ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC (and others)

American Research Group has the first primary polls for the Democratic nomination in 2008 from New Hampshire and South Carolina (and a few other, less important states). The results are not really surprising:

                    NH     SC
Clinton         32     30
Edwards        9     15
Gore              5      8
Kerry             7      4
Clark             2      7
Warner         2      2
Biden            2      1
Feingold        2      1
Bayh             1      1
Richardson    1      -
Unsure       31     36

What sort of opportunity does a non-Clinton have to emerge?

                     NH    SC
Clinton           32    30
Non-Clinton    37    34
Unsure           31    36

There does appear to be an opportunity for a non-Clinton to emerge. However, such an opportunity is a narrow one, and probably won't happen in a crowded field.

As Scott pointed out on the Republican side, these polls do not tell the entire story. Influential party activists on both sides will go a long way toward reshaping the standings of the field. In particular, it would seem that Feingold, Clark, Warner and Edwards have significant potential for upward movement, considering the esteem in which they are held among the activist base. Gore would have much of the same if he ever made any indication at all that he would run for something in 2008.

Of course, a lot also depends on who runs. Right now, I can't see any possible path for Biden, Kerry and Daschle (and Vilsack). All of the others remain in long-shot status against Clinton, although some are more longshot than others. If Clinton doesn't run, ala Gore not running last time, the field become wide open.

As for the poll, I wish they had done favorable and name recognition numbers instead of trial heats. We would have learned a lot more if the poll had been conducted that way.

Tags: 2008, Democrats, Primaries (all tags)



Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries

These numbers are terrible for Hillary. In each case the "non-Hillary" vote is higher. Plus one third of people are "undecided/unsure."

Because in the end the primaries will come down to two candidates. The establishment candidate (which i'm pretty sure will be Hillary) and the outsider candidate. Hillary has 100% name id at this point and more than one third of the party doesn't want her. Another third isn't sure and can go either way (but given that she is such a known commodity that can't be good for her). What this poll tells me is that her support within the party hovers at around 30 to 35%.

Don't reserve seats for a coronation just yet.

Another thing I noticed was how poorly Mark Warner does. Even in South Carolina, where he has the support of the the state party apparatus and has been given a lot of face time. I concede that his name id isn't as high as Hillary's. But you'd think that he'd do better than 2%.

I think his DLC type strategy will not win him this election. But he may prove useful to the outsider candidate, since many of the beltway Dems might throw their support to him and divide their votes with Hillary's supporters. This may give us an opening.

Now we need to get A GOOD SOLID candidate of our own.

by JackBourassa 2006-02-13 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries

"Another thing I noticed was how poorly Mark Warner does. Even in South Carolina, where he has the support of the the state party apparatus and has been given a lot of face time. I concede that his name id isn't as high as Hillary's."

The fact that someone like Mark Warner does poorly at this time shouldn't be a surprise, with or without support from a party aparatus.

The people who are keeping up with who might be in / who might be out of the presidential race in 2008 are a VAST minority of voters, even among primary voters.  Political geeks like those of us who read blogs daily know who he is, but most don't.  

He has has hardly even started to process of introducing himself to voters outside of his home state, and because of that fact, his numbers are going to be low.  

Case in point:  At this point in 1990, there were about four people outside of the state of Arkansas who knew who the heck Bill Clinton was... and those four were the ones who managed not to fall asleep during his 1988 convention speech.

As a result, these polls are fun to look at, but in no way, shape or form should they be taken too seriously right now because they're more a measure of name ID than anything else.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-02-13 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries

I second the motion -- a poll this early is utterly meaningless... with one exception: Kerry's pathetically low numbers certainly suggest he doesn't have a chance in 2008.  After all, you can hardly claim he lacks name recognition.  

by Richter 2006-02-13 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries

"with one exception: Kerry's pathetically low numbers certainly suggest he doesn't have a chance in 2008.  After all, you can hardly claim he lacks name recognition."

Good point.

What I probably should have said is that polls this early can't be used as any kind of reflection or barometer on candidates who are new on the 'national scene.'

However, while Kerry's numbers (you can put Gore in the same category) are low, take Clinton out of the equation and his numbers probably rise significantly because of name ID alone... a very real possibility in the event Clinton doesn't run.  

Right now, he's probably a lot of people's second or third choice candidate... if only because they don't know any others the other particularly well.

Clinton certainly looks like she would have the easiest path to the nomination based on these numbers.  But the race itself is such a long way off and so many things can happen between now and then that ultimately, it goes back to what Chris said earlier, which is that in the absence of name recognition / favs / unfavs, this isn't a particularly useful measure of anything significant.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-02-13 12:02PM | 0 recs
I want to see

the Dumb Dems serve up Clinton, female, w/ baggage, post Bush. What a disaster.

Feingold, Levin, Murtha: Real people with real answers and real opinions. NO BAGGAGE!

by Landsurveyor 2006-02-13 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I want to see

Forget Murtha.  The last person to go directly from the House to the White House was James Garfield.

by Richter 2006-02-13 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I want to see

um, the baggage HRC has IS GOOD because it is a known quantum.  It is only the "unknown" that can be effectively swiftboated.  You'll be undoubtedly singing a different tune if someone like Warner is the nominee and something comes out about his background that surely the Republicans will use to swiftboat him.

Hillary CANNOT be swiftboated.  Anyone but HRC is risky.

by jgarcia 2006-02-13 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC (and

Well, you'd also figure that someone like Wes Clark, who has also has pretty high ID, would do good in South Carolina. But he doesn't.

Right now, Hilliary is the most visible person out there representing the Democrats. Anyone interested in becoming the nominee in 2008 needs to go out and become a real spokesperson on the issues facing us today.

by musa 2006-02-13 07:15AM | 0 recs
Clinton Campaign Slogan

Marginal, Inept, Decadent, the other Status Quo White Meat

by Landsurveyor 2006-02-13 07:17AM | 0 recs
I will fight Clinton all the way.

On every liberal or prog blog. Every inch. Everyday.

by Landsurveyor 2006-02-13 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC

I'm all for another Clinton Presidency. I think, considering the smear campaining against her that is always ongoing and in the public consciousness, that these are great numbers for her. People are realizing she is the modest midwestern mother her close friends know she is. She might have the guts to speak out, but she is great on that personal level. You just wait, her stump speeches will be inspired and Iowans will love her. We need a uniter not a divider and more importantly someone who can convince the rest of America what our values are and that they are values, not just rhetoric. I have yet to hear a better speaker so far except for the former president Clinton. Though during the Loretta Scott King funeral, Sen Clinton was by far the best speaker: passionate and personal. It is time, I believe, for Democrats to be bold, have a woman heading the ticket, and a Hispanic in the VP spot. My god, and it just so happens that the best, most policy oriented, issue run candidates are Clinton and Richardson. We need to avoid the upper class white man clone. How many are we going to go through before we get to the party base?

by bisclavret 2006-02-13 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC

The one thing that makes me laugh about Hillary supporters is how they always explain their support for her as a way to get Bill Clinton back.

First, Hillary is no Bill Clinton.

Second, I think most people would be put off by having someone run for President through his wife. This point will undermine her. Make her look weak. Like a puppet for Bill Clinton. It makes them look kind of pathetic.

1) Hillary can't win without Bill.

2) Bill can't live without the Presidency.

Hillary Clinton will never be elected President of the United States.

by JackBourassa 2006-02-13 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC

I remember in 1992 people said we were getting two presidents for the price of one.  Just as HRC helped run the country under Bill, it'll be Bill helping run the country under Hillary.  It cannot be that 1992 was right, but now it's suddenly different.

I love how all these white male liberals ALWAYS gravitate towards the male candidates at all costs.

by jgarcia 2006-02-13 06:10PM | 0 recs
Your plan is to sell

Hillary Clinton as a uniter, not a divider?  With our media?  With over a decade of propaganda about the radical left-wing Hillary?  Really?

The message is likely true, but it will never sell as a press meme.

by Valatan 2006-02-13 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clark Strong in New Hampshire


I think you have the South Carolina and New Hampshire numbers reversed for Clark.  I believe he has 7% in New Hampshire (which makes sense, since he was well received in 2004 there), and 2% in South Carolina, where he spent significantly less time.  

Overall, as a Clark supporter, I'm encouraged by the New Hampshire numbers. It shows Clark has a loyal following (unlike Kerry).  

I am a bit surprised Edwards numbers in South Carolina aren't a bit higher, considering he was born there, and won there in 2004.  

In the end, I think Clinton's campaign will be sunk by the primary argument (which has been picked up by the SCLM in recent weeks) that she simply is too polarizing and cannot win a general election (especially against McCain or Giuliani).  The real question is who will emerge as the alternative.

I think Warner, Feingold and Clark have the most potential, since they have individual attributes in policy areas that make them attractive (plus the fact they all could be competitive in one or more of the geographical areas the Dems need--South, Midwest, or West).

by Hadi 2006-02-13 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC (and

The real story are the Edwards and Kerry numbers in New Hampshire. That Edwards might be outperforming Kerry in NH (especially given that at least 36% of NH Democrats probably have actully voted for Kerry twice) is stunning. Also stunning are the Massachusetts numbers that have Clinton drastically outperforming Kerry there.

Overall, Edwards is in a much stronger position than one might have previously thought. He just needs to fix his money situation.

by blueflorida 2006-02-13 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris, you're absolutely right. ( as is Markos

Chris, I agree with you 100%. Unless something disastrous happens to the HRC campaign or if she somehow decides not to run, we are looking at probably 1 or 2 candidates at the most who will have a realistic shot.

Understandly, many here have the anti-hillary bias & are dismissing her numbers.
However, numbers do not lie. We can have the entire Democratic netroots community unite behind one anti-hillary candidate & that wouldn't still be enough.

But as both you & KOS, Hotline, Cook & Rothenberg have ALL pointed out, the HRC campaign is something that will be a FIRST, Never been seen before campaign in terms of MONEY, NAME ID, Infrastructure, and having Bill Clinton. Even Republican George W. Bush's historic $ 100 million dollars for the 2000 primary will be NOTHING compared to the projected $400-$550 million dollars that Hillary will have by 2008. That's a staggering, mind boggling number for someone who already has name ID & is already way ahead in current pollings.

To have her doing extremely well among Democrats in both BLUE & RED States right now shows that her support is attracting both Progressive & Moderate wings of the Democratic party.

When polls are showing her beating a 20 yr Senator in John Kerry in Blue MA by 25%+, to defeating a popular Progressive Senator in Russ Feingold in moderate WI by 20%+, to winning big in both IA, NH to the conservative Democrats of SC & AR, she will be very hard to beat.

The only polls tbat I've seen her ever come second in the last 12 months was in VA & IN where Warner & Bayh would defeat her in their homestates.

But other than that, she is in a very strong position.

As for those who want to compare the GOP & DEM primary. There is one big difference between the two.

The GOP base that votes on Presidential Primary day is dominated by Conservatives. This is why you never see a moderate ever win the GOP nomination in the last 20 years. This is why Guiliani, Pataki & even MaCain ( being anti-establishment) will have a very tough time againsta George Allen.

But on the DEM Presidential Primary, the last 12 years have shown that Moderate Democratic voters have dominated the primary. Thus, Bill Clinton, Gore over Bradley, and Kerry,Edwards, Clark over Howard Dean.

But in Hillary's case, she has somehow transformed herself into  a candidate who gets a very strong cross support from progressives & Moderates. Many rank & file Democratic liberal voters somehow identify with her in fighting for the poor, minorities, women & labor. On the other hand, you have the moderate, DLC type of voters who identify with her as another Bill CLinton moderate.

I do not plan to vote for her in the primary. But I am not blind nor in denial. She will be extremely tough to beat. It will take a 2 or 3 person race to defeat her. But in a crowded field, she will emerge victorious.

For those who are wishing thinking, REMEMBER THIS. If Hillary Clinton had run in 2004, she would have won the nomination hands down. Even when Kerry had already all but secured the nomination, every poll showed that Democratic voters still preferred Hillary over John Kerry.

After the upsetting experience that those Democrats who preferred HRC went thru with Kerry, you be they are determined to support her this time all the way.

Whether she can win the general is another story for another day. We're only handicapping the primary.

by fightingLadyinblue 2006-02-13 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris, you're absolutely right. ( as is Markos

Good analysis, FLiB. Particularly spot in is the mistake of mistaking sentimeent among the netroots being a proxy for Democratic primary voters at large.  "Activists," by definition, have more skewed leanings than non-activist voters.

However, speaking purely as an analyst/tactician, I think the race will come down to 2-3 candidates.  My starting axiom is that three candidates get tickets out of Iowa, two get tickets out of New Hampshire.

Hillary, I think, holds one of each.  If I had to guess...and "guess" is pretty much what this is...Clark gets one of the other tickets out of Iowa.  Feingold or Richardson might get the third.  

If so, then I think Clark gets squeezed out after New Hampshire, again.  But winds up as Veep in a lot of pairings.

The question is, can anyone prevail in a two-candidate race against Hillary after New Hampshire?   Mmph.  I'd bet against it.

Other notes:  

Gore...he ain't running.  Until he is, any Gore-dependent calculations are in the same bin as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Edwards...he doesn't have a good base to speak from.   He holds no office or position.  You could say the same about Clark except that Clark brings an interesting narrative on security and the war on terrorism which, together with his background, makes him stand out in a crowd.   I can't figure what Edwards does to make himself stand out.

Warner/Richardson/Feingold: each has strengths, each has adherents.  However, at this point, with respect to the voters as opposed to the activists, none of them stand out, in that regard being like Edwards but worse.  The average voter is doing well if they've even heard of Kos, MyDD, etc.

by InigoMontoya 2006-02-13 09:12AM | 0 recs
Feingold doesn't stand out?

really?  He's been at the center of seemingly every senatorial battle recently.  

by Valatan 2006-02-13 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold doesn't stand out?

Valatan, this--and the netroots support--is why I give Feingold the edge for the third ticket out of Iowa and most likely the second ticket out of New Hampshire.  (May have to modify if another caccus gets sqeezed in between Iowa and New Hampshire.)  

However, us junkies are aware of Feingold in the Senate battles.  You ask the average Democratic primary voter about Feingold and you'll get a blank look.

by InigoMontoya 2006-02-13 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Chris, you're absolutely right. ( as is Markos

"However, numbers do not lie. We can have the entire Democratic netroots community unite behind one anti-hillary candidate & that wouldn't still be enough. "

If everything happened in a vacuum, that's absolutely true... she would win in a what could very well be a cakewalk to the nomination.

But again, reading anything significant into these numbers is just not worth it.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-02-13 12:05PM | 0 recs
Meaningless polls

These polls are absolutely meaningless. If anything they just say how weak Hillary is and is not a shoe-in candidate. Remember how Lieberman was the leader of the pack in early polling, last election cyle?? Any one of four or five could emerge out of this pack and take it all very quickly. Edwards, Gore, Clark, Warner, Feingold. Consensus is Hillary can't win a general election anyway and she's alienated the activist wing of the party.

by cmpnwtr 2006-02-13 08:18AM | 0 recs
Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

Repost from this diary.


