Gore Wins Alternet's Straw Poll; Hillary Trails Badly

[Hissyspit]

Readers Speak: Gore, Chomsky and Ivins Are Winners
By Don Hazen, AlterNet
Posted on July 13, 2006, Printed on July 13, 2006

Gore wins big in AlterNet's presidential preference straw poll while Hillary Clinton trails badly; Noam Chomsky steals Most Valuable Progressive while Molly Ivins runs away with Best Opinion Writer.

http://www.alternet.org/story/38849/
The results are in. More than 13,000 readers cast their straw vote in AlterNet's reader survey and poll conducted during the last two weeks of June. Readers came out in droves to state their preference for Al Gore as Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008.

Gore, whose popularity appears to be growing with the success of his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, received 35 percent of the vote, followed by Senator Russ Feingold at 20 percent and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards at 11 percent. Wesley Clark received 4 percent, and John Kerry and Mark Warner 2 percent.

The big surprise in the survey is that Senator Hillary Clinton, whom many in the corporate media suggest is the front runner for the nomination, only received 7 percent of the vote. This is particularly surprising since 53 percent of the survey respondents were women. One possible reason for Senator Clinton's poor showing and Gore's popularity is that 24 percent of our survey participants chose the war in Iraq as their top priority issue. Hillary Clinton has not shown any leadership on the issue or been among those pushing for an end to the bloodshed.

MORE

[saltpoint]

1. Molly Ivins and Noam Chomsky are A-OK with me. Not too surprised

at the admiration they inspire among progressives.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. no surprises here. I have always thought that her

campaign was badly over-rated. This is in part due to GOPers who want her to be their target of wrath, and partly due to MSM's blind fixation on her. Most run of the mill people don't care for her or about her and will not support her in a primary.


Another example is Condi fuck-up Rice. She is another media darling, always treated as a debutant at the ball, with kid gloves, and NEVER EVER a hard question.
Not once has she been asked about her direct responsibility for Iraq's reconstruction, her fuck-ups as national security head (anyone hear of what happened on 9/11?) and her worse fuck-ups as Sec. of State.

Yet both are treated by the press as though they will win their nominations.
bullshit. neither of them are qualified, and neither of them have a chance.

[Sherman A1]

3. Insteresting

early, but interesting....

[deaniac21]

15. M4A1

[wyldwolf]

4. "Clinton, whom many in the corporate media suggest is the front runner"

No, the national polls say she is the frontrunner.

The problem with Internet polls is that they either can be "freeped" or they are being directed at an exclusive audience. Kind of like walking into a bar and asking if the patrons prefer beer or water.

Still, I'm glad to see Al Gore getting the attention he deserves.

[IndyOp]

6. The content of the corporate media impacts the national polls -

I think the national polls reflect, to a considerable extent, what is being said in the corporate media. The media says "Hillary!" and so a majority of those who watch corporate news and/or talk are thinking H.C.

I know that before I "became political" I rather passively waited for the corporate media to tell me who the frontrunners were and then rooted for the one I liked. That is not democracy - it occurs to me now.

Now I root for Kucinich, Feingold, Conyers -- virtually everyone who gets little or poor coverage in the corporate media.

I think Gore is still met with much doubt by people who tend to vote Dem, but who are not avid online politicos.

Good morning! :hi:

[wyldwolf]

8. I think the opposite is true

I think the media reflects what the polls are saying. Still, even the netroots is being influenced by the media. Would Al Gore had done so well in the Alternet poll if his movie was not getting the media attention its deservedly getting.

[IndyOp]

11. Talking heads of all types get sucked into the opinions of the

people around them. It is a very safe bet that, for anyone, the people nearest you will have the biggest impact on what you are thinking. Further, the "news" and "news analysis" enterprise is all about 'reading people' -- they are all paying very, very close attention what the people around them are saying.

This is the same phenomenon that happens to politicians who stay 'behind the beltway.' The D.C. buzz dominates what pols think about and do. The D.C. buzz and corporate media buzz dominates what media personalities think.

The effect of corporate media on public opinion cannot be in doubt. The impact is HUGE.

The extent to which corporate media's take on potential candidates is a result of the opinions of the people in their immediate surroundings v. public opinion is debatable. The very fact that the corporate media defines the nature of the questions that appear in public opinion polls indicates that corporate thumb is on the scale.

[Kahuna]

17. True but remember in 2003, Joe-Mentum was the front runner...

And he crashed and burned. So at the very least the media could honestly stipulate that her early polling is meaningless as it is most likely based solely on name recognition.

[wyldwolf]

18. doesn't really matter WHY she is the frontrunner

... but she is.

Kerry, Edwards, and Gore have bit of name recognition, too.

[mtnsnake]

5. Bottom line: Alernet's "reader" survey doesn't mean squat when compared to

national polls which have entirely different numbers for all the candidates.

The question is, what's a more realistic reflection of the voters across the board....AlterNet's reader survey or national polls?

[KKKarl is an idiot]

9. Polls

During the run up to the '04 elections Howard Dean seemed to be to front runner for a while. But when Kerry announced his nomination & took the challenge to Dean he won. I believe, although Hilary may be the front runner, she is not going to win the nomination if Gore decides to run. Hopefully he will because he has a better chance of winning the presidential race than Hilary. Maybe she could run as his Vice President nomination.

[onehandle]

7. Meanwhile in the real world... nt

[wyldwolf]

10. Anyone remember Moveon's strawpoll results in '04?

Top vote getters were 1. Howard Dean, 2. Dennis Kucinich.

[Uncle Joe]

12. And then the corporate owned MSM

put Howard Dean on a loop with his scream/cheer played endlessly, you could watch it on the morning shows with your breakfast, mid day news with your lunch, evening news with your dinner and late night comedians with your mid night snack. For all practical purposes regarding the race, this was all that mattered to them.

They did the same thing to Al Gore with his claiming to have invented the internet slander, and so many other slanders etc. They were making him out to be the liar, not the "compassionate conservative" that would bring "honor and integrity" to the White House.

For that matter if the corporate MSM were not trying to shape public opinion how do you explain the eight year witch hunt against Clinton over White Water?

They were shaping public opinion and it still goes on.

[wyldwolf]

13. after he lost in Iowa

[Uncle Joe]

14. Okay so was that he end of the race? and what about White Water? n/t

[wyldwolf]

16. What about White Water?

Is that a Clinton reference?

During Clinton's campaign in '92, he took everything the right, the left, and the media could thrown at him and STILL won.

Dean, as inspiring as he was to some, was a one issue candidate.

But what happened to Kucinich, Moveon's #2 guy? Let me guess. Not enough media coverage. Dean got too much, Kucinich not enough.

Kerry's campaign had been declared dead by the media.

Fact is, Dean ran a lousy campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

19. I am referring to MSM molding of public opinion.

In 92 a, if not the primary issue was the exploding debt, Ross Perot and his millions aided in off setting MSM control of public opinion. I believe he cost Bush the lesser (W. is Bush the least) more votes than he took from Clinton.

The White Water scandal stayed in the news as a central issue during both terms of the Clinton Administration. Almost every day in the newspapers, almost every night on the evening news I for one believe this scandal was completely blown out of proportion and used by the MSM to enable the Republicans to take control of the congress. Had it not been for this witch hunt by the MSM, impeachment probably would not have happened. This issue along with the Lewinsky scandal made integrity a, if not the primary issue in 2000.

You are correct in that Kucinich did not get enough coverage.

Dean was just turned in to a caricature of him self with the end less replaying of his attempt to motivate his followers.

I believe in 2008 the corporate MSM has already chosen for the American People a Hillary/Mccain match up, we just have to wait to go through the motions of voting.

[wyldwolf]

20. In 2002, the media buzz was a Gore/Bush rematch

But by 2004, we'd gone through 3 frontrunners, and Gore was never it.

In regards to Dean and Kucinich, there always seems to be an excuse as to why the left's darlings never make it through. There is a weeding out process in politics and Dean and Kucinich couldn't survive the process.

Looking back, Kerry ran the smartest primary campaign. The media had left him for dead, and he battled back. The general election, well, that was another story...

[Uncle Joe]

22. Al Gore never entered the race in 2004,

we will never know whether he would have become a front runner if he had decided to do so.

You are correct in that there is a weeding out process, but the American People have little to do with it.

I believe, if the corporate owned MSM has their way, the general election in 2008 will be another story as well.

[wyldwolf]

23. thats what I said. But in 2002 NO ONE was in the race

... and he was considered the front runner. Just as now, only Gravel and Biden have said they're in.

