Deleted message

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

I don't think you're right that he can't beat Bush.

He hasn't been in national politics for years nor has he been a media personality as of late. His low name recognition is still working against him.

The more exposure he gets, the better his poll results. The only real exception to this trend was the additon of Clark to the race.

right now he is doing a little worse than the others because he has been painted as "liberal". He has already moved somewhat to the center, and once people take a look at his record as governor, they will realize that he is a moderate.

nt

One-- think of the fundraising possibilities. If Dean gets 2 million people jacked into his campaign after he wins the nomination, and they all chip in 50 bucks or so, we have 100 million dollars even before we shakedown the unions and the trial lawyers.

Secondly, Dean has enough centrist credentials to pivot easily in the general election. Gore was polling even worse than Dean at this point in time last election against Bush Junior and ended up winning.

Dean also solves the Democratic turnout problem; states that are close will break our way in 2004 if Dean is at the top of the ticket.

Lastly, Dean has been through an organized hate campaign in Vermont before (concerning the civil unions bill). With threats on his life, vandalism of his car, being spit on, etc. etc. dealing with the Rove machine will be like old news.

I think not the least of which is that he can handle a threatening situation calmly-- for a just, Left-wing cause.

Truman shouldn't have run against Dewey

Bush was 6 points ahead of Gore in the final weekend before the vote in 2000.

etc, etc,

Polls are meaningless spin.

First, watch out where you get these polls

Second, the primaries haven't united the vote yet. A lot of dems are stubborn.

Third, we have 360 more days for more US soldiers to die.

Fourth, ANY one of those 9 dem candidates will RIP BUSH AND CHENEY apart in ANY debate

Fifth, we actually have Michael Moore and more prominent Greens backing Dems this time.

Democrats got fed up with the Iraq War quicker than Republicans have.

At this time he polls best within the party. By 2004 Dean will be polling better against Bush as the Iraq War keeps costing money and lives and even non-Democrats begin to see the light.

It's steady bad, and I only imagine that the media is going to make it look like it's getting better, after the Dems nominate someone who runs largely on that one issue.

I'd rather not pick a candidate whom the Republicans can so easily pull the rug out from under his feet. (McGovern anyone? He ran on Vietnam, and Nixon made VIETNAM look like it was getting better in fall 72).

Incidentally, I think dean polls the worst of the far they run in the head to head (clark, kerry, gephardt are the others) because he drives people to the extremes. For every supporter who gets worked up about him, there are 1.1 Republicans who get worked up by him too.

Dean shouldn't run on just one issue, especially if he gets the nomination.

As far as Iraq getting worse, I do not think the Vietnam War lost popularity during Nixon's first term the way the Iraq War has already done in the May to October 2003 timeframe. The issue isn't the way moderate Rublicans are thinking now, but rather how these people be thinking in November 2004.

The Iraq War doesn't seem to me like one that will ever trend back upwards in popularity. I think of it as more like the Spanish American War than as Vietnam.

as the campaign moves out to the other states they will change elsewhere as well.

Or the primary polls of all 9 candidates among likely Dem voters?

you think Kerry can beat Bush...what do you base that on?

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

it's really that simple. How are these polls done? Generally, names are collected by voters who have been registered for quite some time. The pollsters collect and build lists over a considerable length of time and contact the same people over and over again. Dean has drawn in a massive number of new voters. There is no way to truly see the impact these new voters will have until the primaries are under way. Those of us active in Dean's campaign and are familiar with the REAL political makeup of his supporters understand something most others completely miss. Dean's campaign isn't just "grassroots", it's kudzu. The loyal Democratic base isn't going to be deciding this nomination. You'll see almost as many Democrats voting in the primaries as you do the general this time. All the new voters energized and loyal to Dean can't wait to vote for him. There's also a very good chance that they won't vote for anyone but him. With all these new voters, as long as the Democrats support Dean once he gets the nomination, there is NO WAY Bush can beat him. On top of this, the Bush camp seems to still believe it's the "liberal base" that support Dean. That's not the case at all. This is a whole new base of Independents, moderates, centrists, some liberals, some Greens, plenty of democrats and even a few of the milder Republicans and Libertarians and an army of brand new voters who are registering to vote in the primaries FOR Howard Dean. They're going to vote for him in the General, too...along with everyone else who is disgusted with Bush. 2004 might very well be a landslide victory, but it won't be a landslide for Bush, it will be one for Dean. The game has changed entirely.

in Sept '99.

