A little persepctive: Cuomo/Tsongas top NH poll, Clinton 2d last (Nov '91)

Food for thought
(Anonymous) at Sunday October 12, @05:07PM

HEADLINE: NEW HAMPSHIRE: CUOMO RANKS; TSONGAS LEADS REST OF PACK

A poll, conducted 10/28-11/8 by Univ. of NH, surveyed 469 NH Dem/Ind. likely voters; margin of error +/- 5% (WMUR-TV, 11/12).
W/Cuomo ....... W/o MC......Fav/UF

Cuomo 30....................... 54/14
Tsongas 10........16...........46/17
Kerry 9.......... 13...........40/7
Brown 5 ...........7...........31/28
Harkin 6 ...........8...........34/7
Clinton 4........... 5........... 28/8
Wilder 2 ........... 2........... 21/20
Undecided 34.....49

MORE: 38% said Cuomo had the best chance of beating Bush; without Cuomo in the race, 61% are unsure who has the best chance of beating Bush (Manchester UNION LEADER, 11/13).
HEY GUYS IT LOOKS LIKE CLINTON'S WASHED UP FOR HIS RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN '92 MAYBE HE SHOULD GO BACK AND GET MORE GUBERNATORIAL EXPERIENCE AND TRY AGAIN IN '96. IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT EITHER CUOMO (CLARK) OR TSONGAS (DEAN) IS GONNA BE THE GUY. I MEAN REALLY WHAT IN THE HELL IS CLINTON EVEN RUNNING FOR?

This is from the Edwards Blog.

:kick:

Yeah what the hell is Clinton running for lol. :D thanks AP even though you meant this as a morale booster for your candiate it serves as one for ours too.

Got nothing to say about this one...too funny...

Plus, the campaigns started MUCH earlier this election cycle than they did in 1992.

and only finished second or third (I can never remember).

Plus Cuomo didn't end up ruling out entering until late December of 1991.

and making sure they were on his side before he took his camapaign public.

I've hear that the big party donors are sitting on their wallets for now.

They were still hoping until quite late that Cuomo would jump in the race.

This time its different because the big money donors are less relevant now due to Dean's ability to leverage small money contributions into large totals.

spent 91 (and earlier) going around doing dog and pony shows for the biggest Dem party contributors, and that they liked him so much they knew that they had the money to introduce Clinton to America, and that America would like what they saw.

I don't remember anything about Cuomo, but Steph seemed to think the meet and greets with the money were successful.

As I said, Clinton had the most money going into 1992, which enabled him to build a national organization and generate important early momentum.

This time, Dean has outraised the competition by leveraging the power of small donations, effectively ending the era of the big fundraisers in Democratic politics. Don't get me wrong, big money fundraisers still are important, but they no longer have the dominant power that they once had.

In this election cycle, other than possibly Kerry, NO other candidate will likely come close to the amount of money that Dean will have going into 2004, which will make it difficult for any of the other candidates to suddenly take the nomination.

Of course, this is politics and anything can happen, but there were foreseeable reasons to predict that Clinton would win the nomination in 1992, and there are strong reasons to believe that Dean will win the nomination next year.

other than Dean?

Before this year no candidate in recent times had managed to effectively leverage small donations into big totals.

Even if a large number of big money donors do start supporting one candidate it won't make an earth shattering impact on the race.

Remember in 1992, Bill Clinton had $3 million going into the election year. Bill Clinton's one quarter record was a little over $10 million in 1995 when he was UNOPPOSED for the nomination. Dean raised $15 million in ONE QUARTER in a very competitive field.

An early catastrophe in the 'failed Clinton Presidency'. (I believe all I read.)

:)

and that was considered a strong second. The problem with Tsongas is he had no real national campaign organization and as has been pointed out Clinton did. Lots of people were shocked when Tsongas dropped out after super Tuesday but he simply had no national following and jennifer Flowers and then Clinton's subsequent comeback in NH attracted national attention to his campaign.

http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2003/09/01/Worldandnation/Democrats_are_an_unde.shtml



We'll find out in February and March. :shrug:

:-)

:) although your candiate aint mine

Some analysts theorize that Republicans are more deferential to their party leaders than fractious Democrats.

"Republicans support the person they think can win. Democrats always say they want to do that, but they often go in a different direction," quipped Matt Towery, an Atlanta pollster with InsiderAdvantage.

From All's Fair, Love , War, and Running for President.

"Bob Kerrey was a called a consultant's wet dream. He was a Vietnam War hero, a Medal of Honor winner. People who knew him said he was a personable guy. He had real credability in talking about health care; he had actually introduced a bill on it in the Senate. The only thing about Bob Kerry didn't have was a message. He'd picked up some early support, but he hadn't developed a rationale for his candidacy.

From early on I was less aware of Paul Tsongas than I should have been...We weren't even working against George Bush at the time, our aim was to beat Kerry and Tsongas and Harkin and Brown.

No Democratic candidate had won the the Presidential election without winning the New Hampshire primary, and we went right after it. We started our television buys with a sixty-second commercial that Frank Greer conceived and produced. It was his baby and it worked. We wanted people to know that Bill Clinton had a plan for the future. So we developed one and put it on paper. In our spot the candidate said, 'I'm Bill Clinton and I believe you deserve more than thirty-second ads or vague promises. Thats why I have offered a comprehensive plan to get our economy moving again, to take care of our people and regain economic leadership.' On the screen was a phone number people could call and get a copy. We also made the plan available at public libraries. What this spot said was that we were prepared, we had it on paper, we had substance."

Edwards has been in the Senate slightly under 5 years. Clinton was the longest serving governor in the entire nation and had served a two year stint as AG of Arkansas. By 1991, he had been in public office for 13 years.

the best in the country). That took some skill. Clinton didn't do that.

I know, I know. Different skills.