Bush leading Dean in Illinois (Hillary 4 to 1 over Dean)

[papau]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0401140337jan14,1,7168430.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Bush leading Dean in Illinois
Nearly half of state voters don't want him re-elected, but president would beat Democrats' front-runner
By Rick Pearson Tribune political reporter January 14, 2004

Though nearly half of Illinois voters say they don't want to see President Bush re-elected, they have their doubts about Democratic front-runner Howard Dean and give the Republican incumbent a narrow edge in a potential fall matchup ... companion survey of likely Democratic voters in the March 16 Illinois primary shows Dean to be their top choice to challenge Bush among the current field of contenders. Still, Illinois Democrats question Dean's chances against Bush and would overwhelmingly prefer that New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Park Ridge native, were running for the White House, the poll found.<snip>

But in a state that Bush lost by 12 percentage points in 2000 and that has tilted even more to the Democrats since, 48 percent of Illinois voters don't want to see him re-elected, compared with 40 percent who do. In the important battle for votes among those who call themselves independents, a group any Republican candidate needs to offset the strong Democratic vote out of Chicago, 47 percent said they did not want to see Bush remain in the White House, while 31 percent said the president deserved a second term.<snip>

Despite a seemingly downcast assessment of Bush's programs, a narrow plurality of general election voters said they would vote for Bush in a matchup against Dean, the former Vermont governor. In that theoretical contest, 46 percent said they would favor Bush while 40 percent backed Dean. Most important for Bush, 45 percent of independents supported him while 34 percent favored Dean.<snip>

...if Clinton were a candidate, 47 percent of Democrats said they would back her, compared with 12 percent for Dean. None of the other current contenders got more than 5 percent support in that scenario….One explanation for Clinton's strong showing, besides her popularity among Democratic audiences and her Illinois roots, may be a belief among Democrats that the current field is weak. Asked to rate the field, 45 percent said it was "not very strong," compared with 39 percent who called it "very strong."…More than one-third of Democratic voters rated Dean as the declared candidate with the best chance of defeating Bush in November, followed by Clark with 12 percent and Gephardt with 10 percent. But 28 percent said they didn't know.<snip>

[LuminousX]

1. I know the Trib isn't a 'right wing source' but what is your analysis

Without some context, I just shrug my shoulders at stuff like this because it is far too speculative at this point. Let's get to a point where we have a Dem nominee versus Bush and then we can see some real numbers. Since Hillary isn't a candidate (and including her in the poll means the survey was about speculation instead of true pulse taking) who else was considered? Does Kerry, Clark, or Edwards do better in Illinois against Bush than Dean does against Bush?

[9119495]

2. The fact that Dean loses should not be surprising

given the media coverage and multi-faceted attacks as of late. As other Dem voices are silenced through drop-outs, Dean will rebound--if given the chance.

[Kolesar]

3. Conjecture or propaganda....not analysis

"One explanation for Clinton's strong showing, besides her popularity among Democratic audiences and her Illinois roots, may be a belief among Democrats that the current field is weak. "

Did Pearson call these poll takers? I doubt it..

[HFishbine]

4. What about the other democratic contenders vs Bush?

What's after the <snip>? A comparrison of the other dem contenders to Bush perhaps?

For those of us who are not registered members of this site, maybe somone will be so kind as to post the numbers for the other candidates versus Bush if they are avaiable.

[Padraig18]

5. here:

"...More than one-third of Democratic voters rated Dean as the declared candidate with the best chance of defeating Bush in November, followed by Clark with 12 percent and Gephardt with 10 percent. But 28 percent said they didn't know.

In an indication of Democratic wariness of Dean's chances against the Republican president, 48 percent of likely Democratic primary voters rated the likelihood of him defeating Bush as fair to poor. Only about four in 10 Democrats rated Dean's chances of taking the White House from Bush as good to excellent...."

[candy331]

7. It is about time people stop

falling for all this propaganda hyped up by the news media.Is it no wonder that surveys are showing that more people are using alternative sources now to get their news and is especially so among the most knowledgeable and educated. The regular news sources are doing what they are designed for and that is to inflict fear on the timid at heart. Example: When I go cut wood for my wood heater I don't carry a hammer to cut it I carry an ax. The Democrats don't need hammers they axes because they have got to cut through the bull that is shilled on a daily basis from the media. I say to you all quit falling for the hammer bull it just will not cut it, it is time for a change. To continue reading and posting all this Dean can't win and Democrats can't win is only serving as a reenforcement on your minds and keeps you in a fright mode which serves the purpose of what it was written for. Bush can be beaten so let your minds absorb it and if you must read and post how about doing so with articles that says he can be beaten that is what gives hope not those defeatist poll results pushed on a daily basis to keep people in fear.


It might be time to repeat this phrase: "What have we got to fear but fear itself" and the repubs are pushing a steady diet of it daily so quit eating it!

[CMT]

6. Dean is only six points down before a campaign?

that is great news. Bush is under 50%.

What people have to understand is that at this point these horse-race polls vs. Bush are relatively meaningless. Bush is the known commodity and so more people will pick him over someone unknown. The fact that Bush, an incumbent, is only six points ahead is excellent news and if everyone weren't so partisan on this board that should be acknowledged.

It is interesting that we don't know how the other candidates do vs. Bush. It is interesting too that more voters see Dean as the candidate best able to defeat Bush.

[David Dunham]

8. If Dean Can't Even Win Illinois, We Need Someone Else

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. There's no evidence that Dr. Dean 'can't win Illinois'.

With the GE 9 3/4 months' away, that's a bit of a premature assessment. If anything, the fact that Dr. Dean is already so close to * is heartening.

[CMT]

11. and how is your candidate doing vs. Bush in Illinois?

eom.

[davsand]

9. It is all name recognition.

For most purposes, the campaigns have not really hit Illinois yet. Clinton has high recognition due to both her status as a native and as former First Lady. Dean has had some great media coverage and has got the most recognition out of the field (except Braun--who is not well liked by many of the Dems in Illinois outside Chicago. In case it is a high negative, I'm willing to bet.)

Feh! This poll has nothing to concern anybody this early out--except Braun, IMO. Illinois Primary isn't till March 16.

Laura