Poll - New Hampshire - Bush vs. Dean

[jravnsbo]

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.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

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.

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

[DarthKosh]

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.

Only two of those names were incumbants.

[jravnsbo]

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.

[Sibboleth]

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

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.)

[dazzleman]

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.

[M]

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.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

[jravnsbo]

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

[jravnsbo]

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.

[Mort from NewYawk]

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.

[jravnsbo]

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.

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.