Full Version: Is the primary really down to a two man race?
Well the media has made its choices clear. Dean is the hardcore far left favorite with the money and no chance of actually being President. While Clark is the hard charging centrist new comer (raising 3.5 million in two weeks) who has far more appeal in a general election, but whose reception by part insiders is still to be determined.
If you read the New York Times or the Washington Post you'd think everyone else in the race is miles behind these two. When in reality all the polls are tight. But the media's perceptions play a huge role in voter behavior. So does anyone think Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, or any of the others really have a shot in the primaries since they've already been counted out by most of the media outlets?
If you read the New York Times or the Washington Post you'd think everyone else in the race is miles behind these two. When in reality all the polls are tight. But the media's perceptions play a huge role in voter behavior. So does anyone think Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, or any of the others really have a shot in the primaries since they've already been counted out by most of the media outlets?
The people confound the media from time to time. No, I don't like it when the media decides which candidates are the most likely. It is much better to watch a leader emerge from the pack.
Clark and Dean are good prospects, except for Clark's comments about the Bush leadership when Bush was his boss. He's had some 'splainin' to do these past two times. I can understand why he said what he did because of the circumstances at the time. But the other contenders are scoring points by drawing attention to it.
Of course Kerry and Gephardt are old hands at campaigns. Their schmoozability is uncontested. They could gather up momentum by virtue of the fact that they have Congressional experience and they don't sound like Dubya (like Lieberman).
We need to let the primaries make the selection. The press really shouldn't actively be in the winnowing process. That's the job of the voters.
I think Dean needs to loosen up somewhat. He seems a little too controlled, if that's possible. The perception of aloofness or impassivity will not help him. He needs to smile more, and maybe to joke every now and then.
I am closest in agreement with Dennis Kucinich, and I wish they had given him more time to speak during this last debate.
Clark and Dean are good prospects, except for Clark's comments about the Bush leadership when Bush was his boss. He's had some 'splainin' to do these past two times. I can understand why he said what he did because of the circumstances at the time. But the other contenders are scoring points by drawing attention to it.
Of course Kerry and Gephardt are old hands at campaigns. Their schmoozability is uncontested. They could gather up momentum by virtue of the fact that they have Congressional experience and they don't sound like Dubya (like Lieberman).
We need to let the primaries make the selection. The press really shouldn't actively be in the winnowing process. That's the job of the voters.
I think Dean needs to loosen up somewhat. He seems a little too controlled, if that's possible. The perception of aloofness or impassivity will not help him. He needs to smile more, and maybe to joke every now and then.
I am closest in agreement with Dennis Kucinich, and I wish they had given him more time to speak during this last debate.
Heh just as I read this I have the newest poll from gallup open in another window. I'll just link to it so as to avoid the plagarism patrol 
but its got Clark with 21% of the vote, Dean with 17%, and everyone else trailing by at least 4 points. Clark even wins amongst women, which is going to be key for him. I tell you the media has their story line written out, in February it'll be Clark vs Dean. That'll actually be a problem for the Democrats. Since you damn well know Nader is gonna be right there to scoop up all the radical liberals if and when Dean loses.
The media doesn't control our minds, but it does do alot to form the opinions of people who are too busy or lazy to really look into the candidates. I guess thats sad. But the only other systems we've ever known has been regional based voting or machine politics. I guess giving people the information to make their own choices is preferable, even if most folks never take the time to do so.
The poll is here http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031010.asp
but its got Clark with 21% of the vote, Dean with 17%, and everyone else trailing by at least 4 points. Clark even wins amongst women, which is going to be key for him. I tell you the media has their story line written out, in February it'll be Clark vs Dean. That'll actually be a problem for the Democrats. Since you damn well know Nader is gonna be right there to scoop up all the radical liberals if and when Dean loses.The media doesn't control our minds, but it does do alot to form the opinions of people who are too busy or lazy to really look into the candidates. I guess thats sad. But the only other systems we've ever known has been regional based voting or machine politics. I guess giving people the information to make their own choices is preferable, even if most folks never take the time to do so.
