How can anyone support Dean with these poll numbers?

[Julien Sorel]

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.

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.

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


The goal is to get rid of Bush, but these numbers, showing Dean as weak, and the Republicans' obvious preference for Dean as a candidate, argue rather strongly that anyone wanting Bush gone should run, not walk, from Dean's candidacy.

'Go Howard Dean! That's the one we want!' -- Rove

[gristy]

1. Oh, come on.

You prefer lemming-like behavior from us? Line up behind whoever's doing the best right now? Thirteen months before the election? I'll stick to doing what's right and supporting the candidate who best supports my view of what the country needs to get back on track. The best candidate will win the primaries.

[barbaraann]

7. Ditto.

And I think any of our candidates can beat Bush in 2004.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

78. Last week Kerry and Dean BEAT Bush.

The numbers keep changing. Whatever. I know what I see in Dean. He's got a passion, he's real, he's got balls and he's realistic. 32% of people have never even heard of him. Well, there you go- when he gets the nomination, people are gonna know who he is. And they're going to see him tear Bush apart.
You know, I DID consider Clark when he first entered the race, for a couple of days. And I think he'd make a pretty good president.
But he's just not Dean.

[janekat]

89. WHAT?? ?? I've NEVER seen any polls that show Dean beating

Bush. Do you have links to that?

[Julien Sorel]

20. No, I expect common sense as well.

All political choices represent tradeoffs between what we want, and what we think we can get -- that's the way the game is played. Dean is our weakest chance at toppling Bush -- not just according to these polls, but according to common sense and electoral wisdom as well. That means you are trading a lot of electability for what? Dean's anger? Dean's stands on the issues -- which are to the right of most other candidates' stands? Exactly how is Dean better suited to, as you put it, 'get the country back on track,' especially if he can't even get into office? From the common sense standpoint, it makes no sense.

[bitchkitty]

70. Well, since

you support the candidate based on his poll numbers, and the "polls" say Bush is ahead, then why don't you just vote for Bush? This has got to be one of the sillier Clark threads I've seen, and so far they've all been pretty damned silly.

[Julien Sorel]

71. A total twist.

A) We aren't talking about Bush, but about Dean; B) There's more to it than poll data, as I've pointed out throughout this post; C) you actually have an argument in here, but you never articulated it -- you only implied it, and that's not good enough; C) Clark was not mentioned anywhere in my post except in the excerpt. This was not about Clark, but about Dean.

[bitchkitty]

72. Stop spinning -

you can say your post isn't about poll numbers, but honey, tell that to one of the Clark supporters, because I'm not stupid and I don't buy it.

The title of your post:

How can anyone support Dean with these poll numbers?

My answer to you was entirely sarcastic, as anyone would realize. But I have to tell you that the idea that anyone would drop support for a Democratic candidate because of the corporate media's polls is fucking idiotic.

[janekat]

91. not as silly as YOUR post though... LOL!!!

It makes no sense...

[bitchkitty]

104. LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

You're very easily amused. What's silly about my post? I don't vote based on poll numbers, and anyone who does is a fucking idiot and a shallow dimwit.

[janekat]

90. touche' agree with you wholeheartedly...

[EagleEye]

2. How can anyone support a two week old Dem. with no issues?

Just as silly a question as yours.

[diplomats]

I guess you didn't watch the town meeting on C-SPAN

yesterday.

[bitchkitty]

73. I don't get it -

If he is stating his issues on CSPAN (I wouldn't know, I didn't watch it) then why can't he get someone to upload them to his site? Don't any Clark supporters know how to FTP?

[retyred]

103. Try here

Wesley Clark On Issues: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm




CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[bitchkitty]

105. I've seen that site -

I would really like to see it on his official site.

[Renew Deal]

8. You're right, Dean has more issues.

:puffpiece:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

81. Bullseye.

Except your question isn't nearly as silly as this one.

