New Poll Shows Most Americans Agree W/ Dean About Saddam's Capture

[burning bush]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031220/nysa012a_1.html

In a recent Newsweek Poll, 51% of Americans say Hussein's capture hasn't made them safer or more secure...and 52 percent say it probably won't have much effect in reducing the number of attacks on U.S. military personnel...

also -

Four Dem candidates are in a statistical dead heat in a match up against Bush (MOE = +/- 3%).

Bush vs. Clark = 53% to 41%
Bush vs. Lieberman = 52% to 40%
Bush vs. Dean = 53% to 40%
Bush vs. Gephardt = 54% to 38%

(Braun, Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, and Sharpton and were not mentioned in this article)

For this Newsweek poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,010 adults aged 18 and older on December 18-19, 2003. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Even though the public shares Deans doubts about the Saddam capture, it seems that the event translated into a bump (3-4 points, across the board) for Bush.

That Bush received a bump is understandable. That the bump was close to , or within the MOE of the poll is pretty scary for the Republicans, I would imagine.

BTW, congrats to all the Dems running against Bush. Does anyone remember where Al Gore polled at the same time last election?

I'm sure we all remember how Gore had done when it was all over - he broke the all time vote total for any Dem.

I think it should be our goal, regardless of the Dem nominee, to bury Gore's record in the dust. In fact, I would bet that nothing would make Al Gore happier, or mare satisfied, than that achievement :)

[sasquatch]

1. Told you so!

TOLD YOU SO, TOLD YOU SO, TOLD YOU SO:P :P :P :P :P

[ClintonTyree]

2. The longer.............

the quagmire exists, the lower those numbers for Bush will go, and go, and go. This is very hopefull.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Thanks for Posting!

Wait until we settle on our candidate....I think you'll see a new set up numbers that reflect an actual candidate against Bush. I truly believe that the honest supporters of the other candidates who aren't selected will coalesce around our nominee and that should provide a significant boost in our polling. I can't wait for primary season to end.

[sandnsea]

4. 52% say it'll make them vote for Bush

56% say they think it'll prove the link between Saddam and al qaeda.

And

"Meanwhile, 43 percent of registered voters say they think that Dean has either a good chance (17%) or some chance (26%) of beating Bush in next year's election (down from 53 percent last week who said Dean had some chance or a good chance of beating Bush); 25 percent said he had very little chance in this week's poll and 17 percent say no chance whatsoever, up from 10 percent last week"

This had an affect. While people (rightly) don't think it made them safer (TODAY), it's definitely had an affect.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

11. Intellectual skills

Let's try using them. What good does it do to ignore that it hurt Howard? What good does it do to ignore all the dynamics at play in this election? It might make some people feel good temporarily, but it doesn't answer the hard questions of where the American people, as a whole, really are at; and for who and on what issues they will really vote.

[burning bush]

13. It didn't just "hurt Howard"

It hurt all the Dems. But not to the extent you might expect, not IMO.

Still, Howard Dean is the candidate taking criticism for holding a position on Saddam's capture that supposedly sits outside of the mainstream of American thought.

This article shows (among other things) that this criticism is not justified.

[sandnsea]

15. Newsweek: The Bush Bounce

They're reporting their own poll a little differently. Your original post suggested that there was no affect on Howard based on capturing Saddam. It's just not true and hiding our heads in the sand won't make it so. 2/3 of the country likes the way Bush is handling terrorism, that's in the poll too. We have to have a candidate who is equal or better than Bush on security before we can ever expect to get to the economy.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3768353/

[burning bush]

16. Let them report the poll any way they like

They asked the question, they reported the answer, I brought it out here.

I suggested nothing other than what the poll suggested. The political fallout from Bush's success (if you can call this success Bush's!) affects all Dems.

Here is what the article in YOUR link says about Dean:

Bush’s advantage over Howard Dean and other major Democratic presidential candidates in trial heats has now expanded to the double digits, the widest margin in three months. Dean remains in the lead among Democrats, with 26 percent of registered Democrats and self-defined “Democratic leaners” picking the former Vermont governor for the nomination.

and again...

But if the election were held today, Dean would trail Bush by a 13-point margin (53 to 40 percent) vs. 7 points a week ago.

Let me point out that I reported that 53% to 40% edge just as given in the article. Actually, the article about the poll that I quoted was on Yahoo, and mentioned this about Dean's 6 point drop against Bush.

In the last Newsweek poll, Clark had the best chance against Bush (43 to 49 for Bush) and Dean was second (42 to 49 percent for Bush).

