HUGE: Kerry does twice as well against Bush than other Dems

I couldn't help but notice this in the latest Zogby numbers- it popped right out in fact-
In head to head match-ups against Bush Kerry is only 4 points down whereas all the others are at least 8 or more on the minus side.

Ordered by strength of performance:

1. Bush 45% Kerry 41% (-4%) (14% other/undecided)
2. Bush 47% Dean 39% (-8%) (14% other/undecided)
3. Bush 46% Lieberman 38% (-8%) (16% other/undecided)
4. Bush 47% Gephardt 38% (-9%) (15% other/undecided)
5. Bush 46% Clark 37% (-9%) (17% other/undecided- obviously due to Clark's unknowns)

Note: 921 respondents and MOE of 3.3%

The other big thing I see is that Bush's "base of support" is least formidable vs. Kerry- only 45% where Dean and Gep (for some reason) boost him up to 47%.

I'm sorry but this seems to indicate that Kerry is a SIGNIFICANTLY stronger opponent in the general election. I realize it is WAY to early to be citing these polls but I see this as pretty good evidence that at the beginning of the day Kerry is the best weapon in our very formidable arsenal.
If electibility is your concern then you cannot discount the importance of these numbers.

Kerry's fine with me.

Any D is better than any R....

i guess i did read those numbers correctly! the margin of error places john f. kerry within one point of the freak monkey, and it's still early.

MOE 3.3% means that there's a 6 point swing... that means that they're in a statistical dead heat.

"Twice as well" to me means Kerry is at 42% while others are at 21%....

Watch for the flames...

He doesn't do *twice* as well, ffs... :eyes:

There are three kinds of lies:

1. Lies
2. Damn Lies
3. Statistics



The best you can get out of your data is that Kerry is two percentage points closer than Dean (and whatever the others are). Frankly, I find your interpretation of the data to be so dishonest as to be a lie. But I won't hold it against Kerry. If Kerry is your guy, you aren't doing him any favors with this crap.

"I find your interpretation of the data to be so dishonest as to be a lie. But I won't hold it against Kerry. If Kerry is your guy, you aren't doing him any favors with this crap."

why? Forget about MOE. WHY does Dean inspire 2% more people to vote for Bush? :wtf:
And thanks for calling me a liar. In football there's a big difference between needing a field goal and needing a touchdown.
It's no lie to say Dean needs to convince twice as many undecideds to vote for him than Kerry.

Kerry's not my first choice but I would support him enthusiastically. Part of me believes Kerry will be the Dem candidate. It's still pretty early on and so much can change.

MzPip
:dem:

in the primary. I think Kerry might also get a lot of Edwards/Gephardt voters if their candidates numbers don't get any better.

You cite differences that are within the margin of error and you leap to calling Kerry a "SIGNIFICANTLY stronger opponent?"

NT

whatever the MOE you can see that this particular group of poll respondents preferred Kerry enough so to place him TWICE as close to Bush than ANY other opponent- YES that is significant. Try and explain away the MOE factor and you'll still have to reach the conclusion that Kerry is the stronger candidate.

yes I'd say this is significant.

...Kerry would need to get 78% against Bush.

That certainly isn't the case.

You'd more chance of a Cajun voting for William Shirley,
than I for Kerry.

try again. I stand by my description of Kerry doing "twice as well".

Stand by whatever you ewant. Yours is just one of a dozen interpretations. It's one thing to blow smoke up my ass, but how do you manage to blow smoke up your own?

n/t

Bush: 22%
ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: 78%

Now that would give me chuckles.

unless you can prevent over half of Bush's supporters from casting votes, then you will never get those kinds of percentages.
The swing vote is approximately 30% (if you assume each candidate can do no worse than 35%). Of that 30% in this poll, Bush has 10%, Kerry 6%, and 14% remains undecided or will go to other candidates. Of that remaining 14%, the big question is how much will go to other candidates this year? If 4% goes to 3rd party candidates (3.7% did in 2000), then Kerry has to get 7% of the remaing 10% to win.
Not impossible, but if these numbers were presented to me a year from today, I'd like our chances very much.

we could convince half of Bush's supporters that Election Day has been changed to November 4th or something...

I think we can do this!

If the fucking idiots see it on FAUX, they'll believe it. :evilgrin:

If there weren't so many sheeple brainwashed by the Busheep media :grr:

Good for Kerry for his showing against Bush.
Good for Dean for his national polling.
Good for Gephardt for still being in this.
Good for Clark for coming in so late and ranking with seasoned politicians.
Good for Lieberman for taking such a bashing here but still being viable in America.

If electibility is your concern then you cannot discount the importance of these numbers.

I can discount ANY numbers. Kerry's fine, I'm glad he shows good numbers, but he still LOSES in the poll, just like everyone else. So you should temper your enthusiasm with a good call to action.

You're so desperate for good news that you'll take anything, even this!

which is a big difference. And there are a lot of people left to be persauded (14%) to vote for someone.

He loses half as badly which is a big difference

TO YOU. Say it with me. IN YOUR OPINION. I can't figure out how your selective interpretation doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth, but whatever. If this is what energizes you, then cool.

And there are a lot of people left to be persauded (14%) to vote for someone.

Yeah, for someone. All more evidence that drawing any conclusion or claiming any signifigance is at BEST waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay premature. At worst, it's a blind swipe in the dark.

Against ANY of our candidates listed!:D

A poli sci professor in my grad school program told us that the "rule of thumb" was: if a sitting president didn't get 50% or more against a challenger (in a two-person race) by May of the election year, he was either 1) ripe for the picking, or, 2) was going to lose, period. It's not May of 2004 yet, but I've got this feeling...:eyes:

B-)

That to me...is scary!!!

a man of integrity (on edit, which has not been refuted by anyone)- even though that doesn't keep him from lying about the other candidates.

This builds on something I've been saying today- that as bad as Bush is people like to know what they're voting for, and it's a reason Dean can't get a strong national showing- he simply has too much about him that is either unknown or hard to nail down, and this is due to his short record in politics and is compounded by changes in positions.

I like the guy too and if he's the nominee I would feel very comfortable doing everything I could to get him elected.

However, I'm not suprised Clark is down because he has been taking a real beating lately by the press (if that's what you can call them). There have been a lot of lies, half-truths and distortions put out their and the framework really isn't in place yet to set the record straight. I'm really heartened though that he's held up as well as he has.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I now see why Kerry is doing so well.

Than why is Dean doing so well?

and maybe even Clark. THAT'S a lot of voters.

...and most of the voters will not mind some perception that he trusted the president to do the right thing- most voters did as well...his position seems pretty solid to me- and he answers for his vote seems genuine enough to me...

this is one classic case where a DEM finally gets to have it both ways-try as they may, Bush/media's attempt to paint him as a hypocrite on his vote appears to be falling flat with voters... I say we ride this baby out rather than bash DEMS!

You post something that is just not making sense, then you don't answer.

;(

This is the kind of thing I hate to see on this board.

It shows that these Kerry voters are more likely establishment voters and that Dean is the outsider.

i.e. Kerry's politics are closer to Bush's than to Dean's by a 2% margin (altho actually this 2% is in the margin of error.

All of us need to hammer on the idiocy of Bush's "policies" to change this alleged lead for Bush around.

unless... I dunno... you know something I don't.

I think it is misleading.

THe Questions were:

1) Who do you support? and than it listed the nine Democratic candidates.

After that it asked
Vote for:
a) Bush
b) Kerry
c) undecided
d) other

Vote for:
a) Bush
b) Gephardt
c) undecided
d) other

etc. for the "top" candidates i.e. Clark, Dean, and Lieberman

So it was not really a head to head comparison, IMO.

I voted Kucinich and than for the Dem over Bush except for Liberman whom I chose other. ;)

wtf? how is this misleading and not head to head?