[greyl]

3. Silly. What's the margin of error in the poll?

There's only a 5% diff between Dean and Clark, and plenty can explain that. Rember Ahnold's number's when he first entered?
And do conscientious Democrats really give a shit about polls?


edit: the margin of error is 3 fucking percent. Now cut it out. ;)

[diplomats]

10. Clark trails Bush by 6 percentage points

and Dean trails him by 14. That's 8, not 5. That being said, Dean has improved his head-to-head numbers against Bush as Bush's ratings have dropped. He used to be behind in the 20s. I currently support Clark but am not ruling out Dean by any stretch.

[greyl]

24. Clark 43%, Dean 38%

that's 5%. But as I alluded to earlier, I personally don't give a shit. :)

[diplomats]

26. OK, that explains the 5 points you alluded to

I stand corrected! :)

[flpoljunkie]

31. Actually, margin of error is 6 points for this part of the poll.

The Newsweek poll of 1,004 adults was taken Thursday and Friday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The margin of error for the 349 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters was plus or minus 6 percentage points.

[eileen_d]

4. What a flamebait title.

It is way too early in the game to draw conclusions from polls.

[Demobrat]

5. These polls mean exactly as much as they did

a few weeks ago when they had Lieberman at the top. They are name recognition polls 13 month before the election.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. Exactly.

Watch New Hampshire and Iowa if you care about what's really going on.


A better explanation here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=391308

[Romberry]

95. Actually, in Clark's case...

...what they seem to be recognizing is the title of "General" before his name. On Table Talk someone linked to a story which examined what happens when you just poll with "Wesley Clark" and leave the "General" off. His numbers drop like a rock. Go figure...

[JasonBerry]

6. Where's President Dukakis?

At one point Walter Mondale led Reagan in post-convention polling. Even Michael Dukakis led over Bush, Sr. at one point. Polls are a snapshot of one moment in time. That's all. To malign Dean supporters -- or anyone else -- and ask how they can support their candidate based on poll results is ridiculous.

[w4rma]

9. Are the other nine Democratic candidates riding Dean's coattails?

Are the other nine Democratic presidential candidates riding Dean's coattails in polls against Bush?

Dean has been the most consistant and outspoken critic of the Bush administration of the Democratic candidates. Bush's polling numbers have been dropping ever since Dean begin being taken seriously by the media as a candidate. Unlike the other candidates (not including Clark who has only been in the race for a few days) most or all of Dean's attacks have been either direct or indirect attacks on the Bush administration.

...
When asked which Democratic candidate was doing the best job presenting his or her plans for the country and explaining how those plans differ from President Bush’s, voters say Dean is the candidate doing the best at making his case (13 percent), but a plurality says “none” (19 percent) of the candidates are explaining their positions and 35 percent are unsure.
...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98328,00.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=417033

[diplomats]

13. It is very early

so a lot can happen. The race for the Dem nomination is just getting started, as those numbers show.

[gristy]

16. Bush's polling numbers have been dropping steadily

ever since he got his mini-spike after illegally invading Iraq. Much as I like Dean, and the fact that he speaks his mind against the BFEE, he doesn't get credit for that.

Bush's polling numbers have been dropping ever since Dean begin being taken seriously by the media as a candidate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. That's A Logical Fallacy

because B follows A doesn't mean A cased B....

It's call post hoc ergo propter hoc...

The sun doesn't come up because the rooster crows....

Chimpy's numbers are coming down because the quick victory in Iraq has turned into quicksand and the "recovery" has failed to produce any new jobs....

I like Dean but I hope his capmpaign isn't taking credit for the decline in *'s poll numbers...

[w4rma]

25. No, I'm not an official member of the Dean campaign.

Note, I wrote that sentence to emphasize a time frame and as one piece of evidence among *several* towards my hypothesis.

