Dean now trails Bush by 21%; falls to 31% from 39%

[_Jumper_]

Can we ignore this?

[joeybee12]

1. As long as you just throw that out without a link, Yes, we can ignore it.

[_Jumper_]

3. Watch the Hardball replay

:)

[goobergunch]

2. Linky?

And where?

[_Jumper_]

4. Hardball cited it

I believe it was a Gallup poll. Dean slipped to 31% from 39%, while Bush inched up one point to 52%.

[cirej2000]

6. Ridiculous

Which poll was that freeper.com?

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. MSNBC

bush up just one percent ...dean down eight

[goobergunch]

8. Jurisdiction?

Many people nationally still haven't heard of Howard Dean. If Bush's re-elect is at 52%, that's a positive sign IMHO.

[VolcanoJen]

35. I still think that *most* people nationally are now well aware of Dean.

Most people are probably not yet aware of his policies, or promises, or experience, however. But I'm pretty convinced that most people know that a man named Howard Dean is considered the Democratic frontrunner right now.

Look, eleven months is an eternity in politics, and anything could happen. Bush need look no further than his own father's example, and spectacular plunge in popularity during 1992. But at any rate, I don't think this is good news It's definitely disappointing news to me.

[Woodstock]

46. No, I know a lot of Dems who don't know who Dean is

They just haven't gotten around to finding out about the candidates yet.

The last poll I saw said 60% of Dems couldn't name one candidate. That was maybe 2 or 3 months ago. I fail to see how enough changed since then that all or even close to that 60% know knows who Dean is.

[WiseMen]

55. This is the most PREPOSTEROUS STATEMENT. DEAN NOT KNOWN

The tragedy is the the progressive movement is spending a
fortune of money and critical media attention on someone who is unlikely to
garner winning support no matter how much is spent.

IT IS CRAZY. Much like Bush dumping money into IRAQ.

[Woodstock]

57. The primaries have not gained national attention yet

It's the holidays and the election is almost a year away.

Did you know much about Clinton (if anything) about this time in 1991?

The unnamed Dem does well now & so will the nominee - we have a good pack of candidates.

[TLM]

68. As I walked down sunset blvd in Hollywood last night...

no fewer than four people looked at my Dean sign/shirt and asked "Who's Howard Dean?"

[Julien Sorel]

14. I seriously find this hard to believe.

the media are pumping out Dean Dean Dean like water comes out of a tap, and most people are only now paying attention to the race -- it seems his numbers would be firming up, not getting worse, and this is a really unusually large decline. The Saddam thing can't have damaged him that bad, again, I think, because lots of people are just finding out who he is, and don't know he was 'against the war.' I want more data!

[bearfartinthewoods]

56. hint...the drop occured during a 24hour period

between sat and sun

gee.........i wonder what could have caused the drop
what caused the people to change their minds?

[unfrigginreal]

5. Well the next closest Dem trails by 25%

Would you prefer that?

[_Jumper_]

10. Compare the name ID those other candidates have

Morever, did they lose one-fifth of their support overnight because something positive happened in Iraq?

[unfrigginreal]

16. Judge for yourself

The Saturday numbers pitting Bush against Dean, "if the election were held today," Bush at 51 percent, Dean at 39 percent. On Sunday, after events in Iraq were dominating the news cycle, Bush's lead increased to 52 percent while support for Dean dropped to 31 percent.

Bush led Clark, 50 percent to 34 percent in the Saturday numbers. By Sunday, support for the president had risen to 53 percent while Clark's dropped to 28 percent, leading some analysts to suggest that good news out of the region hurts the basis of the retired general's candidacy.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031216-122357-3571r.htm

[retyred]

54. So dean dropped 8% and Clark dropped 6%

and bush gained 2%, what does all that mean this early?

Second place is just the first loser!



george bush…pResident?

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Gman]

7. McGovern-Dukakis all over again

hide and watch the electoral college blood bath.

[Kolesar]

25. welcome to the 21st century. It is a different game

McGovern had nothing like Dean's early lead and grassroots organization and a loyal following in December of 1971.
Dukakis had nothing...like nada...when it came to fight or moxie.

[VolcanoJen]

37. Dukakis led Bush by 11 points after the Dem Convention.

He had fight, and moxie. And then he lost it. It broke my heart at the time.

[Demobrat]

9. Not bad.

Considering most people don't even know who he is yet.

[ComerPerro]

11. No. Lets not ignore this. I have a better idea

Lets take this and run with it. Maybe we should bash Dean and all of the other Dems some more, just trash them ruthlessly. Forget about Bush, lets just talk about how bad our candidates are. That will solve all of our problems.

[Capn Sunshine]

12. how much does Clark Trail Bush in that poll?

maybe you should work on THAT.

We don't fear Bush. But you seem to.

[_Jumper_]

24. Maybe we need to nominate someone who isn't labeled "anti-war"...

...in order to win. Kerry? Edwards?

[bobbyboucher]

34. What if the war goes really, really south?

Then what, should we say we're sorry for sabotaging your candidacy Mr. Dean, can you come back and help us. I know we fuckin stabbed your ass in the back and basically sank our party with infighting, but would you kindly forgive us and save our stupid asses.

[_Jumper_]

38. There is still the problem of Dean's desire to raise taxes..

...on the middle-class. If we are going to hang our hopes on Iraq there are other candidates that are more electable who have similar views on Iraq.

[Rose Siding]

63. Clark trails Bush by twenty five points

He was down 16pts the day before

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031216-122357-3571r.htm

[eyesroll]

13. If it's the one cited by Slinkerwink earlier,

Clark loses by an even larger margin.


The Saturday numbers pitting Bush against Dean, "if the election were held today," Bush at 51 percent, Dean at 39 percent. On Sunday, after events in Iraq were dominating the news cycle, Bush's lead increased to 52 percent while support for Dean dropped to 31 percent.

Bush led Clark, 50 percent to 34 percent in the Saturday numbers. By Sunday, support for the president had risen to 53 percent while Clark's dropped to 28 percent, leading some analysts to suggest that good news out of the region hurts the basis of the retired general's candidacy.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031216-122357-3571r.htm

Other candidates weren't mentioned.

If this is the massive "Saddam capture" bounce * was expecting, I'm not impressed.

[arcos]

23. this thread could have been titled "Clark now trails Bush by 25%"... n/t

[arcos]

15. deleted

nevermind :P

[Capn Sunshine]

22. don't mention that poll at DU! it's too favorable to Dean!

geese, haven't you learned "the rules" yet?

[RetroLounge]

17. Yes

poop

[alcuno]

18. No. We must give more money to Dean and Clark.

Thanks for the heads up.

[stickdog]

19. How many Presidential campaigns have you followed?

Once again, Dean is judged in a vacuum.

"Dean's losing by 21% in the latest snapshot 11 months before the election. So we'd better replace him with the guy losing by 25%."

Right?

[_Jumper_]

27. Compare how much media coverage they have gotten

The public knows exponentially more about Howard Dean's positions than they do about John Edward's positions. Dean has been getting a great deal of media coverage yet he still trails Bush by 21%. If that poll is accurate, the gigantic deficit should raise red flags, in my view.

[Zynx]

20. What are the other's numbers?

Hmmmmm?

[goobergunch]

21. Latest poll pollingreport.com has shows Dean behind by 7%

Newsweek Poll
 12/11-12/03
N=822 MoE ± 4

Bush beats Dean      49%-42%
  "    "   Lieberman 51%-42%
  "    "   Clark     49%-43%
  "    "   Gephardt  51%-40%
  "    "   Kerry     51%-41%
  "    "   Edwards   51%-40%
Re-elect Bush?       45%-50%

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

[VolcanoJen]

41. Those numbers are much better!

But... they were pre Operation Snake Hole, weren't they?

It will be interesting to see if the next set of numbers changes significantly. It's my belief that this Saddam stuff will die down in the coming weeks, and the numbers will come back to more realistic levels that aren't related to a perceived "bounce." Of course, anything can happen... and eleven months is indeed an eternity in politics.

[Armstead]

26. Yes the Democrats are doing a great job of....

pushing up Bush's numbers.

They will make Dean "unelectable" by any means necessary. And in the process make themselves unelectable at the same time.

[CWebster]

29. notice the new hysteria about anything tainted "antiwar"?

Or, is that the same old hysteria of the pink tutus?

[Armstead]

33. We got Sadaam. The whole world is different

President Bush went into the cave himself and singlehandedly wrestled Sadaam out of there.

Democrats must now bow down in obedience.

[CWebster]

40. 911 all over again

always searching for a good excuse to grovel.

