I aint gonna bet on this one ... too close!
Edwards and Kerry got the momentum, but Dean and gephardt got the machines, and these be caucuses ...
ye110man wrote:The MSNBC/Reuters Zogby poll conducted from 1/14-1/16...
Kerry: 22.6%
Dean: 22.1%
Gephardt: 19.1%
Edwards: 17.9%
The one from one day later, 1/15 - 1/17...
Kerry 24.4%
Dean 23.1%
Gephardt 18.8%
Edwards 18.4%
Did anybody else notice that Dean is going back
up again the last two days?
My guess is that, if it would be a straightforward vote, Dean would end up first, after all.
But it isn't; you have this whole business of people who support a candidate who gets less than 15% in their caucus having to "relocate" to another candidate and so on ... and that works against Dean.
Because
the details in that tracking poll are even more interesting. Dean may be almost at the top in first preferences, but he is,
- far behind Kerry and Edwards as second choice,
- he's got much higher unfavourables -31%- (and lower "very favorables" -31%-) than the other candidates,
- and of the 10% who still was "not sure" whom they would support, only 2% "leans" towards Dean, while 31% lean towards Kerry or Edwards.
None of those indicators bode well for Dean's chances in the actual elections, either, should he win ..
Carolina holds key to the White House
If you study the Electoral College vote map, you will understand my interest in John Edwards and Wes Clark. I've decided to vote for Clark as the best candidate to have a chance of beating Bush. I'm voting with my brain, not my heart.
BBB
Carolina holds key to the White House
For Howard Dean and his presidential rivals, the South is a minefield of Confederates and the politics of race
Paul Harris in Columbia, South Carolina
Sunday January 18, 2004
The Observer
At the top of Columbia's Main Street, the Confederate flag flutters in front of the state Capitol building. For black Americans the banner symbolises racism and slavery, but South Carolina's governor refuses to remove it. For the eight Democratic presidential hopefuls, all pinning their White House hopes on winning this state, the flag is proof that things are done differently in the Deep South.
'That flag is a travesty in this modern day,' said Dwight James, local executive president of the black civil rights group the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.
None of the Democratic Party's candidates can afford to avoid South Carolina. Votes in Iowa this week and New Hampshire next week dominate the headlines, but here is the true test of who will win and who will lose.
South Carolina is the first Southern state to vote. Winning it could unlock the rest of the South. It is also the moment when race enters the political equation. Iowa and New Hampshire are lily-white states with tiny minority populations. In South Carolina blacks make up about 40 per cent of the Democratic vote. The state goes to the polls on 3 February - Super Tuesday - along with Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Delaware and Oklahoma. From that bloodbath a Democratic leader is almost certain to emerge.
Howard Dean has seen long leads in Iowa and New Hampshire start to slip. With close votes likely in those states, South Carolina has become even more crucial, certainly for Dean. If he comes here with his frontrunner's crown intact, he will need a decisive vote to prove that he can generate mass appeal. But his brand of north-eastern practical liberalism holds little appeal for South Carolinians.
For whites, this is a state still mourning the death of arch-segregationist senator Strom Thurmond. For blacks, it is where the Bible rules and Dean's record on abortion and gay marriage does not impress.
Race is seen as Dean's biggest potential weakness. Rivals have attacked him for having no minorities in his cabinets when he governed Vermont. Last week firebrand black preacher Al Sharpton left Dean flummoxed after raising the point on a televised debate. Dean has also muddied things by making a backfiring comment about wanting to attract poor whites with Confederate flags on their trucks, while making much of having black room-mates at Yale - which cuts little ice with poor blacks.
Dean's anti-war stance, which has propelled his campaign, is also unlikely to garner much support. Like much of the South, this state is pro-military. In Charleston last week an anti-war protest was able to attract just a single demonstrator.
At a Democratic Party meeting in Columbia, few black Americans voiced support for Dean. Marjorie Johnson, an influential Democrat in the city, could not bring herself to do so: 'I don't know why. It is just a gut feeling.'
Experts agree. The South distrusts outsiders, especially 'Yankees', and Dean, a white liberal doctor from Vermont, is as Yankee as they come. But he has sought to address the issue. His endorsement by Al Gore was held in Harlem, the unofficial capital of black America. He has racked up high-profile black backers, including former rival candidate Carol Moseley Braun.
He has also started to speak about his faith. Some say that Dean's Confederate flag gaffe was unfairly misinterpreted. Sitting in his Charleston office in front of a picture of a black Christ, Pastor Joseph Darby, an outspoken black churchman, is one: ' He was trying to say poor people of all colours should vote together. That is unlikely. The legacy of slavery and Civil War hangs thick in the air.'
Darby recalls attending a summer camp where he tried to befriend a poor white boy. 'He refused. He said, "I may be poor, but at least I'm white". That attitude is still out there.'
Republicans have gradually made the South a stronghold - South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford, was elected in 2002 and already has $1.1m in the kitty for his 2004 re-election campaign - leading many to wonder if any Democrat can win the White House without having strong Southern ties. The last two Democratic Presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, were both Southerners. Senator John Edwards, another candidate, was born in the state. His Southern drawl is perfect and he looks every inch a Clinton-esque figure.
For Dick Gephardt, South Carolina could also be fruitful. The state has lost thousands of jobs and Gephardt's support among unions is strong. Retired General Wesley Clark is also looking to play up his Southern roots. Polls show an even split between Dean, Edwards, Gephardt and Clark.
Yet no matter who wins here, the racial divides that govern the state's politics are unlikely to heal. Dean's vision of appealing to poor whites and blacks alike is as far away as ever. Charleston police chief Reuben Greenberg recently spoke on the problem of black-on-black shootings. 'I refuse to take responsibility every time one black son of a bitch kills another,' he said. Amid uproar from blacks, Mayor Joe Riley backed his comments.