You are correct in that there is a weeding out process, but the American People have little to do with it.

As it has always been.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Media effects in 1992 was not the same as media effects in 2000 & 2004....

Telecommunications bill of 1996 made a difference in the later races...as did cable channels.

Bottomline is that media influence has increase greatly in the last 15 years.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Sounds like we agree corporate owned MSM is shaping American Opinion

"You are correct in that there is a weeding out process, but the American People have little to do with it."

"As it has always been."

[FrenchieCat]

21. I think a variety of factors play off one another.....and then it goes

round and round....rather than the more simplistic theory that only one factor (press, money, polls, voters) influences the races.

I think that the Corporate media affect name recognition and viability perceptions, which in turn affects polls, which in turns again affects the Corporate media coverage.

In addition, both polls and Corporate media coverage (including the tenor of such...as some candidates are covered more positively than others) affect fundraising ability, which the Corporate media then considers when determining viability.

The voters (en masse) in turn also affect the race, but that is normally after the Media, the money and the polls have had their own effect.....and the media will "adjust" based on the voter's initial actions to further effect the race.

Currently Hillary, Warner and Bayh are all considered "most Viable" due to the money they have been able to raise for the 2006 raises via their pacs. Due to this "viability", they are among the ones most discussed by the Corporate media in a positive way (Hillary is more of a mix bag on reportage tenor), and each will continue to do well (in building name recognition) or in some of their cases (national relatively unknown like Warner and Bayh, contineously increase their percentages of the polling) and eventually do much better than they are now in future polls, as we get closer to any votes..which is when it counts the most anyways.

John Edwards is normally reported in the press in a positive tenor, even if he doesn't get as much coverage, which is most likely the best thing for him at the moment...as it keeps his "positives" high. John Kerry is normally reported in the press on a less positive tenor; that and losing the last election makes him less viable....which the polls reflect. Wes Clark is more or less ignored by the Corporate media, which affects his name recognition, which affects his fundraising abilities and keeps him from being viable...which all reflects in his polling numbers.

The bottomline is that Voters are last in line in how the elections will be affected....but it is not to say that they have the least impact....just impact at a different time.

Once Kerry won Iowa in '04, the Corporate media covered him as the electable presumed nominee....Edwards as the number 2 man, and Dean was reported only negatively. The rest were ignored.

So the voters did affect the outcome....although the media had effected the voters (see Dean's Video Iowa Caucus comments/Closed Governor files/no national security skills reporting on Dean in the month of January prior to the Iowa vote which is what brought him on a downward spiral for the Iowa caucus--the scream was the nails on the coffin).

All of the elements work hand in hand.....with the Corporate media becoming masters at understanding how to adjust to realities to still have some direct and powerful effects on the races and thereby on our democracy.

On edit: Gore is a different case than the others....but the media will do its "work" by the time that it makes a difference. Gore was Vice President and almost president (name rec in spades), is saying that he is not running (which makes the Media keep asking him), has made a noteworthy national important movie that is reaching the masses, and has all of the qualifications required for the presidency (no questions asked), but also has negatives in reserves (based on his last run) that the media would definetly jump on IF Gore decided to get into the race.

Bottomline is that the media don't have as much control over how Gore ends up if he would choose to run at this point. They will however find a way to effect his numbers when the time is right, if required.

[Red Knight]

26. Norah O'Donnell says:

That Dems show strong favorability ratings for Hillary(54 percent) but only 37 percent of Dems would vote for her in the election.

Why?

Because they don't want to vote for a "loser like Kerry or Gore" this time. They want someone who can win.

Apparently she's unaware that Gore and possibly Kerry won those elections but besides that--how does she have any idea what Dems are thinking? She's really clueless. She claims its all the blogs that are against Hillary as if bloggers are just radicals and extremeists. What she doesn't know is that there is a real progressive movement in the party. That's not being covered very well by the MSM, so they could be in for a few surprises and left scratching their heads.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Instead of calling it the MSM, it really should be called the MCM

MCM = Mass Corporate Media......

Mainstream is true, but not descriptive enough as to who's interest they really are protecting.

[Uncle Joe]

28. I think that's a good idea FrenchieCat,"MCM = Mass Corporate Media"

Mainstream sounds too much like they are representing the people and it's shorter than corporate owned MSM.