Talk Elections

ARG Poll taken Dec 7 - 10

Bush  57%   Dean  30%


margin of error +/-  4.5%

Hey, isn't NH the state where the 9 dwarfs have been running anti-Bush ads for the last two months?   You know, the state that was carried by Bush by a single percentage point in 2000?  The state that gave Bush his most narrow winning margin after Florida?

Of course this lead will narrow by a significant margin after the conventions.  However, 27 points down  in a state that you've been campaigning non stop in for months?  Sheesh.

BTW, the ARG poll hit the 2002 NH Senate race right on the button.

9 dwarfs? Well, I must say that you get an A+ for coming up with the most creative name for them. 9 dwarfs?!

A dwarf is usually someone is who rather short. I don't really think the 9 Democratic candidates are really short. In fact, I think Kerry is like 6'4" or 6'5" and Gephardt is 6'3" I don't know about Dean, I'd actually like to know how tall he is. But a dwarf is traditionally known as a person who is 5'0" or less.

J.R.R. Tolkiens definition of  dwarfs, are people who mined in the mountains, to take all the precious treasures from the caves. Dwarfs also have long beards, and carry axes.

So either you are an avid fan of the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and you are trying to say that the Democratic candidates are people who will DIG into things and take what they want, or you just thought of a clever name to give them, and accidently stumbled on the excellent metaphor I just gave you.

I think it's more the latter, because I wouldn't imagine you being a fan of Tolkien.

 9 dwarfs?! LOL

In 1988 the media dubbed the field of Democratic candidates the "7 dwarves" so maybe that is where he got the idea. Of course 7 dwarves makes a lot more sense than 9.

Ah, I see now. I feel like a fool for not knowing that. lol

But 7 dwarves does make a lot more sense that 9 dwarves.

Or, they're all on Cloud Nine if any of them think they can beat Bush. HA-HA

I'm not going to repeat my standard warning about polls, as I assume you already know what it is.

Agreed.  Polls mean nothing at this point.  Pay no attention and continue to march towards the cliff.

Wait a second ... you mean the "liberal" media belittled their own candidates?

I find it hard to believe it will be a repeat of 1984. The Dems polled 30% in NH at that election. All other polls point to a very close election.

Interesting how some Republicans quote polls when it suits them, but similarly claim that polls don't matter if they portray Bush in a negative light. Oh wait. I forgot that applying double standards seems to be a favourite Republican pastime.

like the democratic candidates say the poll numbers dont matter but send out press releases everytime any arbit poll shows they gained a half point.

Maybe its an American pastime?? :P

They dont do that in Germany??

Actually I think he was referring to their political stature in the popular eye not physical appearance?? :P :D

Ha! Yeah right, as soon I agree I get called "anti-American". I know your game! ;)


Oh no, never. ;)

My parents hail from Germany, though I've lived in Britain for most of my life. And they don't do it in the UK either. (Cue a chorus of "Yeah, right!" from the other side of the Atlantic) :)

Well, actually it is quite normal for the incumbent to be way ahead in the polls right now. Both Bush in 1992 and Carter in 1980 were far ahead of Clinton and Reagan, respectively, at this point in the campaign.
So yes, polls don't matter until the Dem nominee has comparable name ID to Bush. In fact, as far as predicting the outcome is concerned, polls don't matter at all until after the conventions. If Bush is still ahead after the Dem convention is over, then the Dems will be in trouble, but until then the polls are pretty much useless in determing the outcome in November.

Exactly.  Ignore these polls.  They mean nothing at this point.  Nominate Dean.  He has energy, smarts, a committed base, internet money, and he's not afraid of anyone.  In short, the Democrats would be foolish to nominate anyone else.  

The Mason-Dixon poll showing Bush ahead of Dean by 21 points in Florida is also meaningless.  These polls are just plain stupid.

I sense great sarcasm in your post, Agcat, but even you would have to admit that those traits you listed are real advantages for Dean. And polls are meaningless at this point, Carter and Bush were both far ahead and I'm sure their supporters were convinced that Reagan and Clinton did not pose threats to them at all. Reagan was too extreme, and Clinton was governor of a small state and thus too lacking in experience. So clearly a small state governor who is too extreme can't beat an incumbent, right?
I'm not saying that Dean is necesarily the best nominee or that he'll win, but Bill Kristol does bring up good points. Be careful what you wish for.
Ultimately, the outcome in 2004 will depend a lot more on what Bush says or does then it will on what any of the Dems say or do. Elections in which an incumbent is running for reelection are referendums on the performance of the incumbent. If the economy is doing great, the deficit is going way down, and Iraq is viewed as a smashing success, then Bush is unbeatable barring some MAJOR scandal or something like that. But if not, then Bush can lose if the Dems run a good campaign. Basically all the Dems can do is clearly enunciate the differences that they have with Bush and then let the chips fall where they may. Bush's performance matters far more to the election outcome than does that of Dean or any other Democrat, though.

Has Nym90 forgotten Nixon's 72' re-election and innauguration in January of 73'? The Watergate story had already surfaced by then and yet, President Nixon was still re-elected.

Yes, but at the time Watergate was just a third-rate burglary and there was no proven connection to Nixon. If the full story had been known before the election than Nixon would have lost.

I stand corrected big guy! However, if Nixon had come forward and been forthright about his misgivings, his Presidency could have survived.

I'm not going to say the New Hampshire poll is gospel, but I think it means more than any other poll on the 2004 election yet produced.

The reason polls don't generally matter much at this stage is, as many have already pointed out on this thread, the opposing candidate has low name recognition.  The reason this poll matters is because Dean has extremely high name recognition in New Hampshire.  He's been campaigning there nonstop for a year now.  New Hamshirites have seen Dean up-close and they don't like him.

Although I don't put a lot of stock in the particular numbers of this poll, I do think that the margin is striking.  If a state that was a real tossup state in 2000 is trending this widely for Bush after getting to know the probably Democtic nominee, I can't help but think that the same will be the case for the rest of the country too.

The margin is NOT striking as almost all the undecided will vote against an incumbent.
Usually.

<The margin is NOT striking>  

Huh?  This is a state that Bush carried by one percent in 2000.  It's early, I'll grant you that, but in that poll he loses independents 61 - 11!  Poo poo it if you want, but remember, this is a state Dean has had his message out in for months.  

I just hope Dems dismiss this and other polls long enough to nominate this guy.

Could you point me to data to back this up?  In 2000 the undecided split for Gore (the pseudo-incumbant) 48% to 44% see exit poll data:
http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=N1

It happend to Chandler, Musgrove, Davis and Jindal this year.

However it did not happen in the Saskatchwan election.

It helps explain some shock results.

9 dwarfs is a common name for the dem candidates, some have said the 9 liberals, 9 mondales as they all want to raise taxes--take your pick.

Well at least with the poll it is nice to see that a year of Dems running around NH still has not had much effect.  I still think in the end that NH will vote for Bush, even if the Dems make a push there.  

NH is the most anti tax state int eh country and all the Dems want tax increases by rolling back the President's tax cuts.  Plus the Dems thought they had a winner iin Gov Shaheen in the 2002 senate race and she ended up losing also.  Plus GOP will have an easy senate win with Sen Gregg and most likely the new GOP Gov will be reelected, Benson I believe is his name.

ah, I see. I must say I miss your posting on this forum Nym90. Dry off and come back!
Chris

Only two of those names were incumbants.

Can't wait for the Sunday political shows and what the Dems will say to try and spin how Bush negotiated to have Libya turn in their WMDs.

But in a year as anti-incumbent as 2003, merely being from the same party seemed to take them down.

Isn't it interesting how presidents usually gets reelected but VPs running for president usually don't? And when they do, they don't get elected the next time (you have to go back to, I dont know when to find that.)

Isn't it interesting how presidents usually gets reelected but VPs running for president usually don't? And when they do, they don't get elected the next time (you have to go back to, I dont know when to find that.)

I think this has to do with the ambiguous relationship that usually exists between presidents and vice presidents, and the resultant fact that the vice president often inherits the president's liabilities, without his perceived assets.  Gore kept Clinton at a distance, because of his obvious liabilities, but as a result he had to distance himself from the things that people liked about Clinton, and he was associated with the bad things anyway.

A vice president is usually running after serving 8 years under a president.  Just on that point alone, people are usually inclined to change parties after that long.

Also, the vice president must prove his independence while remaining loyal to the president.  This is a very difficult thing to do.  Humphrey tried to establish some distance from LBJ on Vietnam, but LBJ threatened to cut his 'nads off if he went too far.

Most presidents and vice presidents have had ambivalent and/or difficult personal relations, which makes it more difficult for a president to give effective help to his vice president.  We saw that with Eisenhower and Nixon, to a certain extent with Reagan and Bush, and certainly with Clinton and Gore.

The Reagan-Bush exception to this whole trend was aided by extremely weak opposition to Bush in the form of Michael Dukakis.  A better Democratic candidate probably could have beaten Bush, despite his connection to the popular Reagan.

If Bush keeps Cheney on the ticket in 2004 and wins, 2008 will be interesting, because there's little chance Cheney will run for president.  That would leave the field wide open.

This has been done before on this site, but I think Rudi would win the nomination fairly bloodlessly. But then, it could be wishful thinking on my part. A really nasty GOP primary in '08 is a possibility, similar to the one the Dems are having this year.

Huh?  Someone that moderate would NEVER win the GOP nomination.  The right wing would never put up with a pro-choice nominee like Rudy.  He would win the general decisively, but someone from the right (Frist, Jeb) could take him easily in the primary.

It's still very early. I'm not worried. If you take Nader out of the 2000 equation then Gore would have won NH, and Clinton won it both times. NH is the 2nd most likely Dem pickup in '04, behind WV.

NH is off the table if the dems nominate a candidate with middle class TAX INCREASES such as Dean or Gephardt.

New Hampshire has more registered Republicans — 254,000 in the November 2002 election — than Democrats, with 177,000. The state's 260,000 undeclared voters outnumber both parties.


just an interesting stat I found for the general election.

NH could be in play for a moderate Democrat, if not Dean.

As Dazzleman pointed out in another thread, the growth of the "exurbs" (suburbs that don't surround urban areas) is a key national demographic trend that  favors Democrats for years to come. Fast growing "exurban" areas in southern NH like Nashua and Manchester are attracting young families from cities like New York and Boston. The "downtown" of these areas are their shopping malls, which don't promote traditionally conservative cultural values like the small towns or rural areas that the exurbs are replacing. The traditional independent libertarian NH voter will eventually no longer dominate NH politics.

This phenomenon is true in other northeastern states like NJ and PA as well.

I did see though that thouasnads of libertarians are moving to NH to help build their party but said int he short term they may support Bush if it appears close, which could help too.