|
Polling: Bush and the Democrats
The Opinion Dynamics Corporation, who does Fox News polling, has a new poll out for the Democratic candidates. The lead, by Dana Blanton: As the field of Democratic hopefuls continues to get more crowded, the number saying they would vote for a Democratic candidate in the 2004 presidential election is increasing. As was posted earlier, Gephardt has been having quite good press recently, with him now inching ahead of Lieberman, among 369 Democrats: Gephardt 16% Other 5 When asked how they would vote if the 2004 presidential election were held today, 42% says they would vote to re-elect Bush, and nearly as many, 38% say they would vote for the Democrat. 10% say it depends, and 10% are not sure. Support for Bush is at 89% amongst the GOPers, support for the Democratic candidate is at 72% amongst the Dem voters. Jerome Armstrong on Feb 28 @ 10:02 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
I don't trust FOX with Bush approval ratings, matchups, exc...can Dems trust them with the primary? Posted by: New Democrat on March 1, 2003 05:44 AMI don't know, JB, how important is a national poll of Dem voters at this stage? I mean, it's interesting that Gephardt is stronger than Lieberman. And that Mr. Undecided doubles them both. But, other than that . . . A December '03 national poll will be revealing. And Q2 financial statements. You know more about polls than I do, obviously, but national polls seem to be of sorta dubious utility when thinking about the primaries right now. Posted by: BriVT on March 1, 2003 07:36 AMActually, I don't think even a December 03 national poll is necessarily going to give us a good indication of who the eventual nominee is gonna be. I think that Iowa and New Hampshire will be crucial for getting the snowball rolling down the hill for one of these guys. If Dean can finish top 3 in Iowa and win New Hampshire I think that the momentum for him will be overwhelming--even if he's still polling at 4% in the national polls in December 03. I think that McCain (even Clinton in 92?) was a blip in the polls the month before Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000. Posted by: Pat M on March 1, 2003 08:10 AMA better comparison is McGovern in '72 and Carter in '76. If Gephardt can win Iowa and finish no worse than third in New Hampshire, he could win the nomination. Unlike Lieberman, he should be taken seriously. Posted by: Paleo on March 1, 2003 08:27 AMWhat I find interesting about this poll is the top four candidates in the poll are what could be considered the "pro-war" candidates among the Democrats running for President. As a pro-war Democrat myself, I am heartened by this poll in that it shows our party is not drifting as far to the left as the media is portraying it. Posted by: Dave on March 1, 2003 09:41 AM"...how important is a national poll of Dem voters at this stage?" Not much at all. We are mainly just looking at momentum factors that are happening. For instance, look at Lieberman, who dropped from 29% to 15% from their last poll! As far as the four "pro-invasion" Democrats, there numbers have went from a cumulative 65% of the vote, to 47%, with the "against-invasion" Democrats going from 7% to 15%, and the undecided/other moving from 28% to 38%. The Dems who went along with Bush can be comforted by the fact that they are still leading, but the trend is moving away from them. Posted by: JB on March 1, 2003 10:10 AMThe only thing about the Dean stance that is "left" is the media's portrayal of it. Howard Dean is against an invasion of Iraq without strong international support or evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq. That this is considered "left" is a testament to the truly irresponsible stance of the media. The resolution that the Senators voted for was a travesty that completely abdicated the responsibility of the Congress to declare war. We have never invaded a country in an attempt to conquer it without a declaration of war. Ever. And the Congress threw that history away. Now, one can argue that in the 21st century, other considerations can be taken into account. And, guess what, that's what Howard Dean is arguing. That, my friend, is clear-thinking, responsible leadership. And if people want to consider that "left," fine. gephardt and liberman lead the pack? yuck. with democrats like that, who needs republicans? Posted by: skippy on March 1, 2003 12:42 PMOut of All the Democratic Candidates for President in 2004. I have to say that Bob Graham, the United States Senator of Florida is the strongest candidate for President to defeat George W. Bush. Graham is a former two term Governor of Florida- largest/important state in the Southern region. Recent Presidents were Governors/former Governors. recent Democratic Presidents were Southerners. Graham is the former Chairman of the Senate Intellegence commitee- Graham has been strongly critical of Bush on the issue of National Security. Graham opposes the War on Iraq- because it was a weak resolution- Graham beleives the adminstration should be focused on Countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria- which support international terrorist Groups- most of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia- Graham believes that Bush's has ignored the potential threats from Al-Qeada by going to war with Iraq. According to Bob Graham and Gary Hart- Bush has done a weak job in protecting Our National Borders/Ports- and Airport and Subway security. It is impossible for the Bush Administration to portray Graham as a Liberal, He is not. Graham has not lost an election during his entire political career. I would select Wesley Clark- the former NAto general during Clinton Administration as Graham's runningmate. Southern Democrat like Graham. will help Democrats standing on National Security.
298 ev- Graham/Clark ticket D
That prediction was posted on February 27, 2003 10:20 AM
The Democratic Party has lost its way as of late. Get off the "go left" sinking ship and get back to the roots as the party of the working folks. Since Democrats become the party of left wing special interests groups and forgot where the real strength was. Dean is a rich Wall Street brat who is an extreme liberal that can’t be elected because he can not energize the working people of the party who have been neglected for years and have lost faith in the Party. Fox news has been talking up Dean for weeks. They seem to be trying to push Dean to the front. Why would that be? Posted by: on March 1, 2003 06:06 PMHoward Dean a "brat"? When someone has to stoop to that level of namecalling that is a good indication they can't control the debate or.....perhaps it's fear? Anonymous: Howard Dean is a "Wall Street brat who is an extreme liberal"? Sure and Liz Taylor is a sumo wrestler and P. Diddy is made of swiss cheese. The only thing about Howard Dean that any rational person might consider "extreme liberal" was his support of Civil Unions legistration. Even that is a stretch since poll after poll shows that most Americans support equal rights for gays and lesbians while not supporting gay marriage (just like Dean). Beyond that, he's actually rather conservative--especially on fiscal policy (where he's clearly more conservative than George W. Bush, who's taken us from the biggest surplus to the biggest deficit in two years). Posted by: PhillyGuy on March 2, 2003 08:25 AMI think that "Anonymous" is a troll. I also think that we're starting to see some counter-counter spin from troll central. Over the last couple months at this site and Kos posters have noted how Fox News has been trying to pimp the Sharpton candidacy and how the right-wing media has tried to build up guys that most political junkie Dems see as sure losers, like Gephardt and Lieberman. So now one of the attacks on Dean is that the Republican media is trying to build him up? Excellent--the more name recognition Dean gets the better! And I've been harsh towards Gephardt myself--but I would still gladly vote for Gephardt over Bush. Sorry "anonymous" dude, but you were a little too over-the-top in your attack on Dean. Real Dems don't "go off" on their fellow Dems in such a vicious manner as your attack on Dean. Posted by: Pat M on March 2, 2003 11:59 AM"The Dean supporters will be in a hissy fit when Gephardt and Lieberman will be the clear front runners." I think they are definitely in that "hissy fit" on this site. Posted by: tod on March 2, 2003 01:16 PMDemocrats cant win close elections without GAY votes and we gays also have a lot of money so I think Dean is in an enviable position. Gay bashers vote Republican anyway Posted by: GaDem on March 2, 2003 03:09 PM"Gay bashers vote Republican anyway" Gay bashers are republicans GaDem :-) John Jimenez http://www.draftgore.com Posted by: Shadow-Eyes on March 3, 2003 01:46 AMIf the only thing Republicans are going to run against is gays or gay rights in 2004 then they truly are in trouble. The American people are generally supportive of gay rights and for people to run an atack campaign against gays would offend many straight voters-Republican or Democrat. Posted by: Ced on March 3, 2003 07:32 AMReal Democrats throw hissy fits constantly. The party started dying when the DLC turned the nominating process into something more closely resembling lite yogurt than a political process. When Democrats fought, it meant there were more Democrats come Election Day. Repeat after me: Bashing Joe Lieberman is GOOD for the party... Posted by: Mark Gisleson on March 3, 2003 08:09 AMBashing Joe Lieberman is GOOD for the party... Bashing Joe Lieberman is GOOD for the party... Bashing Joe Lieberman is GOOD for the party... Bashing Joe Lieberman is GOOD for the party... Bashing Joe Lieberman is GOOD for the party... But only if it actually prevents him from getting the nomination. ;-) Posted by: Tony on March 3, 2003 09:28 PMI think the 2004 ticket should be either Dean/Kerry and Sharpton or Dean/Kerry and Graham. Dems should definatly not go for a conservative Dem because then we're just trying to out Republican the Republicans. Dems gotta stop pretending to be republicans and become what being a Dem is all about, in one word:liberal. The left liberal ship is not a sinking one, in fact it is the opposite. Throughout history country policies always shift to the left. If conservatives we're always in power ther'd still be slavery. My point is, liberlism is always right, so that's who the Dems need in '04, a person who's right. Posted by: sam claytor on March 6, 2003 10:41 AMI find that the FOX News polls can't be accurate. The people in this Country are intelligent and politics savvy enough to know that the Bush Administration is pulling this Country down to a very dangerous level. And there goes Bush back to the ranch. I'm hoping that Sen. McCain or Sen. Biden will enter this race so that we can elect an intelligent President instead of the inept one we have now. Posted by: Mrs. Peggy Simon on August 2, 2003 12:42 PMPost a comment
|