Clark 1st, McCain 2nd, Edwards falls to 3rd--Week 11

[cosmokramer]

"For the third straight week, the General stays well ahead of the pack as Veepstakes voters continue to ponder the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Clark's military resume may be too attractive for Kerry to pass up, given that November 2 could well be a one-issue election"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073

MCCAIN: 2nd place

EDWARDS: Falls to 3rd (no surprise with the war going so badly--seeing as how Edwards doesn't offer anything in this area)

[dolo amber]

1. Would anyone like to take bets

on how happy I'd be if that is the case? :D

[cosmokramer]

2. I would be deeeeeeeelighted that such an

intelligent choice is made!

[Scoopie]

3. Well, all of Tennessee sat up and took

notice of four phone calls between Kerry and Clark during our primary.

I'm just wondering if the deal was done... looooonnnngggg ago.

And all the rest of this is media horserace garbage.

[cosmokramer]

4. Likely so...

...they ARE personal friends, afterall. I couldn't imagine him choosing a VP he didn't particularyly "like" as a person (i.e. JE)

[dolo amber]

5. I think it's become

painfully clear (Lieberman :puke:) just how crucial the VP choice is...

If the Kerry campaign has one iota of sense, they'll know Clark is the ONLY reasonable choice. ;)

[WI_DEM]

19. I hate to say it

but some of you Clark supporters are so smugly sure that your man is going to be VP that if he isn't I don't know how some of you will react.

[troublemaker]

21. With sad disgust

but Clark partisans will, if disappointed, still vote for Kerry almost unanimously. They are (we are) pragmatists and moderates by nature.

[cosmokramer]

29. That isn't really your concern.

[surfermaw]

77. It's a done deal, it is Edwards...........................................

Yes...that is what I said.

[cosmokramer]

80. hahahahahaha

Funny.

:eyes:

[Kahuna]

82. Whatever... You didn't see US falling apart when Clark's campaign..

went down. Ergo, you have absolutely no basis for that premise. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

[Gloria]

6. I didn't know about the 4 phone calls...but I surmised that a deal was

done around that time....and there may have been some sort of prospective plan even before that....

[LandOLincoln]

16. Personally, I think it's been a done deal since the middle of

February at least. They're just having fun yanking everybody's chain...and waiting to announce on the off chance the world situation turns upside down and inside out some time between now and July.

In the meantime, Vice President Clark is in Ukraine on President Kerry's behalf, utilizing his fluent Russian (although according to him, said fluency varies according to the number of vodkas under his belt) in talks with Ukraine's leaders re--among other things--the errant nukes the Kerry administration has identified as the greatest threat to our's and the world's safety.

[cosmokramer]

35. I would agree with you, as usual.

The die was cast a long time ago...:smile:

[cosmokramer]

38. Clark 48 appearances on behalf of Kerry...

...Edwards, 18, and DEAN 20.

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmm"...

:evilgrin:

[Voltaire99]

7. Where's Lieberman on this list?

He's allegedly a Democrat, after all, unlike McCain.

Not that there aren't any number of reasons to run in horror from McCain (pro-war imperial zealot; anti-abortion; psychologically unhinged). But if Kerry's going to scrape the bottom of the barrel, why not scrape his own barrel's bottom?

After Kerry's floundering these past few months, Clark looks a helluva lot better than he did last fall. Hard to see why he'd want to play second fiddle, though.

[still_one]

8. As much as I like general Clark, he is not the best choice

His political experience is limited, and the issue of his involvement in the Kosovo conflict, where it was exagerated that he was ready to attack Russian soldiers if it wasn't for the British general Jackson, might have caused WWIII will hurt the cause.

Even though the claim is an exageration, it will be used against him, and I do not think it will help Kerry that much...

[Spazito]

10. That has been proven to be a false claim,,,

even the British General has said it was just politics.

[troublemaker]

22. Strongest possible non-vulgar disagreement

Nobody in the world and I mean nobody... in... the... world will vote for Bush because they are afraid that Kerry's VP choice might start a war.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. You're wrong about that. Sorry.

