New CNN Poll has Bush and Dean virtually tied! (already)

Look for some MEGA terra alerts, folks - this "unelectable" upstart has already caught the evil war chimp!

Isn't this poll saying that 4% more would vote Bush now than on Nov. 18-19 (47% to 51%)?

you sourpuss! :eyes:

;-)

I might have been unclear:

If all * gets from the media-hyped Saddam capture is four lousy percentage points, he's in deep doo-doo. This is good news for the eventual nominee, Dean or whoever else.

Don't mind me, I just need another cup of coffee!

:hangover: :donut:

BushCo is royally fucked!

>BushCo is royally fucked!

I'm not holding my breath just yet.

An electorate that demonstrates this kind of fickleness is likely to shift back and forth over the next few months. The numbers are going to fluctuate for some time, so we should not read too much into them.

that is *great* news! :D

is all Saddam Hussein bought W. This shows that most Americans who are not easily duped stay not easily duped.

On edit, the poll is strange - it could also mean Saddam bought Bush 4%, depending on how you see it.

The CBS poll shows an eight point bump from Mid-December
ABC/WashPost have it at six
UPenn/Annenberg says five
The AP has it at six to nine points
Pew research at seven
Zogby says four (though eight over Sept)
Gallup/CNN at eight (13 over Mid-November)


Only Newsweek shows 2-3 points.


You think it's something OTHER than Hussein that got these numbers? Are you implying he EARNED them?

Although I don't like seeing Bush's "re-elect" go up, that'll drop again...and Dean will rise. CRUSH CHIMP!!!!

Does this mean that it may be less than the 51% shown? It seems strange to dump the not sure category.

difference that they closed so quickly when other Dems pointed it out.

The media has chosen the Dem nominee.

The guy they gave the press plane in June.

The guy they gave two national covers in July.

The guy they gave two national covers right before the primaries.

are now upset that their crap had no effect other than to make the attackers look desperate and petty, while keeping all the focus on Dean, thus reinforcing his frontrunner status.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

You can not complain about the media focus on Dean, when guys like Kerry use 90% of the media time they get, attacking Dean.

THe media focus is on Dean because Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman and to a lesser degree Kucinich are keeping the focus on Dean.

Thanks, by the way.... all the effort that Clark and Kerry supporters have put into keeping the focus on Dean, rather than talking about your candidates, has been very very helpful.

election through his putting forth foreign policy credentials on the stage first. You can't do that, you have to stick it to Bush on the domestic issues and you can't concede Bush is the know-all on foreign policy issues by bringing forth a four-star general. That's letting your political opponent frame the election, and you should never do that.

Luntz has controlled the Dem primary, thanks to a helluva lot of suckers.

So thank you. THank you so much for helping keep Dean right up front with all the focus and attention on him.

I'll stick to principles i value.

I'll stick to the princples I value.

don their hats!!

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

help me

THat's AMAZING news!

Where was Gore at this time in 2000? 20% points down?

WOW. I think I see a Dean landlside in the makings.

eom

and their supporters dog piling on him... Bush wouldn't even be a speed bump.


Dean hasn't even got the nomination yet, and he's already neck and neck with Bush. Both Clinton and Gore started out 20 points behind in their first runs.

It must be so frustrating to the folks who attack Dean to try so hard, to spin, to lie, to make crap up and to destroy their credibility and integrity in the process, all for not. Dean still is gaining support and is still climbing in the polls.

Clark has gone out of his way not to attack ANYBODY, even when invited... one might say pressed... to do so. I would appreciate you not lumping him in with those who have attacked Dean.

Care to clarify that remark?

Sour + Grapes = Kerry supporters.


Kerry supporters are realizing it is over for Kerry and while many of them here have been relentlessly attacking Dean, they've watched as his numbers and his support just keep growing and growing.

It has to be very very frustrating to work so hard to tear somebody down, and end up helping keep the focus on them.

or the primaries - I'm not frustrated - I'm motivated! Talk about FOCUS did you happen to see the debate yesterday - you know that one where Dean was the object of much humor?

doing nothing but attacking Dean and getting the thumbs down in the press over his failing behavior?

Yeah John, keep doing that :) (see the most recent Slate for a rundown on your guys pathetic performance at the debate).

I must have missed it while I was LMAO at Howard.

any chance to represent an opposing view to Chimpy. IF he would have said, 'I was wrong to vote for this war' then he could have possibly contended with Dean. But alas...his campaign was over before it started and the rest is political history.

Nothing can be said for his performance at the recent debate.

Dean '04...

That had Dean farther behind, and then he said critical things.

He quoted PART of this poll on Crossfire, but he did NOT quote the part about Dean/Bush.

Carville is equally bad. They are part of CNN and they should be ashamed of talking about a fellow Democrat that way.

And I used to like both of those guys!

and has been discussed a number of times since it came out. Just thought I'd mention that. And Lieberman did almost as well as Dean, getting the same 46% support, but yeilding one percent of the "undecideds" to Bush. Also, all the candidates bunched were within the margin of error (the range for the Dems against Bush was 43% to 46%, with a MOE of +/- 4.

But there's no doubt in my mind that it's good for Democrats. All of them are within striking distance of Bush*

The complete results are here: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

53-43% Bush

Yes, Clark is 10% - NOT within the MOE... I meant the candidates were within the MOE from each other. Sorry, I was on my way someplace and posted hastily.

voter survey (Bush 51, Dean 46). All the other Harris surveys were of REGISTERED VOTERS, always several points more Democratic.

SO DEAN IS PROBABLY AHEAD OF BUSH IN THE REGISTERED POLL WHICH THEY DEEP-SIXED. It's probably something like

Dean 49
Bush 48

NEED A BUSHECTOMY?? CALL DR. DEAN!

Is there any way to check out what the registered voters results were? I'd be interested in seeing that! We know they'll try to put Bush in the best light, so if 51%-46% was the best they had...

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

And I mean that regardless of who's doing well! Eyes on the prize!

This is all that was released. Note how the polling report Web site had to note the difference between this Likely Voter poll and the previous Registered voter polls of Harris! They surveyed 1004 registered voters and only released the results of 604!!

http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Dec. 30, 2003-Jan. 1, 2004. N=604 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"Suppose the 2004 election for president were being held today and you had to choose between , the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican. For whom would you vote: ?"

.

Bush Dean NS
12/03 - 1/04
51 46 3
Among all registered voters:

11/03
52 40 8
9/03
52 42 6

Get it?? America has just been had!! THere goes your democracy, bunky. If they released a poll showing Dean beating Bush, that's page one news, which of course 51-46 is too.

I wonder if that's why they don't have a "generic Dem" question in this poll... they have such a question in most others, and the gD usually does better than any named Dem... Wonder if the Generic Dem beat bush*!!

Dean is indeed electable and any Dem who wins is gonna be withing striking distance. In other words: the pundits are wrong, as usual.

People made fun of me when I said we should banish the word "unelectable" from our vocabulary as we argue amongst ourselves over who should be the nominee.

What you say is exactly right... although they didn't include Kucinich, Braun or Sharpton in the results... still, all of the ones they did include were at 43% or above, and the *highest* Bush got was 53%. A far cry from "unbeatable" I'd say.