MyDD IRV Straw Poll At 1,000

With exactly 1,000 votes cast, here are the standings in the IRV August Straw poll:
	   First Round	   Ninth Round
Clark	      26.6%	      29.3%
Gore	      14.6%	      16.9%
Feingold       13.2%	      16.1%
Clinton 	       7.8%	      10.7%
Warner	       5.9%	       6.8%
Richardson     5.5%	      7.0%
Edwards 	       5.0%	       5.9%
Schweitzer     4.8%	      6.6%
Other	       3.9%
Undecided	       3.4%
Boxer	       2.6%
Biden	       2.2%
Bayh	       2.1%
Kerry	       1.8%
Rendell 	       0.4%
Vilsack 	       0.2%
I'm showing the ninth round because it seems to reveal the eight candidates who are seriously competing in the Internet primary, even if they may not actually be running. Now, nothing says that these will always be the only eight candidates who are doing well online, but I do feel as though I have seen fairly consistent strains of support of each of these eight that I have not seen in favor of anyone else. They also were the only eight that cleared the "other / undecided" barrier.

One of the cool things about DemChoice polls is that they allow you to see the progress of each round, including who received votes from eliminated candidates. For example, look at this:

  • Kerry: 50% of Kerry's Votes went to either Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. Establishment loyalty?
  • Biden: 50% of Biden's votes went to either Clark or Clinton. People in search of military cred / hawkishness?
  • Boxer: Over 50% of her votes went to Feingold. Progressives voting on ideology?
  • Other: Schweitzer received more votes from "Other candidate" than anyone else. Warner received none. The weirdo vote?
  • Edwards: 50% of Edwards' support went to either Gore or Clark. Southern vote?
  • Warner: A disproportionate amount of his support went to Richardson. Governor vote?
  • Richardson: A disproportionate amount of his support went to Feingold. I can't figure this one out.
  • Clinton: A disproportionate amount of her support went to Al Gore. Establishment loyalty revisited?
One path in particular can be traced. Kerry, Biden and Edwards voters flow into Clinton, Gore and Clark. Make of that what you will, but if that isn't a comfortable with the establishment strain, I don't know what is.

Of course, you can still vote in the poll.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

Good news
Because I still beleive that General Clark is the best choice for 2008, he won't devide the party, he has military experience (and presidents who have had military experience are more dovish), and is very carismatic.
by SensibleDemocrat 2005-08-18 12:31PM | 0 recs
divisive? Feingold?
What's divisive about Feingold?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-18 12:34PM | 0 recs
I've been wondering.....
..... why Feingold and Clark have been polling consistently high. Personally, I am torn between the two. Their appeal to me has much to do with their ability to stand true to their belifs and can advocate their position in an effective and persuasive manner.

Why does this matter more to me than all other considerations? We cannot build a majority so long as our standard abearers move to their right (or appear to in HRC's case) to win elections. We need leader who can move voters to the left! Feingold and Clark seem best suited for the job. All the other candidates, fine Democrats to be sure (not Biden), either can't sell it or are afraid to.  

by crazymoloch 2005-08-18 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been wondering.....
I like them both too, but I would describe their common threads intelligence, thoughtfulness, courage, and paying more attention to the issues than to the politics of the issues.    In the case of Clark, his biggest weaknesses on 2004 seemed to be lack of preparation and doubts about his true commitments, so simply showing up and running again in 2008 would make him a stronger candidate the second time around.
by LastToKnow 2005-08-18 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been wondering.....
Agreed. And many people, including seemingly ill-informed swing voters, can smell authenticity and phoniness from miles away. Of course some candidates can successfully fake authenticity, but others try to and fail miserably (Kerry, HR Clinton).

Also, I don't really think that Clark qualifies as "establishment" in anything like the sense that Clinton, Kerry, Biden et al do. I certainly don't see how he's any more "establishment" than Warner or Richardson, for example. To say the very least. Part of the establishment flirted with him briefly in 03-04 as the only apparent alternative to Dean, but they dropped him like a cold fish as soon as their boy Kerry surprised everyone by actually winning Iowa. Gore has also moved quite a ways away from the establishment over the past couple of years. I know that Clark, Gore and Feingold all appeal in different ways to many people who are dissatisfied with or infuriated by the current establishment, and while I can't see the numbers I would suspect that there is probably a significant correlation between support for these three here as well. That's a hypothesis based on substantial anecdotal evidence, anyway.

   

by human 2005-08-18 08:36PM | 0 recs
Just keep in mind
that there's a huge disparity between this blog poll and the mainstream surveys, which consistently place Hillary first, not fourth, with a lead comparable to the one Clark has here. I'd rather see Clark win the nom than Hillary, but it's not in the bag.

I have a sinking feeling that it's gonna be Clinton/Clark . . . I don't like it.

by catastrophile 2005-08-18 12:35PM | 0 recs
Polls of the general public...
...are just name recongition charts at this point, and do not actually reflect anything resembling what the final totals are.
by Geotpf 2005-08-18 03:03PM | 0 recs
Right.
But what exactly does this poll reflect? And which is more meaningful?
by catastrophile 2005-08-19 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Right.
This poll reflects who has netroots support, among those active and interested now, who will likely be the core of any candidate draft movements or spread the word very early in the primaries.  The link is vague and tenuous, because there's so much time to go, but it is far more significant than any polls of the general public at those point.  Those tell you absolutely nothing except what you already knew about which names people have heard of.

If you took a netroots poll in 2002 (after Gore said he wasn't running, let's assume), you'd have seen Dean on top.  You'd probably have seen Clark make a small blip.  Gephardt would have shown up fairly low, Lieberman nowhere, and Kerry moderately strong.  That poll would have been highly relevant and informative to those who knew what it meant.  Public polls at the same time, of course, if they even asked about Dean or Clark, wouldn't have bothered to report the insignificant results for those two.  They all would have showed Lieberman with a commanding lead, and Kerry and Gephardt as the likely second tier.  Those polls meant nothing.

by cos 2005-08-20 10:04PM | 0 recs
rankings
Here's my sense of the rankings among the netroots in the greater Chicago region:

  1. Feingold
  2. Obama
  3. Clark
  4. Schweitzer
  5. Spitzer
  6. Richardson
  7. Bob Graham
  8. Mark Warner
  9. Al Gore
  10. Hackett
  11. Edwards
  12. Reid
  13. Corzine

Hillary Rodham Clinton might be able to put together a DLC/media juggernaut, but I doubt it. Granite Staters are an unpredictable bunch.

Feingold should do well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-18 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
Carl,

You had 13 democrats who you "feel" are the top picks in "your region" of chicago & Hillary Clinton does not make it to the top 13????

Man, I respect your dislike for the lady, but if you're going to make up 13 favorites of netroots midwesterners for 2008 & not have Hillary Clinton in there while having people like Corzine, Hackett, Spitzer, and Reid for President of the United States, -all ahead of Clinton-I'd like some of that stuff your smoking.

let's get real now~I'm not a Clinton supporter but to proclaim that she is not in the top 5, worse not even in the top 13 of presidential favorites of our party shows either a total lack of political knowledge or you are simply in TOTAL DENIAL due to your disdain of Hillary.

by labanman 2005-08-18 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
You are invited to vote.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-18 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
The poll at MyDD confirms that head-to-head HRC beats practically nobody.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-18 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
I voted for Hillary somewhere beneath "Other" and "Undecided" along with Kerry, Biden, Rendell, Bayh and Warner.

Weren't we supposed to use all sixteen spots? Why would I put any of those candidates about "Other" or "Undecided"? That's just throwing away your vote.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
Bob Graham? Mr. boring I-write-journals?  I know people are obsessed with Florida but why not make him a doddering VP candidate and just keep him in Florida and don't let him campaign anywhere else.
by DaveB 2005-08-18 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
Graham is a fiscal hawk that knows intel and opposed the Iraq War.

If he packaged himself better, he could get a shot.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-18 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
I'm still upset Kerry didn't pick Graham as his running mate. I think we'd be looking at a very different world if he had.
by Jorge McJunk 2005-08-19 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
I don't buy it.  Edwards was the best choice he could have made.  Kerry defeated Kerry.  The Republicans (and Diebold) only helped.
by zaimokoya 2005-08-19 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: rankings
Dear Mr. Nyberg, I see that you have Paul Hackett down in your list of (presumably) potential 2008 nominees:

# Feingold
# Obama
# Clark
# Schweitzer
# Spitzer
# Richardson
# Bob Graham
# Mark Warner
# Al Gore
---------->> # Hackett <<------------------
# Edwards
# Reid
# Corzine

So, would you care to kindly explain to us first (before anointing your personal preferences on an entire region of voters): Exactly when did Paul Hackett become a viable presidential candidate for 2008?

Get Real.

Neo

ps: Mind you, I really admire Paul Hackett, and hope to see him reach great heights, but that would have to happen over time, and he'd have to earn his way there, needless to say.

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-19 05:48AM | 0 recs
scenario oddities
John Lynch the gov of NH is quite popular.

What happens if Vilsack runs in Iowa and Lynch runs in NH?

Does it make the primaries all about money by taking the early, small contests out of the game?

Could this be the DLC strategy for ramming HRC through?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-18 12:37PM | 0 recs
pinecone shortage
Schweitzer did better than Biden, Bayh, and Vilsack -- COMBINED.
by blogswarm 2005-08-18 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: pinecone shortage
This is ludicrous.  He comes from a state with THREE (3) !!! electoral college votes.  He has no name ID other than liberal blogs and ZERO (0) !!! experience other than his very short time as Governor of Montana.  Really...why are you all in love with this guy???
by artvandelay 2005-08-18 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: pinecone shortage
He's a good man.
by blogswarm 2005-08-18 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: pinecone shortage
He's not Biden, Bayh, Vilsack, Hillary or Warner. What other reason would any rational person need?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: pinecone shortage
How could I forget? He's also not Kerry.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: pinecone shortage
He would be a good candidate. But in 2012 or 2016
by Gpack3 2005-08-18 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: pinecone shortage
The attraction of a Westerner is what Dean saw in a "Western strategy" -- that there are enough people in the Republican coalition angry about government intrusiveness into our private lives to make a tactic of running a pro-civil liberties fiscal-conservative, libertarian-edged Democrat from the West as an attractive option and capable of splitting the "Don't-Tread-On-Me" Republicans off.  The number of electoral votes of MT don't matter, it is in upsetting the Republican's  electoral apple cart.

But after all is said and done, I'd rather have Feingold.  At the end of the day, the courage of your convictions is what matters and not your birthplace.

by zaimokoya 2005-08-19 05:19PM | 0 recs
wes clark
although I think focusing on presidential politics for 2008 -- and in general -- is not necessarily the best thing for our political system, I have to say flat-out that I have multiple problems with wes clark, and that, should he make any kind of serious moves for the democratic nomination, I will try to write the most devastating things I can about the guy. I got in some fight with a clarkie here on myDD and had a few facts wrong... but fortunately, there's plenty out there to show exactly why Wes Clark as President is bad for america. There's a lot wrong with him, and what I see as his core support. Matt Taibbi's takedown of him remains authorative on this guy and his supporters, despite the author's own disavowal of the piece.
by janfrel 2005-08-18 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: wes clark
you can't actually believe all those lies. I am sure your efforts at "taking him down" will do as well as Hanity et al's-- no where.  It was Kerry who took out Clark with his attack mailers and, more importantly, his win in Iowa.
by DaveB 2005-08-18 01:23PM | 0 recs
When did Taibbi disavow that piece?
I did not know that he had done that.  I suspect Clark was put in for a reason...he was NH while Dean was fighting for his life in Iowa...with Clinton making anti-Dean calls and pushing for Clark.  (That Clinton part in Dean's book."

I did not know that Taibbi had disclaimed it...it is not a lot of fact mostly opinion.

I would have a hard time with Clark.

by concerned democrat 2005-08-18 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: wes clark
That's the silliest article I've ever seen this side of the reality based community divide from freeperville.

The only substantive problem that article identifies is Clark's position on Iraq. I still have some concerns on that score, but I'm willing to see how he handles questions about Iraq at TPM. If he's a Biden/Hillary "stay the course" robust liberal hawk, fuggedaboutit.

The rest of the article is an embarassment to the author.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:24PM | 0 recs
Clark?!?!
I'm fricking flabbergasted at all the support for Clark on here.  It simply makes no sense.  The man would get walloped in a race.  As some hawkish VP to bolster a ticket... maybe, but I mean come on, can you imagine Wes Clark versus anyone with a half decent pitch and spin machine, he'd get fecking destroyed, I don't care if he had Rove doing his dirty work it wouldn't fly.

Sean

by SeanBroom 2005-08-18 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
Agreed.  3 things stand out in my memory about Clark.

1.He appeared as the establishment began to get freaked out by Dean's anti war stance

  1. His being overwhelemed by the reporters questions when he announced and calling for Mary
  2. Bob Dole got under his skin with no problem at all, when Dole ragged him about his rank and his losing to Kerry on CNN.

Sorry guys this does not inspire confidence. I'll keep an open mind, but I don't see it happening.
by molly bloom 2005-08-18 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
I can't even see him getting the VP nod. Anyone who did so would be signalling "I SEE MYSELF AS WEAK ON FOREIGN POLICY". Terrible optics.
by Gpack3 2005-08-18 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
Or, I see foreign policy as terribly important and take it very seriously by strengtening my ticket with as much experience as possible.
by artvandelay 2005-08-18 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
I tend to side with Art on this one, considering it worked for Bush/Cheney.
by Steve M 2005-08-18 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
Would it have worked after Sept. 11? With a Democrat? I doubt it.

I see the point Art is trying to make, but I think the message I suggested would be more obvious to the media and the electorate and that's what they'd take away. I will amend my point though. Someone like Richardson or Biden who doesn't have anything to prove on foreign policy might pick Clark, but I doubt anyone else would.

by Gpack3 2005-08-18 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
Uh, huh. As I recall Clark was the guy who wanted to bomb the Russians at Pristina airport and start WWIII. Fortunately, his wiser British subordinate told him to take a hike and refused. Yay, for the insubordinates of the world. We know who we are.

I don't call that experience. I call that an indication of inability.

by fromredbird 2005-08-21 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
Consider the competition. I forget exactly, but I think he was my fourth choice behind Feingold, Edwards and Schweitzer. Is there anyone else worth voting for above Clark?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
After refreshing my memory I voted Feingold, Edwards, Richardson, Clark and Schweitzer.

As far as I'm concerned the rest of the field are throw away votes. I might vote for Gingrich above any of them if he isn't as hawkish on Iraq. I have no idea if Gingrich has said anything about Iraq, but he's smart enough to change his position to favor immediate withdrawal if the political winds are blowing that way.

All of the Dem hawks seem to be committed to being macho war hawks regardless of public opinion or the status of the conflict. They all remind me of Nixon pledging there was a light at the end of the tunnel.

Very stupid.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark?!?!
You'd vote Gingrich over Barbara Boxer?
by Valatan 2005-08-18 09:02PM | 0 recs
Did I say that?
Not unless Boxer has changed her position on Iraq.

I forgot Boxer, because I don't consider her a serious candidate. I probably put her right below Schweitzer, because she's a woman. I've been adamant that the American people will not elect a woman President and CinC in a time of war. Won't happen.

It doesn't matter if Boxer (Iraq exit strategy) or Hillary  (a smarter, more compassionate war) were the nominee. They would both lose to nearly any white Republican man. Anyone who thinks America is progressive enough to elect a woman President in the current climate hasn't been paying attention.

Women are struggling to keep their right to make their own health care decisions without help from men. How can anyone pretend Americans are ready to vote for a woman to be CinC?

The same principle applies to Condi. The idea is laughable. Condi would lose to any white male Democrat. I have no idea who would win a Condi/Hillary race, but a lot of men would just not vote. I'd guess maybe 10% of white men would just not vote.

That might not be a bad thing. hmmm. That could actually be a good thing.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 09:21PM | 0 recs
Clark &amp; HRC
I'm also surprised at Clark's support - it seems to hold over at Kos, too (though I haven't checked the poll he's running today).

As far as Clinton, two questions:

  1.  I hate that reality forces me to ask the question, but is it at all possible for a female to get elected in today's US without acting like Rambo?

  2.  Do you really think she would have invaded Iraq?  

I think the answer to both of those questions is no.

All that having been said, 2008 is so far off my radar at the moment that I haven't voted in any of these polls.  We need to worry about '06.

(I also have the horrible fear that if McCain runs he'll win.)

by Mississippi Scott 2005-08-18 04:22PM | 0 recs
Exactly what I'm talking about
/ I hate that reality forces me to ask the question, but is it at all possible for a female to get elected in today's US without acting like Rambo?/

Hillary is the least electable candidate. She doesn't have a prayer of being elected President during wartime. No matter how hawkish she runs, the American people will never elect a woman to be President and CinC during wartime.

Never.

Unless the withdrawal has begun, she loses an easy 5% in the voting booth, no matter what the polls say.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly what I'm talking about
You make a good point about how unreliable the polls will be on her, but I think she does have a shot. The usual GOP playbook is to feminize male Dems and defeminize female Dems. I think this would backfire on them for president because they'd be doing Hillary's work for her.
by Gpack3 2005-08-18 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly what I'm talking about
Would you read that once more and ask yourself if it really makes sense? That's a little bit too cute by half. This issue is simple. America is not ready to elect a woman Presdent during wartime.

It would be an uphill battle during peacetime.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-18 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly what I'm talking about
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well.

Because there haven't been any serious female candidates for president in the past, we can't say for sure what the GOP would do to Hillary. However, their typical response to female opponents is to try to masculinize them, usually through innuendo and whisper campaigns. Look at what Rove and co. did  to Ann Richards in Texas. They implied she was a butch lesbian. Witness further what they did to Hillary Clinton when her husband was president. They suggested she was ambitiously scheming her way to the top, that the marriage was just for show, that she was frigid, that she was a lesbian, etc. "Ball-Busting Bitch" was the image they tried to paint for her. The rationale for these attacks was to cultivate distrust by tapping into the public's misgivings about people who don't live up to traditional gender roles.

