Dean 45%. Kerry 20% in New Hampshire poll.

American Research Group New Hampshire Poll of likely Democratic voters

Dean-45%
Kerry-20%
Clark-8%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/


Wesley Clark may be the most electable for the general election, but he has a lot of ground to make up.

he considers third awesome.

Would Clark consider third place awesome if it is 37 points behind first?

yes he would because all of the other campaigns have been out there longer than him and he realized early in his campaign 3rd or 4th would probably be his best showing in New Hampshire The only way he would do better is if Kerry drops out which doesn look like its going to happen.

I believe he will get at least 13 percent if not more.

As more is learned about the candidates, Clark will improve. IMO.

i'll be interested in seeing newer info

If he pulls 3rd place and maintains his strong showings in other states...

Why base your support on one poll... or any poll?

BTW, Clark is about 30% in some other states.

but he has been campaigning and working to get his name out there for almost a year now.

This claim that Clark's poor showing is due to the fact that his campaign is only 3 months old is just desperation. The only places Clark is doing well are the states where he's the only one campaigning, and as soon as the other candidates turn their focus to those states the same thing happening to Clark in NH will happen elsewhere.

Face it, real democrats do not want a conservative war monger turned defense lobbyist as their nominee... no matte how loudly his supporters whine that he's the only one who can win.

... so he gets no slack for it. personally i think it'd be "awesome" if he got third place in the whole nomination race.

his deliberate strategy,

Although I suppose you actually believe that. Do you channel Clark, because that is not what I understand at all.

was part of his strategy back during the "shit or get off the pot" phase of Clark's candidacy. Maybe they were right, maybe they were not.

In upstate NY one monday. She was great, a real grounded non pretentious and bright woman. Anyway she said there that what delayed Clark's entry so long was a firm pledge that Clark had made to his wife (her sister) Gert. Clark promised her he wouldn't run so long as she had active resistance to him doing so. Gert finally told him he could do what he felt was right a few days before his announcement that he was running, and Clark declared. I later met Gert as well at a fund raiser. I liked her a lot. She knew how doing this would take over their lives, but now she is giving it her all also

But back in september there were Clark supporters who claimed that entering late was part of a brilliant strategy. I guess they were incorrect.

The weeks of breathless "will he or won't he" coverage followed by the big announcement was supposed to catapult him to the top. Guess somebody forgot the rubber band.

into the primaries.

I don't recall where it was but I'm sure a dozen or so folks around here will be able to provide a link to it. In part it pointed out that Clark was talking with people long before the "draft Clark" movement was started (probably the reason some commentators assumed dC was a Clark/CLinton production) and that when advisers would mention names to him they were surprised to learn that Clark knew who they were, and in some cases had even spoken to them before.

So clearly Clark had an interest in running long before September and quite a while before people like me started sending him emails, signing up on the website and committing cash to the effort to entice him (we thought) into running.

However, it should be noted that those of us who signed up for dC did so because we agreed that the guy would be a better candidate to go up against Bush than any of those running at the time. We were among those who would vote "other" in one of those ubiquitous polls.

So what Clark did have was an interest in running, and a good idea of what he would need to stage a viable campaign. The only thing he was missing was any evidence of popular support.

So what we have here is a prospective candidate looking for an opening, and a fairly large group of concerned citizens looking for a candidate they could believe could defeat Bush in November 2004.

We each got what we were looking for.

The rest is public relations.

The other candidates have been running for quite some time. Some were running when Clark was being shafted out of his job at NATO. For him to put this whole thing together and reach third in New Hampshire is an amazing feat in this old political hack's opinion. By rights he should not have gotten out of the starter's blocks but here we are in the thick of the race, after a virtual media blackout for two months and nothing but mockery and criticism by the pundits, on the rise.

The race isn't anywhere near over, and sometimes the early bird doesn't get the worm. Sometimes, the early bird gets eaten by the waiting cat. We'll know soon enough.

Candidates must get at least 15% of the vote to get any delegates.

and Dean is much more electable than Clark. Those who claim Clark is more electable base it on one single premise--Clark has military background!

But the negatives Clark has exceed his "perceived" pluses by orders of magnitude. And I will name them here, so that my post is not just an empty opinion.

1. Rove has full access to Clark's video exhorting virtues of Bush*co, including Bush*, Rummy, Condi, etc.
When shown as commercials, they will at best confuse our base, and at worst de-energize them. The fund-impaired Clark campaign (relative to quarter BILLION $ Bush* is expected to raise) can never neutralize the impact of visual images by long winded rebuttals.

2. Dean has won SIX elections straight, losing NONE. Clark has ran in ZERO elections much less won any.

3. Dean has the most important leadership quality--picking the right people to do the right job. Dean's hand picked team is demolishing the opposition in fund raising and polls.

4. Dean has already instituted a statewide health care system. Voters will trust him to institute a nation wide system since he is the ONLY FULL FLEDGED MEDICAL DOCTOR in the running. IMHO health care issue will be one of the biggest issues in 2004 with the recent explosive increases in medical costs.

5. My guess is Iraq will be on back burner by november 2004. Even if it is not, Clark has already waffled on it. As a CNN analyst he was pro-Iraq war, now he has changed his tune. And, it will be difficult to sell the voters that he would be stronger in fighting terrorism than Bush*.

6. Clark made a big time gaffe when he responded "Let software jobs go to India, we will find something else to do here". Another gem Rove can use in campaign commercials. Rove and gang will eat this inexperienced politician alive on the campaign trail.

7. Clark has not been endorsed by a single 4 or 5 star general after spending a lifetime in military. Says something about his likeability?

8. Then there is the work Clark did as a defense lobbyist earning millions, after he was forced to step down as NATO commander.

Two words:

Max Cleland.

You did leave out the "killer of Kosovo", leader of the Waco massacre and the "mantits of Haiti" stories.

Can we expect to hear more from you on this?

I can not honestly tag Clark as a killer. He was in a military situation for crying out loud. Not familiar of his role in Waco or Haiti, so have no opinion.

that the UN human rights commissioner said it was unaccaptable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,208056,00.html

A month later, with Nato getting increasingly frustrated about Milosevic's refusal to buckle, Mary Robinson, the UN human rights commissioner, said Nato's bombing campaign had lost its "moral purpose". Referring to the cluster bomb attack on residential areas and market in the Serbian town of Nis, she described Nato's range of targets as "very broad" and "almost unfocused". There were too many mistakes; the bombing of the Serbian television station in Belgrade - which killed a make-up woman, among others - was "not acceptable".

Nato, which soon stopped apologising for mistakes which by its own estimates killed 1,500 civilians and injured 10,000, said that "collateral damage" was inevitable, and the small number of "mistakes" remarkable, given the unprecedented onslaught of more than 20,000 bombs.

Yet once Nato - for political reasons, dictated largely by the US - insisted on sticking to high-altitude bombing, with no evidence that it was succeeding in destroying Serb forces committing atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the risk of civilian casualties increased, in Kosovo and throughout Serbia. Faced with an increasingly uncertain public opinion at home, Nato governments chose more and more targets in urban areas, and experimented with new types of bombs directed at Serbia's civilian economy, partly to save face. By Nato's own figures, of the 10,000 Kosovans massacred by Serb forces, 8,000 were killed after the bombing campaign started.

If Clark made millions in defense lobbying then why was it such a big decision to run. Dean is the one that took off the last two years to run, silver spoon in hand.

And doing anything in Vermont is very different than the rest of the nation, Vermont is barely the size of a large city. I will take Clark's experience over Dean's any day.

Personally I think many Dean voters will think twice when they are in the booth and either vote for Clark or Keyy.

Clark is doing well in South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arizona... and need only come in 3rd place in NH.

Although I find it amusing as people are now moving the "goal posts" on Clark saying he must come in 2nd in NH.

I've yet to see one poll where Kerry actually has a chance of winning. Seeing as NH is his best shot at getting any press or attention, his campaign outlook seems bleak. Kerry's not even coming close in any other state, as I've said before, it'll take the NH loss to drop Kerry from the race.

...but 38 years of fight doesn't die so easily.

