Time/CNN Poll

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. July 16-17, 2003. N=400 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide.

Thinking ahead to the 2004 presidential election, if you were asked to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee for president today, which of the following Democrats would you vote for? . . ."

7/16-17/03 5/21-22/03 2/19-20/03 1/15-16/03


Joseph Lieberman 16 13 16 21
John Kerry 14 14 8 11
Dick Gephardt 12 13 13 10
Howard Dean 10 4 3 3
John Edwards 6 7 7 12
Al Sharpton 5 8 7 2
Bob Graham 4 5 3 3
Carol Moseley Braun 4 3 4 n/a
Dennis Kucinich 3 2 2 n/a
Other 3 1 7 11
Not sure 23 30 30 27

http://pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Lieberman is doing a bit better in this one, but still down from January. Kerry is holding his own, Gep is holding his own, Dean has moved into double digits--more than doubling his support since Jan. Edwards has lost half his support since Jan--but is holding his own between 6-7% since then.

Is being widely predicted for Dean. It was exposure of Edwards at the local level and some of his support that caused the drop. And many political analysts beleive that when the media starts scrutinizing Dean as governor, his campaign will start to fizzle.

Dean supporters thing the sun shines out of his butt, and spin excuses for a lot of very inseemly behavior, and statements, but the media is not so forgiving.

I was speaking to a major Florida State Political consultant today, and that was what he said the buzz was on Dean.

which said he couldn't raise money?

But the only one who has made any large movement is Dean.

I am a little surprise to see Lieberman's number move up.

95% of this country is barely hearing about them now except that they are for Gay Marriages ...

But civil unions.

Though Dean supported civil unions, many Vermont gays are disappointed in Dean, and have called his support of civil unions as an Apartheid like solution.

All of the other candidates have supported the civil union concept, but becasue it was not a FEDERAL government issue on the table at any time, it never came up until this campaign.

Kerry has the best record, far better than Deans, regarding rights for gays, having sponsored and and voted for at least five pieces of legislations that protect gays. Dean did not fight for civil union, but was confronted with an issue he had to respond to, and was given only one direction in which he could respond by the Vt. Supreme Court.
He was REQUIRED by the Vermont Supreme COurt decision to do something that would give gays the right to some kind of legal union, and could not reject the idea.

And amend Vermont's consitution. Instead he supported civil unions, and continues to do so vocally.

More misrepresentations from Dean supporters

The legislature legislates. and that includes amending the constitution. He could request that they begin considering to do so, but he NEVER DID. Never even asked for an amendment, but waited and prayed that the level of support would go up. Just before he signed, all polls indicated that signing the Civil Union Act would not be something that most voters would consider when voting in 2000.

Dean was scared out of his wits and hid for 5 months and waited for the legislature to do something. If they had failed to pass an amendment. Dena owuld have been forced to tell the clerks of the courts to begin issuing marriage licenses, as the court decision said. The decision stated tat wither some law requiring civil unions was necessary, or the governor would have to allow gays the same right to marry as non gays. Dean did nothing but sit with his thumb up his ass.

ANd wait.

ANd now he is telling tall tales about his courage and support of gays...

Give me a break.

No Dean supporter stated, hinted, implied, or in any other way articulated the idea that Dean could have single handedly changed the constitution of Vermont. Go ahead you site the post where anyone said that.

What we have said, and what is true, is that the Constitution of Vermont could have been amended and that he never called for such a thing to be done. We have also said, which is also true, that it wouldn't have been that hard to get done if Dean had decided he wanted to get the legislature to begin the process. BTW you aren't even technically correct in who amends and who doesn't amend the Constitution. The people also have a role. I have no doubt in my mind that had Dean chosen to he could have gotten the votes in the Senate to begin the process of amending the Constitution.

You also state yet again that Dean sat for five months without supporting civil unions. More mendacity.

Link

www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

Yet again here are the relevant paragraphs.

