New 2008 Poll
by Max Friedman, Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
by Max Friedman, Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Other than McCain, none of these people inspire much confidence or have much of a track record.
So for us, its a great opportunity if we can put forth a candidate who is both ready to deal with the difficulties of day to day campaigning, is well known already to our base, and is clearly ready to be President in the eyes of the rest of the country.
I think thats John Kerry.
Also, the MIdlle Class. That's what its all about. Not the poor, not the rich, the middle class. If democrats cannot realize that, they are finished.
Kerry-no. At this point, he is baggage city.
Good example...in 2002, the Dems ran Lisa Madigan against John Schmidt for Attorney General in the primaries. Madigan has some experience but nothing major. Schmidt had over 20 years of experience and was a clean cut guy who knew how to run a large office like that.
Madigan won, not based on the fact she was a better leader, but because she had the better organization and was a better campaigner than Schmidt.
Governing is important but we have to remember, the ultimate goal is to win.
The real problem we as party have is figuring out what will actually win. Most (myself included) thought Dean wouldn't be able to win, so Kerry was chosen. In hind sight, I think many of us see that Kerry was not really a winnable candidate this term.
We need a fighter, a strong leader and a great speaker. Who is that? Well at this point I am still making up my mind. Feindgold intrigues me, Clark was my first choice in 2004, Warner is potentially strong and Edwards may be able to do some damage. It will be a fun race.
John Edwards --
I think he is the natural front runner right now, and he would have been the nominee if there had been two weeks between Iowa and New Hampshire, and another two weeks before subsequent primaries.
A long primary season is the best reform we can have, btw -- stretching it out gives our team more free media, and insures that the eventual nominee will have the right stuff for the the long haul. The compressed schedule was the glitch that allowed John Kerry to run the table after winning in Iowa.
My personal favorite, both in 2002 and now?
Dick Durbin --
He has guts, charisma, and intelligence -- the three qualities that are essential for a successful Democratic Presidential Candidate.
Thank you for removing Edwards. He was a pointless Veep (good speaker, but a rather hollow record).
Kerry and Clark? No way in hell.
The next prez has to be two things:
I can understand Kerry, but why not Clark?
"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
You must be thinking of a different Clark. He didn't support the administration in the early days of the war nor has he ever supported their Iraq policy.
Also, don't forget that Clark said he voted for W in 2000!
And while you may have read pro-war into his statements, his ACTUAL statements were against the war in Iraq, both prior to and during the war.
I'm sorry but people who "supposedly" pay attention would know this stuff. HE VOTED FOR BUSH??? what planet are you on? We need to work harder? Maybe you need to get your head out of your ass if you believe all the shit you just said. You obviously don't like Clark, why don't you come out and say it rather than hide behind ludicrous statements you know to be false.
There is a strong anti-Clark movement out there.
As for QUOTE: [but people who "supposedly" pay attention would know this stuff].
Know what? Fuck you. Not everyone has all the time in the world to piss away on this stuff.
Some of us TRY to stay involved, but then we have to listen to some self-righteous cocksucker like YOU.
Please quit replying.
Believe the ludicrous lies about Clark if that makes you feel better.
There isn't that much difference between Reagan and Bush. Reagan had the good fortune to already be running a deficit. Geopolitically, had Reagan had a monopolar world, he would have exercised force with the same abandon Bush does.
What about Clark's work for a political firm tied to the GOP?
Don't any of these raise red flags? Especially since Clark hasn't laid down a real reason for abandoning the GOP?
Let him run for governor of AR or something. Let him build some street cred as a Democrat first.
As evidence of your total lack of knowedge of Clark (other than what Rush and Drudge say about him) you link him to the GOP when he's never been a Republican.
Remember, he didn't have to reveal he voted for Republicans over 20 years ago, but he did. If he really was some sort of Bush loving opportunist (which you imply with your smear ladened posts) he'd be lying right and left-- that's what they do.