The poll is here http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031010.asp
Don't count Edwards out. 
IMO, he's the only canidate that has real class and kind of harkens back to Clinton or Carter, with that great Southern draw and sweety boy image. He's a good man.
IMO, he's the only canidate that has real class and kind of harkens back to Clinton or Carter, with that great Southern draw and sweety boy image. He's a good man.
I think Edward's problem is there isn't any unique appeal to him. He's not far left, so the Dean supporters ignore him. He's not the only contending southerner, so the pragmatic wing of the party isn't going to give him credit on that alone. Clark and Kerry are war heros with years of public service. Edwards had none before going to Congress.
He does seem like an honestly good man, but there is nothing about him that grabs peoples attention. Or the news medias, to get back to my crackpot conspiracy theory.
He does seem like an honestly good man, but there is nothing about him that grabs peoples attention. Or the news medias, to get back to my crackpot conspiracy theory.
To give a good, political non-answer, I'll say who I think is out. 
Lieberman might stick it out, but I think he only appeals to a small sliver of Democrats. He spends more time attacking his fellow candidates than he does making proposals or even attacking Bush. Sometimes, he just complains about the party in general. Thus far, he's been sustained on name recognition, but I think he has no where to go but down.
Sharpton may get a boost if he does well in the DC quasi-primary, but he's thankfully not in it to win (IMO), just to remind Dems that if we lose w/o the African American vote, we lose the election. He'll have a great deal of negotiating power if the he can mobilize black voters for a candidate who needs it, like possibly Dean.
I'm not certain that the theory that Mosely-Braun jumped in to pull voters away from Sharpton is entirely false. Either way, I think she's partially in it because it's nice to have a black woman vying for the pres. nomination of a major party. Maybe she'll stick it out for that- her language occasionally suggests she might really want to- but she also strikes me as somewhat a friendly insider. I'm hoping she jumps out before doing too poorly, and campaigns for another.
Kucinich. There's a thread on it. When the song says "fools to the left of me, jokers to the right . . ." he meant Kucinich and Lieberman. He'll incite Naderites to go down in flames with him in an orgy of vanity. If Nader runs for the Greens, I wouldn't be surprised if Dennis was out there actively aiding a 2000 repeat.
Wow, surprise surprise, that leaves alot of well-off white guys with simple names. Why can't Powell be a liberal Dem?
Edwards might pull it off as a "surprise" high-performer in the "3rd wave" (post Iowa/NH) primaries, and that could engender alot of coverage. If he plays all of that well, then he might take off. But that's alot of ifs.
Gebhardt has decent showings in Iowa and solid unions support, but comes with a lot of baggage in the eyes of important party factions. He might be the next biggest turn-off to Dean voters after Lieberman. I look for him to be a sort of consistent 2nd-to-4th in the primaries, but I don't think he'll do well enough to garner notice or support outside his base.
Kerry's problem, to me, is 1.) he's boring, 2.) he's too attackish. He's more liberal than Dean in someways, but he took the bait when Dean was bashing the other Dems as sell-outs and lost the argument out of charisma. If he could find energy, be more consistently charming, and draw a better contrast with Dean, he could become the frontrunner again. But I think it might be too late for him to capture much of an audience in a crowded field- maybe as the candidates get fewer, freeing up committed votes?
I don't know how literally you meant it, but I don't think the media has predetermined a Dean/Clark showdown. Clinton came from nowhere by not getting trounced as badly as he should have. That leaves room for anything that upsets that exact expectation- the combined probabilities surrounding the other top candidates- to capture media attention. I think Dean's rhetoric is far to the left of his record and he's canny enough a politico to moderate when the time comes, I also think Clark's main problems are organizing his campaign team/ grass roots and getting more face time to let Dems get used to the newcomer. The media might try to lead the horse to water, but it doesn't always drink; they report what's surprising. If Dean or Clark stall and another gets lucky, we'll soon forget it was ever "just" the two of them.
Lieberman might stick it out, but I think he only appeals to a small sliver of Democrats. He spends more time attacking his fellow candidates than he does making proposals or even attacking Bush. Sometimes, he just complains about the party in general. Thus far, he's been sustained on name recognition, but I think he has no where to go but down.
Sharpton may get a boost if he does well in the DC quasi-primary, but he's thankfully not in it to win (IMO), just to remind Dems that if we lose w/o the African American vote, we lose the election. He'll have a great deal of negotiating power if the he can mobilize black voters for a candidate who needs it, like possibly Dean.
I'm not certain that the theory that Mosely-Braun jumped in to pull voters away from Sharpton is entirely false. Either way, I think she's partially in it because it's nice to have a black woman vying for the pres. nomination of a major party. Maybe she'll stick it out for that- her language occasionally suggests she might really want to- but she also strikes me as somewhat a friendly insider. I'm hoping she jumps out before doing too poorly, and campaigns for another.
Kucinich. There's a thread on it. When the song says "fools to the left of me, jokers to the right . . ." he meant Kucinich and Lieberman. He'll incite Naderites to go down in flames with him in an orgy of vanity. If Nader runs for the Greens, I wouldn't be surprised if Dennis was out there actively aiding a 2000 repeat.
Wow, surprise surprise, that leaves alot of well-off white guys with simple names. Why can't Powell be a liberal Dem?
Edwards might pull it off as a "surprise" high-performer in the "3rd wave" (post Iowa/NH) primaries, and that could engender alot of coverage. If he plays all of that well, then he might take off. But that's alot of ifs.
Gebhardt has decent showings in Iowa and solid unions support, but comes with a lot of baggage in the eyes of important party factions. He might be the next biggest turn-off to Dean voters after Lieberman. I look for him to be a sort of consistent 2nd-to-4th in the primaries, but I don't think he'll do well enough to garner notice or support outside his base.
Kerry's problem, to me, is 1.) he's boring, 2.) he's too attackish. He's more liberal than Dean in someways, but he took the bait when Dean was bashing the other Dems as sell-outs and lost the argument out of charisma. If he could find energy, be more consistently charming, and draw a better contrast with Dean, he could become the frontrunner again. But I think it might be too late for him to capture much of an audience in a crowded field- maybe as the candidates get fewer, freeing up committed votes?
I don't know how literally you meant it, but I don't think the media has predetermined a Dean/Clark showdown. Clinton came from nowhere by not getting trounced as badly as he should have. That leaves room for anything that upsets that exact expectation- the combined probabilities surrounding the other top candidates- to capture media attention. I think Dean's rhetoric is far to the left of his record and he's canny enough a politico to moderate when the time comes, I also think Clark's main problems are organizing his campaign team/ grass roots and getting more face time to let Dems get used to the newcomer. The media might try to lead the horse to water, but it doesn't always drink; they report what's surprising. If Dean or Clark stall and another gets lucky, we'll soon forget it was ever "just" the two of them.
I've been rooting for Clark since before he even joined the race so maybe I'm biased a bit...but I still think he's going to win. 
Hello all, this is my first post. I just want to tell y'all my predictions for the primaries. I am still debating with myself on the candidates, but I will go for Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, or Edwards.
Gephardt will bow out after losing Iowa, not only because he needs to win it, but because he has very little cash on hand, and the AFL-CIO will likely not endorse a candidate. Most of Gephardt's voters are likely to migrate toward Edwards, giving him a small boost.
Lieberman won't make it to Iowa, he'll drop out, and most of Lieberman's voters will go to Clark, Edwards, or just stay home on election day.
Kucinich is in for the long haul, I like him a lot, he reminds us of what Democrats stand for. I don't see him leaving the race until the very end.
Kerry has a lot riding on New Hampshire, I don't think it is a must-win, but it will hurt him substantially if he loses. That being said, I believe he will take NH. He has the most cash on hand of any Dem, and has the Shaheen endorsement. That will help him a lot. I see him as a long shot in South Carolina, an important state.
Dean will probably win Iowa, as the caucus is made for people with good grassroots support. His campaign is not extremely strong, but I think Iowa will be a walk in the park for him. NH will be tougher for him than anyone realizes.
Clark is doing fairly well considering how long he has been in the race, but we must look past the national polls. In NH, IA, and SC, where it matters, he is trailing. He has a lot of catchup to play. One nice thing about him is that he has small expectations put on him, and could actually lose NH, IA, and SC, and still stay in the race. Remember, Clinton didn't win any of those three.
Carol will probably drop out shortly before the primaries start, or perhaps after Iowa. She has failed to ignite any support. This is unfortunate, as I really like her. Too bad.
Sharpton won't win, and we all know that, but it is imperative that he stays in the race. He is easily the funniest and wittiest one in the race, and perhaps the best overall speaker.
Edwards is actually my call to win it all. He is 4th in NH, 3rd in IA, and winning SC by 9 points. That is the best combined standing of all the candidates. Plus, he is the only candidate that didn't lose votes to the recent Dean surge, proving to me that he is the clear choice to voters who don't feel comfortable with Dean. If Dean keeps going up, Edwards is the only one that could survive his rise.
I really see the race as becoming a Dean-Edwards Showdown. It will be close, but in the end, I see Edwards winning the battle.
Gephardt will bow out after losing Iowa, not only because he needs to win it, but because he has very little cash on hand, and the AFL-CIO will likely not endorse a candidate. Most of Gephardt's voters are likely to migrate toward Edwards, giving him a small boost.
Lieberman won't make it to Iowa, he'll drop out, and most of Lieberman's voters will go to Clark, Edwards, or just stay home on election day.
Kucinich is in for the long haul, I like him a lot, he reminds us of what Democrats stand for. I don't see him leaving the race until the very end.
Kerry has a lot riding on New Hampshire, I don't think it is a must-win, but it will hurt him substantially if he loses. That being said, I believe he will take NH. He has the most cash on hand of any Dem, and has the Shaheen endorsement. That will help him a lot. I see him as a long shot in South Carolina, an important state.
Dean will probably win Iowa, as the caucus is made for people with good grassroots support. His campaign is not extremely strong, but I think Iowa will be a walk in the park for him. NH will be tougher for him than anyone realizes.
Clark is doing fairly well considering how long he has been in the race, but we must look past the national polls. In NH, IA, and SC, where it matters, he is trailing. He has a lot of catchup to play. One nice thing about him is that he has small expectations put on him, and could actually lose NH, IA, and SC, and still stay in the race. Remember, Clinton didn't win any of those three.
Carol will probably drop out shortly before the primaries start, or perhaps after Iowa. She has failed to ignite any support. This is unfortunate, as I really like her. Too bad.
Sharpton won't win, and we all know that, but it is imperative that he stays in the race. He is easily the funniest and wittiest one in the race, and perhaps the best overall speaker.
Edwards is actually my call to win it all. He is 4th in NH, 3rd in IA, and winning SC by 9 points. That is the best combined standing of all the candidates. Plus, he is the only candidate that didn't lose votes to the recent Dean surge, proving to me that he is the clear choice to voters who don't feel comfortable with Dean. If Dean keeps going up, Edwards is the only one that could survive his rise.
I really see the race as becoming a Dean-Edwards Showdown. It will be close, but in the end, I see Edwards winning the battle.
I think this is a 4-man race. Dean, Kerry, Clark and Gephardt. The two strongest candidates are obviously Dean and Clark. If Dean wins Iowa and New Hampshire it is a two-man race.
Clark has some name recognition and a bunch of stars on his shoulder. Dean had zero name recognition and was a doctor. Starting out Dean had almost nothing but has risen to being the front-runner. Clark has started with tons of resources and we'll see where he goes when he actually campaigns. Dean seems to the candidate who has accomplished the most so far. His supporters are devoted to helping him win and he has tremendous grassroots support. I don’t know if Clark can create the same swell of people on the grassroots level.
Clark has some name recognition and a bunch of stars on his shoulder. Dean had zero name recognition and was a doctor. Starting out Dean had almost nothing but has risen to being the front-runner. Clark has started with tons of resources and we'll see where he goes when he actually campaigns. Dean seems to the candidate who has accomplished the most so far. His supporters are devoted to helping him win and he has tremendous grassroots support. I don’t know if Clark can create the same swell of people on the grassroots level.
Ok fair and honest disclosure, I'm rooting for Clark. However I also actually campaigned for McCain and I think Clark is taking a page out of GWB's playbook here. Iowa and New Hampshire ONLY matter if you need to build up momentum to take super tuesday. Super tuesday is what matters. McCain took NH and could have taken South Carolina except for a dumbass radio ad. Then he took Michigan. But it didn't matter b/c bush has super tuesday all locked up. Clark is looking at the race and is looking at what Bush did. He can't beat Dean in NH, its too liberal and Dean and Kerry are home town boys. Iowa takes way too much resources to try to win at this point. Don't get me wrong they're going to campaign hard both places. But thats just the first news cycle. Clark is aiming at SC and Michigan, then super tuesday states. If he can take SC and Mich he'll have more recent momentum going into super tuesday.
Super Tuesday has essentially made Iowa and NH into little more than something for the media to write about. There is no longer such a thing as gaining momentum and winning minds over a few months like Carter did. You need to have the votes in place on Feb 1 if you're going to win.
Super Tuesday has essentially made Iowa and NH into little more than something for the media to write about. There is no longer such a thing as gaining momentum and winning minds over a few months like Carter did. You need to have the votes in place on Feb 1 if you're going to win.
I think that Dennis Kucinich has an excellent chance. I think that much of the world's population will endorse him and encourage U.S. citizens to vote for him. He opposes the War on Drugs and the Death Penalty. He wants health care for everyone.
This might be the one primary election(on the democratic side) that isn't wound up by March. If Dean takes New Hampshire, Clark takes South Carolina, and Gephardt takes Iowa, you will essentially have a three man race since each isn't campaigning for Iowa. Usually, the other candidates would drop out real quick after Iowa or New Hampshire, not so anymore. I hope it's a competitive race-we've been needing one for quite some time.
Also, I think most Democrats are going to understand they have to win Ohio to win the election so they're going to vote for Kucinich. Furthermore, Kucincih is the uniter -- Natural Laws, ex-Republicans like me, Greens, Independents, and Democrats are all supporting him.
QUOTE(FlutePlayer @ Dec 3 2003, 03:33 PM)
Also, I think most Democrats are going to understand they have to win Ohio to win the election so they're going to vote for Kucinich. Furthermore, Kucincih is the uniter -- Natural Laws, ex-Republicans like me, Greens, Independents, and Democrats are all supporting him.
If that is the case, then why in the world is it that Dennis Kucinich can't poll higher than 2%?
Maybe because the people polled aren't familiar with Dennis Kucinich and/or the poll is biased to favor other candidates.
Some new poll information fresh off the presses. Notice Dean's numbers.
"Receiving a boost from registered Democrats, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has increased his lead in ballot preference among likely Democratic primary voters in the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Preference Primary according to the latest New Hampshire Poll. In ballot preference, Dean now leads with 45%. Senator John Kerry is at 13% and Wesley Clark is at 11%. Ballot preferences for the six other major candidates remain in single digits."
For margin of error and other scientific info, visit the source below that this was culled from.
(American Research Group)
http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/
"Receiving a boost from registered Democrats, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has increased his lead in ballot preference among likely Democratic primary voters in the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Preference Primary according to the latest New Hampshire Poll. In ballot preference, Dean now leads with 45%. Senator John Kerry is at 13% and Wesley Clark is at 11%. Ballot preferences for the six other major candidates remain in single digits."
For margin of error and other scientific info, visit the source below that this was culled from.
(American Research Group)
http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/
Clark is gaining rapidly, here are some new stats as of today:
http://surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html
There are a couple of points though,
1. Why does Dean have such a massive lead in New Hampshire?
2. Why is Clark not on the list foe Iowa Dem Causcaus (and what the hell does that mean?)
http://surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html
There are a couple of points though,
1. Why does Dean have such a massive lead in New Hampshire?
2. Why is Clark not on the list foe Iowa Dem Causcaus (and what the hell does that mean?)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.