So, both Clark and Dean lost 6 points to Bush after the capture. Again, the capture is not an anti-Dean issue, it is a pro Bush issue! It's an issue that is affecting all Dems, apparently to a precisely equal degree

Now, I'm going to help you out here, beause it's for my own ultimate good!

There are two lines in the Yahoo article that would seem to counter the title of my thread. Here is the first:

43 percent of registered voters say they think that Dean has either a good chance (17%) or some chance (26%) of beating Bush in next year's election (down from 53 percent last week who said Dean had some chance or a good chance of beating Bush); 25 percent said he had very little chance in this week's poll and 17 percent say no chance whatsoever, up from 10 percent last week.

So here it looks as if Dean's position may have caused the 10 point switch, but in fact, nothing is said of the other candidates and how they were affected. Therefore, based solely on that data, it is impossible to know if the 10 point difference comes from the way Dean is perceived, or from the way Bush is perceived.

Here's the second line:

On their opinions of Dean...only 21 percent say he shares their views on Iraq (33 percent disagree).

Pay attention to what this says. The poll is asking about Dean's views "On Iraq." My thread spoke about Dean's position on Saddam's capture. The two are closely related, but far from identical.

Furthermore, I would bet that most of the people who answered negatively about Dean in that question believe Dean is an anti-war peacenick, and that he wanted to appease Saddam.

These beliefe are, of course, untrue. Often reported, but untrue.

Take Dean out of the equation, but leave his position "US is not safer having captured Saddam" and you get the 51% agreement.

It's true. People agree with Dean. They might not like it, but they do :)

[sandnsea]

17. I don't see the Clark drop

And you also miss the change in whether Dean can beat Bush, I think. And the overall inclination of people with Iraq which is the main point. Nobody is saying we're automatically safe today, nobody ever said that. That's the answer anybody would give if asked directly "Are you safer?". Well, no, not right this minute. But that's not the reality of the capture of Saddam and people know that as well. The other questions are more refelective of people's general feelings about the capture as a whole. But never mind about any of it, the economy is the issue.

[burning bush]

18. You may be looking at the wrong URL

I think you are looking here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3768353/

Don't. that isn't the article I used as my source. Look here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031220/nysa012a_1.html

This is the url from which I quoted, and which inspired this thread.

(see the last sentence of the 7th paragraph.)

[sandnsea]

20. It's the same poll

But I see the figures for Clark in the Yahoo link. And it looks bad. But I still say that's why we need someone with foreign policy experience as a candidate. More credibility when you're saying things that the majority of Americans aren't agreeing with. In general. Which the poll shows.

[burning bush]

21. Ok, I understand your sentiment

whether I agree or not is beside the point.
I hear what you are saying.

Here is my big question to Clark supporters who are convinced that military honors will make a difference to the voters.

If you are correct, why was Bush able to convince voters that John McCain was soft on veteran issues, and not to be trusted with foreign policy?

Say what you will about McCain, but he was a war hero in a way that few men ever are. Getting injured in combat on more than one occasion shows your ability to push yourself to amazing limits of duty and honor, but McCain was a POW, he was offered a quick release because of his father's importance and position, but he turned it down, preferring to remain with his fellow prisoners than to take an easy road that wasn't open to the others.

That is just beyond heroic.

Yet, the Bush machine turned McCain into an American liability, and crushed him in the South.

What makes anyone think that any Dem, 4 Star General or Medical Deferant, would stand up to that type of character assasination?

A typical candidate will go nowhere against Bush.

This is why I support Howard Dean, because his candidacy is atypical. Dean empowers people, he is changing the way we learn about a candidate, the way we reach out to voters, and the way a candidate raises money.

Dean's organization makes him atypical.

Dean and Clark are not so far apart on policy. Clark is my second choice, because like Dean, Clark is atypical. Dean simply has a magic wand at his disposal - he has the ability to rewrite the rules as he goes forward, and as we go with him.

[sandnsea]

22. McCain was a "loose cannon"

And he did that weird Star Wars thing, remember?? It's bizarre to think of McCain as the loose cannon at this point. And then there was the obvious money/media machine.

I don't think they'll be able to do this with Wes as efficiently because we've seen it already plus he's a General. I think even the far right would be offended if the Bushies hit on a General too hard. They're limited in their attacks.

I understand what you're saying about Dean. It's the only reason I remotely give him a chance. But I don't think he'd get away with his "rewriting the rules" in the GE. The media has to play along and I have no reason to believe they would. And while his supporters are willing to forgive, or interpret anything he says, the way they want to, the regular voters out there aren't going to be enamored in the same way. People who desperately want a Democrat to win aren't impressed with his "rewriting the rules"; how do you think people who aren't that invested either way are going to respond? And we need them to win.

None of the candidates are really that far apart on what they're presenting as policy, well except Kucinich and Lieberman. I just want the one who I know will implement that policy and who has the best chance to win.

[jmaier]

28. Different electorates

Bush was appealing to conservative republican base and right leaning independents. Against Clark, you have other centrists and indepedents in the mix that weren't in play versus McCain.

[Scott Lee]

26. Bush bounce? six or seven points - and that will sink quickly

Frankly I was shocked he didn't get at least a double digit bounce right off the bat. That he only attained 6 or 7 points is almost miraculous, and should invigorate every campaign with a candidate who has been anti-War.

I realize that you comb these messages only for tidbits you feel might shine on Kerry, but for once go for a larger perspective. These polls are overall great news for getting Bush out.

[Andromeda]

19. Mmmm, it actually looks pretty good for Dean.

Kerry is the one you should be worried about. He's not even in the top four. Too bad. I would kind of like to know how he does against Bush.

[sandnsea]

23. Heads Up

No longer any reason to talk about Kerry, is there? A Dean thread is officially all about Dean.

[deminflorida]

5. I guess you can spin anything...but please post the real

headline here in this link:

NEWSWEEK POLL: A Majority (52 %) of Registered Voters Say the Capture of Saddam Hussein Will Make Them More Likely to Vote for Bush

Most Americans (56 %) Believe Capture Will Prove Link Between Al Qaeda And Iraq;

[burning bush]

6. Jeez! ....Read the WHOLE Title!

Heres the whole Title:

NEWSWEEK POLL: A Majority (52 %) of Registered Voters Say the Capture of Saddam Hussein Will Make Them More Likely to Vote for Bush
Saturday December 20, 12:58 pm ET

Most Americans (56 %) Believe Capture Will Prove Link Between Al Qaeda And Iraq; 51 Percent Say it Hasn't Made Them Safer
Registered Voters Evenly Split On Bush Re-Election (46% Yes; 46% No)

********************************************************

The true title speaks both of Bush's victories and failures. Your accusation conveniently leaves off the portion of the title that I emphasized!

WHO IS SPINNING WHOM?

I was looking to report some good news, not trying to hide the bad (I did write that Bush gets a bump out of the deal, remember?) AND my number were accurate! I used NO spin to deliver the data.

WTF were you looking for? Some way to dampen Dem spirits? Did my mention of Dean piss you off?

Is a little good news that painful for you?

[ClintonTyree]

7. No spin.............

these are as good as the numbers for the unelected fraud are going to get. Everybody's still basking in the warm glow of Bush's Turkey trot and the capture of the man who had nothing to do with 9/11.
As a Dem candidate emerges (whoever it is), the "war" in Iraq continues with no abatement of hostilities and more soldiers come home in "transfer tubes", Bush's numbers will plummet.
I'm NOT wishing harm on our forces, I want them home NOW. We all know however that Bush's ego will not permit a withdrawel of forces until his puppet government can handle the day to day machinations of running the country. With the present political climate in Iraq this is going to take longer than even Bush wants to admit. We'll be there well after Bush's timeline of next spring or summer. The battle will continue and IMO only get worse as time goes on.
These are the reasons I believe Bush is toast. Of course things could change between now and then, but at the present rate I can't see them changing enough to severely hurt our eventual candidate.

[Chomskyite]

8. Yep

"I think it should be our goal, regardless of the Dem nominee, to bury Gore's record in the dust. In fact, I would bet that nothing would make Al Gore happier, or mare satisfied, than that achievement :)"

It most likely would mean Gore gets Secretary of State or Defense . . . if he wants the job.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[burning bush]

12. How are we in serious trouble?

Your post wasn't clear as to what you feel is delusional, it wasn't clear as to what you think "most polls don't show," it wasn't clear about what you see as fantasyland or as "real."

Can you straighten all that out for the thread, please?

[Old and In the Way]

14. No, I think you're in serious trouble here.

Time to go home now.

[burning bush]

24. Kick

:)

[dolstein]

25. What statistical dead heat?

George Bush's lead in each of the match-ups is greater than the margin of error.

[Toucano]

27. The dead heat is

between our candidates.

Once we settle on one, the gap between GWB and Unnamed Dem, will shrink.