldn't matter.

[maggrwaggr]

18. Dean's pretty popular here in California.

which last I checked is quite a best west of Ohio

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. We'll See How It Goes After Clark Comes Here on Wednesday to Help Davis

Fight the recall! I think Clark's timing has been exquisite, and I think people will remember his visit here even more so than Dean's (although I certainly give Dean credit for being the first).

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. MSNBC LINK

http://www.msnbc.com/news/972703.asp?0cv=KB10

DTH

[Zuni]

21. I like Clark

and I hope he does well. I am saddened that so many here on DU are trying to potray him like he was another Dick Cheney.

The Right Wing is really trying to savage him, and the hard left has been trying to smear his name too. The Right Wing is even trying to potray him as a Republican to discredit him in the eyes of Democrats. It is obvious that Rove and his people are really afraid of this guy and he does not represent their interests.

Both Limbaugh and Counterpunch! (consider the source, right) and have tried to potray him as a baby killing maniac, the man who tried to start world war III, Dick Cheney in disguise etc. None of this is true.

The campaign he ran in Kosovo did result in civilian casualties. All wars do. NATO gave him his orders and he carried them out. But Clark's team in Kosovo also minimized civilian casualties to an all time low for modern war. From what I have read about the Kosovo campaign, there was a real concerted effort by NATO to minimize civilian deaths.
Clark was hampered in his efforts to fight a clean war by Clinton who would not authorize Helicopters or Ground troops, so he had to use air power alone. Helicopters are lower to the ground and can identify civilian refugees as opposed to Serb military forces and paramilitary death squads. He was also hampered by the Serbs, who would put refugees in front of their columns, and in general filled the area with wandering refugees. He was also hampered by bad intelligence, like the maps that showed the Serbian Intel HQ was where the Chinese Embassy was.

Pristina Airfield is another myth. Clark never ordered an attack. He ordered British troops to occupy the airfield before the Russians. In the previous few days the Russians (who were supporting the Serbs) had told NATO repeatedly that they were not going to move forces into Kosovo. NATO found out otherwise. Clark feared the Russians were moving in there to defend the Serbs and split Kosovo and with good reason felt that they would be a major obstacle in the future. The fact that they repeatedly lied only would reinforce that belief. The British General overreacted when given his orders, yelling about WWIII. That quote of course has become the big lie against Clark, and is repeated over and over again on the right wing talk radio.

The WWIII claim is designed to keep both Republicans and Democrats from supporting him.

If Clark was another Dick Cheney, why would Limbaugh and others in the Rove camp try to utterly discredit him? They are really afraid that he will take their boy out of the WH. Halliburton's candidate is Bush, not Clark.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. Great Post!

:toast:

DTH

[DrBB]

25. I don't mind people criticizing Clark

...or any Dem candidate. I DO mind them disseminating reich-wing Roveian disinformation. Remember the anti-Gore slurs and how they spread and were repeated by "mainstream" outlets like the NYTimes? How could we forget, you might respond. The answer to that is, all too easily, apparently, because far from standing in the way of them doing it to Clark, we've got a lot of people here eagerly helping it along.

Thanks for countering some of that crap so concisely.

I'll add another, from today's Talkingpoints Memo:

A slew of readers have just written in to tell me that Chris Matthews just made a big production on Hardball tonight about who Wes Clark voted for in 2000, and then promised to get to the bottom of it by asking Clark the question straight-out if he came on his show again. (I'm at one of my cafe haunts so I didn't see it myself.)

Well, it shouldn't be too hard to get to the bottom of this one.

From Hardball, September 17th ...

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, who you did you vote for in 2000 for president?

CLARK: I voted for Al Gore.

Oh well.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. THANK YOU!

:toast:

DTH

[Kahuna]

39. I saw and heard Clark today. He is extremely endearing...

He has that young Elijah Wood, Freddie Bartholomew quality. In movies everyone always loved and wanted to protect Freddie and Elijah because they were very cute, handsome, mannerly and sweet young boys. Clark has that same quality. He could be the biggest bastard on earth...next to bush.. but he comes across like Freddie and Elijah. He makes you feel warm and fuzzy. You believe in his goodness and that he just wants to do the right thing because he loves his country and its citizens. You don't get the impression that it is an ego trip or entitlement.

[grytpype]

27. DON'T POST IN ALL-BOLD

THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT IS HARD TO READ.

[diplomats]

28. Bush's approval rating is 52 percent in this poll

he's up 1 percentage point over last week, which doesn't qualify as much of a "bounce" after his U.N. speech.

[leesa]

29. It's so unfortunate that people are being sucked in by Clark

It's that backwards military brain in the US that will forever keep us from progressing. So sad that we think having an aggressive military is a solution to anything.
Once again people will put the military-industrial complex in charge and the whole nightmare will begin again.

[Julien Sorel]

30. And you know this because...

sorry to have to ask you, but my crystal ball is broken.

[diplomats]

31. When did Clark say he supported an "aggressive" military?

He supports using military force as a last resort, and has said that repeatedly. Many people who've actually been in combat are less likely to be gungho over military action because they've seen it firsthand - unlike our current chickenhawk crew occupying the WH.

[Starpass]

32. in fact, Wes wants to do a little gutting in the Pentagon

He wants to rip apart their budget and do away with the pork. He knows where the dirt is and the military-industrial boys want Wes buried because of it.

[snippy]

34. Big difference between a powerful military and an aggressive military.

It will be decades before the American people will tolerate not having an extremely powerful military. It may never happen. But the American people already are beginning to question Whistle Ass's insistence on having an agressive military. One of the most important benefits of the protests against the invasion of Iraq is that it will be much more difficult to market an unecessary war in the future. I think this pisses Whistle Ass off.

[The Magistrate]

33. Gen. Clark Will Make An Excellent Candidate For President

It will soon be easy to tell who is interested in evicting the worst of the reactional reptiles lording it over our country, and who is interested in making a display of their own ideological purity.

[Wickerman]

35. A most excellent and concise post, sir!

A tip of the hat to you!

[tjdee]

37. Precisely right.

Well put.

[Kahuna]

40. The Magistrate delivers again!

:yourock:

[NashVegas]

45. Yes, Clark is a Beautiful Candidate

He's so telegenic and articulate and voices all the right positions so much we'll not notice or care how tied in he is to the military-industrialists like other Wall Street Generals.

Scenes we'd like to see:

Q: General Clark: regarding the following quote from Intelligence Digest 1995,

"The original US-German design for the former Yugoslavia an independent Muslim-Croat dominated Bosnia- Herzegovina in alliance with an independent Croatian and alongside a greatly weakened Serbia."

When was this policy formed, and what part did pressure from NATO members US and Germany, encouraging Yugoslavia's member-states to declare independence, have in creating the political strife that eventually led to NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia? And did Yugoslavia's failure to join the Eastern Europe "I wanna be a NATO member" stampede of 1991 in any way contribute to the formation of the US-German policy to destabilize that nation?

A: Ummmm...

[The Magistrate]

46. If, Ma'am

You seriously wish to debate the matter of Yugoslavia and Butcher Slobo, we may perhaps do so at length another time.

The policy you describe was a correct one: Yugoslavia was an artificial state, a miniature "prison of the peoples", most of whose constituents wanted, and rightfully so, no part of it. The excesses of Serbian nationalism owe nothing to externalities, but to historical elements and the concious whipping-up of feelings for personal political gain by various Serb nationalist leaders, the most egregious of which was Bitcher Slobo himself. It is a shame the hang-man's noose is unavailable to the judges at the Hague, as it is the proper remedy for that wretch.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Thank You

It always distresses me to see so many pacifists and other left-wing activists here apologize for Milosevic. It betrays a naive worldview and an abandonment of the traditionally liberal view of opposing genocide.

DTH

[The Magistrate]

48. Beyond That, Sir

The caucus of people who would be moved by such caterwauling to cast or withhold their votes would fit easily into a telephone booth.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

49. Indeed; It Is Merely a Pity Their Caterwauling Is So Damned Loud

Most sensible people would be ashamed to express such views, and indeed, I believe they would not do so without the safety of anonymity that a computer screen provides.

DTH

[The Magistrate]

50. Louder Here Than Elswhere, My Friend

[NashVegas]

54. I think you're confused

The question was, when was the policy formed? As in, after Milosevich took a turn to bad PR-land after the events of late June 1991, or prior to that?

[The Magistrate]

55. The Question, Ma'am

Will have no meaning to more than a few thousand cranks scattered about the country, and the answer, one way or an other, will not move one voter to cast a vote in a manner different than already intended.

No one is concerned. If you are trying to float a balloon to the effect that the eventual attack on Butcher Slobo was the result of Yugoslavia not desiring to join NATO, or "Socialist" elements remaining in its economy, you will provide a good deal of humor, but no other contribution, to this discussion.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

38. All I can say is

Bye bye Bunnypants!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:evilgrin: :party: :toast: :bounce: :beer: :thumbsup: :hi: :kick: :loveya: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :yourock:

[Kahuna]

41. So apparently the lefty and RW smears are failing.

Thanks for posting this. There is no way they can accuse Clark of being what they claim and people perceiving it as reality once they see Clark. They make fools of themselves and their tactics are transparent in that they are motivated by fear.

[farmbo]

42. (Skunk at the Garden Party) Err...Clark's down 9% from last week

The same Newsweek poll had him beating Bush by 3% last week, not losing to him by 6%.

[Kahuna]

43. Sorry skunk but you have your polls confused.

last week's results for Clark v. bush are the same as this week's.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?0cv=KB10

snip..
When registered voters were asked who they would vote for if a general election if President George W. Bush was pitted against Clark, Kerry or Dean, none of the candidates were able to beat the incumbent, although Clark fared better than the others, polling at 43 percent to Bush’s 47 percent. Kerry was next, polling at 43 percent to Bush’s 48 percent. Dean fared worst, with Bush beating him by a full 14 points (52 percent to 38 percent). ...



The poll you're referring to is the USA Today/Gallup poll that had Clark besting bush. We'd have to really see a new USA Today/Gallup poll to compare apples with apples.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-22-bush-poll.htm