[Julien Sorel]

55. I saw one support: the FOX news poll,

which showed 13% of people thought Dean was doing the best job of showing himself different than Bush? Wow -- pretty compelling support for a thesis that Dean's criticism of Bush has provided 'coattails' for the other candidates. It's not just post hoc, it's gross post-hoc, with an almost completely unrelated and unclarifying poll thrown in as a fig leaf.

[depakid]

35. It's hardly a logical fallacy

It's a VERY logical question. A follows B. Hmmm? Did A cause B? What's the a correlation and why?

Geez, if you're going to take a slap at someone's logic, at least get your own straight!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Random House College Dictionary

-after this, therefore because of it: a formula designating the fallacy of assuming something has caused an event merely because it preceded it


I just farted and then a light went out in my living room...Did the fart cause it?

Touche....

[w4rma]

48. Maybe

the fart did cause it. If it were a lit candle sitting next to your butt, it's likely that it did. :D

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. LOL

-:)

I wasn't slapping your logic ... I was merely pointing out that because B follows A doesn't mean A caused B...

[w4rma]

54. "wasn't slapping your logic"

I read your post twice. The second time I got it. :)

My logic:
I wrote that sentence to emphasize a time frame.
The sentance is one piece of evidence among *several*.
I am forming a hypothesis (notice I phrased it as a question) and was looking for more ways to either prove it or something that disproved it.

Result: I've picked up a few more pieces of evidence and have seen nothing that outright disproves my hypothesis.

Is it true? Maybe, maybe not. There is evidence that supports it, but nothing that outright proves it and also nothing that outright disproves it.

[Uzybone]

47. it is fallacy

ask the moderate dems and repukes here who were all gung ho about the "war" and Bush this time last year why they suddenly think he stinks. Its because the economy still sucks and Iraq was not all it was hyped up to be. They dont even know who Howard Dean is apart from the fact he is "one of the presidential contenders".

[w4rma]

50. Others know who Dean is and even more know his message

Even if they received his message indirectly.

...
When asked which Democratic candidate was doing the best job presenting his or her plans for the country and explaining how those plans differ from President Bush’s, voters say Dean is the candidate doing the best at making his case (13 percent), but a plurality says “none” (19 percent) of the candidates are explaining their positions and 35 percent are unsure.
...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98328,00.html

[janekat]

98. Do they REALLY?? Have you looked up his record from when he

was Governor of Vermont? Very pro-Business - anti-environmentalist. THAT among many other things that have given me pause....

[PAMod]

11. How can someone post this old poll without...

knowing how to apply the data?

Now, that is a better question.

Dean is electable, as is Kerry & Clark & Gephardt & even Lieberman.

Why, oh, why are we still even talking about this?

Ugh.

[Julien Sorel]

23. Missing the point.

Dean is the least electable of all the major candidates.

[MercutioATC]

Check Dean's numbers 6 months ago and compare them to now.

Now, do that with all of the other candidates.

Who shows the most forward movement?

Dean still has work to do, but suggesting that people shouldn't support him because of his numbers this early in the game (especially in light of the rate at which his numbers have grown) is silly.

[Julien Sorel]

66. I'd be tempted to agree with you.

If the only thing I pointed to was polls.

[MercutioATC]

69. The only thing your original post DID point to was a poll....

That was the basis for your thread's title, no?

[Julien Sorel]

86. There was more there than the title.

[MercutioATC]

87. Yes, there was an article about a poll....

what profound nugget of wisdom did YOU find that I seem to have missed?

[EagleEye]

12. Sounds like Clark should stop campaigning now an just run a damned video

of this stupendous town hall meeitng. I've heard it all day. Sounds like people are desparate to find something to hold on to.

[Renew Deal]

14. It was good.

You should catch it if it comes on. Really good.

[diplomats]

22. Well, since many here are claiming Clark has no policy positions

We're bringing up the town meeting because he outlined his points of views on a variety of issues. There's nothing "desperate" about rebutting one of the major "arguments" of anti-Clark posters on this board.

[EagleEye]

27. SO what were his positions?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

83. Check out this thread if you want to "find out."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=417805&mesg_id=417805

Or not. It's extremely unilluminating. But amusing.

[janekat]

99. Here are his positions on the issues... More liberal than Dean....

From the issues2000.org site (this is NOT the official Clark site)
http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

http://www.draftclark2004.com/issues.asp

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/

http://www.clark04.com/vision/
http://www.clark04.com/articles/
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/

[Individualist]

15. When Chimpy's poll numbers

were high, did you ask how anyone can support dems? Your question is absurd!

[Julien Sorel]

28. Apples to oranges comparison.

Bush is a sitting president, with people expressing their support of the office as much as him. Moreover, we don't have a choice with Bush -- he's there, like it or not. We do have a choice as to whom we choose to send to kick Bush out.

[Individualist]

32. I choose Dean

No one tells me who to vote for. Deal with it!

[Julien Sorel]

34. No one tried.

But you didn't answer the question. So there was nothing to deal with.

[Individualist]

36. I answered your silly question

when I stated that no one tells me who to vote for. Did you want me to outline the reasons why I vote for a candidate? If so, tell me why I should explain my reasons to someone who asks such absurd questions. Your desperation is showing.

[Julien Sorel]

42. The original question was,

'How can you choose Dean?' Your 'answer' was, 'no one tells me who to vote for.' It was a statement, not an answer, and it didn't even address the question.

[AmeriCanadian]

68. Our answer is Clark. Period!

... Dean is toast IMHO.

[NicoleM]

17. Because I'm not an idiot.

I understand that a lot of people don't even know who Howard Dean is yet. Regular people don't follow politics as closely as we do. For him to be polling as well as he is now is excellent news. Everybody already knows who George Bush is. As more people learn about Howard, his numbers will go up.

[MGKrebs]

18. Every candidate gets a bump

when they announce or make a major statement. The trick is to make it last. We shall see.

I am still a little suspicious of Clark, only because I don't see a real committment from him. He doesn't seem to have an issue that is compelling to him that is making him run. He may be marginally better than the other candidates on various issues, but no real passion for any one of those issues.

This creates a dilemma, because that agenda may play well in mainstrean America, but it also may mean that he will be easily influenced by powerful special interests, so we may not get much of what we want.

Having said that, getting rid of shrub is the #1 goal, so it's not all bad.

Dilemma #2: Even if Clark sustains his momentum and looks like he can win the general election, can he win the Dem base that will vote in the primaries?

[Don_G]

21. I'm Not Supporting The Numbers

I'm supporting the best Democratic candidate I feel is right for the job so far. I'll still listen to what the others have to say and if they have some good ideas, I'll consider them too.

[poskonig]

29. Gore was down SEVENTEEN points in Sept 1999.

I wonder how anyone could support him.

Poll: Bush maintains lead over Gore, Bradley and fellow Republicans
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/15/president.2000/poll/
Bush maintains a comfortable advantage over Gore -- 56 percent to 39 percent -- and a 57 percent to 37 percent advantage over Bradley.


However, another poll has Clark up 3 points, Dean down three points, which are the same differences between the candidates in your poll which has Clark down 6 and Dean down fourteen. The net differences for each candidates individually are 9 and 11, which suggests a ten point difference between the polls. Average them out and Dean is down by eight points, which isn't a bad place to be at this stage in the election.

[depakid]

30. Because if you had a lick of sense

you'd understand that:

1. These polls mean little or nothing to begin with (I won'y burden this board with yet another post as to why- HINT: it has to do with flawed methodology)

2. Even if you accept the numbers as valid, they are not releible predictors of what people will be thinking a month from now, much less 13 months from now. Polls like this are notoriously fickle.

4. You'd realize that have absolutely no credibility on left this board with respect to your opinions on Howard Dean. In fact, it's gotten to the point where I'm really beginning to get embarrassed for you.