Dean was tagged early on as being "too liberal" by the power in the party. If enough of us are willing to work to overcome that, he can beat Bush.

His common sense vs ideological approach to governing actually has broad appeal.

But, in any event, it's not like we had a better choice. Gore was crowned the nominee in 1992. Maybe if we had a field of nominees, we could have found someone who ran better against Bush and who would have scored outside the margin of theft...

The WMUR / CNN Poll
September 13, 1999

snip>
Another possible reason that Democrats are moving away from Gore is that he continues to trail the leading Republican candidate, George W. Bush, in a hypothetical race for President in 2000. Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned that he cannot beat Bush. Among likely primary voters, 56% say they will vote for Bush, only 35% favor Gore, 6% favor some other candidate, and 2% are undecided. Gore has not been able to cut into Bush's lead since May.

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/dem999.html

And in January 2000, Gore trailed Bush and McCain by 14% (Bradley only trailed Bush by TWO percent in this one)

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/12/voter.poll/

Had they picked a better candidate, closer at that time, maybe they would have won by the same relative margin.

His recent polling numbers are actually up.

I'm not sure what polls use what methods, but here's a guess:

Dean does well when ONLY Dems are polled (Dems paying more attention to 2004 elections, more pissed about Iraq)

When the question is Dean v Bush* the responses include Repugs and Indies too.

In the presidential election, they actually allow Repugs and Indies to cast votes. So we have to worry about running a candidate who gets a majority of all votes.

He is the one who can (and has) step forward with information and a position that is counter to the establishment spin. And he keeps after the problem until the information sinks in and the attitude changes.

...balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, and bluntly "talking" about "race" means making analogies about anti-male gender discriminaiton. I don't think begging the Cato Institute to like him is anti-establishment.

I really don't see what you're seeing.

I didn't know the election is tomorrow.

:eyes:

and this is after Dean gets a ton of press.

where are these polls?

...that number.

I don't think anyone can deny that Dean has become the focus of the media's attention...yet, he comes in four or tied for last in all four head-to-head vs Bush polls I've seen.

with that "too liberal/unelectable" label. I've heard it from casual observers who have heard of him, but assume he's unelectable. This is changing, of course, as more people hear his message and see the strength of his campaign.

I expect the trend to be steadily upward for Dean in head-to-heads with Bush.

Any candidate we run will be labeled as "too liberal," soft on security, extreme, and whatever (yes, even Clark -- just ask Max Clelland). Dean's polls are lower now because he's taken the brunt of it (due largely to his position as presumed frontrunner). However, when one candidate emerges, that candidate, whoever he or she is, will suffer the sames slings and arrows.

When it comes to beating bush, the question is how will our candidate (whoever that is) handle it? I believe that Dean is the best equipped. Not only will he be somewhat innoculated given what he's going through already, but, much, much, more importantly, his campaign can go around the biases of the mainstream press.

He's shown that he can raise more money that other candidates and, even more importantly, he has shown that he has the ability to motivate and inspire lots and lots of people to volunteer for him (over 100,000 meetup volunteers, for example). The 500,000 people who will be signed up by next November can for the backbone of a truly national grassroots army that goes door to door and neighbor to neighbor. This army can change minds and increase turnout in ways that current national polls can't reflect.

Will this grassroots army work for any other candidate. Maybe, maybe not. They certainly won't work as hard. That's not a threat of any kind, just the way it is. Not everyone sees it, I understand, but Dean inspires many people the way that the other candidates don't.

