Voters Describe Ideal Nominee (interesting poll results)

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

This is so obvious that I'd like to slap and Democrat who needed a poll to tell them most Americans would feel this way.

I like the way the person who wrote this article notes that the one candidate who fits this description AND is leading in one of the three polls is leading in an "unformed" race.

Obviously, Kerry and Edwards are the two who best fit this description now that they voted against the 87 bil. I only read what's above. Does the post even mention who fits the bill?

Clearly both Iowa and SC are statisticly tied.

"Democrats in Poll Want a Candidate Who Backed Iraq War"

As if this was the only questioned they asked.

Sample size = 500

but it's certainly the most interesting answer considering how many DUers just assume that Dems who voted Yes on the Iraq Resolution have no chance of winning.

that's what I found to be interesting… that the person who's leading in these polls (Dean) is the person who least fits the description of the candidate that those polled say they want.

That's why the headline was odd to me after I read the article. It doesn't really address why Dean is leading.

In other words, I would like WP to do what NYT usually does: make the questions available.

For instance (and this goes for all questions, not just the Iraq one)

Is the question an Agree/Disagree format or a deeper question like "on a scale of 1-10" etc.

Or is he just leading in the early primary states?

Recent ones show him leading early states (which the poll on this post was sampled from).

Dean is leading in (these polls & others in) Iowa & NH. Edwards is leading in SC.

he is also leading in the latest national poll that just came out a couple of days ago (Dean 17%… Clark 14%). I don't have a link handy.

Dean is the one Dem candidate considered "electable" who opposed the invasion and the resolution. It may be that he has the benefit of receiving the main portion of the "anti-war" vote, while the others are splitting up a larger pie. It may be that Dean's advantage here will disappear once one or two of the other leading candidates drop out, leaving voters to choose from a smaller menu, which will concentrate one of the survivors.

And ther are at least two obvious conclusion that can be drawn: either the media coverage has don't and adequate job of explaining what these candidates have done. If you're watching Fox or CBS, odds are you don't know the facts.

The other conclusion is that people are voting on issues they find even more important that the candidates stance on the war (eg, perceptions of where the candidates stand on the economy). Again, it's possible they have misperceptions of where the candidates stand on those issues as well.

I bet if you asked people who voted for Bush what their issues were, abstracted from the candidate (is that a verb?), they would have picked server qualities which are the opposite of the ones' W actually posses.

Like, maybe they thought he was president once before. Maybe they thought he served as a fighter pilot in Vietnam. Etc.

Just because voters prefer a certain quality, doesn't mean they realize their candidate doesn't possess it.

It's possible that some Dean voters think he was in favor of the war since he made that statement that he was in favor of every single military action other than one.

regardless of whether or not you choose to recognize that.

It's also possible that people want someone who voted for the war, know that Dean was against it, but still prefer Dean for other reasons.

to have it both ways, here you are. If Edwards is leading in SC then Dean is leading in Iowa. If Dean isn't leading in Iowa then Edwards isn't in SC. The MOE works in all states.