[Julien Sorel]

37. Ouch!

Since I have no idea who you are, double ouch! And yet you responded.

Even if you accept the numbers as valid, they are not releible predictors of what people will be thinking a month from now, much less 13 months from now. Polls like this are notoriously fickle.

In actual fact, there is a correlation between what polls show today and what they will show in a month, two months, three months, and so on. Not a perfect correlation, but it is there. So your choice of the word 'reliable' suggests a little weaseling is going on. Of course, you ignored the fact that the Republicans also want Dean as the candidate, which is additional supporting evidence for who the weakest Dem candidate is. But your input was appreciated. Embarrassing, but appreciated.

[depakid]

49. I'm just someone who's read all your anti-Dean posts

and they seem to be getting ever more desperate. The message is chill, at least on the histrionics.

First of all, it is NOT a "fact" that Republicans want to run against Dean. If you've read any of the multiple threads on this point (or know much about Rove's conniving) you'd realize that. As a matter of “fact,” there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Next, using the word reliable (which may not be wholly accurate in a technical sense) is still accurate with respect to the findings. I guarantee you that I could take another poll, using the same exact methodology, vary the regions and come out with numbers that grossly exceed the supposed margin of error.

Finally, I don’t think there’s much of a correlation, if you want to call it that, between the current numbers in these polls and the numbers next moth or especially three months from now. All it would take is one misstep, or some national event- especially a serious economic one, to change the numbers radically.

None of what you’ve cited in supports your conclusion- namely that DU’ers “run not walk” away from Dean’s campaign. Indeed, an insightful reader might conclude that Dean is gaining fast on Bush, due not to shallow things like “oooh, he’s a general” or name recognition, but due to his long hours campaigning, his proven track record and his phenomenal grassroots support.

[Julien Sorel]

62. Really? Show me these 'anti-Dean' posts.

Especially the ones with 'histrionics.' I must have made them when I was sleepwalking.

First of all, it is NOT a "fact" that Republicans want to run against Dean. If you've read any of the multiple threads on this point (or know much about Rove's conniving) you'd realize that. As a matter of “fact,” there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Where is this 'considerable evidence?' I have lots of data, and can turn on hate radio right now, to know which one of the candidates the Republicans don't want to run against. I also have quotations from several political analysts and strategists, both Republican and not, saying Dean would be the easiest candidate for the Repubs to beat. You have, in response, vague promises of 'evidence,' and conspiracy theories revolving around 'Rove's conniving.' I'll take the evidence I have until you provide me with something else, thanks.

Finally, I don’t think there’s much of a correlation, if you want to call it that, between the current numbers in these polls and the numbers next moth or especially three months from now. All it would take is one misstep, or some national event- especially a serious economic one, to change the numbers radically.

Yep. And until then, we work with the evidence we have. Or should we hope for a natural catastrophe to boost Dean's chances?

None of what you’ve cited in supports your conclusion- namely that DU’ers “run not walk” away from Dean’s campaign. Indeed, an insightful reader might conclude that Dean is gaining fast on Bush, due not to shallow things like “oooh, he’s a general” or name recognition, but due to his long hours campaigning, his proven track record and his phenomenal grassroots support.

Wow. All the candidates are 'gaining fast' on Bush. Dean is gaining the least fast. I thought that point was rather obvious -- kind of the heart of the argument.

The last of yours is a red herring: despite Dean's 'proven track record,' and 'long hours campaigning,' he's still where he is in the polls. I should think that so much effort yielding so little result would argue against Dean's candidacy, in fact. All that work, all that passion spent, and he's still the worst option against Bush.

[depakid]

77. Far starters

This post is pretty virulently anti-Dean, and as for histrionics I'd say this qualifies:

"anyone wanting Bush gone should run, not walk, from Dean's candidacy.

