Zogby poll bush 41%, Gore 39% !

[NicRic]

A new poll released today by Zogby polling showed former VP Al Gore only four digits behind President Bush. In June 2000, the same poll was posed and then governor Bush was leading 48% to Gore's 41%. This is the first time in a long time that any Democrat has been this close to Bush. It is no wonder it is Gore. There are still active Gore supporters around the country calling for Gore to reconsider, or accept the Democratic Nomination in 04
Also the Chicago Sun Times news paper editorial >
By running, Gore could help Dems define themselves
July 6, 2003
BY WILLIAM O'ROURKE <mailto:[e-mail]>
Al Gore should reconsider his decision not to run for the Democratic presidential nomination for 2004. Why? Look around at what is happening to the Democrats since Gore bowed out last December: the party splintering into its demographic pieces, name-calling among the jostling group running, conflicting and contradictory policies being touted.
A large field of contenders is hardly a pretty sight. Bob Dole in 1996 emerged from a sizable Republican crowd and the primary season left Dole looking dazed and over-extended. George W. Bush in 2000 employed his own shock and awe fund-raising campaign during the primaries and the marginals dropped out early. Bush had only to fight off John McCain, using the state of South Carolina as the site of McCain's last stand. The Republican base had spoken and Bush sailed into the nomination.
Indeed, Bush was less beaten up in the primary season than was Al Gore. Bill Clinton served as his most stiff competition, not the other Bill--Bill Bradley--insofar as Clinton's baggage hounded Gore throughout the primaries and the general election.
This time around there is no front-runner in the large Democratic field. The fact that Howard Dean--two months ago a curious long shot--is now considered a leading contender shows the lack of heft available. Joe Lieberman has revealed himself to be what he was: a decent prospect for vice president.
John Kerry, the early pick of party insiders, might end up being a strong finisher, because he has not shown much speed out of the box. But Kerry has always seemed a little shop-worn and regional as a candidate. His flirtations with the national ticket in the past were tentative. He likely peaked in 2000, just missing being Gore's vice presidential pick.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Kolesar]

1. Is the Democratic party splintered into its demographic pieces?

I don't think it is any more splintered than is typical. Let me pick apart this sophomoric essay further:

"The fact that Howard Dean--two months ago a curious long shot--is now considered a leading contender shows the lack of heft available."

How does Dr. Dean compare to the GOP 2000 candidate? Another governor, yes. But Dean is way above unelectable Bush in knowledge and relating to people. Further, give credit to Dr. Dean who has been working on this campaign for a long time.

" Joe Lieberman has revealed himself to be what he was: a decent prospect for vice president. "

a poor choice for VP. Joe is telegenically-challenged.

"If Gore had chosen to run again, he would have done his party a great service, even if he ultimately lost. Whereas, if the Democratic nominee, other than Gore, loses to Bush in 2004, he will have set the party back in terms of the presidency for perhaps a generation. "

WTF? I cannot see any logic supporting "setting the party back...for a generation"

"Unfortunately, President Bush's weaknesses are found in the past, not, alas, in the future"

The Bush Boy has not ever seen pain like he is going to experience in the next few months. International ANSWER is sponsoring a march on the White House and Pentagon on October 25 to top it off.

[NNN0LHI]

2. I wonder if Gore is going to run? Nah. Couldn't be. Could he?

[CMT]

3. Gore would be a formidible candidate against Bush

but so would several of our current candidates. It is not surprising that they are lacking in the polls right now and Gore isn't. Gore is well known and won the 2000 election. Our current candidates are not as well known and people are not focused on the election. Once people focus and we select a candidate I think it will be a tight race.

[carolinayellowdog]

4. In light of Zogby's sample bias, this means Gore wins

Just yesterday someone posted a Zogby poll that showed respondents had been Bush voters in 2000 by something like a 48/41 margin.

[jackstraw45]

5. Excellent sign for democrats

Most dems don't know much about the candidates running yet so Gore is an easy name to support.

A year from now, America will know who the dem front-runner is. Without a major blunder, this support will go to that person.

The facade is beginning to crack on the Axis of Evil of this administration.

[Quahog]

9. What election?

Gotta tell you all, I have a really hard time drumming up any meaningful conversation about the Dem candidates outside of this forum and a couple of other liberal web sites. On the ground, no one cares yet. It's too far off. Only real political junkies like ourselves are following any of this right now.

So when a poll pits Gore (not running) against Bush* (not sane), the results are predictable and banal. The Gore name is known. They could have picked Hillary, or Ted Kennedy, or John F. Kennedy and gotten the same result.

I love Al. If he REALLY WANTED TO WIN, I would back him as a candidate and work hard for his election (as I did in '00). He'd have to show more fight, and more sense in selecting a running mate, than he did then, though. If he's got to be DRAFTED into the race, well what the hell is up with that? "OK, I'll be your candidate, but only because you have that gun pointed at me." Frankly, I'd rather have his behind-the-scenes support, I think he could do lots of good there without dragging his alpha male/Love Canal/internet baggage into the race (NOT HIS FAULT, I KNOW, HE DIDN'T LIE, IT WAS ALL THE RETHUGS, I KNOW!! But still.).

:boring:

[Doctor_J]

6. A couple points

First, The Bright One is pretty staunchly Repub, so this has a molish quality.

Second, I personally would rather have Al as part of the infrastructure of the party - helping with DemTV, writing books, posing with his houseful of babes. He will bring too many flashbacks to the voters if he runs.

Third, on the upside, in practice I don't see any way for Smirk's numbers to go anywhere but down from here on. this is horrible news for Rove, and great news for the US and the world.

[asjr]

7. points

I will always love Al Gore. If not for the media and the SCOTUS he would be our president today. Many who voted for Bush are realizing today how wrong they were. I don't agree with some who said he ran a "bad" campaign. He was honest, trustworthy and definitely the stronger candidate, but I can't see him running again unless the media actually apologize to him for their shoddy treatment. Dean may not end up being the front runner, but for now I am going with him. We have a long way to go before election, and if the Democratic party would get their heads together and realize that commonality will get them farther than bashing each other we stand a good chance of winning. I admire all the democratic candidates. But a few of the also-rans need to bow out now. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Jim Sagle]

8. Note how this jag doesn't even mention Dean except to lie about him.

'nuff said.

[Josh]

10. There IS NO POLL. This was a question about 2000.

The link is here: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=719

And the question was about who the people polled voted for in the 2000 Presidential Election. It's a side-by-side comparison of two polls, one done on the internet versus the one done on the phone. THE POLLS WERE CONDUCTED LESS THAN THREE WEEKS APART. They are just simply two different samples of people answering the question of who they voted for in 2000.

THERE IS NO POLL ABOUT 2004 HERE.

Much as I would have loved to see such a poll with Al within striking distance, it isn't there. It doesn't exist. It hasn't been done.