!

the fact that republicans will harp incessantly about how extreme, liberal, and unamerican our candidate is no matter what the office and who the candidate? Or the fact that Dean attracts many, many supporters new to politics who will talk him up to their friends and neighbors (and even complete strangers in Iowa and New Hampshire via letter)?

I agree on both counts.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Oct. 9-10, 2003. N=826 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

In this poll matching up Dem candidates against Bush:

-- Clark got 43%
-- Dean got 40%
-- Kerry, Gep, & Joe each got 42%

Since the Margin of Error is ± 4 and these candidates' scores are within a 3-point range, statistically it's a dead heat -- too close to call.

Add to that, the results of a CBS poll from late August showing that 35% of ALL registered voters polled (i.e., Dem, GOP, and Ind.) could not name a single Dem candidate.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Since most people haven't even tuned into the 2004 race yet, it's a tad early to conclude that "he's an excellent candidate, but he can't beat Bush."

Thanks for posting this.

Dean is always either in last or near it among the top candidates when polled vs. Bush. Of course the Dean adherents will dismiss it, but it isn't so easy. The Dems should nominate the candidate with the best chance to take on Bush, not the weakest.

But put it in a little perspective.

Who was polling well in '91 at this time?

We never had a Pres Cuomo or Pres Tsongas.

I think the only people who are paying attention now are politicos (like DUers) or people who don't know yet (the huge amounts of undecideds like the "unnamed Dem vs Bush* polls)

That is why we will nominate Dean.

Clinton wasn't fairing too well with all the democrats running against Bush Sr.

:shrug:

Maybe Clinton should have dropped out. A governor with no foreign policy experience surely couldn't do a good job being president.

IMHO, Dean is the candidate most capable of rallying his supporters to the polls.

eom

Our yard sign attracts a lot of comments and questions. Our UPS guy stopped and asked for literature, which we had. Just got an email from our coordinator here, and several of the Graham supporters are curious about Dean. Not because he is considered liberal by them, either.

Our Republican neighbors do not go for Clark, because they are not over the Clinton hatred. Talk radio here keeps stirring it up. They don't like the others anymore than they like Dean, so he has a good chance even with them.

An independent saw one of our LTTE about Dean, went to the Meet-up site, emailed our coordinator, and said he had some friends who would like to come and meet with us.

This is really silly, this questioning about whether he can. He is still lacking some name recognition, but that is improving steadily. Of course he can beat Bush.

positive reactions from People all over the Northeast regarding Dean
@ our Co-op! I have to start bringing extra Dean Pins to work to hand them out for People who ask.."Where can I get my Dean Button?"

It's all very encouraging..our campaign is doing wonders with getting their Positive Message Out!

Hell Bush's poll numbers are up again (so they say)......

Dean's got nothing in Foreign affairs...and the economy looks like its limping but picking up, at the stock market level anyway.

The biggest concern is going to be the Iraq war or some other international crisis that will conveniently heat up right before the election....and Dean won't be able to get the "ordinary folks" to hand him the "War on Terror" baton.

It's never as easy as you think...and what can go wrong will.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

13 months until the general election. The most important poll is when someone asks if they'd vote for Bush or the 'unnamed democrat'.


No one heard of Clinton back in 1991 and those who did thought that a governor from a small state had no chance against Bush.

I truly believe it will not be the democrat that beats Bush - he'll do that all on his own with the handling of the economy and failure at this war.

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

(other eight, now)

Dean's a new kid on the national block. The media portrays him as liberal and the other candidates as conservative. The candidates that actually poll slightly better against Bush*, have had national exposure longer and thus time to establish an image that they are more in control of.

Further, once primaries start falling in one direction or another, the person winning them will seem much more like a potential winner against Bush*. It is early yet, but so far Dean looks to be in good shape the grab some of this early PR boost.

The poll needs to be rerun sometime after say 1/2 a dozen primaries been run. I expect the results will then favor the apparent leader, whomever that is.