Why do the poor think poorly of Dean?

Well, at least Democratic leaning voters making $20,000 or less:

Percentage support among this category:

Clark - 26%
Dean - 5%
Kerry - 13%
Lieberman - 10%
Gephardt - 7%
Other - 20%
No opinion - 20%

There are many undecided, but why the discrepancy? Why is Dr. Dean last?

(I know why! Those sneaky poor are just hoping for secret Rethug-lite wily PNACer to indulge our imperial temptations. . . it must be. Those poor folks are all closet DLCers. I know this because I read DU!)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031010.asp

first, they don't know him very well. Second, his name sounds like a snooty white guy. Third, he's a doctor - perceived as know-it-all and bossy. Fourth, his demeanor is cold and stern, not comforting, like Edwards.

n/t

(edit to add word "low-income"; was misleading with the mistaken omission of that phrase)

Democrat
21
13
10
11
10
16
18
This is the Democrat line from the poll. Dean's number is second in every line. Last I checked 13 is greater than 10 and 11. Care to explain yourself.

Making less than $20k/year. Will change title now.

last among democrats? Seems that more than a few are not included in the numbers that you copied.

There are thoughtful discussions to have around the point you raise. But when it is phrased in simply an argumentative "gotcha!" way - there is really no point of engagement discussion. Makes me regret that below I actually tried to think about an answer - one more objective - and that might point to pitfalls not only to the Dean campaign, but to others that might take the same strategy. But this post seems to belie that the point of the thread has anything to do about pondering the question. Just one more slam a democratic candidate for the glee and self-righteousness of doing so.

I am growing more and more concerned by these tactics coming from various directions (that is, folks already attached to one campaign or another). The support for a candidate is not a problem. But the blind "gotcha" behaviors seem to be driving such serious wedges that those engaged appear to be developing such emotional ties both for some candidates (fine) but also vehemently against others (really problematic). Have even seen one person go so far as to try to organize activities against a particular candidate (eg how can we work together to make this guy LOSE) - in a tone that just reeked of Don Segretti. In the long run this is so counterproductive. In the long run these approaches will make it less likely that we will be able to come together as needed to defeat bush.

Sorry but folks only willing to "hold their nose and vote" will not win the election. We will be outspent on media, pushpolls and other dirty campaigning by a tune, I predict, of four to one. We can only win if we mobilize people like you and me, to devote several hours a week, locally, to be on the ground talking with folks - one on one - to counter the media blitz. Whoever the candidate is - they will be Clelanded - vilified in the most ridiculous ways - but in ways that have been market tested as persuading undecideds. No democratic candidate will be immune. To win we have to have an army of folks on the front line (that is - intentionally interacting with traditional nonvoters, swing voters, and even party voters).

The tone of this thread (and this post divulges it further) and many others - works directly against this ever happening. It is not just counterproductive in the short-term, it is intentionally self-defeating in the long-term.

Do you want us to lose? Geez.

And we will not win if we alienate our base among African-Americans, and if we do not expand our base among low-income Democratic-leaning voters.

Perhaps the numbers mislead. Fine. But if they reflect a real trend, then we must absolutely heed them. We will lose our values and our chance at power if we ignore the views of those who are Democrats, but who are not DUers.

or you really do not want to win. The wedges and divisions being sown in threads like these - will prevent us from working together in the end.

One can raise questions - and get discussions going - that are useful. Including this very point that you raise.

But when it is done as a "gotcha!" And a "this isn't for discussion but to show x candidate's camp off as being BAD!" - there is NO service done but fostering a level of hostility and/or antipathy that will immobilize a heck of a lot of needed "ground troops" for the general election.

Sort of like all of the "Arnold isn't really so bad" threads that were up the week before the California recall. Ya, that accomplished a whole lot. Actually nothing. Except depressing energy needed for folks on the ground to do GOTV and hitting the pavement work.

This is evidence showing that arguably the leading Democratic candidate is not doing a good job reaching out to the poor, and to black Americans.

That is absolutely frightening from the point of view of our principles as Democrats, as well as the sheer mathematics of victory.

After the primary makes its selections, I will not post a negative thing about anyone. But whatever you think of the tone of the above, the fact is we are not yet there and it looks like we've got a real risk of (1) diminishing our advantage among African American voters; and (2) alienating poor voters who often vote against us for cultural reasons.

We must always reach out to poor voters if we are to be Democrats. If one candidate looks like he can't do that, then we have a serious problem we need to deal with before the general election.

except to the extent that your phrasing is a bit patronizing.

Much of my adult life, professional and personal has been living and working in these communities. "reaching out" is mindless PR. Dealing with policy is another thing altogether. Frankly our party hasn't been very good at the latter and I have heard discontent on this point for more than ten years.

But that is a side issue. And has nothing to do with the point that I was raising above. I was talking about divisiveness and tone of supporters of one candidate who are seeking to sow hostility and anger between supporters of different candidates, rather than to tout the benifits (and highlighting differences is a legitimate way to do this) of the posters favored candidate.

Creating unhealable rifts - will hurt us in the longrun, regardless of the quality of our candidate.

You're right about that. Maybe I mean, who is the candidate who can best PROVE themselves to the poor in an election?

I make JUST BARELY over $20,000 a year...10 bucks an hour comes to $20,800 a year. And Dean is FIRST on my list!

Why?

A - Civil Unions
B - Friendly to gays, and especially TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE...Dr. Dean is the only candidate I've heard publically address transgender issues.
C - Most likely, in my opinion, to beat Bush
D - Clark is a lifelong Repuke, and I'm supposed to suddenly believe he's seen the light, and is now on our side?? Puh-leeeeze!! :puke:
He's the only candidate I see as a worse choice than Lieberman! Lieberman, at least, has worn the Democratic label his whole life, but there's another wolf in sheep's clothing for ya!

fors="dost 20 years, long before Dean was even in politics.

say anything about this on the national stage yet. Can you cite some quotes and reference them? I might well then go for a Dean/Kerry...or Kerry/Dean ticket.

You must understand this is, for my THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE!! It is nearest and dearest to my heart, and whoever gives the most rights to TRANSGENDER people is getting my vote.

www.johnkerry.com

He keeps saying gay this gay that sexual orientation this, sexual orientation that...but NOWHER does he mention TRANSGENDER PEOPLE...or GENDER IDENTITY...He's not using the magic words. We are being left out AGAIN!!!
:mad:

TWENTY-TWO YEARS AGO, Kerry supported fellow Vietnam vets who happened to be gay.

EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO, freshman Senator Kerry authored the Senate's Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1985 to end discrimination in employment, housing and credit based on sexual orientation.

TEN YEARS AGO, Kerry was one of only four senators to tell the Armed Services Committee that it's "fundamentally wrong" to deny gay Americans the right to serve their country in uniform.

SEVEN YEARS AGO, Kerry was the only senator up for re-election who went to the Senate floor, voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, and said this "was gay bashing and beyond the dignity of the Senate." (Human Rights Campaign presidential forum, 7/15/03)

Kerry is a co-sponsor of:

- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
- the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, a strong hate crimes prevention measure
- the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would expand Medicaid to people living with HIV, and supports science-based prevention programs

Kerry is the ONLY candidate running to have received perfect ratings from the Human Rights Campaign for the last 8 years.


Regarding HOWARD DEAN, from a Vermont newspaper:

"'It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,' Dean said of gay marriage. 'The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect.'"
(http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm)

Dean refused to voice support for gay marriage. (Human Rights Campaign presidential forum, 7/15/03)

Only AFTER the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law" did Dean sign, behind closed doors, the legistlature's civil unions bill. Although the House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor favored same-sex marriage rights, Dean did not push for it and opted for the more conservative bill.

Dean opposes any federal law establishing civil unions. He says each state must come to "grips with civil rights" in its own way. ("Meet the Press", 7/02 & 6/03).

A states' rightist? On matters of human equality?

I see Kerry is very GAY-supportive...but has he said the magic "T" word yet?
I'm sick and tired of not being included in civil rights bills!
:mad:

when damn few lawmakers risked their seats on such a controversial issue. He even testified in front of Congress for allowing gays to serve OPENLY in the military, when most others sought the safety of "Don't ask, don't tell."

Kerry helped draft the Hate Crimes bill, and pushed for gays to be given equal employment when NONE of these were popular issues with the general public.

relate well to that type.

a General in uniform...

and they relate to that type?