Hmmm . . . a lying politician? Jeepers. What's next?
I think Clark made a late move sensing a moment of weakness (hardly a masterful observation, given that was everyone's view right up to Nov. 2) in Bush's camp. It fell apart. Things happen.
Clark is dead in the water.
BTW -- who cares about a friggin position paper?! Papers?! What, is he writing a grant?
How about a track record of policy decisions?
For example, Dean folks can point to a handful of acts he had as Governor and say "Gee, so that's what he does in the face of opposition."
No one can say this about Clark. His time as NATO Commander hardly helps us figure out where he would really stand.
And, as Bush has proven so clearly, where you say you stand and where you stand are separate things.
Obviously you don't since several people and myself have pointed out your lack of knowledge of the known facts.
"for example, Dean folks can point to a handful of acts"
Is this the primary fight all over? I hold no ill will to Dean or his supporters.
Doesn't the fact that Clark campaigned relentlessly for Kerry and other Democrats across the country once he suspended his own campaign give him any legitimacy in your eyes?
Whatever crackpot theory you have of him is wrong and shows not only your lack of knowledge, but your lazy adherence to lies even when presented with the truth.
I have seen nothing to ease these concerns about Clark. You know what might? AN ACTUAL RECORD!
Is that too much to ask?! After all, we're only talking about handing the man 1/3 of the world's economy, most of the world's nuclear weapons, two wars in progress, and the largest debt of any nation in history.
No, generals aren't anti war, but they sure as hell are anti-stupid war...
Well, if by pointless you mean he didn't take a $45 million dollar warchest into Iowa and blow the whole thing, then I guess you're right.
Boxer might make a run to replace Dean on the left for the primary but won't even make it to the California primary. Edwards needs to have a good hobby to keep him in the spotlight or else he will be like Lieberman last time, only a bit better because he has a personality and itsn't too conservative and strategically idiotic (see 2002 and DHS).
Vilsack and Biden are never-was as is Hillary in my opinon. Lots of people want her to run, except for her. Unlike Clark, she has been on the trail before with Bill and knows what it will be like and knows how much worse it would be for her. I bet she stays in the Senate and gets more powerful.
I like Warner, I just wonder how well he will be able to parlay one term in VA to the country and if he could keep VA and other southern/border states competitive against a GOPer.
Kucinich is a crazy elf.
If so, than why not Spitzer?
Bringing up the rear with 7 votes each:
Hilary Clinton & Dennis Kucinich
Next ahead of them with 13 each:
Evan Bayh & John Kerry (and other but we won't count them)
My "almost vote" Barbara Boxer stands alone with a surprisingly weak, considering her recent popularity, 18 votes.
And now the serious contenders:
Our Clarkies weight in with:
Wesley Clark - 28
The strong Virginia Contingent with:
Mark Warner - 30
My Boy, the 43rd President of the United States:
Al Gore - 31
And the completely unrealistic but heartfelt favorite:
Russ Feingold - 41
So no, it's no surprise that Hillary would tie Dennis.
But we all know Hillary is a given as a frontrunner for the nomination, along with Edwards. It's simply a political fact.
I'd be more concerned about the prospects of going up against 3 likely nominees for the GOP: McCain, Jeb, and Guiliani. My worst nightmare is a McCain/Guiliani ticket.
If I were you I would be more afraid of Frist. He is a proven leader (in the eyes of the GOP faithful), a great smoozer and could be a smarter more devious version of W. If he teams up with Rove, that would be my nightmare. I could live with a McCainGuilliani presidency...I won't vote for it, but I could deal with it. A Frist presidency makes me want to leave the country.
As far as Hillary, I think the Media annoints her as front runner absolutely. However, her campaign will have to face this reality...There will be a huge backlash against her as soona s she officially declares. The Clintons can go nuclear (Nucular for W), but they have to expect there will be those in the party who will take the fight right back to them. I have a feeling the backlash against her will be much worse than what Dean faced in the the last month of the Iowa primaries. How Hillary handles these attacks and the backlash will determine if she can win. She is going to be hit with questions on some of the scandals she has faced while as first lady. She is going to have to convince people to vote for her when her opponents will probably say that she will do more to organize the GOP base than the Gay Marriage initiatives. Unless she locks up party support VERY EARLY as W did in 2000, she will have an uphill battle. She can win it, but it will be hard. I like Hillary, and I think she would do a decent job. If she wins the nomination, I will definately support her. But I also think at this point there are a few stronger candidates that have just as strong governing skills and are more likable.
As far as Edwards, I think he might end up getting it (or Clark) based on him getting labeled "the anti Hillary". He will definately be a media labeled front runner and maybe a party labeled front runner, although I have some doubts unless he can raise his public awareness to stay in the limelight the next few years. Warner is another possibility to take the Anti-Hillary position.
Russ has shown that he can appeal to rural voters, independents, and yes, even some fiscally responsible Republicans. This time around, he ran five points ahead of John Kerry won many counties that John Kery lost. It was not uncommon to see Bush and Feingold signs in the same yard.
Russ Feingold is much better known nationally now than Howard Dean was at this stage of the game in 2001. Russ is already considered a serious contended by the media. He is almost always included in the lists of the top ten possible Democratic presidential contenders for 2008. Let's remember that Howard Dean was not taken too serously initally. I am not even going to address the issue of comparing Russ to Dennis Kucinih. There is no comparison.
Russ has consistenly won in a swing state. He has a way of making liberal/progressive ideals sound like common sense. He has a history of being able to win campaigns when is outspent. Please visit draftruss.com.
Russ then went on to beat a US Senator who had, in fact, been declared the loser six years before by two of the three networks in his race against the former head of the National Football League Players Association (later to be Assistant Wisconsin Attorney General, Ed Garvey.
When Bobby Kasten pulled out his win he was later forced to apologize to Ed and Gene Upshaw for the flat out lies he told about them in ads the last two weeks of that campaign, ads that more than implied they'd been stealing cash from the union.
Reaching Washington, Russ was the key figure in the confirmation of John Ashcroft, so perhaps it's appropriate he should have voted against the Patriot Act, since we probably wouldn't have faced a piece of legislation that extreme if Russ had shown a backbone in the first place.
Now he's managed to vote for COndi Rice's confirmation.
Congratulations, Russ! They still think you're a marvel.
Put me down for "Other", aka Howard Dean.
He's still never held an elected position, never really said anything groundbreaking during his campaign except, "Kerry has an intern problem" (Thank U Drudge for that one), is for a flag burning amendment, and he never even had any real fleshed out policy proposals.
If you're wondering, I voted for the only option that's actually won a presidential race.
Here are the results as of about noon today:
Who Should be the Nominee in 2008?
Hillary Clinton 21 votes - 4 %
John Kerry 30 votes - 6 %
Al Gore 69 votes - 14 %
Evan Bayh 22 votes - 4 %
Russ Feingold 87 votes - 18 %
Mark Warner 56 votes - 11 %
Barbara Boxer 40 votes - 8 %
Wesley Clark 73 votes - 15 %
Dennis Kucinich 15 votes - 3 %
OTHER 64 votes - 13 %
477 Total Votes
Here are the results right now:
Who Should be the Nominee in 2008?
Hillary Clinton 29 votes - 4 %
John Kerry 37 votes - 5 %
Al Gore 92 votes - 12 %
Evan Bayh 28 votes - 3 %
Russ Feingold 110 votes - 15 %
Mark Warner 63 votes - 8 %
Barbara Boxer 72 votes - 10 %
Wesley Clark 174 votes - 24 %
Dennis Kucinich 17 votes - 2 %
OTHER 89 votes - 12 %
711 Total Votes
Nothing inherently wrong, just rather annoying and skewing.
Here's the thing. In this age of internet linking I am trying to figure out what is appropriate use of links and what is not. Seriously. For example I have decided not to participate in polls that are obviously meant to sample opinions of people living in a certain region that I do not live in. Also I do not participate in polls hosted at a professional site where the implicit assumption is that those who are there share in the the same profession, or Union or whatever. And I do not lie in polls, meaning I would not pretend to be a Republican against Bush because I am not a Republican although I am against Bush.
I followed the link here and it looked like a generalized political site with left of center content so I did not assume there was anything wrong about participating by voting. I also made note that it looked like an interesting site and that I would follow the link back within the next two days to explore it further and see what happened from there.
Then I saw a post at Democratic Underground's Democracy For America group (actually it was posted in reply to a post I made there) which said in part:
"But you might want to tell your friends that they have been discovered Clarking the MyDD poll today. And someone is establishing the trackback.
This is just ridiculous. That is Jerome Armstrong's site, and lots of old Deaniacs lurk there.
Have a chat with your friends."
As a result I made time to come back here tonight to get feedback from members here. If an apology is in order for following that link over here from Democratic Underground to register my vote for Wesley Clark, then I give it now. The truth of the matter though is I would not have known about this site were it not for that link, and perhaps, if the content and climate is right, I would be interested in being more involved here.
I honestly am not trying to be cute with this post. I am used to following poll links directly from the main pages of Democratic Underground, though admittedly most often that is to preference polls hosted by Main Stream Media.
I can see how being linked to from a candidate "advocacy" site can cause a surge of some degree in support in your poll for that candidate. So should I have not come here and voted? Should I go back to Democratic Underground and ask that people not come to this site to particiapte in this Poll, although we are Democrats who intend to be involved in the 2008 Election and active until then?
Like I said, my choices are Feingold or Clark (with Clark having the edge if we are still cowering in fear of the terristssss in 2008), so I am not unhappy with the results here.
I'm relieved the posters at Democraticunderground are on to you guys. I've been lurking there for 3 years and read a lot of complaints from them about your poll freeping and annoying behavior. American Patriots for Clark and your marching bands are a danger to progressives everywhere.
One poster I like there called it "an annoying military operation complete with Captains, First Sergeants and Squad Leaders marshalling the troops."
There are some choice quotes in that thread
Before anybody accuses me of being intentionally posting flamebait or agitating etc... I think people here at DU have a right to know how the Clark folks are trying to manipulate them and dishonestly skew polls and discussions with ringers.
I did a search on the clark04 official blog for "democraticunderground.com" and found several instances of calls being made to Clark blogers to come to DU to promote Clark, bas Dean, and vote for Clark in DU polls... some even with direct links.
They are openly calling for Clark folks to flood DU, to freep polls and convert people here. SO keep that in mind when you see the "testimonials" and the so called independent evaluations of Clark from the glut of newbies who suddenly show up.
This is an organized and orchestrated effort to create the appearance of DU being massively for Clark to try and win over converts with the good old bandwagon method. Just like Bush has to truck in his own supporters to photo ops... Clark Corps have to bring their own people in from the Clark Blog to act as converts and undecided voters and to try and drown out non-Clark voices on DU.
How many polls did you guys freep over there? When you first invaded the place the admin told you "I want to say welcome to all of you -- I'm impressed by your enthusiasm. I hope you'll stick around. But in the future I'd prefer if you avoided freeping our polls." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=84 9826#851776
That poster really made his point when he posted the CNN link to a creeper freeped poll where Clark had 91% of 1802646 votes. That must have been a very busy day for Clark's brownshirts.
And you're still freeping them. I'm glad people are catching on to these cultish actions.
Tom Rinaldo, I just searched on your name and you're all over the internet doing this. Your brown shirts freep polls, then you put out defensive action alerts when people catch on and you go from blog to blog acting surprised as if this is the first time you were caught and try to smooth the waters to make people think this is all on the up and up. Well it's not. I'm here to say it and I'm glad people are catching on all over the net and telling your brownshirts to buzz off. Your charade has worn thin.
You do know Clark never said this?
Exit polls were screwed. No paper trail to audit vote totals. No business could get it's books certified by auditor if they were this much of a mess.
None of the above, although Feingold and Kucinich probably most reflect my views.
Obama is a promising unknown. He's NOT too young, however, although he LOOKS a bit younger than he is. But what are his beliefs, his policies, his agenda? How does he stand on rights issues, denial of habeus corpus, nuclear disarmament?
You get the idea. Bayh moves me not at all. My leader.
A leader needs charisma of some sort. Also needs to lead! and to lead, you need to know where you want to go! That was Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Carter's problem. You've got to stand FOR something. Bush, the slimy bastard, does stand FOR something in a lot of people's minds. And its not ALL smoke and shadows. He has a radical reactionary set of political beliefs that he adhere's to. And he's intelligent.
Bush is also ignorant, of course, slippery, lying son of the aristocracy with a very flexible set of MORAL principals, but all in the service of the CAUSE in his mind.
That's my reading, anyway. To fight that--or his successor--Frist, Jeb, who knows?--were going to also need someone who can talk, who has something to say, a bit of charisma or at least charm, and enough vision to convince people that he wants to lead them there.
There are plenty of issues where we can lead the way. And the party needs to be staking out those positions in congress and in the field NOW so that the nominee has a natural platform to run on in 4 years.
And that's the problem. The current crop of officials are afraid of their own shadows, communicate no ideas; seem to have none. Are unwilling to confront the possibility of having fought the good fight and lost, therefore they never fight the good fight at all (Kerry).
That really is a sad list.
Nevertheless, Edwards has to be the front-runner at present, if not in the lefty blogosphere, than with likely dem voters at large. Surely he had the highest positives and lowest negatives of the 4 on the ballot this past November. I also think that a lot of democratic grass roots are miffed at Kerry for folding on the 3rd as he did. I know I'M miffed at his unwillingness to robustly counterattack the swift boat buggerers. I guess he thought the media was going to do their job and set things right. Ha.
Starts with post #22.
Many other sites link from there as well, and they are sent here.
It is perfectly fine, but it does skew polls.
Not a problem for me, as Dean is not on the list anyway.
I am too busy thinking of how we take back our party at local levels than worrying about 2008.
That sort of did it for me, right there.
Sorry something like basic charisma plays so much of a role, but it does, and it foolish to act like it doesn't.
Why not run him for a smaller office (Gov or Sen) first?
I'm tired of the bashing of Clark by a group of people who have given us such memorable candidates as Dukakis and Kerry.
If you guys want to take back Congress and the White House, you're going to have to make some inroads into the South.
Clark is a liberal who appears like a moderate and he could lock up at leat two, possibly three, Southern states (election fraud aside).
And, he doesn't HAVE to run for anything else. Eisenhower didn't and Clark also has the experience of running a small government as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO - he was in charge of roads, schools and people.
I think many of you don't realize what he did do. I suggest before you pop your mouth off and misrepresent Clark's positions, you should actually read them. Also, there's no such thing as skewing a poll. If Clark's people are THIS organized, perhaps that should be looked upon as a GOOD THING. The Dems need organization.
I am a Southerner who does not feel we need to falsely appeal to us in the name of fear. I am afraid that many of us feel that is why a general entered the race, to cater to the fear factor. I think we don't need to do that.
As for your being tired of attacks on Clark....well, I don't think we should bash anyone. I think telling the truth is good enough.
As to what I am tired of, I am rather tired of a group that skews the outcome of so many polls. It is your right to do that, it is my right not to like it.
Could he be ahead because he actually has more supporters?
Gore, Kerry, and Clark could all guarantee close elections, but they don't inspire. Obama inspires, but he's too green.
Unless another leader emerges over the next 3 years, I think the default candidate is Hillary C., who could either win or lose big. Yes, she has a lot of baggage, but it's all out there. There's nothing new to hit her with.
"Don't fear, the General is here... Clark 08'"
Seriously folks, the reason the Democratic Party just lost the last Presidential election was because more people trust the Republicans on national security issues. I think once we all own up to that fact, and stop running away from it, we can start solving that problem.
The fact that Clark was a former General isn't the only reason I think he should be the nominee. He's intelligent, classy, and is a little more "down home" than Kerry is.
I think nominating a strong leader like Clark, as well as a much better presented domestic agenda, and having a backbone, will help the Democrats win again.
Im sure that in 1952, had Eisenhower been subjected to today's media scrutiny, he would've had some problems as well.
Give Clark some time.
As for a chance for the nomination, I agree. While Clark is the best chance for the Dems to win, he probably will be viewed as too conservative in the primaries.
It's kind of interesting that John McCain will be experiencing the same kind of problems in the 08' Republican primaries.
But we all know that if McCain gets through it, he may be unbeatable.
I don't want him to be governor - he's got to much foreign policy and executive experience for that. He needs to be president or secretary of state.
I love the guy, listening to him the guy just makes sense.
Kerry, no way, he showed his lack of courage in his concession, lack of response to the Vets, and will do much worse next time around. Proved every one of the repugs talking points, wishy washy, blow with the wind, take a stand already.
Edwards is still a lightweight and was invisible as a VP canidate. Clark was always more visible as a surrogate. I like the guy and hope he stays around to help the party, I worry he may disappear over the next few years, he doesn;t seem to get the media appearences.
Warner is my govenor, love the guy but I don't think he's ready to run for pres. I really hope he will run for senator against that travesty George Allen in 2006.
Feingold is another guy I absolutely love and think would be a great candidate. We'll see if he can get the national exposure.
Hillary, oh god kill me now, she will lose in a landslide. This sums up my feelings, http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1040&srch=
Clark is honestly our best chance to win the election, in my opinion. Whatever your feelings, there is no question he has great appeal to the center of this country. Every repug I talked with cited him as their biggest worry, because common sense centrists like his stance on things. The dems cannot stay anti-military in this climate and need to embrace national security issues. A lot of things can change between now and 2008 though.
Our biggest problem is the primaries, we need to get rid of this shortened primary, it killed us in that Kerry won because of his name recognition, period. If voters could have had a chance to learn about the candidates, we would have made a different choice I think. Either Edwards or Clark would have had a better chance than Kerry when push came to shove. And I think Clark had the best chance to win.
We can stick with our leftist, anti-military principles and watch the party decline on the national stage ir we can start talking about winning so we can actually move our ideas forward.
The bogus primary system we have is why I fear Clark will never have a shot at the nomination, and it's sad, because like you said, Clark is the best shot at winning.
And as we've both pointed out, we lost the last election because people trusted the Republicans over the Democrats on national security.
With the war in Iraq and a never ending war on terrorism, the focus isn't likely to shift on this topic for a while. This is why I think John Edwards' political career may be over.
You can still have a sensible domestic policy that addresses health care, a fair minimum wage, and election reform, but if people are voting on national security, which people tend to do in a time of war, then we better nominate someone with some credibility on the issue.
What's next a DNC poll without Rosenberg?
I could accept people not wanting Clark to be their nominee, but you start bashing democrats whom many others love in 05, i wish us dems good luck in 08.
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) "hasn't announced plans to run for president in 2008, but at least two people have bought Internet domain names that would fit the bill," the Albuquerque Journal reports. "At least eight different Richardson-related Web site domain names, including 'billrichardsonforpresident.com' and 'billrichardson08.com,' have been registered with Network Solutions, a Virginia-based company that sells the names."
Political State Report has more on Richardson's possible aspirations.