Dean's NY poll #s: same story, diff. state - best vs Dems, but not vs Bush

[AP]

Former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean enjoys a large lead (21 – 10%) over retired General Wesley Clark in polling of likely Democratic primary voters in New York State.  Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt are tied at 7%.

...

In polling of all likely voters, President George W. Bush would lose New York State in the ’04 presidential race to Dean, 46-41%, to Gephardt, 48-38%, to Kerry 46-41%, to Lieberman, 49-41%, and to Clark, 45-40%.  Democrats have a hefty edge in the Empire State, and in exit polling for the 2000 presidential race, Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 45% - 28%, with 27% saying they were Independent.

He's tied with Clark and Kerry with 5 pt leads, but it's still behind Lieberman and Gephardt.

I think the lesson is that when you have 8 candidates, where 7 have more in common with each other than with #8, #8 is going to do well in that crowd, although he might not be the safest bet to put up against Bush. With the 11 point gap between Dean and second place, you'd think he'd be doing better than tied with Clark and Kerry vs Bush.

Another interesting thing about this is that people are possibly taking into consideration different factors when they answer these two questions. Dean vs other Democrats raises one set of considerations. Dem vs Bush, another. A final thing to keep in mind is that Republicans and Inds vote in the GE and Democrats vote in the primaries. Republicans and/or inds in NY seem to like Gep and Lieb.

[vi5]

1. The base! The base!

Blabbity Blah Blah Blah.

The base does not decide general election results. Independents and swing voters do.

Until we realize this we will continue to lose elections.

[Kahuna]

2. Yep! Apparently the base hasn't had enough of Bush.

:eyes:

[OhioStateProgressive]

4. either nominate a left liberal or...

the "base" won't care about anything thats done

[Kahuna]

7. Then they should stop bitching and pretending to care.

nt

[OhioStateProgressive]

8. give us our party back and we will fix this mess (nt)

[Kahuna]

10. I doubt it.

nt

[OhioStateProgressive]

11. if the moderates don't eventually cave in...

and allow the leftists to rule, we will take our game and play it elsewhere

[eileen_d]

13. Does your "threatening the majority" strategy usually work?

If the majority of Democrats are in fact currently moderates, will they respond to extortion from a minority who are further left?

[OhioStateProgressive]

15. do you wanna win elections? (nt)

[LuminousX]

16. Holy ...

With an attitude like that, the framers of the Constitution would have ended up with 13 petty little countries that would have been easily recaptured by the British.

[AP]

17. "leftists" -- I've seen new posters use this word to describe liberal Dems

a great deal in the last few days.

After being here a while, I've never heard liberal DU'ers use the term "leftist" to describe themselves. Suddenly the term is all over the place.

What gives?

When I think of "leftist" the next thing that comes to mind is "guerilla."

Is that what you think of yourself as being?

[OhioStateProgressive]

21. not militaristic

but it is time that the left extremists run the show for a while...as the democratic party grows and grows apart, and the most left are pushed away...this is what caused the gore/nader debacle...

many of us in the fringe, out in 3rd party land, we WANT to come back to the party, and help it see a new direction, and lead it to that goal...we don't want to ave to resort to this to get our voices heard

but every moderate that slams a kucinich supporter builds up to this...we have a voice, we will share it with you instead of against you...but the party has to give somewhat

[AP]

23. "left extremists"? Have you always used this term?

And who are the "left extremists" in the Democratic Party?

If you're worried about the "leftists", what do you say about Greens? In 2000, about 27% of voters preferred Nader over all other candidates. 90% of them ended up voting for another candidtate they thought had a better chance of winning. Gore never ever made one single overature to get those votes, yet they were still willing to do the right thing.

I read a study on third party voting in which the author called nader-preferers voters the most strategic 3rd party voting bloc he'd ever seen.

Those "left extremists" are very smart people, unlike the right extremists, like the relgious right who often don't show up to the polls if they're ignored.