Sure, strategic vision is a republican polling firm, but Chris Bowers had recently quoted their poll to talk about Rendell's numbers I believe. So, let's look at 5 most recent polls in stratetic vision's series of state polls.

Who is your first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008? (Democrats only): highlighting the double digit performances.

February, 2006

New Jersey

Hillary Clinton 38%
Al Gore 15%

John Kerry 9%
John Edwards 8%
Joseph Biden 5%
Wesley Clark 4%
Russ Feingold 4%
Ed Rendell 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 11%


Hillary Clinton 28%
Al Gore 18%
John Edwards 13%

John Kerry 6%
Wesley Clark 6%
Russ Feingold 5%
Joseph Biden 2%
Mark Warner 2%
Evan Bayh 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 15%


Hillary Clinton 28%
Russ Feingold 23%
Al Gore 16%

John Edwards 6%
Wesley Clark 4%
John Kerry 4%
Mark Warner 3%
Joseph Biden 2%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 9%

January, 2006


Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 15%
John Edwards 10%

John Kerry 7%
Russ Feingold 7%
Wesley Clark 5%
Mark Warner 5%
Joseph Biden 2%
Ed Rendell 2%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 8%


Hillary Clinton 31%
Al Gore 16%
John Edwards 10%

Mark Warner 8%
Wesley Clark 7%
John Kerry 7%
Russ Feingold 5%
Joseph Biden 2%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Undecided 9%

(I'll repost in table form later if time permits).

But it appears to me that barring "homeboy" advantage for Edwards in SC in the ARG polls Chris brings to our attention, and Feingold in Wisconsin (good for him that he's improved in WI compared to earlier polls there), it appears to me that Gore is quite clearly emerging as the top un-Hillary for 2008.

Now a simple question to Chris: how come you didn't mention these polls in making your pronouncements of this post?

by NeuvoLiberal 2006-02-13 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

Hey, but he already has 100% name recognition, and he is getting clobbered by Hillary anyway. He is also going to have to, like, actually start running as well. Further, he would need a total image makeover. A recent national poll said showed that only 34% of the country thinks he would make a good PResident, while 60% thought he would not. sc

But, whatever. Get Gore elected through long comments.

by Chris Bowers 2006-02-13 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

yes, that 60% isn't a good number for Gore.

But I have to tell you that Fox-OpDyn polls, going all the way back to pre 2000 sham-election have an interesting pattern of trying to undermine Gore. It was also seen in 2002 (you can check them at pollingreport), and I read them as a possible attempt to discourage Gore from running.

BTW, his name ID isn't quite 100%, due to the 20% uptick in the turnout in 2004, as we discussed earlier.

But be that as it may, how many of them have seen one of Gore'e speeches since 2001. For that matter, how of many people have actually seen Gore since Dec'2000?

The last they remember of him was following a flurry of Republican attacks during the recounts, followed by a withdrawal/concession speech.


Let people see his what he is made of, out of Clinton's shadow, and we'll see where the chips will fall.

Let me post links to his MLK-Day speech for folks to find out for themselves what I am talking about:

Gore's Jan. 16 MLK-Day speech:


How is 35% vs 15%, with improving trends (eg., in MI, it's already become 28% Hillary vs 18% Gore, a clearcut head-to-head; we get the trend in MI from their Dec poll, where Hillary 32% vs Gore 15%) clobbering in a crowded field?


But you do realize that you answer still doesn address the question of why you didn't mention the SV polls, right?

by NeuvoLiberal 2006-02-13 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

"Further, he would need a total image makeover."

An argument that could be made about Clinton as well.

When you aren't even an announced candidate for president and, at least according to a CNN poll last month, 51 percent say that would definitely NOT vote for you, well... that's a problem.

A more recent Fox poll found that 44 percent would not vote for her under any circumstances (yes, it is odd that she would fare 'better' in a Fox poll).  

Regardless, take the margin of error for both polls into account and you're still looking at a near majority of the country who wouldn't vote for her, period... a reality that would leave her basically NO margin for error in a general election.

So, yeah... she might clean up in the primaries.  

Win the presidency?  You be the judge.  

by Politicalhack06 2006-02-13 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

Well it's lovely how you posted the polls for some of the "other states" where Feingold does quite well. 7% in Pennsylvania with a probably 10-15% name recognition is VERY well, versus Al Gore who gets 15-18% in all polls and has a 99% name recognition.

As for Feingold down 5% behind Hillary in Wisconsin, I'd ask you to look at the Arkansas polls showing Clinton losing the state to the other contenders. Fact is, no one thought he would run. And chances are, in the next poll, as WI voters begin to realize that Feingold may very well be running and Clinton may not be the automatic nominee for the dems, I'm almost positive that Feingold will win in the next WI poll.

In fact, and this applies to Feingold, Warner, Richardson, Bayh and maybe Clark, the higher name recognition they get in the state, the more support they will likely get in these different states, at the expense of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore and likely Edwards.

by KainIIIC 2006-02-13 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

7% in Pennsylvania with a probably 10-15% name recognition is VERY well

7% is good for Feingold in PA, but I am not sure where you get your 10-15% name ID number. Feingold has had been in the news for the last 2 months.

Al Gore who gets 15-18% in all polls and has a 99% name recognition.

here, the points I made in response to Chris apply.

at the expense of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore

One can't foretell, but interesingly, in Wisconsin, Feingold gained 8 points AND Gore also gained marginally since December.

But we should remember that Feingold is still only getting 23% in his homestate of Wisconsin, and has his cutout improving that number where his ID is 100%.

I know that you'll come with your explanations of Feingold's anemic standing in WI, but if Al Gore got only 23% in a TN poll, I'd start a petition telling him not to run :)

by NeuvoLiberal 2006-02-13 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

Well first, thanks for ignoring the fact that Clinton was not leading the polls in his home state of Arkansas at 1990, but hey ignorance is bliss right?

Secondly, I'm pretty sure that nationwide, most of the contenders who have not run before's name ID probably is around 10%-15%, including Feingold, Warner, Bayh, etc. It may be surprising, but it's sad how much of the American people do not know of their elected representatives, their governor, their senators, or even if they do, any knowledge of them whatsoever outside their names. Given that, even in his homestate of Wisconsin, I would still peg his name ID at only around 80%, and knowledge of him less thanks to the astounding ignorance of the American people.

Then take Al Gore, who thanks to the fact he has already ran for president, has a nearly 100% name ID and a MUCH more extensive knowledge of him th an almost any senator of Governor, he is not polling way too hot.

by KainIIIC 2006-02-13 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

I would still peg his name ID at only around 80%


SV's WI poll says:

Below are the results of a three-day poll of likely voters in the state of Wisconsin

Remember that Feingold was re-elected in 2004 Nov? Most likely therefore, the poll would've weeded out people that were eligible to vote in 2004 but did not do so, because from what I gather that would be one of the main filters for the "likely" voter tagging. So the people surveyed probably have all seen Feingold on their 2004 ballots.

Now consider that Feingold has been elected three times to the US senate, and served for 8 years in WI senate before that (a visible position at the state level).

To claim that his name ID isn't 100% in electoral terms in WI is a serious stretch.

On Gore, in addition to what I already said above, he hasn't yet shown an interest, and there has been a methodical media blackout of him since after the 2000 Florida circus. Under those terms, him pulling 15-20% against Bill+Hillary, and in a wide-field poll is actually quite good.

If ever Gore pulls under 23% in a TN primary poll for 2008 (or anything under 40% in this field), I am serious when I say that he shouldn't make a run.