OITM: Immediately after the Supreme Court's Baker ruling, you sided with domestic partnership legislation. How did you come to make this decision and what role do you think your position played in the ultimate outcome of the debate?

Dean: I knew that marriage was impossible and that the legislature would just kill themselves. They couldn't do it; they'd fall into terrible disarray. I thought the court decision left civil union as a legal alternative, which would grant the rights and the benefits, as they required. I thought that in time Vermonters would come to accept that. In the end, I think my position gave cover to a lot of people in the legislature. It really helped legislators who were struggling with the issue.

OITM: When you finally announced your position, you said that gay marriage made you "uncomfortable like everyone else." Can you clarify what you meant by that and specifically what about gay marriage makes you uncomfortable?

Note the first paragraph. The word immediately is used. Most people don't call 5 months immediately. But lets be real charitable here and say you are one of the few people who would call 5 months immediately. Too bad for you that the third paragraph is here too. We know when this statement was made (uncomfortable like everyone else). It was made the day the decision was made. How do we know this? From yet another article you are constantly quoting here. (the tom paine piece) So now we know that he had to have annouced his position in favor of Civil Unions on the day of the court decision. That isn't the 5 months your medacious post says.

We are now left with one of two possibilities. One you don't read the articles you post quotes from in their entirety or two that you do and then post falsehoods on purpose. Which is it?

"And amend Vermont's consitution. Instead he supported civil unions, and continues to do so vocally"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=4138&mesg_id=4158&page=

My response was to a Dean supporter stating that Dean could have amended the constitution. So you are wrong. ONE Dean supporter said that Dean could have amended the constitution. And I have seen the same suggestions from a number of other Dean supporters on DU.

Do you even read the articles you quote from here. You have repeatedly quoted things from an interview gave in Out in the Mountains. The third paragraph lists Dean's record.

In 1992, Dean fought for and signed a non discrimination act for LGBT. That is the eqivalent of ENDA. He appointed the first openly gay House member. In 1994 he gave Vermont employees Domestic Partner benefits. He signed a law permiting joint adoption by gay couples in 1996. Again this is the third paragraph of an article you have quoted from here on several occasions. Either you didn't read the article or you are deliberately misleading all in the vision of our typing. Why should we trust anything you quote if you don't read the articles you quote from?

Here is the link

www.mountainpridemedia.org/jun2000/news06_dean%20.htm

On edit. Kerry sponsered ENDA Dean signed it. Kerry sponsered Domestic Partnership benefits for federal employees Dean provided them for his state ones. Kerry did great work on the military while Dean isn't a federal official. Dean fought for civil unions (despite your mendacity in saying he didn't) Kerry didn't do anyting as he isn't a state offical. Kerry and Dean both opposed DOMA on their respective levels. Both have appointed high profile gays. Their records are close to identical despite your mendacity. I think Dean gets a slight edge given the fact he had to take on the issue far more personally as he was a Governor.

It just gives the talking heads something to talk about instead of the real issues and news.

Why do they get posted so often?

All I can see in this one is the number of folks who are undecided. Hell of a lot.

those undecideds are undecided due for the most part to them not having paid much attention.

but lets assume a 3% one (that would be better than any poll that is sited on this report). In the case of a 3% MOE the only people who we can say moved from May to July in this poll are Dean and Undecided. Dean gained 6 (4,10) while undecided lost 7 (30,23). Clearly he has gained some momentum. That said, national polls aren't what matters certainly this early. I am glad he is in double digits and not out of the lead by a huge margin but NH, and IA are what matter now.

Using harris own polling site to describing their own polling methods, this poll would have a 4 percent Margin of error. Usiing QRP methis a they report they use. Harris is considered to be one of the top 15 polling services in the world, and their accuracy by the statistical polling methods they use always fall below 5 percent ( all scintific statistical sampling methods results in betas of either 5 percent or 3 percent To get within 3 percent margin of error, the statistical sample must be above 50 thousand. Which is why when you see polls done by zogby, harris, gallop and so on, you will see 4 percent or 4.5 percent. WHen you see polls with errors ot six percent,or eight of even nine percent it means pretty much that no scientific statistical methods have been applied and they are pretty much guessing.

I chose that figure because it was the lowest MOE I have ever seen in a poll and the lower the MOE the less likely I was able to argue my case. In short, I was making assumptions that tended to be against my arguement. I realize a more reasonable MOE would have been 4%. I was a little suprised that Harris is alone in not giving out their MOE to that report.

4 percent.

They use one standard techique for every poll, whetht ist has to do with best brand of ice cream, to who is running for office.

I was commenting on the poll. I am not familiar with Harris polls. The point I was making about the movement of people relative to MOE was disadvantaged by a small MOE that is why I chose to assume the lowest MOE that I had ever seen given the fact I didn't know what this MOE was. That is the usual way one debates is one is unsure of a technical detail. I hope that clears this up.

If Dean were at 7% at this early point (virtually no name recognition)it would be frightening to the 'annointed', 'experienced' 'monied' 'most favored' leaders.

These #'s are what precipitated the DLC's knee jerk 'eat your own' responses.

Graham's the ??????? at this point.

Dean '04...

at the top, the same as Kerry's according to the latest CBS polls.
Yet the same people who regonized Dean in the poll at 7 percent, and supported Dean at 12 percent, Kerry at Ten percent, give Kerry the best chance of beating bush, with Kerry 42 percent, and Bush 50 percent. Dean 38 percent, Bush 53 percent...

As for Bush, CBS shows him with a 60% approval rating, their lowest since prior to 9/11, Newsweek shows Bush at 55% approval. These numbers are typically 15% above the likely support number, though the Newsweek poll shows Bush beating all comers in head-to-head match-ups:

When registered voters were asked who they would vote for in a general presidential election between Bush and a Democratic opponent, Bush won every race—against Dean (53 percent vs. 38 percent), Edwards (51 percent vs. 39 percent), Gephardt (51 percent vs. 42 percent), Kerry (50 percent vs. 42 percent) and Lieberman (52 percent vs. 39 percent).

http://www.mydd.com/archives/000675.html

Even people who give Dean more support in this poll, give give him the worse chance against Bsh with Bush beating Dean 53 to 38 percent or a fifteen percent differential, wheras Kerry has th closest differential with Kerry at 42 percent, and Bush at 50 percent.

Basically, Kerry has the BEST chance of beating Bush. Dean the worse.
If we actually reaqlly want to win. The man with the best chance of doing it is Kerry, not Dean. Dean has MORE name recognition according to the CBS polls than candidates who are farther abover him in percentage points, So does Kerry. Deans recognition, along with Kerry's primarily now comes from Deans attacks on Kerry, and not much else.

Kerry has almost twice the chance of beating bush than Dean according to the CBS poll which hads a 6 percent margin of error. This means tat Kerry alone comes close enough to bus (8 point differential) Than Dean who is simply TOO far off in differential to offer any serious chance of beating Bush. Dean will lose to Bush by 15 percent in most polls, and as much as 23 percent in others. The poll that has Dean losing by 23 percent has Kerry within 11 percent.

Which is why Karl Rove stated on the 4th of July when he saw people in Dean T shirts "Yeah, this is the man we want" Becasue they know absolutely, that Dean is thaman they can breat with ease. No matter how much Dean can get in demo support, His low ratings against Bush indicate that Dean is not the man that can bring swing Democrats back to the Democratic party. All Dean does is get a group of disaffected young people into the mix, and seriously ruins the possibility of a democratic win in 2004. He CANNOT beat Bush. all he can do is make it less possible for Democrats to beat Bush.

Dean's moving up and will beat Bush. Note the line the Kerry supporter left out:
This is within the range for any of the Democrats to win.

