Who has a better chance of beating Bush?

and it would be a LANDSLIDE VICTORY. There's no chance in HELL, the shrub could beat him. JMCPO

We're still a 50-50 nation. Actually, more like a 30-30-2-1 nation if you don't count the 37% who don't give a f--, um, who don't vote. It will be close no matter who we nominate. Unless, sorry to say, we nominate Dean. It won't be close then at all.


Now I'll wait for the typical Deanie response: "Damn right! Dean is going to win in a landslide because no Democrat has ever thought of appealing to Southern white voters before."

Clark....it's all PR and spin...

No PR. No spin. They know how big a threat he could be.

We'll need more than a Democrat-come-lately to unseat Shrub!!

American Middle Class....

Clark has such a huge lead over Dean in the SC and FL polls?

I am not impressed:

I have been observing the coverage of the Democratic presidential primary coverage on television and in the mainstream press. What I am finding is rather shocking. I find that there is a media bias throughout most of the political programs that is forcing the meme that Howard Dean is the front runner. I have also noticed that General Wesley Clark candidacy as well as other candidates are being minimized by the same organizations that are maximizing media exposure for Howard Dean. What I find most surprising is that the Zogby polls are being used by these media sources to create this front runner status. The Zogby poll will be reported from an Associated Press writer, and then splash out all over the news media. I find this disturbing, as other polls don't get the same type of exposures Many of the other pollsters are more accurate with a higher accuracy rating and their numbers don't add up to the Zogby polls, e.g., American Research Group.
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/PollingFirmList.html

The Zogby polls are "push polls" meaning the questions asked lead to desired answers. I am requesting assistance with this issue as I am becoming very frustrated that the corporate media has decided to select the Democratic candidate for us. As Hillary Clinton said, pundits don't pick Presidents, people do. I just don't see how we will get that chance. It all feels like a big set up. I am including an analysis of the Zogby polling method and the media propaganda that is going on in these United States. I conclude that Zogby polls are inaccurate and biased. Please see the case that I am making below:

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Standards/Zogby.pdf Please read for comments on Zogby's methodology and his reputation. Please note this passage from the 8 page report from Chris Mooney, the American Prospect, January 13, 2003. "Zogby is unusual in the extent to which he has blended partisan and interest groups polling with credibility-enhancing contracts for media outlets such as Reuters, NBC News, MSNBC, and numerous newspapers and television stations. As Zogby himself acknowledges, the repute he derives from media polling helps him sell his services to more self interested clients. The lucky group end up with the Zogby brand name attached to findings that advance their agendas. "Media organizations should have people who absolutely aren't polling for interest groups", observed Robert Blendon, who directs Harvard University's Program of Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy. Blendon notes that most major polling conglomerates, such as ABC News/Washington Post poll, maintain firewalls between their work and outside interests." But there is more. Read at your leisure.

Also please see the wording of the poll (sample here is New Hampshire), but my understanding is that's how it's being done all over.http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=750 Please note that questions 2, 5 & 6 are Push Poll questions. Those questions asked will later elicit a desired answer when asking which of the candidates to you favor. Question 2 is biased against General Wes Clark. Questions 5 & 6 are biased pro Howard Dean, and biased against most of the other candidates
--------------------
Zogby New Hampshire Poll

Regardless of how you intend to vote, in your view, how likely is it that George W. Bush will be re-elected?

Should the Democratic party nominate someone who is a lifelong Democrat, or would Democrats be wise to select someone who is a recent convert to their way of thinking?

Overall, how would you rate the job performance of George W. Bush as President?

Regardless of how you may vote in next year's presidential election, would you say you like or dislike George W. Bush as a person?

Thinking about the upcoming election in November 2004, do you think it is important that the Democratic Party nominate a presidential candidate who opposed the war with Iraq on principle, or should the party select someone who voted to...

In a race for president, would you be more likely to support a Democratic candidate who supported the war in Iraq, or would you be more likely to support George W. Bush?
---------------------------
Furthermore, I have 3 samples of newspaper stories, over a given period of time, which basically say the same thing. That one particular candidate is not going to make it...he has faded, or fizzled......the same person that says the same thing is John Zogby. Now that should be a story!


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/41887.htm Here's an article talking about Clark's slowing momentum, titled
DEM DEAN'S ROCK SOLID IN GRANITE STATE Dated October 25, 2003....using Zogby poll as reference.]

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has zoomed into a "juggernaut" lead in the key presidential primary state of New Hampshire while retired Gen. Wesley Clark's support has sagged into single digits, a new poll shows.
Dean is at 40 percent - more than double Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) who is second at 17, followed by Clark and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) tied for third at 6 percent each in the Zogby International poll.

Several prior polls put Clark at 10 or 11 percent and clearly in third in New Hampshire, but this survey suggests "The General" has fizzled in the wake of Iraq flip-flops and the revelation that he praised President Bush and voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

"Clark's fizzle is the key to these numbers. Clark was hurting Dean. Now Clark has just collapsed and the direct beneficiary is Dean," said pollster John Zogby.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1091321,00.html Here's another attempt....1 month later! Smear piece Titled "Democrats' general on the retreat" - In another valiant attempt to squelch Clark's momentum - Dated November 23, 2003 - Story uses Zogby quotes on what's wrong with the Clark Campaign.
As President George W. Bush arrives home from his state visit to Britain, he will have the satisfaction of seeing Clark's campaign in crisis. It is low on funds, has lost key staff and is fizzling out in key battleground states.
Meanwhile, the campaign of Vermont governor Howard Dean has captured the public imagination, securing his place as the frontrunner in the still crowded field of nine Democrat candidates.

'There was tremendous potential in Clark as a candidate, but there have been major problems in the execution,' said John Zogby, head of polling organization Zogby International which conducted research for Clark supporters before the general's announcement that he was joining the race.

That caused dismay among many supporters. 'People know that if Clark wins the Democrat nomination, those quotes are just a Republican attack ad waiting to happen,' Zogby said.

Now, here's a quote from the MSNBC story just out today. Here's a quote , notice who's doing the talking. http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001091.asp?0cv=CB20," Pollster John Zogby said Dean is strong in all regions and among all voter groups. The poll of 503 Democratic and independent voters was taken Dec. 1-3 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."

this is IMO is the American Travesty - Called circular reporting based on biased push polls......a la Arnold!

Frenchie, I think you're right. Thanks for all that research on Zogby. Now that Zogby poll that was done right after Clark announced that compared Bush to an "un-named" Democratic candidate that had all of Clark's credentials and Clark beat Bush smells fishy... like maybe the GOP was trying to get a feel for how he stacked up against Bush so they'd know how to treat his campaign (using Clark's name in that poll would have made it legitimate so they couldn't spin it later if they didn't like the results.

I never did see any reason why they'd do that poll using Clark's credentials but calling him "un-named" before, but this would make sense of the theory. It kind of irritated me that they did a poll using his credentials but not saying who's credentials they were. I could see if they did a poll running Bush against an "un-named" opponent using a mixture of various credentials of several people, but I see no legitimate reason to use one person's credentials and not name them. I don't see Zogby or anyone else doing a poll just for shits and giggles... there had to be a reason for not naming him in that one.

Pretty convenient for the GOP to have a poll that beats Bush with no Democratic candidate for the credit to go to.

nt

:dem:

Clark has a better chance, but I believe both of them could beat shrub and I like dean better.

IMHO, presidential elections tend to be a referendum on the current pResident. Therefore, the chances are roughly equal.

:hi:

which I would rate as excellent.

Let's all unite around the winner of the Democratic nomination. Whoever that may be. It will just be easier for us with Clark.

Grass root people will usually carry alot of votes. That is Dean. Why not run them together.

That means that many dems will not support the nominee. I don't think that will happen. I think we are read for a fight, we just need to clear up the nominee business.

They have a 100% chance of beating Bush!!! :) :) :)

VP. He already said that. If Dean wins, it won't be a Dean/Clark ticket. If Clark wins, he said Dean WOULD be on HIS list of VP's. I see our best overall chance as Clark. THEN we can have them BOTH.

If, God help us, Dr Dean becomes our nominee, he--and more importantly we as a country--will need Clark on the ticket. Dean doesn't do a lot for Clark in the VP slot. Clark has found a way to tap into the anger vote without being petty or snippy or sanctimonious. But Dean desperately will need someone of Clark's heft and gravitas to fill out the obvious gaps in his resume, experience, and qualifications.

are people supporting dean, who in your words, has "obvious gaps in his resume, experience, and qualifications."????

clark all the way. he doesn't have said gaps.

BINGO!!!!!!! :yourock:

a leader, not a follower. I don't think he could be 2ND banana to anyone. He may change his mind if Dean wins, I don't know. :shrug: He seemed adamant when he said No, he would not be Dean's VP.

but Clark will be harder for Buchco to rip down than Dean. Clark has made a few mistakes, but Dean has already said more than enough to get him in trouble (it's already catching up to him now).

like voting for Reagan and Nixon. I'm not particularly trusting of this Democrat-come-lately.

that he also voted for Clinton and then Gore in 2000. THAT is more important than how he voted 20 or 30 years ago. JMCPO

The nominee of a united Democratic Party has the best chance of beating *.

Dean will be painted as a draft-dodging, elite North-Easterner. Hard to do that to Clark.

Seriously.

to win, no matter who the nominee is. If any core group or candidate's supporters sit out the election, we lose. The nation is very closely divided, and it will be a close election even if we are fully behind our nominee.

All this Dean/Clark - Clark/Dean talk is just that. Neither man would pick the other as running mate, period. Not that there is any animus between them, it just wouldn't be good political strategy.

Both men come from smaller states. Either would be best served by picking a candidate who would give them a chance to win a state we lost by a small margin last time.

Possible veep choices for either man - or anyone else who wins the nomination - would be: Bayh for Indiana, Gephardt for Missouri, Graham for Florida, or Breaux for Louisiana. Another good choice would be Bill Richardson, who, as a Hispanic, would enhance the ticket's chances in Florida and Colorado, as well as nail down New Mexico (which was won by only 500 votes last time).

edited to add: Remember that adding any one of the states mentioned above would win the election if we hold the other states we won in 2000.

antagonistic flame bait.

It seems only proper that if you're going to name General Clark in this poll with his title, you really should use Dean's title as well.

Come to think of it, I'd like to see any old poll comparing Clark, Dean, Edwards and Bush just so I can see...

General Wesley Clark
Doctor Howard Dean
John Edwards, Esquire
George Bush (zip, zero, sorry nothing to see here)

The day just isn't complete until I get my little jab at the Squatter in Chief. ;)

Dean/Clark ticket.

Dean has political experience, Clark has military experience. They complete each other.