[tinnypriv]

28. What the fuck is this nonsense?

Dean dropped by 9%, Clark dropped by 9%.

So it seems you can afford to ignore the latter, which hardly makes your topic serious.

If you want to beat up on Dean, at least pick something sensible for gods sake.

[_Jumper_]

32. Clark was not mentioned on Hardball

Moreover, he does not receive 24/7 media coverage so few people are aware of his views. America has been exposed to Dean yet over two-thirds of Americans oppose him...

[tinnypriv]

36. And...

What makes you think Clark's numbers would go up if more people were aware of him?

They could go up, they just as easily could go down.

Especially so since Dean has roughly the highest favourable and lowest unfavourable ratings of voters (Dems and Independents).

Morever, since Clark wasn't mentioned on Hardball, it seems some of the "24/7" media coverage ain't working out too well for Dean: he's the one who gets hit over the head whenever Bush gets a boost, even if other Dems do even worse.

[Woodstock]

61. Both of your statements are false

Please rethink this strategy of attacking Dean to promote your candidate by posting exaggerations.

I'd much rather hear positive things about your candidate. Please educate us as to why we should vote for him.

[mb7588a]

30. Anybody got a link to the poll? nt

[bobbyboucher]

31. OOoh, Noooo! We all better panic!

What is up with all the fucking panic around here. Saddam was bound to be caught sooner or later. If this ridiculous war doesn't get worse before it gets better I'll eat my hat. Iraq is a timebomb. The religious over there could start a civil war any day. Nobody knows what will happen and the US isn't exactly prepared for the worst.

Peace would be great, but it ain't likely. Dean is right about the war. It was wrong for so many reasons. But that doesn't mean Saddam being captured is bad. It just means that we went about it the wrong way and for the wrong reasons and were lied to all the way.

[TrueAmerican]

39. Wake up and smell the coffee

Put down the Vermont Maple. Dean campaign is imploding. :nuke: Drink :donut: coffee, wake up! and find a great candidate. Who could that be? hint: look at sig.

[MoonRiver]

42. So true!

Clark in '04!
:kick:

[VolcanoJen]

45. Clark took a bigger hit in this poll than Dean did.

I'm a Clark supporter, too, but I think it's ludicrous to suggest that the Dean campaign is "imploding." He was just endorsed by Al Gore, he's surged in the polls, and were it not for Operation Snake Hole, he'd be gracing the cover of Newsweek Magazine this week.

[jwb48]

47. Lying us into a war is enough

This campaign should be about lying the American people into an unnecessary war! No matter what happens from here that was so incredibly wrong and costly to us in terms of our country's credibility, money and lives that whatever happens from here Bush should be held accountable. We should stay focused. What wars will he lie his way into if we give him another 4 years? Besides Saddam in captivity is not as positive for the administration today as it was Sunday and we are only two days away. We should stay focused and not dance to every media tune being played.

[Vitruvius]

43. If ALL the Democratic candidates would attack Bu$h instead of each other,

Bu$h would be dead meat by now.

If you have Rethugs attacking Dems, the corporate media attacking Dems, AND DEMS ATTACKING DEMS, guess what? We will LOSE in '04!

My candidate (Kucinich) does not attack other Dems. Neither does Moseley-Braun or Sharpton. Can your candidate (whoever he is) say the same? If not, are you prepared to tell him that you find his conduct unacceptable, and that you expect him to compete for the nomination by attacking Bu$h and putting forth ideas for a better America -- and not by destructive and transparently childish attacks on other Dems?

In 1980, Ronald Reagan formulated "the 11th Commandment for Republicans": "Thou shalt speak no ill of thy fellow Republicans." It worked; they all ganged up on Carter, from the beginning of the primary season on, and Carter lost.

It's time we learned from the Rethugs on this matter. Party loyalty works.

Will your candidate agree to "the 11th Commandment for Democrats": "Thou shalt speak no ill of thy fellow Democrats"? And then pound Bu$h -- and only Bu$h -- into the DIRT?

If we do this, we can win. If we stay with the "Democratic circular firing squad", we will deserve to lose (for stupidity), and we will lose.

Vitruvius

P.S: In fairness, Mr. Dean began by not criticizing other Democratic candidates, and still does less of it than the other leading candidates. If the other leading candidates cannot learn from Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, or Sharpton, can they at least learn from Dean?