Now, why don't we stop this thread and not stretch it out ad infinitum, with the reasonable understanding that Feingold made some gains and so did Gore, of late.

by NeuvoLiberal 2006-02-13 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

And how many democrats do you think voted for him because he was a democrat? Probably around 15-20%. How many democrats/independents voted for him because they had heard him a little bit, liked him a little bit, and refused to vote for him? Quite a bit.

Earlier this year, Jon Kyl got something like a 65% ID rating... pretty bad for a senator for 12 years.

"Now, why don't we stop this thread and not stretch it out ad infinitum, with the reasonable understanding that Feingold made some gains and so did Gore, of late."

yes, this is true, because seeing as how Gore is likely not to run, most of his support from these polls will likely go to feingold later on - especially on primary day ;).

by KainIIIC 2006-02-13 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Gore emerging as the un-Hillary for 2008

will likely go to feingold later on

not the ones that read your work though :)

actually, neither Feingold nor Gore are going to run unless they see a path to victory.

And Gore's path to victory is far realistic than Feingold. So, I actually predict that Gore will eventually run, and Feingold won't.

by NeuvoLiberal 2006-02-13 06:16PM | 0 recs
Dems in MA are focused on 06

I'll start off by saying I'm what people would term a Democratic activist: I'm a elected member of my local Dem town committee,in fact I'm on the Executive Board of that Committee. I also represent my town committee on a regional board. I've knocked on doors and collected signatures and raised money.

I live in MA and I'm prepared to say( Iknow it is unscientific), Hillary is not as popular as the MA poll suggests. The other activists I speak with regularly are in a holding pattern about 2008.

I believe she is polling Joe Lieberman 2002-03 numbers right now.

People are focused on Nov. 06. The Democrats are very silent about 08 in MA

Take those numbers with a huge grain of salt.

by merbex 2006-02-13 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Dems in MA are focused on 06

Again, let me remind you. The activist community is not the majority of Democratic voters.

Just like the netroots community is not the majority of Democratic voters.

If the sentiments of the activists community mirrored the majority of Democratic Primary voters, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004. Instead he finished 4th & could not win a single state except his home state.

If the sentiments of the activists online & offline were the majority, Russ Feingold, Al Gore or Wes Clark would be topping the polls across the country week after week.

This is what Chris keeps pointing out in this surveys & analysis. There is obviously a disconnect in terms of preference between Democratic activists & the rest of the party. And the rest of the party is much more in numbers than the activists.

I believe that the netroots community is much more knowledgable in terms of issues, details & facts compared to the general voter but that still does not translate into actual votes.

by fightingLadyinblue 2006-02-13 08:57AM | 0 recs
Clark Does Well In South Carolina

What looks significant to me is how well Clark does in South Carolina, despite having less media coverage than almost all of the other current candidates.  He's about even with Gore, a former Dem candidate, he's about twice as high as Kerry, another former Dem candidate, and we might assume the reason Edwards does twice as well as Clark there is because Edwards represents neighboring North Carolina.  

by catherineD 2006-02-13 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC

Money: At this stage, and indeed deep into 2007, the key factor will be who can raise money.

So Edwards who struggled to generate cash in 2000 is in trouble. The likes of Richardson and Clark are going to find it difficult to raise sufficient funds. Feingold might get enough to make a decent start. Kerry has money left over from the election.

If Gore runs he would get the money needed, while Warner has deep pockets and may be able to raise a fair amount.

Then there is Hillary who will have a frightening amount of money behind her.

These polls may mean nothing and for many reasons, including name recognition, I tend to agree with those who regard them as practically worthless. But they are going to make it difficult for the likes of Clark, Warner, Feingold etc to raise the amount of money they will need to stay in the race after super Tuesday.

A low key campaign based on issues, or the merits of the candidate, sure isn't going to beat Hillary.

by kundalini 2006-02-13 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: ARG Polls 2008 Dem Primaries in NH and SC

have you heard of the HEALTHCARE issue?  HRC is fucking front and center on that.

by jgarcia 2006-02-13 06:10PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads