Kerry, Dean ahead in latest poll

[Khephra]

DURHAM - John Kerry and Howard Dean lead in a New Hampshire poll that indicates no presidential candidate has won the hearts of likely Democratic primary voters.

Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts was at 18 percent and former Vermont Gov. Dean was at 16 percent in the Granite State poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire and released Monday.

Almost a third of those surveyed said they remain undecided, while 14 percent said they would prefer New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said she does not plan to run for president in 2004.

And in more bad news for the Democrats, only three-fourths of the Democratic primary voters said they will vote for the Democratic candidate against President Bush.

more.......................

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/07082003/news/38239.htm

[Rose Siding]

1. "And in *more* bad news..."??

I missed the first bad news. Can it be that the writer wants me to imagine that bad news preceded this remark, encouraged by the suggestion that it is so?

[ibegurpard]

6. I guess I missed that too.

What's the first bad news again? That 1/3 of Democrats are still undecided months out? I don't know how that's bad.

[Mithras61]

2. Did I read that right?

47% of respondents don't like any of the current Dem candidates, but only 25% of respondents won't vote for a Democrat?

Sounds like they didn't screen the respondents very well to me. 25% of people planing on voting in the Dem primary don't plan to vote for a Dem in the general election sounds pretty bogus to me.

[lfairban]

5. Not really bogus.

%20 of the Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. I would say that is why Gore lost the election, but I haven't heard how many Republicans voted for Gore.

[Bandit]

9. Again ~Gore did NOT lose the election

You sound like one of the twenty-five percent. And I do not believe 20% of all Democrats voted for Bush* in 2000. More propaganda IMO unless you can provide a reliable link for your stat.

[lfairban]

15. I apologize.

I should have said that was the reason the race was so close.

I don't have a link, but the 20% figure came from another DU member that was confirming something else I read, that more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader.

You doubt that also?

[kwolf68]

3. This is good

we don't want our camp to peak too soon.

Bush still has solid +50 numbers. Another year to see the corruption of his administration and him for the chimpy piece of shit he is combined with some time for the Dems to gain momentum is just fine.

Despite what all these polls say from both sides...I feel good about where the Dems are.

[Adamocrat]

4. Dr. Dean On The Move!

Dr. Dean is on the rise, it seems. I suspect that more Democratic voters will tune in once the race heats up a bit. Most of my Democratic-leaning friends and relatives really had no idea who was running. (Of course, I'm proselytize for Dr. Dean, but I also tell them about the others.)

-A

[eric_schafer]

7. RAW

hey, I like your sigline! i just finished reading Prometheus Rising. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

oh, and GO DEAN!

[Khephra]

10. I got the quote from his new book

"TSOG: The Thing That Ate The Constitution"

PR is one of the best books I've ever read. It really DID change my life.

[Rose Siding]

8. In 2001, the NH Sec of State stats for

a University study, said that the break down in NH for parties is:

Dems 27%, Pubs 36% and Independents 37%

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/2000elec.pdf


It would appear that the prize lay with the indies in NH.

[goobergunch]

11. full poll results

Two hundred sixty-six (266) randomly selected likely Democratic primary voters were interviewed by telephone between June 17 and July 6, 2003. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/-6 percent. <That's one of the biggest MoE's I've ever seen-GG>

Almost six months before the 2004 New Hampshire primary, Granite State Democrats are still largely undecided about who they will vote for. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry currently has a narrow lead over former Vermont Governor, Dr. Howard Dean, but other candidates, both declared and undeclared, are well within striking distance of the
leaders. Eighteen percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they plan to vote for Kerry, 16 percent prefer Dean, 11 percent say they will vote for Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, 3 percent prefer Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, and 2 percent favor North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Florida Senator Bob Graham, former Illinois Senator Carol Mosely-Braun, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and New York activist Al Sharpton each get less than
2 percent of the vote.

But perhaps the most important message from this poll is that most Granite State Democrats are undecided or prefer someone who has not declared they are a candidate. Although she is not a candidate, 14 percent of likely Democratic primary voters prefer New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 3 percent prefer retired General Wesley
Clark, and almost one-third, 30 percent, are undecided. “Most Democratic voters have not yet focused their attention on
the primary and will not until later in the fall,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the UNH Survey Center. “The fact that a significant percentage of voters prefer someone who is not even a declared candidate shows that the race is wide open.”

A possible reason for their lack of attention is that there is a lack of confidence among Democratic voters that they can win in November. Only 76 percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they will vote for the Democratic candidate against George Bush in the November 2004 general election. Furthermore, 42 percent think that Bush will win the November election, only 38 percent think the Democratic candidate will win, and 20 percent don’t know who will
win.

http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/dem070703.pdf

Given that they asked about Hillary (who's not running), I consider this poll to be invalid and will not use it in PollTrakker.

[bushisanidiot]

12. No real is going to vote for Bush. No way.

"And in more bad news for the Democrats, only three-fourths of the Democratic primary voters said they will vote for the Democratic candidate against President Bush. "

And that 1/4 of "dems" who claim they'll vote vote AWOL aren't dems.. they're freepers. All they know how to do is lie and try to scew polls. They're in for a wake up call on election day. The tidal wave is coming!

[dolstein]

16. Sorry, but you're kidding yourself

The Democratic rank and file isn't nearly as liberal as the Democratic activists who tend to vote in primaries. The Democrats may suffer a small number of defections on the left by nominating a moderate, but thats nothing compared to the number of defections in the middle that would happen if the Democrats nominated someone like Dean or Kerry.

[jmags]

17. The thing is...Dean is moderate

He's been painted as liberal by the media, and he's certainly used that to his advantage in this early stage of primaries - but there's no escaping the fact that his public record is one of a centrist...which is something that will get out should he win the nomination.

Also remember, that most democrats aren't half as informed as those on DU are...I believe that whomever the candidate is, once the democratic message is allowed to see some daylight, we will not see a number anywhere near as high as 24%.

[dolstein]

18. . . . running as a liberal

It was DEAN'S decision to run as a liberal. The press isn't labeling him -- Dean has labeled himself. He calls himself a liberal. He borrowed Wellstone's phrase about representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," which is, of course, a slap in the face to the Clinton/Gore-DLC wing of the party. He's not running as a "different kind of Democrat", he's running as a liberal throwback.

Dean could have run as a moderate. There's certainly enough in Dean's record as governor to justify that. But I guess Dean decided that wouldn't get him the nomination. So instead, Dean has done nothing but throw liberals red meat for the past year.

[ozone_man]

19. I think you are confused. Dean is not a liberal.

Telling the truth about the Iraq war and Bush deficit spending, etc., does not make him a liberal. He is a fiscal conservative. He is standing up to Bush like no one else, except for Kucinich. Bush is a liberal spender of the worst kind. He is creating the largest deficit ever recorded. Bush is wreaking havoc on the environment (not conservative).

Labels seem to have gone topsy turvy over the years. Dean has got it 100% right, he is going to get elected by supporting the fundamentals of the democratic party and making a clear difference from Bush.

[Rose Siding]

20. "He calls himself a liberal"

I don't think so. In fact what he has said is:

"I think it's pathetic that I'm considered the left-wing liberal," Dean said. "It shows just how far to the right this country has lurched."

[IndianaGreen]

23. There is a Clinton wing, a Gore wing, and a handful of DLC Jihadists

And Washington pundits, not known for being "flaming" liberals, have taken notice that the DLC's attacks on centrist Dean is because the DLC fears it is losing its grip on the Democratic Party.

Should Dean fear his early success?
By Howard Fineman
SPECIAL TO MSNBC.COM

Democratic primary voters, not the guys at The Palm, pick the nominee, and the voters may actually like the fact that Dean opposed the war in Iraq and campaigned in support of court-ordered “civil unions” in Vermont. And it ignores the fact that on virtually every other issue Dean isn’t so much a flaming liberal as he is a flame-retardant moderate. Yes, were he the nominee, Dean might lose — big time — to Bush. But primary voters don’t think in those terms; at least I don’t sense that they will in ’04. They are mad as hell and want someone to embody their anger.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/933970.asp?0dm=C2DGN

Howard Dean's trick
Monday, July 7, 2003 Posted: 11:53 AM EDT (1553 GMT)

It is not the medium -- radio, TV or the Internet -- which enlists and converts voters to a cause. It is the message -- what the candidate stands for and communicates -- that touches and moves voters.

At a time when a large chunk of the Democratic Party membership was strongly opposed to President George W. Bush and his advocacy of a pre-emptive U.S. war against Iraq, the leadership of the Democratic Party -- especially "first-tier" presidential candidates Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina, along with Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri -- stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Republican president. Howard Dean spoke to -- and for -- the millions of Democrats who were against that war.

That is message! Now, when the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll asks, "All in all, do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over or not?" and a growing 42 percent of Americans answer, "No," it is understandable why, to more than a few Democrats, Dean looks to be wise, as well as brave.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/column.shields.opinion.dean/index.html

[loyalsister]

22. On one point,

I agree with you most people who identify themselves as Democrats do not hold highly progressive views. As a matter of fact, many did desert for Bush when they perceived him to be in the middle. I have talked to them.
I disagree that a Dean or Kerry nomination would alienate those voters. Dean is very much a centrist, and his position ARE appealing to people in the middle and even some of the more sensible Republicans (oddly enough, they do exist). The main contrast between Kerry and Dean is that Kerry does not want to roll back ALL of Bush's tax cuts. While, the tax cut policy was misnamed when it was called conservative (it was RADICAL), Kerry may LOOK more conservative than Dean in that area to some voters. Not only that, there's the Iraq vote.

[ozone_man]

13. Bad news is there are only 200 democrats in NH.

Nojust kidding.

My prediction: Dean will edge out Kerry in the primary in NH and win easily in the general election.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

14. What??

"Only 76 percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they will vote for the Democratic candidate against George Bush in the November 2004 general election."

What the hell does that mean? Will they vote for Bush? Another party? Not vote at all? This makes no sense. These are Dems saying -- not knowing who the candidate will be -- that they won't vote against Bush?

How can they be "likely Democratic primary voters" but say they won't vote in November? That makes no sense at all. Who would bother to vote in the primary and then not in the General election? Can anyone surmise?

[w4rma]

24. June 1999, 78% of Democratic voters said...would consider voting for Gore

Gore drew comparable interest among Democrats four years ago. In June 1999, 78% of Democratic voters said they would consider voting for Gore.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=187
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=10945&mesg_id=10945&page=

[jimbot]

21. Quoting Dolstein

"The Democratic rank and file isn't nearly as liberal as the Democratic activists who tend to vote in primaries. The Democrats may suffer a small number of defections on the left by nominating a moderate, but thats nothing compared to the number of defections in the middle that would happen if the Democrats nominated someone like Dean or Kerry."

<sarcasm>
Absolutely right...lets just all vote for Lieberman now.
</sarcasm>