[OhioStateProgressive]

25. i agree with some of what you say

but if you follow the trend of election to election, that will be as much as 30% this time...and less will cave in...we want our party back...we want traditional liberal ideals, and ones that used to be called pipe dreams...we want them represented, and we want america to pursue them

[AP]

26. Who are you exactly, and what are your ideas?

Are you a Nader-preferrer who voted for Nader in NY and CA because it was blow out for Gore? Are you a nader-preferrer outside of of NY or CA who was one of the 90% who ended up voting for Gore?

Are you someone who hasn't paying attention to how bad Buhs II has been and is willing to do something silly to let him have a second term?

In 2000, my worst fear about Bush was that he was going to be mildly competent and moderate, and people would forget how bad Republicans are and how good Democrats are. Well, at least I can say that I don't have that fear any longer.

[OhioStateProgressive]

31. um...as my name implies, i am an ohio voter:)

i voted for Gore, very begrudgingly, and I am pissed about it...i felt he was a bad candidate

I believe that both parties are corrupt with money, i think there needs to be fundemental change...i feel centrist Democrats are no better than republicans, they allow the system to become more private, and less accessible to the masses

[unfrigginreal]

9. Good edit

}(

[9119495]

3. It is not time to panic

As Dean campaigns more and independents hear more of him, he'll widen the gap. You'd be surprised how few of the general public are paying attention now. All of our candidates will do better as they present their agenda before and after the convention. People just don't feel like they have to tune in yet.

The anyone vs bush numbers will change dramatically nearing the election.

[Jerseycoa]

5. Link?

Do you have a link to the polling data? Thanks.

[AP]

18. ooops.

www.zogby.com...it's the top story in the left column, I think.

[Kahuna]

6. You still don't get it, AP....

<<Another interesting thing about this is that people are possibly taking into consideration different factors when they answer these two questions. Dean vs other Democrats raises one set of considerations. Dem vs Bush, another. A final thing to keep in mind is that Republicans and Inds vote in the GE and Democrats vote in the primaries. Republicans and/or inds in NY seem to like Gep and Lieb.>>

The difference is, the question of dem candidates preference is only asked of dems. The question of dem nominee vs. bush is asked of ALL likely voters, repubs and indies included. Clark faring the best proves that he has more crossover appeal that Dean. But apparently Dem voters don't really care about beating bush.

[unfrigginreal]

19. Well, I thought you caught it with your first edit

Clark faring best vs Bush? Not according to AP's post, Clark and Dean have the same spread vs Bush.

I guess it's time to get behind a Gep/Lieberman ticket. /sarcasm

[AP]

20. You must have me confused with somebody else. (Also, Clark doesn't do best

in NY, at least -- he's at 5% MOV, like Dean and Kerry.)

Furthermore the second and third sentence in the part you cut and pasted say exactly what you say I donn't get. Notice, that I also bolded those very same points in my original post.

So what it is you don't think I get?

[CMT]

12. "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"

Dean is doing no worse than Kerry or Clark--five point leads over Bush. And only slightly behind Gep ten-point lead. The real story is that a year before an election our candidates are all doing well vs. Bush.

Compare this to where Gore was at this same point in 1999--a four point lead over Bush in NY (47-43)
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x3292.xml#NYPRES00

and he won NY by 2 million votes in Nov. '00.

Same in Connecticut--Quinnipiac has Dean two-points behind Bush but in Nov. '99 Gore was 17-points behind.

Most of our candidates are not as well known as an incumbent and all of our candidates are doing well at this stage in the game.

Heck, even Clinton was running third behind Bush and Perot prior to the Dem convention in 1992.

[AP]

22. I'm not sure your post is responsive to the issues I'm raising.

I totally agree it doesn't matter where the candidates are today. However you can't ignore that where they are today tells you how much work they have to do and how much money they have to spend to close the gap.

Also, I'm not sure what your point about Gore is. He wasn't running in a field of 8 candidates, so he can't tell us anything about the phenomenon of doing the best in a wide field, but the worst vs Bush.

Furthemore, in 2000, the Republicans never had a chance of winning NY, so they abandoned the state at some point. Once they did that, Gore's MOV widened. A four point lead in '99 suggested a trend, and having a tight statewide senate race with a popular HRC on the ticket ensured voters would show up at the polls, consolidating the trend.

[madfloridian]

14. Dean is doing well for now.

This quote looks fine for now. So are you saying we need to support Lieberman right now because he polls better against Bush? Or support Gephardt with only a small difference? I wil continue to support my candidate and make sure more hear of him. Dean is holding his own just fine.

QUOTE from your post:"In polling of all likely voters, President George W. Bush would lose New York State in the ’04 presidential race to Dean, 46-41%, to Gephardt, 48-38%, to Kerry 46-41%, to Lieberman, 49-41%, and to Clark, 45-40%. Democrats have a hefty edge in the Empire State, and in exit polling for the 2000 presidential race, Democrats outnumbered Republicans, 45% - 28%, with 27% saying they were Independent."

We are gathering a lot of Independents in our group here for Dean. They have felt lost, and are signing up at the meetup as independents. We have two doctors and several nurses signed now, and several walks of life. Lots of retired folks.
I am quite amazed at the support for Dean in this conservative area.

[AP]

24. What I'm saying is this:

Dean gets a lot of publicity, and the media is always reaffirming his meta message (which they don't do for any of the other candidates). They're perfectly willing to portray Dean as Dean seems to want to be portrayed.

And what is the result? Polarization. A core of Dems who believe the meta-message (anti-war, anti-establishment, etc.) are drawn to it. But it doesn't translate to broad based appeal, which would be seen if he did the best against Bush in addition to doing the best against Dems.

If you let me control the American media for two weeks, I could make BOTH of the those numbers skyrocket for any of the candidates. I could make the candidate the favorite among Dems AND the favority among all voters.

And you have to ask yourself, 'why aren't both of those numbers moving in the same direction today with Dean?' It's obvious, to me. It's because a very sophisticated and powerful media doesn't want a candidate to do that. They want exactly what they're getting -- a candidate who beats Dems and loses to Bush.

Another thing: this is a natural consequence of the meta-message Dean sends. Think about Clark, Kerry and Edwards's meta-message. If the media allowed those candidates to sell their messages to the public, those messages DEFINITELY wouldn't result in a polarized electorate.

[helleborient]

29. Where Dean is known better, he does better against Bush as well as

Against other Democrats...what's so hard about that?

[madfloridian]

32. Clark has had loads of airtime, those in congress have as well.

I just disagree with you on that. I don't think they are pushing Dean's message. I don't know where you get that?

[AP]

33. Clark has gotten loads of airtime arguing that:

intelligence, ambition, and achievement are negative qualities (ie, he's not Bush and Bush is better). If the media affirmed Clark's meta-message the way they affirm Dean's, Clark would be in first place vs all dems AND he'd have the widest MOV vs Bush.

[Larkspur]

27. When Dean wins the nomination, then he will be the center of media

and polling attention. Right now the polls are fractured because the Dem Primary is fractured amongst 9 candidates. Dean will absorbe the "Any Dem vs Bush" numbers which are very good.

Dean's got the message, the demeanor, and the energized political base to beat Bush. He's also a smart and clever campaigner, which Clark nor any of the others are.

[helleborient]

28. Isn't this pretty simple?

Joe Lieberman has run for Vice President and Dick Gephardt is minority leader in the House. It would seem natural that more people in New York would know who they are and they would do better than Dean, Clark, and probably Kerry as well just based on name recognition.

Why make of it more than that?

In New Hampshire, where the voters know all of the candidates pretty well, Dean does as well as the rest vs. Bush.

There is no way in other states to know for sure the impact of name recognition at this point.

[helleborient]

30. The New Jersey poll reported earlier mirrors the concept that...

Name recognition has an impact.

In that one Lieberman does best against Bush with 48%, Hillary next with 47% then Kerry with 46%, Dean with 45%, Gep with 44%, and I think Clark and Edwards at 43%.

Only panic, or misguided attempts to tear candidates down, explains these polls any other way.