Sheesh...

seriously, though, the poor in this country are the most vulnerable and Dean's not really giving them answers to their problems. We shouldn't have gone to war. Fine, but what now?

Dean is too anglo. He needs some soul. Also, he needs to not be so abrasive. The poor are also more likely to be religious, and not too welcoming to campaigns based on anger.

In the last debate Dean quoted Martin Luther King, and it looked and sounded very wrong. I kept looking at Sharpton to see if he'd make a face (he didn't). Dean doesn't have soul. For some reason, Clinton did.

so of course he can relate to others in similar situations.

If he doesn't have a soul, then who,among the candidates do? I'm from a family of ten siblings, so I know someone without a sole when I see them. You have to be rich now to be a candidate, so really, how could any of the candidates possibly relate to the lower income families, for that matter! :think: :shrug:

much of his organizing and name recognition comes from the internet activism. Perhaps those in the income bracket have less access, or less free time (to spend on the internet). Word of mouth spreads among direct one-on-one networks. Thus those accessing the information, and to whom Dean appeals, are speaking wtih others who are of a similar circumstance.

Frankly, that a little known governor, from a small state, could go from "who the heck is that?" to a leading candidate is pretty amazing. However, the data above points to an inherent weakness in the strategy - that the campaign, if to be successful, must address. They are missing those without direct access (internet, and cable - as most of the debates have only been on cable stations.) And those that are being reached may be spreading the word, but that is limited to those to whom those folks are directly networked.

Dean is more well known that Gephardt for instance.

gep had a good record on defending those without much. he talks about how his family grew up poor and he has years in the house. i'm in california and he has many strong supporters because of these things. these people are also not likely to use the internet, but just know of gep for what he has done and support him based on it. this probably helps to account for some of his high numbers in the polls which aren't much reflected on du.

me thinks, you and many others, are indulging in intentionally devisive behavior that will tank ANY candidate. I offered an attempted answer - not as a supporter but as an observer - because I care about campaign strategies and their effectiveness and failures. Because whoever wins the primaries - HAS to learn from the lessons of the other raeces. Including the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies - in this case I think the primary strength has an exploitable weakness that you point out. THis is important for ALL candidates/campaigns to realize.

But trying to feed the ugly "gotcha" and my guy is better than your guy that just adds to the hostility between camps - to the point that folks voice not being willing to vote, let alone work for, the other candidates were they to win the primary - is awful. It is as if folks don't even realize that feeding into this approach is as disruptive in the long run as a propogandizing freepers. When those within our own ranks - work to create such deep wedges within - one wonders if one even needs an opponent. Let alone one who will be able to outspend by 4:1.

Eating ones own, indeed.

Why are so many people, supporting this candidate or that, so heavily invested in eating one's own is far beyond me.

They are missing those without direct access (internet, and cable - as most of the debates have only been on cable stations.) And those that are being reached may be spreading the word, but that is limited to those to whom those folks are directly networked.

'Those who are being reached' can't really spread the word, because they have no real interactions with the poor. I saw another demographic chart that showed Dean's support came primarily from white people making >75k a year. Those people know nothing about the poor except where they live, and that only so they'll know which neighborhoods to avoid. This is going to be a huge problem for Dean, especially given his record and balance-the-budget rhetoric, which I can tell you will be exploited to the hilt by someone like Kerry. Poor people don't like hearing stuff like that, because they know where the budget cuts are going ot come from: programs they have come to use. I'm just waiting now for Dean's latest flip-flop, when he stops trying to push his budget-balancing rhetoric in an effort to make inroads with the poor and minorities.

Less than $20,000
26
5
13
10
7
20
20

$20,000-$30,000
17
15
16
13
7
18
13

$30,000-$50,000
18
10
8
14
12
20
18

$50,000-$75,000
21
18
14
11
11
9
16

$75,000+
25
26
13
8
8
12
8

Dean is the second figure in each group. His over all support is listed as 16% in this poll. His 15% for the 20-30k group is virtually identical and his 18% in the 50k-75k group is within any reasonable MOE. He does do very poorly in the very lowest income group, which is conscentrated in the South where Dean is also doing poorly. He also is a little under (depending on MOE) in the 30k-50k group but at most only slightly. He is doing well amoungst 75k plus.