Dean is the only candidate to sign a gay civil unions bill.
Kerry drew hisses from the crowd at the Human Rights Campaign Democratic presidential candidates forum.
http://www.sovo.com/2003/7-18/news/national/marriage.cfm

indicates that Dean of all the candidates has the LEAST chance of beating Bush:

Is all this hurting Bush’s chances for reelection? You had better believe it! In the Newsweek poll, just 47 percent say they want to see Bush elected to another term as president, while 46 percent say they do not want to see him reelected. Moreover, prospective Bush matchups with specific Democratic candidates yield margins that are much smaller than anything seen so far. In a matchup with John Kerry, the incumbent has just an eight-point margin (50 percent for Bush to 42 percent for Kerry)

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com/pow/powjuly7_13_2003.cfm

As for Bush, CBS shows him with a 60% approval rating, their lowest since prior to 9/11, Newsweek shows Bush at 55% approval. These numbers are typically 15% above the likely support number, though the Newsweek poll shows Bush beating all comers in head-to-head match-ups:

When registered voters were asked who they would vote for in a general presidential election between Bush and a Democratic opponent, Bush won every race—against Dean (53 percent vs. 38 percent), Edwards (51 percent vs. 39 percent), Gephardt (51 percent vs. 42 percent), Kerry (50 percent vs. 42 percent) and Lieberman (52 percent vs. 39 percent).

http://www.mydd.com/archives/000675.html



When registered voters were asked who they would vote for in a general presidential election between Bush and a Democratic opponent, Bush won every race—against Dean (53 percent vs. 38 percent), Edwards (51 percent vs. 39 percent), Gephardt (51 percent vs. 42 percent), Kerry (50 percent vs. 42 percent) and Lieberman (52 percent vs. 39 percent).

http://www.msnbc.com/news/938073.asp?0cv=KA01

If we need somone who can run against, an beat Bush, it is not Dean, but Kerry.

This poll is the same poll that places Dean at 12 percent and Kerry at 10 percent of those polled, but even those who supported Dean do not beleive that his chances of beating Bush are as good as Kerry's.

Only Kerry now has the closest margin to Bush to present a challenge for the White House.

And Kerry 8 points behing him...the choice of who to nominate is obvious.

...might have a chance, although it's too early for polls:

When registered voters were asked who they would vote for in a general presidential election between Bush and a Democratic opponent, Bush won every race—against Dean (53 percent vs. 38 percent), Edwards (51 percent vs. 39 percent), Gephardt (51 percent vs. 42 percent), Kerry (50 percent vs. 42 percent) and Lieberman (52 percent vs. 39 percent).

This is within the range for any of the Democrats to win.

http://www.mydd.com/archives/000675.html

The best chance to beat Bush, imo, is not a candidate that has already been marginalized by Bush, but rather an outsider that has had governing experience such as Dean.

In Bush territory. It is such a joke calling such a conservative politician as the best choice to oppose Bush. He cannot be marginalized by Bush, becasue he is so much like Bush.

All of the actions that Dean had to take in response to Bush's first tax cut marginalized him.

Dean simply began cutting services, rather than use the very same techinques that enabled him to get rid of the deficits in 1992.

Oddy enough, the tools that Richard Snelling provided for Dean to get rid of the deficits, were a traditionally DEMOCRATIC one. To raise income taxes. Dean rolled this back after the deficits were gotten in control, and immediately, Vermont started facing deficits again. So Dean resorted to raising OTHER taxes, but not income taxes, yet deficits kept rearing tyheir heads, and Deans solutions were republican solutions...to cut services, in opposition to what the DEmocratic Party wanted...which was to put the tiered income taxes back into place. THere was asimple solution to fix the effects on Vermont that Bush caused. Dean rejected that simple solution.

Dean, representing the Democratic Party. Now thats funny.

Is what is being predicted for Dean...

When all of that stuff about Edwards and his local support and visits to the person who was fighting the issue of getting rid of the Confederate Flag, Edwards began to nose dive, as soon as the media focuses public scrutiny on Edwards within the states that elected him.

I have recently spoken to a very high power political consultant in Florida and the buzz among these people is that as soon as the media begins to focus on Deans record in Vermont, and begin to compare it to his statements as candidate, Dean will begin to go the way of Edwards. As soon as there is a great deal of media scrutiny on Denas record as governor, a great many pople are going to ask the same questions as I have brought up about Dean. As a matter of fact, Deams prolling profile very closely resembles Edwards polling. He was low, then started riding high on the polling hog, and then after a few articles about the confederate flag, his polling began to flag.

No dirty laundry exposed about Dean yet. because his past activities have not been of interest in the national media. All that has been heatrd is what Dean says about himself. And the media is notorious for eventually looking for the other side of the story.

Do not be surprised if much of what I have posted abour Dean, his changes of stance on the war in Iraq statements on ABC, and then on McNeil Lehrer and Salon ending up on NAtional Media by labor day. ANd Dean ineptly trying to explian it away.

You make excuses for them and try to twist them into somehow showing Dean in a positive light. But many people do not yet support Dean, and many will see Deans behavior, the same way I do or have similar questions. His support of civil unions will drive away more southern democrats than his pro NRA stance will gain him support. If not most.
In every area of the country, a stance that helps him in one area, will drive away support in other areas.

Certainly, because he is a conservative, he will not attract any Republicans from Bush. HE will neither attract swing Democrats from Bush. He will lose liberal democrats when his record as a conservative becomes more obvious. In order to win, Dean will have to win not by getting democratic votes, but by pulling republicans away from Bush, which is unlikely. The darl horse image has madde him popular with the press in some regard, but the press is notorious for turning on a candidate once a little dirt or inconsistancy shows up.

YOu think Dean is clean ane everything he has done is somhow justifiable. But the press will not be so merciful.

Deans attacks on the DLC will not bring te DLC out to defend Dean against media attacks.

but we do expect them to be less mendatious than you are. It speaks volumes that you found time to post this but didn't find time to answer my points.

Dean MUST have support from MAJOR DLC superdelegates in order to win the nomination, no matter howw well he does in ANY primary. These people control 37 percent of the votes to nominate.

The DLC can do two things. Keep EVERY single one of the nine candidates running ,in order to avoid Dean gettintg a majority if it looks like this is a remonte possibility, abnd then the nominatin comittee decides. Or if one DLC candidate appears to be most electable against Bush, as each candidate drops out, they throw their support behind that candidate, againist Dean. It is very unlikely that if say, Graham drops out, that he is goiung to recommend those who support him to now support Dean, and is likely to being to stump for the person the DLC thinks most likely to beat Bush. No matter what, there is NO way that Dean can take the majority of delgates given this situation and Dean has alienated himself form the power players in the DLC.

Just like Bush won the presidency without a majority, it is possible for Dean to lose the nomination in the same way.The DNC does not want to make the msitake they made with McGovern anbd nominate the candidate least likely to beat Bush. And all polls show that candidate is Dean.

you can debate yourself. In post after post after post you claim that Dean is a conservative who is unworthy of nomination yet now he is he second coming of McGovern. He can't be both.

Has nothing to do with Deans political rightness, or McGoverns leftness, but that they both attacked the DLC and the party leaders.
THe DLC choose to support McGovern, nad has regretted that error ever since. SO they are comitted to keeping Dean from the nomination. And they have the power to do so. You may cry in our beer about it, but you cannot do anything about it. Dean must be able to get support from the major players in the DLC or he will not get the nomination. He will not be given that support.

Dean is trying to pull a McGovern, and Dean supporters act as if Dean is trying somethiing new. He is doing the same thing that McGovern did and the party made the error of supporting McGoverns nomination. The DLC is dead set against and will oppose ANY possibility of the sme thing happening again. They willmake absolutely sure that Dean does not receive enough support through the DLC to get the nomination to avoid placing a candidate who has NO chance of beating Bush. In every poll asking the question, Dean come in dead last in ability to beat Bush.

Your statement:

"In every poll asking the question, Dean come (sic) in dead last in ability (sic) to beat Bush."



My reply (which took me all of 5 minutes to Google):

"http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/dnc_back.pdf (page 7)


You post tripe. Admit it.

Your poll comes from December 2002. Well before the any candidate but Dean had announced they were running for president.

Since all nine candidates have announced Dean has been the last of the major candidates in chancesagainst Bush, This 38 percent is Deans HIGHEST NUMBER, and Kerry has gone from being third closest to first closest.

The poll you cite give before announcement for running for president figures for TOM DASCHLE, Lists Joe Liebermans before and after figures two months before Lieberman anounced his presidential bid on Janauary 13th. So out of the candidates who had actually announced that they were running, Kerry was on top at 23 percent, Edwards at 8 percent, Gephardt at 4 percent, and Howard Dean, dead last again at 2 percent.

Gephardt didnt even set up his comitte to explore a presidential run until Janary 3, 2003,

Kerry set up his exploratory comittee to decidewhetther he would run on December 2nd, 2002, announced his bid to run aand filed papers to run on December 14 th, 2002

Edwards announced his presidential bid on Janauary 2, 2003.

This document is dated December 9 - 18, 2002.

All speculative and with Dean the only candidate running at the time and still behind people who had not even decided to run yet.

Again, totally irrellevant documents from well before anyone But Dean was actually running

My point is that you like to throw around absolute statements that aren't true.

Show me how this doesn't disprove your "any" statement.


- as for the poll coming from 2002, how many posts have YOU made linking to old articles when newer articles show revised (and different) data? (I'm thinking the Vermont deficit issue, as an example).

My point: If you make absolute statements, you'll almost always be proven wrong. Anybody with your "research experience" should know this.

(on edit)

The more recent polls don't ask about Kucinich or Sharpton or Moseley-Braun vs Bush, so they're not even considered in your statement. Yes, I'll concede that, so far, the better-known candidates are perceived as better opponents against Bush. Wait until the primaries and see where things stand. 6 months will make a huge difference. (yes, that's an opinion)

Yes, wait another 6 months.

In this time, all of the candidates must get major support from the DLC to capture endorsements from national Unions, the N.E.A., and so on. It is these endorsements that gain LARGE votes in large blocs.

2004 elections than Tom Daschle.

Last I heard, Daschle isnt running.

I think the tripe comes from your dead wing of the democratic party.

i doubt daschle would run.

Most Vermonters would say that Dean the Passionate Populist who extols health care and equal rights for all is a Different Dean from the one they know. He did sign a universal health care bill for children while governor. And he did sign the bitterly debated civil union bill after the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as married heterosexual ones. But Dean was no fire-breather.

Belongs to Dean himself, and many Dean supporters.

WHen asked for proof that Dean has been consistant in support of civil unions prior to the court decision. You will not respond.

You cannot find democratic agreement with Dean's fiscal policies in Vermont. You cannot address the fact that many gays view Deans choice as a poor one. Many gays do support what Dean has done. Deans has also split the dmeocratic party.

Dean is NO a uniter, but a divider...

He insisted on balancing the budget above all else. He went from being against the death penalty to supporting it in limited cases. He refused to fund social programs without making sure the state could pay its bills first.

"His being called a liberal is one of the great white lies of the campaign," said Tom Salmon, a fellow Democrat and governor of Vermont for two terms during the Nixon-Ford era. "He's a rock-solid fiscal conservative," Salmon said, "and a liberal on key social issues. But we're talking key issues."

Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont and a frequent Dean critic, says the Different Dean has been fascinating to watch. "Howard Dean pounding the podium taking back America is a new Howard," he says. "Now, whether the new Howard is the real Howard is a matter for speculation. Is he taking the left as a campaign strategy?"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11710-2003Jul5.html