NYT: Poll Shows Candidates Failing to Move Dem Primary Voters

New York Times:


Three years after one of the most disputed presidential contests in the nation's history, Americans remain polarized and divided as they approach the 2004 White House election. But most voters, including most Democrats, are largely unmoved by any of the nine Democrats who are seeking to unseat President Bush, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The poll suggests that Democrats clearly have a chance next year. Forty-five percent of voters said they would probably vote for Mr. Bush, compared with 39 percent who said they would probably vote for his Democratic opponent, no matter who that is. And 38 percent say they do not believe that Mr. Bush was legitimately elected, nearly the same number who expressed that view the month after that election.

But Mr. Bush shows broad signs of strength going into the 2004 election. Voters continue to choose the Republican Party as better able to manage national security and foreign policy....


Views of the Democratic contenders remain largely unformed. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, who is seen by most Democratic Party officials as the clear leader in the nomination contest, is favorably rated by one-third of Democratic primary voters. But more than half of all Democrats say they do not know enough about Dr. Dean to offer an opinion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/campaigns/18POLL.html

No matter who your candidate is, it is important to let people know about him/her. It is also important to discuss the merits of the other Democratic candidates, and to point out that any Dem is better than Bush, when talking with undecided voters.

"But Mr. Bush shows broad signs of strength going into the 2004 election." Where's the facts to back this up?

"Voters continue to choose the Republican Party as better able to manage national security and foreign policy...." Where's the facts to back this up?

There are 9 Democrats running for President....we have a paper that debates ideas. Once we settle on a candidate, the NYT will see how much strength Mr. Bush has.

Mouthpiece for Karl Rove..

Yeah, the so-called "liberal" paper of record has done noting but kiss Bush's ass from the start. So, once again, you see them following Karl's prepared script.

The only person in the Screw York Times who tells the truth is Paul Krugman. It's only a matter of time before he's fired.

would fulfill their civic duty and try to find out more about issues and the candidates, perhaps there wouldn't be any confusion.
I suppose that's too much to ask of people. After all, there are more pressing things such as Christmas shopping, cocktail parties and laundry to do. The future of our nation is quite low on their list of "things to do today".

and share it...but remember that for many people the "things to do today" are getting some food on the table and figuring out how to pay the heat bill. Keep people scrabbling and they have little time to inform themselves and act on their civic responsibilities.

Loss of trade
lack of cooperation
plunging dollar against euro
etc

the perception is might makes right

the reality is our arrogance is making enemies in spades
we get all the spoils, none for you!
Greeks,dust
Romans,dust
Ottoman's dust
French dust
Byzantine dust
British dust
"Those who do not remember the past are condemed to repeat it"

How many people viewed Bill Clinton favorably in December, 1991?

"News" like this, presented in a vacuum with no context, really sucks.

We are campaigning for Dean twice a month at our local college campus. One reason Dean is doing so well is that he has so many people out there campaigning for him, for those people that support the other Democrats, please start campaigning for your person. Heck, just start showing people how evil Bu$h is and then tell them how your candidate is different. It helps us all in the long run.

Is that 38 percent -- the same number as three years ago -- think Bush is an illegitimate president.
Nearly FORTY PERCENT of the country thinks Bush is illegitimate, and they somehow spin this as a sign of strength?
And consider this as well: this is the so-called "fringe group of radicals" that is so handily dismissed by Repuke pundits and strategists.
Think about it: nearly FORTY PERCENT of the country.

And you're right, cybildisobedience, about the "nearly FORTY PERCENT" -- this is not a "fringe group." Why can't we, for example, get some tv news we can watch without yelling at or hurling something towards our television sets?

I'm sometimes pessimistic, given the power and money arrayed against us, and the press in the Rep's pockets, but I thought that statement -- plus the "re-elect" numbers and percentage of people who consider Bush illegitimate -- were positive notes in the article.

After such headlines as "Worried democrats can't contend with popular wartime president" this is a step in the right direction. We got nagourney to issue 3 retractions in a month for lies against Clark. What a piece of sewer droppings!