NBC Poll: Dean losing to Bush by 52-31, Clark by 53-28

Sorry I hate to do that. But every poll that comes out that shows Clark doing somewhat better than Dean is heavily touted around here as evidence that the General can only beat Bush, even though he is losing by a substantial margin as well.

NBC conducted a poll over the weekend. On Saturday prior to the Saddam capture, Bush was over Dean 51-39, On Sunday an equal number of people were interviewed and Bush expanded his lead over Dean to 52-31 with undecideds gaining most.

They also polled how Wes Clark does vs. Bush. On Saturday Clark loses to Bush 50-34 and on Sunday 53-28. It's called the Saddam effect which will not last.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Also in the key state of Pennsylvania a new Quinnipiac poll released indicates that Dean runs best vs. Bush and is the only one who keeps him under 50%:

Bush over Dean 49-43
Bush over Clark 50-41
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1262.xml
Dean also runs best against Bush among independents in Pennsylvania beating him by nine-points compared to five-points by Clark.

The moral of the story is you can always find a poll to support your view. I think both Dean and Clark can beat Bush.

...the campaign is barely underway, there's nearly 11 months left, and name recognition is low nationwide on all the Dems.

But I think we are going to get spanked either way. I'm going to do everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen. But I'm quite sure that the combination of the ruthlessness of the right, plus the ridiculously fractured state of the democratic party are going to signal a big loss for us in '04. I so don't want it to be true but nobody has been able to convince me otherwise.

it is about time people start to see this.

WAKE UP!

National polls at this stage of the game don't really mean too much. They are guides to what is on the horizon. The only number that matters in these poll is how many people are voting for Bush.

And at this stage in the game, no one is really campaigning AGAINST Bush.

Dean has a great chance of beating Bush.

I submit that any Democrat nominated will beat Bush so long as we all pull together, which we will.

this far in advance...wouldn't that mean you won't be proven correct until November 2004?

the fact they see-saw the way they do, sort of proves the point.

But I will back off. I criticises someone else for their arrogance, I really shouldn't anger the gods regarding this.

Hypothesis: National polls are meaningless this far out.
Falsied by: If these numbers don't change significantly from now to November, then the hypothesis is wrong.
Tested by: Watching the national polls for significant changes in the numbers.

But to say that "nobody" is campaigning against Bush* at this point, is, well, ... just not so. They all are, and rightly. Bush* is not campaigning against them. Why should he, they're doing it for him? After the nomination, the nominee will definitely ratchet up the attacks on *, but, so will * ratchet up the attacks on the nominee. And he has plently of ammunition, thoughtfully provided for him by none other that Democrats. Plus whatever he can dig up on them. Plus any surprises he can pull out of the economy and the war.

Plus, some of that stuff he dig up may show up like the drunk driving (i think it was) charges against him, days before the election, with no time to get our guy's side out. Plus, will we have any new stuff on him? Probably not, we've had guys digging for 3 years now. And what we do have is not sticking to him very well. Shoot, we thought Ronald Reagan was a "Teflon" president.

So. We have our work cut out for us.

We have to get more than twice as many votes as the Republicans
to offset the Diebold effect, the Jeb effect, etc.

We "won" by 5% last time. Much good it did us.

people definitely have an opinion of Dean already- for better or worse.

That poll had a sample of a little over 500 people, as I recall. and a MOE of something like 6%. With some fraction of the voters being polled before the capture and some after, the MOE is greater than even 6%. I'm not a statatician, but I think a sample of 250 voters has a MOE of around 9%.

Basically, the whole poll was corrupted by such an important event happening in the middle of it. They tried to salvage it by separating each days results, but that seems unsound.

On Saturday and again on Sunday.

"NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Dec. 14, 2003. N=512 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.3."

(from your link)

This poll seems very flawed.

shows lots of undecideds. Of course the Gallup poll is reliable.

Yep, that particular assumption crumbles with real data.

you can find poll data to support it and not support it. There is something in the numbers for everyone. Thing is shortly after Clark got in--it did seem the case, but as time has gone on he has lost the edge in national polls and state polls he once had against Bush and is running (usually) as well as Dean, or slightly better than Dean, or slightly worst than Dean.

Perhaps this will inspire the Clark supporters to find *substantive* reasons why people should support their candidate.

To be honest with you I don't know entirely what to make of the guy.

But most Clark supporters I know say that to them and to a majority of americans, foreign policy experience in this day and age is crucial. And there is not doubt that Clark has that in abundance. And pointing out that Bush didn't have it (which seems to be the anti-Clark response) isn't exactly a substantive argument.

Make of it what you will but I think diminishing the notion of Foreign Policy experience simply because Bush didn't have it either is not exactly a weighty counter-argument.

Not that you did this, but I hear it trotted out a lot when people worry about Dean's lack of FP experience.

But Clinton and Bush had little fp credentials either. I think alot will be said who Dean chooses as a running mate. Frankly, I think Sen. Graham of Florida with his expertise on intelligence matters, ect would be a great choice to run with Dean.

People presume that war experience is needed to be able to combat Bush on Iraq. The war experience supposedly will make the candidate look moderate.

Wouldn't one want to choose one of the openly pro-war candidates then? If the reasoning was correct, being "anti-war" would negate any military experience a candidate would bring to the table.

At least we won't lose as bad.

:eyes:

That's what I think I'll start calling him. Deankakis.

I'll refer to Clark as Clarkdale.

and the primaries and caucuses should determine who that is...

if you can't win the democratic nomination it is hard to figure out how you can defeat Bush. Whoever wins is the best candidate and most battle tested to go up vs. Bush.

:kick:

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

a meaningless measure at this point in the process

There is a level of hatred for this man out there unmatched by any president I have ever seen. People will show up in droves to get this man out of office.

too and really get heated when some supporters of other candidates say "Dean is unelectable". It doesn't make me very excited about their candidate if he should win the nomination due to their actions.

:kick: to the vagaries of electoral politics