So a strong plurality of Dean's support comes in the >75k group. The principle, however, still holds true. Other than that, I have no idea what the purpose of your post was, as it doesn't address my core point: Dean is going to have a huge problem connecting with lower-income voters.

Combining highest income groups:

Clark: 46%
Dean: 46%


Lowest groups:

Clark: 43%
Dean: 20%

Clark has a base in the lower income groups, and also has people like Charlie Rangel in his corner, who have credibility with minorities and the poor. What does Dean have? A message of anger, balancing budgets, and the internet? That isn't going to play with the poor.

I also noticed that Clark has strong appeal for moderates: Clark gets 24% of this category, as opposed to 11% for Dean. Since the more moderate voters also tend to be less activist, it means Dean has already picked his low hanging fruit, whereas Clark's low hangers are only beginning to blossom, as it were. Add it all up, and Dean has an uphill battle ahead.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. For any campaign it isn't just who you reach directly - it is the network that those people reach as well. I think that the Dean campaign's use of the internet has been amazing. 8 months ago I thought of him as a marginal governor (when I could remember that he was one and where he governed), and now he is a leading contender. However there is a flaw in this model. It only reaches some people - and secondarily those that are connected directly to those people (family, friends and colleagues).

As to the message and its reaction? You could be correct. But if they are not 'hearing' the message due to the medium, they are also not as aware of positions let alone "flip flops". I have lived and worked in high poverty nonwhite communities during 2 of the last three elections. Folks were not talking about the issues/positions at the level that you describe. It was an overall message - whose message got out - and whose resonated. More of a tone than particular messages. Most folks were too busy (esp in hard economic times - and 1992 mirrored this era for those at the bottom of the economic ladder) to be engaged at that level. If Dean stumbles here it will be less about the message than it is about the ability to get any message out to these communities. The same is true of all candidates.

on edit - in last line... rewrite: If Dean stumbles here it will be less about the _flipflops, or the details of the message_ than it is about the ability to get any message out to these communities. The same is true of all candidates.

Meant to capture that many folks do not pay attention as close to the details/switches or perceived switches, as those of us who follow politics and campaigns closely are likely to do.

However, my point about the flip-flopping was a comment about Dean and his 'straight shooting' campaign, not about what will resonate in the poor community.

Speaking of that community, Dean's 'balance the budget' message will certainly not resonate there. People understand, as I stated, what that is code for: slash social programs. It would be easy for Gephardt and Kerry, Clark if he needs to, to run some attack ads highlighting some of rich-kid Yalie Dean's adventures as governor of a tiny, lily-white state. The Medicare 'gamble,' for example, or the comment about people on welfare not wanting to work. He's a carjacking victim waiting to happen, to make a funny.

Dean's support comes from those who are "connected"; i.e., those who can afford internet access and a computer, have time to go to MeetUps in the 'burbs that aren't on the buslines (i.e. cars of their own and gas money), and those who have disposable time/income to get involved.

Unfortunately, I've seen a few Dean supporters (A FEW, not all) who seem to think the rest of the world lives like them: they own cars, have (or had) decent jobs, live in decent neighborhoods, etc. Where I live, I see a LOT of Dean support among the "guilty white liberal" types who live in multi-million dollar homes in the high-end neighborhoods and drive BMWs, Audis, Mercedes, Lexus, etc. They don't look like they've EVER had any worries about paying the phone bill, the mortgage or having enough money to feed the family, and they don't seem to care much about others who have these problems-- they'll just write a check to their favorite charity or volunteer a couple hours at the homeless shelter and ease their minds, but don't see the need to address the structural change needed to fix them.

The prize line that took the cake for me was one Dean supporter who said on this forum that he never had any problems with people defacing his Audi when he put the Dean sticker on it. I think that about says it all. :eyes:

Most of the other candidates, even those like Kerry who have some wealth, seem a bit more connected to the Democratic base: working people, people who don't have cable, are not hip and trendy, people who've maybe had to use the foodshelf on occasion because their paycheck bounced. These are the people who have quit voting for Democrats because we haven't spoken to their issues. And these are the people who can save us now, IF we select the right candidate.

much of his organizing and name recognition comes from the internet activism. Perhaps those in the income bracket have less access, or less free time (to spend on the internet).