His political experience is limited, and the issue of his involvement in the Kosovo conflict, where it was exagerated that he was ready to attack Russian soldiers if it wasn't for the British general Jackson, might have caused WWIII will hurt the cause

Jackson is a VERY good friend of Jamie Rubin's and he told Rubin that he was EXAGGERATING when he made that comment about Clark. It never happened. They weren't even close to a WWIII. That info came out of Jamie Rubin's mouth on C-SPAN. I heard it with my own ears.

[KittyWampus]

39. Sigh... Jamie Rubin... Sigh

sorry, just giving into my school girl crush there for a moment :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

71. Does Christiane Amanpour know

about this crush? LOL! He's a doll, isn't he? And he's so smart! He supported our General! He's absolutely BRILLIANT!

[cosmokramer]

85. Adorable he is!

[sundancekid]

9. in this messy world, one heartbeat from the presidency -- let it be Clark

:toast:

[cosmokramer]

33. No doubt about it...it is who I trust.

[DjTj]

11. Clark should win all internet polls...

...and I'm surprised it took this long for him to take hold of the top spot in this one.

If you type "MSNBC Veep Stakes" into Google it takes you straight to a Clark blog page telling you to vote for him. Actually about half the results on the first page are Clark blogs, so there's no shortage of "DU'ing" going on...

Internet polls don't mean much, but Clark would be a fine choice for VP. I personally still think Edwards would be better, but I won't get into that argument here.

Thankfully, we'll probably get to hear Kerry's own choice in about a month's time...

[JI7]

12. you have a good point

kerry lost all the du polls during the primary.

[juajen]

43. I love that suit Kerry has on

Light colors look best on him. He looks fantastic!

[Sopianae]

13. More than 12,000 people voted in the MSNBC poll...

There are only a few hundred active users on the Clark blog (most of the registered users stopped posting after Clark dropped out). I don't think they can make much of a difference.

[Darkamber]

14. I really hate to say this but...

They can vote and vote and vote and vote. Sadly on the Clark blog they mention that the supporters should delete the cookies and re-vote and re-vote and re-vote and pass it on to everyone so they can re-vote, etc.. And of course make sure that Edward is dropped into 5th place.

It's an Internet poll. I know it makes people feel good when your guy is at the top, but I'd put weight in real polls instead.

But yes, I would expect Clark to win all Internet based polls.

[Sopianae]

15. Yeah, a few people might delete their cookies and vote several times

but do you really believe that some Edwards supporters don't do the same?

It is an Internet poll. It is NOT scientific but it shows a trend. Edwards won this poll for several weeks in a row. Btw, Edwards won the CNN poll as well. Clark won the MSNBC poll for the last three weeks. It does show a shift from Edwards to Clark. Current events in Iraq might be one of the reasons. Also, Clark has been getting more media exposure lately than he got during the last few weeks of the primaries. It does make a difference.

[cosmokramer]

26. You fail to take in to account...

...that Clark only jumped in the lead after the prison scandal errupted full scale, not to mention a terrible April/May for Iraq.

Now, both Edwards AND Clark supporters vote in this poll, and for 8 weeks, Edwards was on top. NO matter how many times online polls are voted in, the Clarkistas could not get Clark in to first place during that 8 weeks. After the scandals in Iraq came to a head, all of a sudden, Clark was winning by a landslide. So this IS a trend that is not just Clark supporters voting multiple times (and the Edwards supporters also do this), it is people waking up...

...and changing their minds, and realizing that THE issue of the season is not the economy or health care or eduction: It is foreign policy and the war. Period.

Clark now winning is a sign that this fact is slowly becoming acknowledged by people who were never in the Clark camp in the first place. Funny, because we Clarkistas knew 2004 General Election WAS going to be about foreign policy, which is why we backed him in the first place. Nice to see others finally coming around to realize that if we want to win, we must take the foreign policy mantle and make it our own vs. the "War Time Preznit".

[Kahuna]

86. So why do you think only Clark supporters would freep?

Any proof?

[Kahuna]

83. 6 entries on a post from April 16 when Clark was trailing Edwards is not

exactly what I'd call spamming a poll. :eyes:

[Claire Beth]

17. I like Clark! n/t

[cosmokramer]

40. You have excellent, well-reasoned taste!

[WI_DEM]

18. where did people get the idea that just becuz you are a military man

you somehow are "too attractive" to pass up for VP? I don't think the American people, at least many I speak to and know, see it that way--even in a time of "war".

p.s.
Another reason this is fairly bogus is that McCain is in second place. McCain has ruled it out and there is no way that Kerry is going to risk putting a pro-life fairly conservative republican on the Democratic ticket.

p.s.s.
I'm not necessarily a Edwards supporter for the VP nomination either.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. That crack about Clark's resume...

being "too hard to pass up" was written by some msnbc hack who probably doesn't like Clark and can't imagine any other reason why anyone would want him to be VP. It has appeared every week that Clark has led the poll, and when he didn't, it was mentioned as not being very important.

I assure you, there are many other, better reasons for Clark to be Kerry's VP than the simple fact he's a retired general. Not that the resume hurts--it shows he's experienced, capable and credible. Things you can't say about some of the others being considered.

[cosmokramer]

28. Simple answer: Look at the data.

Kerry polls the WORST in areas of foreign policy vs. Bush...

...injecting the ticket with a General will definitely help in this area. It matters. You don't go up against a "War Preznit" and his ability to inject 'fear' without full-metal ammunition.

It isn't just enough to say what you will do--you have to prove that you have the ability to succeed, and prove that you are more experienced in matters of foreign policy and war. Kerry is more experienced in war combat than Bush, but he has never dealt with the diplomatic/strategic aspects of war (though I could hardly say Bush has 'dealt' with this either, but most of the voting public believes differently). General Clark, however, HAS functioned as a negotiator and actually planned a war. He is currently in the Ukraine working on diplomatic relations/issues of international concern on behalf of Kerry. He will be an extraordinary choice for VP that will inject 35 years of experience in to the democratic ticket...a MUCH BETTER choice for VP than a trial lawyer who's only political experience is 4.5 years as a Senator.

Kerry/Clark vs. Bush/Cheney


Two Bars & Four Stars

vs.

What Are the Three R's?

[Padraig18]

20. Amazing what happens in online polls...

I wonder why scientific polls produce such different results...:eyes:

[cosmokramer]

27. Scientific polls said Dean should be the nominee...

...guess those don't matter either.

People chose Kerry BECAUSE of his military background and the media "follow the bouncing ball" scientific polls that showed he would beat Bush. Reality is quite different now, isn't it? Kerry polls the WORST in areas of foreign policy vs. Bush...injecting the ticket with a General will definitely help in this area.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Actually, I haven't seen any

RECENT scientific polls that show Edwards' being preferred as VP.

I think he's yesterday's news.

But isn't it odd, with all the VP discussion in the media, suddenly we're NOT seeing polls? I mean, the media just reports the facts, right?

/sarcasm

[cosmokramer]

32. The media reports what they want to report...

...and the polls report name recognition only.

[JI7]

34. no, scientific polls had Kerry ahead

at the times he actually won the election. the ones that had dean ahead were before the election. but at the times of the elections kerry was ahead in the scientific polls and the results showed the scientific polls to be accurate.

[cosmokramer]

42. He wasn't ahead in any of the national polls until a few days

before Iowa (and then only very, very few nationals showed him ahead). The remainder, the majority, showed Dean winning nationally until after the notorious "I Have a Scream" speech.

[Padraig18]

44. Since we elect the POTUS on a state-by-state basis, ...

... national polls mean nothing, and are the equivalent of mental chewing gum.

