Dean Leads in New Wash Post/ABC Poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=polls&nextstep=displayQuestion&interactive=n&pollid=2003352&pripollid=&varname=q998_lea&privarname=&questCategoryType=n&questCategory=Variables.questCategory&keyword=Variables.keyword&pollDateRange=Variables.pollDateRange&ctabtype=A&startingRow=31&pollType=National&searchPollId=2003352&newsearch=

If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, or Wesley Clark, for whom would you vote? (Democrats)

Joseph Lieberman 9%
(VOL) Other 1%
(VOL) None of these 7%
(VOL) Would not vote 2%
Wesley Clark 7%
Richard Gephardt 9%
John Kerry 8%
John Edwards 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
Howard Dean 31%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
DK/No opinion 14%

Source: A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted by telephone Dec. 18 - 20, 2003, 2001, among a national sample of 1,,001 randomly selected adults. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, PA.
--------------------------------------

Go Dean!

Does anyone know if that is the case and if these were people who could be classified as "likely to vote in the primary"?

I read the article but couldn't find that kind of information. Is it me? Am I just dense or is it not included in the background? I know that sometimes polls are presented as "registered Democrats who identify themselves as likely to vote in the primary." I'm naturally curious if that is who we are talking about with this poll.

This is just further proof that Dean is a loser who won't even get the nomination. </sarcasm>

Nearly as high as those for Clark, Edwards and Kerry!

Pity about Kucinich; well, if you're frozen out of media coverage, this is your fate...

He was not my first choice, but I do support him now, as I will any democratic candidate. I have followed it fairly close and noticed that Dean supporters are not giving up, even when others try to discourage Dean supporters they ignore the negative comments. All sucessful politicians reach this point, where they develop a base that is solid. Another democratic contender may get by Dean, but I don't think they will do it with negative attacks, the support Dean has is too solid to peel off, the only way to beat him is to get new people interested, which none of the other candidates appear to be working towards. As long as the other candidates keep trying to peel off Dean supporters as oppossed to creating/finding new supporters all they do is help the bush team. I even had a republican tell me he will support (send in money) to Dean if he gets the nomination because he is so sick of the bush team attack on the American worker, he has been quietly looking at Dean.

Once again, I think all the democratic contenders are better than the bush team, but believe that only getting new blood into their base will lead them to victory. Unfortunately they seem to be more interested in going after Dean than the bush team, which is counter productive fro America.

Dr. Dean is obviously peaking too soon. Of course, he
usually does this just before starting an ascent to
the next peak.

It's pretty clear that Dr. Dean is going to be the
Democratic nominee; it's a shame that he takes so much
abuse from folks who ought to be on his side.

Atlant

His nomination is likely. A loss of McGovern-like dimensions is possible next Novemeber, however.

There are several Democrats who have a chance against *. Dean isn't one of them.

If we are talking about "in your state" what in tarnation is the statistical significance of 31% of 1000 voters spread across 50 states? The framing of the question seems to have destroyed its own rationality. Nor am I tempted to rush to the state by state breakdown where the significance breaks down completely.

In any event it is too soon to accept the nauseous mantle of inevitability from the dumbed down press and the ephemeral polls. if it was a horse race and these guys told you the lead horse at the first turn was going to inevitably win wouldn't that label the horserace expertise as questionable right then and there?

Of course, it is a good sign for Dean and it does show the inevitable sinking of shallow name recognition for the untenable Lieberman candidacy. Is that too ho-hum and reasonable a conclusion to stand by?