There is definitely an income-related "digital divide." But there is also a fairly large group of people who don't see that the internet has enough of interest to offer them, especially considering the cost of getting a comuter, an ISP, and so on.

There's a wealth of information and studies done about internet use at www.pewinternet.org that might interest you. Check it out!

One thing that's probably obvious if you think about it... the internet is both an opportunity and a challenge. Anyone, including a candidate, can set up a web page or organize an e-mail list, but first the web surfer needs to click onto the candidate's site. Also, anyone who does a "google" search will come up with as many sites critical of a candidate as those supporting him. There's a whole lot of disinformation and misrepresentation out there. Democrats and Progressives really can't complain, though, because there were a lot of anti-Bush sites that went up in 2000.

I don't think any candidate can over-rely on the internet. It serves a real purpose, but to depend mainly on the internet would be a serious mistake... IMHO.

guessing they don't know him. don't a lot of poor go to military which may account for clark and kerry support. and gep and lieberman because both came from families without much. not sure about specifics though, but i will say it's probably because they do n't know dean .

but he definitely needs to get out among the people more. Once they hear his message they'll realize he's by far the best candidate!;-)

Clark had to actually work to get where he is.

btw wont deny it, Clark is a hardworker, my candiate had to work hard too but the poor although chances are they will identify with a candiate who knows and lived the problems they have wont always chose the poorman, many of the poor including my grandparents who were very poor were admirers of the very rich FDR but Dean no offense to him isnt offering what FDR did.

...the poorest kid in the richest neighborhood in Little Rock. He spoke about how the rich kids used to make fun of him because of his financial status. He persevered, went on to become the #1 swimmer in his high school on top of a 4.0 gpa. He went to West Point and later became a Rhodes Scholar.

Thanks thats a nice story. Its always nice to see poor kids become sucesses, history of our presidents tell us that with people like Lincoln, Truman, and LBJ.

one of the best successes and i like how he is continuing to help with issues like education in america, and aids, and so many other things. doing much more to help the people in and out of america than bush is.

I forgot all about Bill Clinton :) silly me. There are countless others too, I just named my favorite three I could think of. I really admire those poor who work hard and get to where they get through hard work, Edwards, Kucinich, it appears Clark, and Gephardt that could be said about. I know Kerry and the others are good people but those four have experience I wouldnt call it poverty, maybe for DK, but I would call it humble beginnings so they know first hand some of these programs are. Thats not to say rich democrats arent benevolent and know where people are coming from, FDR and JFK and RFK examplifed that perfectly.

Logic: It's fantastic!

Dean support drops DRAMATICALLY when you get down to the 20k level. He's ranked last among Dems in that category.

This doesn't seem like a statistical fluke, and I truly doubt that Dean is the second choice of every poor person.

Something is going on: what?

Something is going on: what?

Why do young people think poorly of Gephardt?

Something is going on: what?

Why do the elderly think poorly of Kerry?

Something is going on: what?

Why do conservatives think so poorly of Dean?

Something is going on: what?

Nevermind this is for all registered voters.

Nevermind this is one nationwide poll of only 1000 voters who probably haven't been exposed as much to all the candidates that didn't have earlier fame.

...

so many moronic anti-Dean attacks, so little time.

It's true. Really.

And if a very leading Dem polls badly among the poor, then that's screwed up.

If the same Dem polls badly among blacks, then that's really bad.

You've got to do better than dismiss the preferences of the poor with a patronizing wave of the hand.

The point of my post goes unnoticed.

And are not gotcha questions. They must be asked, and answered.

But blacks and poor people are two groups that Dems must constantly target successfully. Any sign that a candidate has lukewarm or quite bad support (e.g. Clark's huge jump down in the lower income category) there indicates a problem for the party.

(As for the elderly, Clark's 32% support. . . well, that's good too)

but every President is.

What's your point?

(if I remember correctly) talking bout how he wasn't doing well among Black democrats. The article said that, on it's face, this was unusual for a a guy from a state outside the NE. The article then pointed out that Gephardt's district -- a St Louis suburb -- was something like 98% white, and the article said that, up to that point, Gephardt had spent very little of his career trying to appeal to black voters. I could be imagining this, but I think the article said that Gephardt's district was in the top five or 10 whitest congressional districts.

many of whom may well be poor. In other words, cultural issues, more than economics, may be driving this poll.

As a national poll, it doesn't mean too much.

I'm thinking that maybe lower income folks are less likely to have internet access. Lower income folks are more likely to listen to and be successfully propagandized by right-wing radio. Lower income folks heard on the TV that Clark was an army general and may not even know that Dean is a medical doctor or even who Dean is.

And, if in your condescending view (thanks a lot, by the way, some of us didn't grow up rich), the poor are ignorant and propagandized, how just do we expect to ever turn their minds around?

Shocking!

The poor are placing Dean at the bottom.

This is a very important group that we cannot alienate. This is screwed up--how will Dean fix this? If he can fix it, he will win the primary and has a good chance of winning the general. If he can't fix it, he still might win the primary but has sorry chances in the general.

Every candidate who wants to win must reach out to lower-income people.

Calling them propagandized or ignorant won't cut it. We need their votes more than they need our pity.

How many are familiar with each candidate?

And even if they were uniformly Republican, they should be voting their interests--with us, not with the GOP.

The results of this poll are clear and indisputible. I shall fall down and fellate an effigy of Clark immediatly.

Despite being the head of the pack

(ducking...)

First, since MOE works in both directions the 2% differential is out of 6% not 3%. But it also isn't a linear function and also is not to be interpreted that way. What the MOE says is that 95% of the time the results for Dean will be between 2 and 8, and the ones for Gephard between 4 and 10. It is a bell curve so it is more likely they are say between 4 and 6 for Dean than 2 and 4 but that isn't how those are interpreted.

if they were "propagandized" bill clinton would not have won considering all the crap he got from the right wing which started before he even won the primary.

was vastly more balanced than Gore's in 2000 to use one example. While negative stories about Clinton appeared so did the factual denials and postive stories. That was virtualy unseen for Gore in 2000 and will be unseen, unless we force the press to, in 04.

That was before the economic benefits really materialized and were well known, and he was tarred something nasty. He won much of the south and the poor despite the propaganda.

and Ross Perot splitting white votes. But even then he did worse in the South than anywhere save the great plains.

Just a portion of it. The fact that Clinton could pull in some southern support is enough. He could do worst there, as long as he could fight there.

If all one cares about in 2004--and I happen to think Clark is the best guy regardless of that--then finding the person who can grab a couple of Southern states is a huge plus.

just like republicans don't have to do as good in some states as they do in the south and the mountain states, but just get enough for the victory. in our case we need to cut into where the gop does well to stop that victory.

the south is not liberal so of course his wins in the south wouldn't be as great as the west coast and northeastern states. but the fact is as a democrat he DID win some states and did a pretty good job in winning those. that IS an accomplishment especially considering the right wing crap going on.

al gore gave in to republicans by trying to run a campaign based on morals especially with getting lieberman to be vp. the media was as whorish with clinton as it was with gore as it is right now. gore should never have run a campaign as republicans wanted it to be with being based on personal morals.he should have used clinton in the campaigning and run on the clinton/gore years.

Is your low-income housing project in a secret area, hidden away from 'civilized folk'? If you don't know where it is, you should. Your response strikes me as pretty elitist.

I just met poor un-employed people that were all for Dean. In fact, they were woken up to democratic politics when they lost their jobs. So, I'm not so sutre about all this polling business, Me thinks it's a giant load of bull pukey.

There is a huge discrepancy in the numbers among lower-income folks. This really does not seems like some statistical or polling fluke.

It's quite large: the point is that for those you met, there are many more who are for someone else instead.

who is a well to do conservative, African American woman, home owner, likes dean as well. She worked for the IRS her whole life. Now, I'm not pulling for Dean. I'm not realy all that happy about any of them, but all of them together are good.

All I'm saying is that I am growing weary and dis-trustful of polls. I don't so much see them as monitoring the pulse of the nation, rather I see polls as dictating to a nation of followers how they should think. Though, much like a car wreck, we all can't help look at the poll results.

That Dean was doing better among poor people until Clark entered the race, and then they went from Dean to Clark. Since Gephardt and Kerry have been around longer as national candidates they did not lose as much support as Dean did.
Dean was my early favorite because of his anti war stance, and (somewhat sheepishly) because I like New England.
I think I would go with Clark now for the simple reason that I think his position on tax cuts is more electable. Calling for a reversal of the Bush tax cuts, like Dean and Gephardt do, is going to lose alot of votes. People will not be happy to give up even $300. The economist Clark seems to understand that most of our budgetary problems are solved by eliminating the tax cuts for the top brackets.
So I would like to see a Clark/Dean ticket.
My income is well south of $20,000, but I cannot speak for others in my class.

and maybe haven't had time to be up to date on the primary candidates?

i don't know.

so they've barely heard of him.

I'm a southerner with an income of less than 20 thousand. Dean is the candidate I prefer.

and I can't stand Dean. I don't know what it is about him. He just seems really showy.

Last week my sister attended a meeting that was mostly made up of social work and healthcare professionals. The vast majority of those in attendance were African Americans and Latinos. They are not part of that income demographic, but they're going to vote with them for the most part. They are probably lower middle class in income, or a bit less. They do have internet access. There was much talk and excitement about Clark. There was little or no discussion or interest in any other candidate. None of this was a surprise to either of us. Clark is going to get huge support among the minority component of the Democratic base for a lot of reasons.

Dean's main credentials come from governing a state that is something like 96% percent white, where Clark's background is as a high ranking official in an institution where minorities are heavily represented. He has been on record as supporting affirmative action in the military. It's not just that a lot of the military is minorities. It's that a lot of Black and Latino Americans have some type of investment in the military.

There's lots of talk about the Democratic base, but sometimes, when you read it here, you'd think that the base was only the intellectual left-liberals. Black and Latino working and lower income Americans, as a group, are much more like the old Democratic base - working their way up in a difficult and skewed system. They're practical, hardworking, tough as nails, and they're patriotic. Clark is their dream candidate. Dean isn't on the radar and doesn't know anything about them. Clark knows them personally and well.

A lot of Dean's campaign has been internet based, and of course, there is this thing called the "digital divide." The local media probably has not focused a great deal on Dean except to paint him as some sort of left wing nut.

He doesn't understand how the world works for people less priveleged than he. That is why he doesn't get weepy for seniors, people in need of medical care, the homeless, minorities, people who are losing their jobs to NAFTA, minorities who live in the ghettos to which he wants to send toxic waste, the millions of California children who could die if Yucca Mountain really does become a nuclear waste dump.

I was taken in by Dean the first time I heard him speak. He is the only **white** candidate who is not afraid of being upfront about controversial issues, no matter what the political cost (e.g., affirmative action, gay rights, etc.).

http://www.africanamericansfordean.com

but Dean is far from alone on these issues. Kucinich and Kerry are great on gay rights as well as are many of the others. Affirmative Action as well for them same goes with these others. I dont care about his wealthy background after all I idolize men like RFK and FDR, what I difer with Dean is though, I am an economic liberal like I am anti NAFTA, very pro union, and etc. Hard to explain it but I can tell you Dean is not the only one speaking out on controversial issues, he may be the only one getting a hell of a lot of press for it, but Dennis Kucinich has been very outfront as well. I am just saying is all blkgrl that Dean has been upfront about controversial issues but hes far from alone.

When I saw the debates the candidates did before the NAACP (several months ago), many of the candidates came across (to me) as extremely phony when discussing civil rights. Then there were others who did come off as sincere, but just didn't deliver their comments in a way that would make the "average joe" understand why their stances on these issues are the right ones.

Well my candiate couldnt attend the NAACP. I dont think the others are phoneys and in fact Kerry to my knowledge was one of the first politicans to stand up for gay rights. You said at first Dean was the only one, now they all do, I havent heard Dean much but Kucinich has a sincerity to civil rights.

or any of the other "top tier" candidates.

The fact is that none of the big money candidates have anything to offer low income people, and although it may be surprising to some, low income people tend to have a less idealistic view of the voting process in general.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the entire system discourages low income voting, the polls are open for 12 hours on a working day, most low wage earners work a long way from their workplace, many rely on public transportation, the 2 hours off to vote thing is a joke, especially for people in low paying jobs, and on and on.

None of this is the fault of any of the candidates, it is just the way things are.

Rev. Sharpton noted this the other night, much more eloquently and simply when he said that "most people don't vote."

Voters tend to be in the top 25% income group, and their priorities and concerns are very different from the rest of the population.

I think that posters on this board probably have, on the average, a greater awareness of the fact that low income people exist, and many might even support fundamental and systemic changes in the voting process in order to achieve a broader-based franchise.

This is an admirable sentiment, but American politics is first and foremost about money. Not a poor man's game.

The gap between rich and poor has widened now to such an extent, the population is so polarized, that the likelihood of a political solution has dwindled almost to nothing at this point, in any event, so there is not really much point in supporters of the big shot candidates agonizing over whether poor people like their guy.

Poor people have no reason to like their guy, and their guy has no reason to spend resources on people who are unlikely to vote for him or anyone else, or contribute money.

This is coming from a non-white, most definitely non >75k poster.

You cannot win without the black and working class vote. Period. If Dean gets the nod, I'm afraid of low turnout because of this. For all of our sakes, I hope he does whatever he can to start delevoping some support among these groups or it could cost us all.

They believe in a strong defense and fighting terrorism. They most likely have no clue about PNAC, or the war lies and would probably think it's political hype if anybody told them. Clark is a General which means he'll protect the country, but also a Democrat which means he'll fight for them too. If they know he had a regular upbringing like they did, that would be another plus. That would be my guess anyway.

like it or not, to the poor, dean is on the other side of the divide in the chasm between the haves and have nots.

but so was fdr, and it remains to be seen if dean can project that he cares about the poor like fdr did, even if dean helped poor people in his state get health insurance.

in fact, dean ought to be pointing to this everytime he goes into a poor/working class neighborhood.

it isn't a case of thinking poorly it is a case of not knowing enough about the candidates. Why is Clark leading by such a huge margin among this group? against everybody-- I doubt it is because they know a great deal about his campaign but they do know that he has been a big focus on the media. My guess is that this group will eventually support the democratic nominee because of increasing poverty, joblessness, and inadequate healthcare--all issues Dean speaks to.

look at the next subgroup in the income range those making 20-30,000 they aren't generally considered very wealthy especially if they have families--Dean is in a virtual deadheat with Clark 18-16 percent.

So I say give it time.

Give it time to establish name recognition. New Hampshire, Iowa, California, Michigan, ..., where Dean has been, he has very strong showings. There is plenty of time to cover the country. I think Clark has the General title working for him now, but this may wear off, after a while.

Dean has a surprising way of being likable as people get to see him talk. They react well to his directness, seems like less of a politician or Washington insider IMO. As one 19 year old in Michigan put it last week, "he tells the truth, he gives you the meat".

:shrug:

The elderly vote and the middle class votes (those that care anyways)

I have worked polls over the past few years and I can tell you that the areas with low income levels don't vote.

That is the sad state of affairs in the land of the free and home of the brave...

Dean is also polling low nationally reguardless of income, but well in New Hampshire and Iowa where it counts, and where voters are more familiar with the candidates. I'll bet in Iowa and New Hampshire Dean is doing much better with the low income voters. There are statistics and damned statistics. Your presentation is misleading at best.

The numbers are there, and they are especially stark at <= $20k/year.

Moreover, NH and Iowa are not where it accounts. What matters in winning the primaries altogether; NH and Iowa are necessary for regional candidates or for insurgents who want a chance. Clark's support is national, and he has the lucky advantage of combining both grassroots and establishment support.

A lot of people I know think Bush cut their taxes. They don't understand that it was a shift from federal taxes to higher state taxes and fees to make up the difference. They don't understand that the rich and corporations get all the benefits from Bush's tax scheme. They are happy with the child tax credit crumbs that Bush tosses their way while the rich get the windfall.

They buy it when Bush calls a repeal of his cuts a tax increase.

It's hard to explain economics in sound bites.

that's clever.....I think you are wrong most of the "poor" as you call them don't know anything about politics.....except what they see on TV......but then alot of wealthy people are just the same . I think this link is bogus........

And it's wrong to patronize their politics. We're Democrats: frankly, their preferences should be guiding this party to a large degree.

Poor people don't have the time, energy, or resources to keep track of people who aren't shoved into their faces in really major ways.