New Poll: 2008 Dem candidate

[ProSense]

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Aug. 9-13, 2006. N=1,219 registered voters nationwide, including 407 Democrats.

"Now I am going to read you the names of some possible candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. AFTER I READ ALL THE NAMES, please tell me which one you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's candidate for president." If unsure: "Well as of today, to whom do you most lean?" Names rotated

............................ALL....Democrats
% %
Hillary Clinton...........29%....40%
Al Gore...................13%....18%
John Edwards...........11%....11%
John Kerry.................9%....11%
Joe Biden..................6%......6%
Bill Richardson............5%......4%
Mark Warner..............3%......2%
Russ Feingold.............3%......2%
Other (vol.)...............2%......1%
None (vol.)..............16%......4%
Unsure......................3%......1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

Questions:

Hillary has more support among Democrats than any of the other candidates (22% more than Gore)?

Where is Clark?

How does Kerry (the only one) drop support in the all category?

Richardson and Warner are ahead of Feingold?

[derby378]

1. They didn't poll too many people, did they?

I consider the findings suspect.

[karynnj]

19. The sample size is not bad

Increasing the sample size will make the moe of each percent smaller - but this can be seen to mean that Hillary is still the favorite - Gore is slightly pulling away from the rest of the pack. This is a little higher than she has been recently. Gore is higher than ha has been.

Kerry and Edwards are tied and near where they have been.

[RufusEarl]

2. They didn't ask me !!

[blm]

3. Over the last ten years the polls have been generated to INSTILL a desired

perception.

The polls won't mean anything until after Dems actually start debating.

[Wickerman]

4. Way undersampled Democrats n/t

[clmbohdem]

6. The smaller the sample, the more margin of error

[flaminbats]

10. Isn't the margin of error 5%?

if that is the case, Hillary is the only real front-runner in this poll!

If that margin of error is taken into consideration, there is no significant difference between Kerry's support among Democratic and ALL voters in the poll. The same is true of Gore's support, both levels of support fall within the margin of error.

Feingold has the same level of support in both categories as do Warner and Richardson, when the margin of error is considered. But any poll that has a 4% or more margin of error isn't very helpful. The only thing this poll reveals IMO is that Hillary Clinton has a substantial advantage over other well known contenders, such as Al Gore and John Kerry. But both Kerry and Gore gave Bush a run for his money, so what does that say about Hillary?

[blm]

13. In fairness to those polled, how many do you think even HEARD about

voting machine fraud, or even know about the widespread election abuse? The corpmedia downplays it at every turn. And no Dem strategist can make money telling the truth about the machines.

[flaminbats]

17. polls are usually accurate in general elections..

they demonstrated in 2000 and 2004 that it would be close, and predicted accurately in 1992 and 1996 that Clinton would be the winner. Primaries with five or more candidates running, I don't think polls are an effective way of measuring public support, especially in regards to winning convention delegates or caucus voters. In 1992, I approved of Tsongas, Kerrey, Harkin, Clinton, and even Brown. I disapproved of Buchanan more than Bush, but certainly considered voting in the Republican primary for Buchanan.

BUT DON'T INSULT THOSE VOTING MACHINES, especially since I could see every vote casted by the person standing next to me!!! ;)

[HockeyMom]

5. I really, really don't want HIllary to run for President

We could do a lot better. Speaking as one of her constituents.

I would go with Edwards from the above list. Very eloquent and I like his message. Now more than ever, there ARE two Americas: rich and poor. The middle class is being annihilated.

[zcflint09]

7. No Clark = no legitmiacy

A terrible undersampling of canidates and i'm sure of pollers.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Clark almost by definition is an outsider to the political establishment

Wes Clark, unlike most of the people who routinely are promoted as potential Presidents, did not make politics his life ambition. It's almost as if he didn't go to the right Ivy League School and belong to the right fraternity, he doesn't have that intricate web of connections with people who can scratch each other's backs.

I am not putting down politics by saying this, the ability to create working alliances and solidify support from targeted power players is also an important skill that is needed to govern effectively once in office. What I am saying is that inside the beltway players and the pundits who echo them are not naturally inclined to to give Clark the weight that some others feel he merits, because he doesn't have the profile and inside backers that they are familiar with and respond to. Right now 2008 is all about forecasting tea leaves based on a few routine variations on conventional wisdom. That is why Mark Warner has always been taken seriously as a Presidential contender, even though his polling support has never broken the mid single digit range at best. Of course Warner has real talent and ability and he can become a real contender, but so do at least a few dozen other Democrats who could run for President. Warner is completely untested outside of a single State's politics, but Warner was factored in immediately as one of the heavy weights, because Warner has the correct conventional "profile"; slightly liberal but mostly moderate Southern Governor, with connections to money, that conventional wisdom will knee jerk react to.

If we want someone who is a true outsider like Clark to make waves in the 2008 Presidential race, we have to shatter the conventional wisdom through our own organizing, building on the real gifts and strengths that Wes Clark has to offer America. If enough of us stand by him as a viable potential President, Wes Clark will be exactly that.

[zann725]

8. Of the top 4, I vote FIRMLY for Kerry. Hilary and Edwards are DLC, and

Gore simply is focused on the invironment and other issues. At most, I feel Gore would run as VP.

JK, still MY choice...now and always. Dreamer that I may be...

[ginnyinWI]

9. count me in, too--

If Kerry's on the ballot, he's got my vote.

[karynnj]

22. Me too

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. Edwards isn't DLC. Check the DU archives.

Unlike Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman and some others running in 2004, he wasn't invited to speak and he didn't attend either DLC convention in 2003. If he was DLC, you have to wonder why thought that he didn't need to solicit their support and spend time with them when he was running for President. Furthermore, NPR reported that the DLC did not like him because he voted against half the trade bills while he was a Senator (he voted for 3 and against 3, while all the other Democrats running in 2004 in Congress voted for all 6). The DLC's primary concern these days is free trade.

[karynnj]

21. He was DLC - he was on there list

other than trade, he was a Southern centrist - the mold the DLC was cast from.

[wisteria]

18. Senator Kerry is the only one that impresses me in this line up. He has

taken the lead and has set a path for others to follow. That is a true leader and a person deserving of the Presidency.

[rep the dems]

12. I really can't understand why Hillary has been the frontrunner for

so long. I really hope Clark, Gore, or almost any other democrat can beat her.

[flpoljunkie]

14. It does not say how many of the 1,219 were Rethugs who want Hillary to be

the nominee to drive up their own turnout and fundraising.

[democrank]

15. One of the best missing.....

Wes Clark.

[ruggerson]

16. Why some of you expect Democrats nationally to reflect DU

is a total mystery.

DU is about 80 degrees to the left of where the vast majority of Democrats are.

I bet this poll is just about exactly where Democrats stand right now.

Having said that, early polls like this are mostly about name recognition, and thus are pretty useless.

[karynnj]

20. Kerry was not the only one to drop in "all"

Hillary went 40 to 2, Gore 18 to 13. The Republicans may prefer a weaker Democratic candidate and they see these 3 the stongest - or note the large "none".