[JI7]

45. right, Kerry was running a primary election

meaning he was doing it state by state. with most focus on iowa and some on new hampshire. and in scientific polls kerry was ahead in the state he was campaigning in, iowa. and the actual results reflected those polls.

[Padraig18]

47. Precisely. National polls, ESPECIALLY online ones, mean squat!

Nationwide, online polls offer neither reason to celebrate nor despair. The mean precisely ZIP!

:shrug:

[cosmokramer]

48. Which was precisely my point.

Scientific or not, national polls mean nothing.

[Padraig18]

49. Huh?

Nowhere in this thread did you make that point.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[cosmokramer]

51. No. You made it for me.

See #20. You infered that because the MSNBC poll wasn't scientific, the change in how the candidates are currently ranked means nothing. My arguement is that the 'scientific' polls are not accurate either.

[Padraig18]

52. I disagree.

Scientific polls that use valid, recognized methodologies are normally quite accurate; one must remember, however, that polls are 'snapshots', and not movies. They only capture a moment in time, unless they are 'rolling polls'.

[Auntie Bush]

53. Didn't the polls say Dean had the nomination locked up tight?

Wasn't he unbeatable! I remember hearing the unreliable Woodruff say that!

[Padraig18]

54. None said anyone had the nomination 'locked up tight', that I recall.

I wouldn't believe Judy Woodruff if she said rice was white, frankly.

[cosmokramer]

55. Actually, almost ALL of the pundits said so...

...and they used as a basis the polls. So both points are valid.

[Padraig18]

56. No, both are not valid.

There was no scientific poll showing that Dean had the nomination 'locked up', so they cannot be the same. One was fact (the polls) and one was opinion (the pundits).

[JI7]

57. right, the polls showed that Kerry ahead at the time of the elections

the ones who thought dean had it locked up did so because they don't really pay attention to the news. they just knew dean was ahead much of the time and kerry's campaign was considered dead. these people don't pay attention to polls day by day and the analysis behind it. such as kerry gaining in personal favorables which help in determining where the undecideds would go. kerry was also gaining in new hampshire about a week before the iowa caucuses. this was also when kerry stepped up his campaign and most people started paying attention to the campaigns.

for those who watched the cnn documentary inside the dean campaign you can see that those inside the dean campaign, those who are in charge of paying attention to these things saw kerry was gaining. it all seemed to happen so fast and seemed unexpected. they suddenly saw that gephardt wasn't the competition anymore. but as a dean pollster later wrote, it wasn't too surprising when you look at the trend in personal favorable ratings. kerry's were going up for some time and this helped when people started making final decisions on who to support.

so scientific polls are not to be dismissed. the exit polls are scientific also and they showed why edwards gained in wisconsin and came close. he gained in republican and independent votes and this number was similar to the undecideds in the previous poll which had kerry ahead. the exit polls during the primary campaign were very accurate.

the only times scientific polls should not be taken too seriously is when they are done far before the elections take place. but one still needs to pay attention to the trend and especially analysis behind those numbers.

[cosmokramer]

58. You don't call ahead by 10% nationally locked up?

Hmmm...how many circles will this be spun in, I wonder.

[JI7]

59. no, because the election was only in iowa where Kerry was ahead

i believe that is the point padraig is making. since it was a primary election which is done state by state only iowa mattered at that point. and in iowa kerry WAS ahead.

[Padraig18]

61. You are correct, JI7. n/t

[Padraig18]

60. No, I do not consider that 'locked up'.

The nomination, like the GE, is a composite total of separate state elections; therefore, no nationwide poll could show the nomination as being locked up. It's just not how the system works.

[cosmokramer]

62. Yet national polls report it as so.

The point is, 'scientific' polls aren't really all that accurate, and neither are online polls.

It is undeniable, however, that the response in the MSNBC poll DID in fact change due to the mess in Iraq. It wasn't just Clarkies bombarding the poll, and Edwardians bombarding the poll. Something changed, because no matter how Clark supporters voted in the first 8 weeks, Edwards stayed ahead. Now Edwards is falling behind to two experienced veterans who are outspoken about Iraq--the climate for the VP race is changing, regardless of whether a poll is scientific or not scientific. The war is changing everything.

[Padraig18]

63. No national poll reported that--- ever.

That is the point.

[cosmokramer]

64. Good grief...

...you just aren't getting it.

[Padraig18]

65. No. I get it just fine.

Have a nice day.

[cosmokramer]

66. No, you don't.

But have a nice day. I wish you no ill will.

[Padraig18]

67. Yes, I do. n/t

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[rasputin1952]

74. I appologize that this particular deletion came up as "moderator"...

I want it clearly known that I removed the previous post as an attack on a specific moderatror, and as bias towards the moderators.

We work very hard trying to keep things in perspective, and to single out a Mod, by name no less, goes way beyond anything approaching tolerable.

Thank you,

Rasputin1952 Moderator

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. People are finally seeing the light!

Very SMART people, I might add. :7

Go Wes! :bounce:

[Auntie Bush]

31. Yes he does offer something.

He offers nice hair, a handsome face (if you like the type...I don't) and a big smile. Some people will vote for him for that reason alone!

[cosmokramer]

36. UPDATE UPDATE

Just got this piece of data:


Read a report on appearances for Kerry (from a state Kerry coordinator, don't know the name): Clark 48 times, Dean, 40 times, Edwards 18.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. WOW!

Hmmmm....What should I make of this? The man never gets tired (Gert said so), he's trusted by the Kerry camp, he's needed by the Kerry camp and......drum roll.......The Kerry camp wants him to be VP!

:bounce:

[MoonRiver]

37. pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease

PLEASE, LET IT BE CLARK! O8)

[Auntie Bush]

41. I'll drink to that!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :puke:
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
:puke:

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
:puke:

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
:puke:

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
:puke:

[RaRa]

69. Any truth to their dislike of each other?

I know other candidates have chosen running mates they don't like, but I've read here that the Clark campaign started the whole Kerry affair story. Just curious. I was a Clark supporter, so I adore him, but I don't know how muhc he could help Kerry. But, please, not Gephardt. How can he actually be considered an asset?

[Jai4WKC08]

70. Not true about intern scandal

The Clark campaign didn't start it and didn't spread it. That was an RNC attack, via Drudge, to take down Kerry and Clark.

Kerry knows the facts, or he wouldn't trust Clark to speak for him around the country, and recently with other world leaders (Clark is overseas right now).

I know politicians are good actors by necessity, but to watch Kerry and Clark together is to know they like each other just fine. And they've known each other for a while--since long before the campaign. Rumor has it that Clark spent Memorial Day at Kerry's home in DC. Teresa Heinz Kerry has also spoken very highly of Clark on several occassions and I don't think she'd be so supportive if she thought any of the intern stuff were true.

[cosmokramer]

76. Exactly. It was NOT a Clark generated attack.

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. Wow! Leading in an online poll?

Was the link to it posted every day on the Clark blog, with instructions on how to clear the cookies from your browser ,so you could vote multiple times?

*champagne cork* :eyes:

[cosmokramer]

81. Sure, much as it was on the Edwards blog.

However, you fail to recognize that for the first EIGHT weeks, no matter how many Clarkistas voted, Clark didn't budge.

THEN, the war came to the fore-front with the prison scandal, and *poof*, Clark is winning by a LANDSLIDE! Hmmmm, now simple, basic kindergarten logic will tell us that this could not have been JUST Clarkies voting, otherwise, he would have been long ahead during the first eight weeks as well. Think about it. Edwards offers NOTHING by way of military/foreign policy experience, and this is being recognized.

[Kahuna]

84. There were six replies to an April post on that Clark blob that THEY'RE

referring to. That's really evidence of Clarkies freeping the poll. Eh? :eyes:

[mzmolly]

79. I'll take the antiwar general. But, MCCAIN?!

:wtf: