BigSoccer Democratic poll

Kucinich is the best man and would be the best president. No chance though.

I honestly don't care much either way, as no matter what it'll be a HUGE upgrade from W.

 

From where are you getting this? In NH Dean is destroying everybody. It's Gephardt & Dean neck-and-neck in Iowa, where Clark isn't even running because he can't get the organization together.

Nationally, where there are still huge "I dunno" numbers, Dean leads Clark in about half, Clark leads in the other half, but it's still so fluid with these nat'l polls that you can't put any real value in them other than determining who should drop out.

 

That's a joke, right?

 

You're right. He does have a very slight chance, I guess. I misspoke.

 

Could you clarify the poll? Is this asking for predictions or preferences? The word "should" goes either way.

 

Should means who do YOU think SHOULD be the nominee. Will means who do YOU think WILL be the nominee. This is not a prediction, it's a preference.

For example, I think Al Sharpton SHOULD be the nominee because it's high time the Democrats rewarded their most loyal constituency, African-Americans, with a spot on the highest ticket. Of course, I'm not holding my breath, as the Dems won't let black people off the plantation any time soon so long as blacks continue to be solid votes in the bank for them.

 

I saw one debate and the Reverend was great. He and Kucinich are my kind of folk. But out of the more realistic candidates I say Go Dean

 

Dean is clearly the man to beat. Unless he screws up big time on the stump or some skeleton in his closet is revealed, he looks like he's got it. I think he's building up a huge head of steam and is going to roll over the bunch pretty quickly in the primaries.

A Marist poll for New York last month had Lieberman at 23% and Dean at 13%. This month, here's how it reads:

18% Dean
14% Lieberman, Clark
10% Gephardt
8% Kerry
5% Sharpton
2% Moseley Braun, Kucinich, Edwards
23% Undecided
(Registered Democrats. Plus/minus 5 points.)

I voted for Lieberman in this thread's poll, even though I'm not a Democrat. He's the only one that makes any sense, from my point of view.

 

Let's try this one more time.

Are you asking for predictions, or preferences? Like this...if the US played Brazil in soccer, I would PREFER that the US win, but I would PREDICT that Brazil would win.

 

I think, though, that its clear that the candidates that have been using the grass-roots of the Internet (Dean and Clark) are right now the strongest candidates. I have thought for a while that Dean is the best of the bunch (although I would put Kerry as 2nd choice). In any case, the Dems need to close out this battle quick so they can save cash to fight Bush up until the General Election begins.

 

And that's the reason why DNC are losing support early on. The truth is, everybody can make the economy the main issue, but only Dean has the credential for sticking to anti-war. He can do it either way, while Kerry and Clark can't. I think Dean is going to make the nomination.

 

Who should win the Democratic nomination?

Whoever understands that its not by becoming Republican lite that the Democrats are ever going to take power (except when the Republicans absolutely fail, and the people select the Dems as a false choice that is just "Not republican," but that's not taking power, that's the Repubs giving it away), but rather by making concessions to the substantial so-called left that is currently repped by the Greens and others; only by garnering that vote will the Dems win. Anything else, regardless of candidate, will likely doom them to failure. Of course, it makes it difficult to get al lthat corporate money by making those concessions, so don't expect anyone on your list to follow my advice anytime soon; you folks enjoy another four years of environmental isolationism, military expansion, media fear-mongering, and tanking economies...

 

This "substantial left" that won't vote for the Dems because they aren't leftist enough is a myth, unless your definition of "substantial" is really generous. Nader got, what, under 3% of the vote? A baloney sandwich could probably have pulled 3% of the vote with the amount of free publicity that Nader got. How much did Camejo draw in the California recall? What do Kucinich's numbers in the Democratic primaries look like?

Here's a link to some exit polls from the 2000 election.

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

Look at the question on "vote by ideology." Note that 20% of the public describes themselves as "liberal" - and of those self identified liberals, only 6% voted for Nader. Then, look at the question about "Gore's position on issues." Note that only 9% of the public said that Gore was "too conservative," and of that 9%, only one in ten voted for Nader. This leaves us with less than one percent of the total voting public that opted for Nader because they thought that Gore was "too conservative." Note that only 10% of the public said that they wanted the next president to have policies more liberal than Clinton's - and of that 10% who wanted the next president to be more liberal, once again, less than one in ten voted for Nader.

This supposed rebellious left wing of the Democratic party that punished them for not being liberal enough by voting for Nader looks to be nearly nonexistent, statistically speaking. The only reason they were able to give the election to Bush in 2000 was the freakish closeness of the Florida result, along with our defective electoral system.