Why Dean can't beat Bush

[kstewart33]

Here's an excerpt from the latest Newsweek poll results out yesterday:

"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)."

14 points.

[ComerPerro]

1. Jesus Christ

Go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=378010
And post this. Two threads about the same thing is just sad.

[greyl]

2. not good enough.

And this is supposed to answer "why Dean can't beat bush?".
One Newsweakass poll? No.

I'd say the same about any of the other candidates with this "evidence".

[OrdinaryTa]

3. Respondents Have No Idea Who Dean Is

Face it, the American people are really disengaged from politics. They said they'd vote for Bush because they recognize his name. By the time of the election a significant number of them still won't know who Dean is.

[bowens43]

8. They don't know who ANY of the candidates are

but by Nov 2004 they damn sure will know who the NOMINEE is.

[kstewart33]

13. If so...

If they don't know who any of the candidates are, how come they know Clark well enough to put him at the top of the list 2 days after he's entered the race?

Polls don't matter? Then why do we post on DU every darn poll that shows Bush tanking in these so-called meaningless polls?

Polls don't matter when they tell you what you don't what to hear.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Bzzzt. Wrong.

National polls are meaningless at this point. The only polls that even have a modicum of meaning are those taken in the states where all the candidates are actively campaigning, i.e, NH, IA and to a lesser extent, SC. Polls in NY and CA will take on greater meaning in the winter as their primary dates get closer and the candidates spend more time there. The same goes for the other states. National polls will have virtually no meaning until the Democratic nominee is known and all the fractured support is made whole again. Right now the individual Dem candidates are getting 1/10th(roughly 10% per candidate) of the exposure that they'll be getting in June. It's not wishful thinking, it's critical thinking.

[ComerPerro]

15. They know Clarks name

Because he has been all over the news for the past few days. Why? Because he just got into the race.

[bowens43]

16. They don't know Clark either , its just that his name has been

in the news more then the others over the last several days.

I 'd say that even some of the Clark supporters don't know Clark. In fact,of late, it seems that even Clark doesn't know Clark. He said that he voted for reagan, that he would have been a republican if he had been consulted after 911, that he's a democrat, that he would have voted for the for the war, that he would have voted against the war. He seems to be throwing things out there to see which opinion gets the best press. The more I hear from Clark and his avid supporters the more certain I am that he is not a good choice for the nomination.

Yes, polls for the presidential race are completely meaningless at this point in time. And to say that one poll, especially one that shows a difference of only a few percentage points more then a year before the election, indicates that dean can't win is ridiculous.

I haven't made up my mind who to support but I am not going to base my decision on a newsweek poll a year before the election. If name recognition is all thats important then let's nominate robert redford or Danny Devito, better name recognition than Clark and just as much, if not more, political experience

[mlawson]

23. No, but many can cite endless sports statistics.

Like that stuff really makes a difference in their lives.... :eyes:

[Sagan]

4. How did Clinton poll against Bush1 this early, I wonder?

I am really starting to dislike these "here's why X can't beat Bush" threads. Why should I even vote?

[EagleEye]

5. AND ....

It's still name recognition at this point.

[stewert]

6. Polls Are meaningless.........

You have been fooled, polls are meaningless, especially 12 months from an election.

The polls had Jesse Ventura losing by 12 points the day before his Governors election, then
he won.

Anyone who believes these polls needs their head examined.

At this point Bush could not beat anyone, whoever wins the democratic primary, will easily
beat Bush in 2004.

[soupkitchen]

7. Well, if they were voting for President this November

those numbers might be relevant

[Darranar]

9. Dewey Beat Truman...

that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

[xchrom]

10. not news

it's way to early in the game -- and major media outlets are going to support the ''popular war time president'' no matter what.
you just keep supporting the the statist sponsored lies -- and we won't need repukes to beat us.

[rock]

11. A turd on a stick can beat bush*sucks

Therefore, anyone who can beat Stinky can beat bush*sucks.

P.S. it doesn't have to be a long stick.

[niceypoo]

12. Sounds like a freeped poll

Dont believe everything ya read. 60% of DEMOCRATS can't name one candidate. Perhaps you should reserve judgement for when the campaigns start in November?

[madfloridian]

17. So where is Lieberman in this poll? This is name recognition.

Lieberman has been leading all the national polls because of name recognition. Dean is just beginning to get that.
I think this has been posted a lot, though. Don't you think?

[Room101]

18. You base that on one Newsweek poll?

You have stigmatized the word newbie. There are countless polls that never paned out in reality. Surly you can give a better reason than "they said" "he said" "I heard". When Newsweek says jump, do you say how high? This is what they said in 1991 remember history?

[bluestateguy]

19. too early to make those judgements yet

way too early

[TruthIsAll]

20. Son, you need to learn a little history about polling..

WE are 14 months away from the election.

The trend has Bush in freefall..he will never recover..there is no residual goodwill left for him among the people. His lies and incompetence and venality are becoming household words.

This should convince you:

In March Bush was at 75% favorable; today he is at 50%. What does that tell you? And only 40% will vote to reselect Bush RIGHT NOW, according to Zogby.

Cheer up. Don't worry.

B
U
S
H

I
S

M
E
L
B
A

[Southsideirish]

21. Was there a "General" in front of that "Wesley" ? 'Probably went for that.

No one knows who the heck Wesley Clark is but if the military title preceeded his name in the poll I can see un-informed people thinking "Oh, this guy is in the army so I want to be seen as supporting our troops - I will vote for him."
I, honest to God, can see that. I work with the public and have for a long time - if the occasion presents itself I will sometimes bring up a political topic and 'am never disappointed in people's mind boggling ignorance. Just a few weeks ago I was talking a a 40-ish, urban, educated professional woman, whose husband is a prominent MD here and I brought up Howard Dean - she looked at me like WHO????
I explained he is the leading Democratic candidate for President - she just shook her head and said she didn't follow politics. This isn't at all unusual - in fact I'm surprised when people are informed.

[stickdog]

22. Hello? That's not a reason. (NT)

[mlawson]

24. The hardest challenge for Dean is getting nominated.

That is, getting past the inevitable roadblocks, and who-knows-what else the DNC and DLC will throw up against him. If he somehow manages to do this, however, he could beat Dumbo handily.

Sadly, I doubt if he will prevail, though. One or two of the other Dem candidates is far too politically powerful.