[Woodstock]

50. Kucinich has attacked Dean repeatedly

They are ALL guilty of attacking each other. And I wish to heaven they would stop.

[Vitruvius]

52. Ouch. Can you PM me with a link?

Thanks.

Vitruvius

[Woodstock]

59. Check out the debate videos on CSPAN

or transcripts. That's usually where I hear Kucinich bashing Dean.

& I'm not singling out Kucinich. Dean has bashed the others, as well.

I wish they'd all cut it out.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Kucinich criticizes Dean for these things

1) saying he wouldn't cut military spending
2) saying the US should stay in Iraq for years
3) saying he'll fix NAFTA instead of withdrawing from it

[jwb48]

51. AGREE!

[LuminousX]

44. Polls are guides, polls shouldn't dictate who we nominate

I'm not going to change who I believe is going to be the best President based on a poll.

By posting this this way, you are saying we should only allow polls to dictate who is running/will be president. Is that what you really want?

Then which polls are the OFFICIAL polls?

[NavajoRug]

49. We can't ignore this, and I think it points to a serious problem . . .

. . . that certainly can't be ignored. This Democratic Party has not had a cohesive message for a long time. Regardless of who is nominated to run in 2004, we have to come up with some serious ideas and do a good job of selling them to the voters.

And they have to be ideas that help define the differences between us and the GOP, too.

[_Jumper_]

53. Good post

And we also need a media empire to disseminate our viewpoint like the Republicans have.

[Woodstock]

58. It would help sell our viewpoint if you didn't single out candidates

when something applies to many of them. Posting negative things about another candidate is not the most effective way of promoting your candidate. When something clearly applies to them all, and you single one candidate out (and not the one you support), your message is likely to be viewed with antagonism and/or suspicion. How does that get the Democratic message out? How does this help us win elections? We may not have a media empire, but we have each other. How can we work toether to accomplish our common goal of removing Bush from office? By starting a petty argument thread with an inflammatory statement, or by showing consideration to each other. Reread your initial thread post, after reading all the replies, and ask yourself what you have accomplished - would it not have been more productive to 1) post a link from a reliable and impartial source, instead of hearsay from Hardball and 2) make a more general statement rather than single out one candidate, since all Dems had a dip due to the Sadaam discovery. This approach might have led to brainstorming, rather than bickering.

[NavajoRug]

60. A media empire only works . . .

. . . if it has something of substance to disseminate.

Look what happened to Congress back in 1994. The GOP went into that mid-term election with a cohesive message. The "Contract With America" was a stroke of genius -- "This is what we are going to do if you elect us, and this is how we will do it."

We need a message, and a method, just like that -- "This is the problem, this is the solution, and this is how we will do it."

A message that says, "This is the problem, and if you elect me I assure you I have a solution" is just not going to cut it.

[_Jumper_]

64. I agree

I agreed with your post.

[NavajoRug]

66. Sorry, I should have acknowledged that . . . ;-)

Thanks!

[VolcanoJen]

65. The most interesting fact in this poll...

... shows up at the very end of the article, in my opinion.

http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3721220&p1=0

Dean did slip in the head-to-head matchup with Bush, falling from 39 percent support Saturday to 31 percent on Sunday. But nearly all of the lost supporters moved into the "neither" or "not sure" categories, as Bush gained only one point.

Could this be an indication that voters are willing to give a Democratic candidate a chance, but have moved away from Dean and into a "shopping around" mindset?

[West Coast Democrat]

67. Gallup Poll, Oct 27, 2000: Bush 52%, Gore 39%

This was, what, a week before the 2000 election?!!!

Please, ignore Gallup polls. They've got to have about the worst track record of all the major polls.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/tracking.poll/

[number6]

69. "Bu$h would be dead meat by now."

"If ALL the Democratic candidates would attack Bu$h instead of each other"
YES WHEN ?? !!!! why aren't they

[Kool Kitty]

70. self-deleted.

Posted in wrong place. Duh.

[mzmolly]

71. I dunno where are the rest of the Dems against Bush?

c'mon this is one day after we found Saddam and the sheeple have been told to think Dean's unpatriotic. Can we ignore this?

[Kool Kitty]

72. I think that's the answer-

"...this is one day after we found Saddam." Bush got a post "got 'im" bump. Give it a few days, and Dean's numbers will go back up. I'm just glad that they found Hussein now and not October, 2004.