Sorry, but he's polling poorly in every major primary from now till Feb 12th. That's not a good sign. He has no chance to win any state in nearly the first two months of the primary season. Kerry's toast, but many people won't accept this fact, I have and I've moved on.

winning it outright is not out of the question.

There, I always liked my hat, but I'll eat it good (and I certainly will deserve it) if Kerry wins Iowa. I have seen polls where he's moving up, but at the rate, it won't be enough to win in 3.5 weeks.

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

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

Until following this race so close I never realized how unreliable these polls are, here's one:

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/7571779.htm

The polls by the American Research Group of Manchester, N.H., found Dean at 26 percent and Clark at 15 percent in Arizona with all others in single digits. In Oklahoma, Dean was at 24 percent, Clark at 21 percent and others in single digits. More than a third of voters were undecided in each of the two states.

each other by 5 points; ie, Dean leads Gep by 5, Kerry by 10.

He was on Lou Dobbs, John King subbing as host.

... as that would be in keeping with all the GOP cross-over dirty tricks of past campaigns. Now, do we really want four more years of Bushler?

Is Howard Dean the Crypto-Republican Candidate?

By Norman D. Livergood

Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean makes it even easier for Dubya to win in 2004. The Gore endorsement splits the Democratic party, making the Democratic front-runner the antiwar candidate at a time when most Americans support the war. This weakens the Democratic party just when it needs all its strength to defeat the present fascist Bush junta.

Gore admitted in his endorsement speech that he wants to "remake the Democratic party." This at a time when the Democrats are already seriously splintered over major issues.

The Karl Rove spin machine has rapidly gone into full court press and all the Republican-owned media outlets--the major TV and newsprint sources--are assaulting Dean as a leftist who's attacking our fearless President in his righteous struggle against godless, terrorist-supporting dictators.

Predictably, in the coming months Dean will try to transform himself into a centrist candidate who can win votes in the Midwest and the South, the key battlefields for 2004. But Gore's endorsement of Dean as the left-leaning anti-war contender will subvert this ploy.

CONTINUED...

http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm

than Dean? Are THOSE polls being manipulated by Repubs too?

Don't know the answer though. My guess is in those states, the pukes would be doing all they can to smear John Kerry, who not only is the most electable of the Democratic candidates, he'd make the best President.

How? He'd use the rich bastids' money to make this a better country for ALL Americans.

Factor in time of day, caller id, unlisted numbers, privacy manager, well, just a silly, silly poll.

I mean, this is standard practice. American Research Group isn't using any different methods than other polling groups. What's the issue here?

and they can't f-ing stand it.

He is too new of a democrat for democrats and republicans will just vote for bush. Clark really has nothing to offer that is new or different. He does offer and excess of inexperience and shakey democratic credentials.
I am sure he is a very nice guy and I will certainly support him if he gets the democratic party nomination. However I hope he does not. He was praising the BFEE until a few months ago.

Another poll just as recent shows Clark at 13% and Kerry at 17%.

and that third place is good for Clark?

45-8

Sounds like a football score, and the losers are celebrating because they beat the spread...

of course, polls will be polls, so grain of salt taken...

And no way Dean gets 45 percent. We will see.

Unless you did, then their poll has a substance that your opinion lacks, I'd venture to say...

We will see. When the votes get counted. Dean won't get 45 percent, IMO. Sorry, if my opinion offends you.

Just pointing out that, unlike the poll, it *is* an opinion. :hi:

And Dean's campaign is spinning Clark's like Wilt the Stilt.

This is an old poll, released almost two weeks ago
Another poll just as recent shows Clark at 13% and Kerry at 17%.

We'd like to see it.

Any better than 13 or 17?

the ones who keep caliming Dean is an eveil conservative...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Says it all right there.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3555359,00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - With a month to go before the New Hampshire primary, John Kerry says voters must choose between Democratic front-runner Howard Dean or a more centrist candidate like himself.

I prefer Dean over Kerry, and Kerry has pissed me off a lot recently, but Kerry is a far better choice than Wesley "Reagan was truly a great leader" Clark.

I'm glad to see Kerry pushing Clark out.

I'm happy to see that voters are not falling for Clark's shit.

butt

get good on February 3rd.