'Go Howard Dean! That's the one we want!' -- Rove"

As to past posts, unfortunately, I lost my donor's star last week, so I can't use the search feature. You'll just have to trust my memory on that one, because I'm not going to troll through all the various Clark/Dean threads to cite examples.

Considerable evidence regarding the "fact" about Republicans want Dean is easy to find- use google and run simple searchs. There's boatloads of opinions and statements that demonstrate that Republicans are damned concerned about Howard Dean, which is one reason that they are vehemently attacking him and encouraging others (i.e. hate radio) to do do through all sort of subterfuge. No Republican is going to come right out and say oooh, we're worried about Dean. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.

Take this little gem from the September 15 Weekly Standard seems at first to support your position- but does it really?:

Republicans are said to be salivating over the prospect of a Bush-Dean match-up. They shouldn't get carried away. Howard Dean, warns John McClaughry, has been "underestimated throughout his political career. He has an uncanny knack for finding where the political capital is stored and walking off with it." The trick for Dean is to ensure that the ultra-liberal positions he has taken in the primaries, which contradict his sometimes centrist record, don't cripple his ability to reach out to Middle American voters in a general election--should he make it that far. If he does, and then finds a way to zig-zag back toward the center, Howard Dean could be George W. Bush's worst nightmare. (No link because the URL wouldn't paste properly).

Here's another bit from Mike Hersh:

I obtained a strategy email from Ed Gillespie, the RNC Chairman, sent to Republican "Team Leaders." These attacks directly from the Republican National Committee against Gov. Howard Dean expose the Bush Republicans' fear and loathing of Howard Dean and emphasize what they call his courageous "ULTRA-LIBERAL" positions and play up his disagreements with other Democrats..

The point is that there is considerable evidence that supports a conclusion contrary to what you paint as "fact," no doubt in an effort to encourage people into backing general Clark, who is clearly an unknown quantity.

My point about a misstep or economic disaster works both ways is simply that events are unpredictable, especially in the current volatile climate. Conceivably some could even help Bush. Or a revelation on Clark could come out. Such things happen, which is why using polls (especially national polls) determine one's candidate or position is foolhardy.

As to Dean's record- it speaks for itself. As for his campaign's success, well, you have a fondness for polls. Take a look at Dean's numbers six months ago and compare them to the results you cite in your original post.

[Julien Sorel]

92. If that's your idea of 'histrionics,'

half the posts here are 'histrionic.' In fact, I find your concept of 'histrionic,' histionic in its own right.

As to past posts, unfortunately, I lost my donor's star last week, so I can't use the search feature. You'll just have to trust my memory on that one, because I'm not going to troll through all the various Clark/Dean threads to cite examples.

We disagree again: I don't have to trust your memory at all. You've been watching me, and I'm a terrible Dean basher, but you can't quickly find a single example? It doesn't seem to add up.

The point is that there is considerable evidence that supports a conclusion contrary to what you paint as "fact," no doubt in an effort to encourage people into backing general Clark, who is clearly an unknown quantity.

At this stage in the game, with the shape Bush is in, the Republicans are naturally concerned with everyone. They are, least concerned with Dean. Your example focuses only on Dean; however, we are in the fortunate position of having alternatives to that candidate. Hate radio? They are obsessed with Clark, as is FOX news, the Washington Post, Geroge Will -- they are hardly talking about Dean or any of the other candidates. It is, to borrow from Senator Kerry, 'Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark.' They are actually talking Dean up, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere. That you would pretend otherwise is one of the reasons I choose not to 'trust' you when it comes to your memory and my 'histrionic' Dean bashing.

y point about a misstep or economic disaster works both ways is simply that events are unpredictable, especially in the current volatile climate. Conceivably some could even help Bush. Or a revelation on Clark could come out. Such things happen, which is why using polls (especially national polls) determine one's candidate or position is foolhardy.

Or a revelation about Dean. Or the economy could turn around, leaving Dean as a candidate without an issue -- unless the governor thinks he can take Bush on over the issue of national security?

As to Dean's record- it speaks for itself. As for his campaign's success, well, you have a fondness for polls. Take a look at Dean's numbers six months ago and compare them to the results you cite in your original post.

And where is he in the polls? Where was Clark in the polls six months ago?

[janekat]

101. "Desperate" and "Histrionic"??? LOL!!!! Pot calling Kettle black....n/t

[OneTwentyoNine]

33. So...don't support Dean,doesn't mean that I'll stop.....

In fact I haven't sent him some money in a few months,time to change that....


David

[Cha]

38. Thank you! Great to see another Dean Supporter!

:D

Dean has the most awesome supporters if I do say so myself!

[Individualist]

40. Excellent idea!

I'll do the same right after I add BB to my ignore list. :toast:

[Forkboy]

39. How can anyone support a Dem who just decided he was one?

[EagleEye]

41. Still no Specifics

From the AP on the NH townhall meeting.

"Clark was less forceful on some domestic issues, saying it will be another two weeks before he's ready to release a detailed plan to expand health insurance coverage. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=10&u=/ap/20030927/ap_on_el_pr/clark_gop

[Jim Sagle]

43. This thread ain't nuthin' but DLC shit and neither is Clark.

[Room101]

44. Hello- A year away from the General election

Bush is ahead simply because of his name;) Do I have to give you a history lesson about what happened in 1992? Like father like son in 2004.

This is what people were saying about Bill Clinton at this same point in time. Dean has already broke Clintons fundraising records and is more known then Clinton was at this same point in time.

Why would the opposing team call out loud the play they are going to run? That would simply allow the opposing team to be there ahead of time to intercept the play. We at Du have not believed a word that liar Karl Rove has said for three years, why would you start believing him now? Reverse psychology is a bitch. They are scared of the Dean machine; he has galvanized the base in a dieing economy. Do you hear that? It’s history repeating;)

[Capn Sunshine]

46. Ah, my reiteration of yesterdays reiteration

How many times and how many ways must I re-state things to the Clark camp?

Polls do NOT reflect the true numbers of the Dean movement.

at least 30% maybe more , of Deans support is non traditionally based. Non voters coming out of the woodwork.

They don't show up in polls. They won't get called. Ever.

Whatthey will do is VOTE in overwhelming numbers that will leave all the media pundits and the traditional media candidacies scratching their heads in unison saying " where did THEY come from?"

Better get offline all you Clark supporters, your leader feels your activities are a waste of time.

[Renew Deal]

57. Dean supporters don't own phones.

"They don't show up in polls. They won't get called. Ever."

How do you know this? So Dean's lead in NH is not real. That's good. Clarkies, fire up the bus, we got campaigning to do.

[Capn Sunshine]

96. You miss my point

That's just the traditional base showing up in polling. Dean has lots of traditional support. What the media and Media campigns fail to realize however, is 40% of Deans support is not going to show up on radar. These folks have NEVER voted, or haven't voted in ten years. They aren't going to get called by pollsters calling "likely voters" which is the only segment pollers call. They won't even show up as registered half the time since they didn't vote in the last presidential.

Unless you naively think that "random sample" means they just dial randomly? No;it means among registered voters.

Do you get it yet?

[boxster]

52. Polls had Max Cleland way ahead days before the election.

He lost. I have no faith in polls.

Of course, the polls may have been right, and BushCo may have stolen that election with touch-screen voting. But, I digress....

[depakid]

59. Actually those types of polls tend to be more accurate

because they are done on a much smaller regional basis and predict behavior in days, not months. People have looked at the Atlanta Constitution Journal's poll to discover "what went wrong," and the methodology seemed to be as sound as it gets, so the margin of error should have been (if I recall correctly) plus or minus 3%, whereas the swing was close to 9%. Given what we now know about rob Georgia et al. is that is VERY suspicious.

So, by the way, was Chuck Hagel's 82% margin of victory, which he bragged about on his website as being "the largest margin of victory in the history of Nebraska." Curiously, that braggadocio disappeared from his site shortly after the Hill broke the story on his affiliation with ES&S (which manufactures all of Nebraska's voting machines).

[JNelson6563]

53. Enjoy the Clark Honeymoon

It's part of the syndrome known as US Politics.

Rove is playing a game, the R's fear Dean. I love it.

Julie

[Cha]

58. "the R's fear Dean. I love it."

And with Good reason! Can you imagine a Nation Wide Dean Campaign in the General Election with all the Democrats pouring in their Support. Intractable Tsunami!}(

[Renew Deal]

60. The only thing the Rs fear about Dean is him losing to Clark.

:scared:

[Cha]

63. They're not too bright, anyway....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. As many of you know, I'm not a Dean supporter, but

Lieberman's high ranking shows that this is more a poll of name recognition than anything else.

Everyone's numbers will fluctuate throughout the pre-primary season and the early primary season until candidates start dropping out. Remember that Pat Robertson once won Iowa and Pat Buchanan and Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire. I don't recall any of them being sworn in (thank God, in regard to the two Pats, although I would have been fine with Paul.)

In the meantime, I will continue to support my favorite candidate because his positions most closely (not 100%, but amazingly closely) match my own, and I want those ideas, which truly scare the corporate establishment, presented to the public for as long as possible.

At this point, the opinions of people who are barely aware that there's an election next year are of on interest.

[gully]

61. It's early Billy, and that's one poll. Also many people new to the

process (ala Dean) are not on the call lists.

GO DEAN!!!

[quaker bill]

64. Last week it was dead heat.

A week in politics is a long time. Not one vote has been cast.

How do you think the poll numbers will shift once a candidate starts winning primaries?

You sound a bit like a day-trader to me.

I choose to invest over the long haul.

[Eloriel]

67. We're still mostly in name recogition territory

When the national polls start reflecting reality, and REAL voter preference, then you can critize whoever isn't in first place.

Eloriel

[Skwmom]

74. The scary thing is

he hasn't even been hit with all of the negative advertising the Repubs will hit him with if he is the nominee.

[Kahuna]

75. The reason I could never get on the Dean band wagon...

It just doesn't make sense. If you want to get rid of bush, you wouldn't be supporting Dean. Duh. :shrug:

[MGKrebs]

84. I take offense at that.

You can call me misguided, uninformed, or naive, but I support Dean very much because I want to get rid of Bush. In fact, I want to get rid of Bush so badly that I decided to volunteer for a candidate as early as possible to do as much as I can to help make that candidate stronger.

Getting in late, questionable Dem credentials, and shallow policy positions don't cut it for me, even if Clark WERE a candidate when I decided.

[Cha]

85. that's your "duh" opinion.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Dean leads in Iowa and NH and will lead in the end

which means when it comes right down to it, that he is the most electable.

[Upfront]

79. We Shall See

how weak Dean is. Go Dr. Dean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[leetrisck]

80. And you believe Karl Rove?

How funny

[janekat]

88. I TOTALLY don't get it either. It's nuts!!! n/t

[Romberry]

93. Two things

1. National polls in a nomination process that is decided by state primaries and caucuses mean nothing, especially at this stage.

2. There is an interesting effect when you drop the title of "general" and just poll under the name of Wesley Clark. The effect? You already know what it is. His poll numbers plummet.

Dean for America. Clark would make a nice VP. Maybe.

[noiretextatique]

94. this poll has margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

clark: 43%
dean: 38%

this poll doesn't provide any proof of your claims. it would be more honest to simply state your opinion.

[Khephra]

97. In April, Dean couldn't have beat any Democart for the nod

Your point being?

[Julien Sorel]

102. It isn't April anymore?

[jonnyblitz]

100. I don't base my support on poll numbers. How shallow.

geezuz.