However, they may have miscalculated. The reason a woman would have trouble getting elected to the presidency is that the traits associated with leadership are strongly associated with masculinity, so much so that people use perceptions of masculinity as a proxy for perceptions of leadership. However, by trying to make Hillary seem masculine, they have been imbuing her public image with many of the traits she'll need to convince the public that she's a capable Commander-in-Chief, and unwittingly doing her work for her.

by Gpack3 2005-08-20 02:06PM | 0 recs
Is the support for Clark really that far spread?
Other than online?  No one locally ever discusses it at all.  Here is what worries me a lot, and I know I will be unpopular with some.  

It worries me that there is this vast online machine that wins every poll for him hands down.
Here is why it worries me, and it is not a petty concern.

It worries me because as we come closer to 08, it is going to give a false picture of support. It is greatly organized online.  There are many sites that send people to polls here and elsewhere to vote....many of us have seen them.  When they are discovered, they simply hide the threads or go private.

I know that Kos, Jerome, and Skinner, and another site have had their concerns.  Many do.  It is different than just saying let's go to CNN and vote on this issue....this is different.

This kind of poll affects the whole online picture, it affects the sites that are exploring different means of voting.  

I do not support Clark, I just don't feel there is a need for a uniform right now.  Maybe right after 9/11, but not now.  I think it might be too much. I think it would hurt us.  

There is no other group that organized online right now, and I say thank goodness for that.  DFA folks are numerous, but we don't have any reason to vote for 08.  Hillary has a greatly organized group as well, but they don't do polls now either.

Just a few concerns, not meant to bait. Just meant to express my views.

by concerned democrat 2005-08-18 09:43PM | 0 recs
I agree
I also don't get the giant wave of support for Clark.

I think there's a reluctance for Dem voters to admit that Dean would have been a better choice. They are worried (perhaps because of the impact it would have on the Party's general support for Israel) that a dovish candidate is a death wish. Yet, Edwards held the exact same position as Clark throughout the primaries and had more traction talking about social issues.

Nevertheless, I think he's merely a stalking horse for Hillary. If he runs he won't attack her and at most be named his Veep or Sec. Def. He's setting down topics and concepts that she can come back to later. I still don't think Hillary will win the nomination though.

But the race is likely to be between Feingold (if he runs), Warner, Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson. Edwards would take the role of "independently wealthy dude", Feingold and Clinton and "the Senators" and Warner and Richardson as "the Governors".

by risenmessiah 2005-08-18 11:42PM | 0 recs
No
-
by Paul Goodman 2005-08-19 01:21PM | 0 recs
Joe &quot;Send More Troops&quot; Biden Supporters
We are not on the same team.  
by steve expat 2005-08-19 01:22AM | 0 recs
Hillary &quot;No Exit&quot; Clinton Supporters
We are also not on the same team.
by steve expat 2005-08-19 01:23AM | 0 recs
John &quot;Reporting for Duty&quot; Kerry
Supporters...
We are not on the same team, either.
by steve expat 2005-08-19 01:26AM | 0 recs
Attention War, Occupation Supporters
We are not on the same team.  None of the sorry ass punks who voted for the war or aren't calling for troop withdrawal will ever get my vote.  And anyone calling for more troops in Iraq better damned go there themselves or send their daughter.
by steve expat 2005-08-19 01:29AM | 0 recs
Poll results
Is there anyway that the raw data might be shared?  
I would like to see what the overall structure of the preference space is like -- it probably would be possible to make a picture that identifies the various flows you are talking about.  What is necessary is a file that has the respondants as the rows and the rank order of each candidate as the columns.

(I do this kind of data analysis for a living.)

by zaimokoya 2005-08-19 07:10AM | 0 recs
I'd like to see
a poll that excluded "blogosphere" favorites so we can see how the true contenders stack up.
by Paul Goodman 2005-08-19 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd like to see
Which of the candidates listed would you eliminate under your scenario?
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-19 03:53PM | 0 recs
The problem of course is that people vote for
those they know, that is former candidates and Washington insiders.

This has nothing to do with the picture that Iowa voters will have after more than a year of unrelenting campaigning, which will erase any advantages in name recognition.

And IMHO, there is no way they pick another loser Senator.  

by Cyt 2005-08-19 07:38AM | 0 recs
Kucinich blackballed? Why?
I notice that no one is asking the obvious question of why Dennis Kucinich is not listed in the poll? Or are questions like that just getting 86'ed as over at Daily Kos?
by fromredbird 2005-08-21 08:46AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads