Voters Describe Ideal Nominee

Democrats in Poll Want a Candidate Who Backed Iraq War

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; Page A09

Majorities of likely Democratic voters in three states with early primaries or caucuses say they prefer a presidential nominee who supported military action against Iraq but criticized President Bush for failing to assemble international support over a candidate who opposed military action from the beginning, according to new polls conducted by the liberal Democracy Corps.

<snip>

The findings in the new polls suggest that the divisions over Iraq within the party are less clear-cut than some strategists and candidates believe, or that support for U.S. action to remove former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein from power is a serious handicap in the battle for the Democratic nomination.

<snip>

Democratic voters in the three states are divided over their choices for the nomination. In Iowa, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and former Vermont governor Howard Dean were running roughly even with each other (27 percent to 26 percent). Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) was the only other Democrat to hit double digits in that state (16 percent).

In New Hampshire, Dean held a solid lead over Kerry (38 percent to 21 percent), with retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark the only other Democrat in double digits (11 percent). In South Carolina, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) registered 14 percent, but with five other Democrats between 10 percent and 13 percent, the race there appears mostly unformed.

<snip>

In all three states, likely Democratic voters said they preferred a nominee who supports the party's core values and stands up to Bush rather than one who appeals more broadly to independents. Asked whether it was more important to nominate a candidate who stands up for Democratic Party values or one who has the best chance of defeating Bush, Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic voters said electability was more important.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38335-2003Oct16.html

nt

And it makes sense, if you think about it. Because the total supporters for all of the candidates who "supported" military effort exceeds the total for candidates who opposed from the beginning.

The difference is that the bulk of those who want a candidate who opposed the war from the beginning are coalescing behind Dean.

It also demonstrates how very different from the folks not on the 'net are from the denizens on this site, who make it a litmus test in many cases.

So if these interviewed are DEMS, what does that say about someone's chances who opposed the war in a general election?

This is the first poll I've seen where this question was asked.

It's an eye opener!

At the moment, Clark is certainly the only Democrat who really frightens Bush. He trumps Bush on national security, but, more importantly, he may be able to win over centrists and wavering Republican voters, turning next year’s election into a contest for the political Centre instead of a battle between the extremes.

Bush, by contrast, is no longer capable of competing for the Centre, after presenting himself in the last election as a centrist “compassionate conservative” and then turning out to be the most divisive President of modern times. <\b>
The rediscovery of America’s tolerant, progressive political Centre by non-partisan non-politicians, such as Schwarzenegger and Clark, is extremely bad news for President Bush and his belligerent hard-right lieutenants. So maybe it is time to say hasta la vista, neo-cons.

— The Times, London.

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=4&theme=&usrsess=1&id=25363

they want someone who either backed Bush's policy for lying us into Iraq, full speed ahead, or they want someone who clearly and concisely opposed Bush's forign policy of taking us into Iraq, IMHO.

Most of the folks who are in the middle don't have foreign policy as a priority and will vote for a President on another issue, IMHO.

We all know there are quite a few good, honest people who readily qualify as Democratics and yet are still not completely out of the fog laid down by the media and other propaganda mills. The numbers of pro-war Dems will certainly shrink as more is revealed. The same, one hopes, for the conservative side of the coin.

(By the way, I use the term 'Democratics' rather than 'Democrats' for three reasons: it strengthens what the party ideally stands for, which is democratic principles; it counters the ugly nature and context of the right-wing's 'Democrat' slur; and it's just plain classier, in my ever-so-humble opinion.) :)