'South Carolina is an "interesting" place,' Darby said 'Many people here think the Civil War has not ended. There's just been a cessation of hostilities.'
This is probably old news now, but Carter just gave his blessing to Dean.
Hi, I'm predicting Dean, Gepheart and then Edwards in Iowa.
I was listening to some political junkie show a day or so ago and a pollster guest made an interesting comment (or perhaps he was just covering his ass in case he ended up with egg on his face--how's that for a mixed metaphor). Anyway, his notion was that: (1) Polling is done by phone calls to random numbers IN THE PHONE BOOK, (2) Many Dean supportors are young and only have cell-phones. Therefore the polls may be not reflecting Dean's support. Are they energized enough to come out to the actual caucuses? hmm.
23 hours to make your prediction. -rjb-
A CBS poll shows GWBush's approval rating down to 50 percent, and his disapproval rating up to 45 percent.
cicerone imposter wrote:A CBS poll shows GWBush's approval rating down to 50 percent, and his disapproval rating up to 45 percent.
There are a large percentage of Republicans as well as Democrats who disapprove of Bush and Bush's policies.
The basic question for both Democrats and Republicans is not which candidate is most approved or disapproved. The basic question is which candidate is perceived as least worse.
ican711nm wrote:realjohnboy wrote:So, can we make a little game of this? You have until Monday, 1/19 at high noon (EST US), to predict the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place finishers in Iowa.
No long explanation is necessary or desired. Simply state your prediction:
#1 = He who appears to the
electorate most likely to get the government to steal the most wealth from those who earn more than
them and give it to
them .
#2 = He who appears to the
electorate 2nd most likely to get the government to steal the most wealth from those who earn more than
them and give it to
them .
#3 = He who appears to the
electorate 3rd most likely to get the government to steal the most wealth from those who earn more than
them and give it to
them .
The
electorate has a very difficult decision to make.
In that case it would be...
1. Kucinich
2. Sharpton
...
8. Dean
It's the reverse order of what the polls indicate.
screw the polls, i'm going...
dean, gephardt, kerry
no...
make that
dean, gephardt, edwards
realjohnboy wrote:Hi, I'm predicting Dean, Gepheart and then Edwards in Iowa.
I was listening to some political junkie show a day or so ago and a pollster guest made an interesting comment (or perhaps he was just covering his ass in case he ended up with egg on his face--how's that for a mixed metaphor). Anyway, his notion was that: (1) Polling is done by phone calls to random numbers IN THE PHONE BOOK, (2) Many Dean supportors are young and only have cell-phones. Therefore the polls may be not reflecting Dean's support. Are they energized enough to come out to the actual caucuses? hmm.
23 hours to make your prediction. -rjb-
That's interesting. But I guess it would depend on the methodology.
From the footnotes of the Zogby poll...
Quote:Slight weights were added to party, age, education, union, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population.
ye110man wrote:It's the reverse order of what the polls indicate.
Not necessarily!
I wrote:
Quote:
He who appears to the electorate most likely to get the government to steal the most wealth from those who earn more than them and give it to them .
I did not write:
He who
makes the most promises to the
electorate to get the government to steal the most wealth from those who earn more than
them and give it to
them .
Dean has made plenty of promises to do just that, and they probably recieved more airtime than any of the other candidates remarks. But based on his previous record, I know that he's really a fiscal conservative. I think many democrats do as well.
And this is why I back him. We need a fiscal conservative to balance the budget, get realistic policies implemented and clean up Bush's mess.
Centroles wrote:Dean has made plenty of promises to do just that,
Quote: get the government to steal the most wealth from those who earn more than them and give it to them.
and they probably recieved more airtime than any of the other candidates remarks. But based on his previous record, I know that he's really a fiscal conservative. I think many democrats do as well.
So you think Dean is
lying now
Centroles wrote:And this is why I back him. We need a fiscal conservative to balance the budget, get realistic policies implemented and clean up Bush's mess.
You back Dean despite the fact that he is lying now
Was Dean a liar when he was a governor and a practicing fiscal conservative?
cicerone imposter wrote:A CBS poll shows GWBush's approval rating down to 50 percent, and his disapproval rating up to 45 percent.
Any one poll is a snapshot, a still-frame. The real world, however, is not static, it is dynamic, it is a movie. Even a series of results-over-time from a single poll is no more than a slide show. The broader selection of polls, over the longer period of time, one considers, the more like a movie the results become. Any result falling considerably outside the mean deviation must be suspect, as must be any results which suddenly depart from the established trend. This doen't necessarily mean such results are to be rejected, it means merely that they require further study, and if possible, further monitoring in order to determine whether the results are abberational or are indicative of a shift in trending. Context, depth, and history are critical considerations in the understandiong of what polls tell us. Conclusions jumped at are likely to be wrong, conclusions approached cautiously, diligently, painstakingly, in depth and over time, are less likely to be at odds with actuality. Fluctuations are to be expected, and really mean nothjing. What is pertinent is long-term straight-line trending ... consistency, if you will. A single result here, another there, yet another there, each are no more substantial than straws. Gather enough straws, assemble and bind them, and a hay bale can be built. A structure made of straws will be scattered by a breeze or washed away by a gentle rain. A structure made of hay bales is far more cohesive and substantial, and disturbable only by a tornado or a torrent. Breezes and showers are far more common than are tornados and floods.
timberlandko wrote: Any one poll is a snapshot, a still-frame.
Is an actual election also just a
Quote:snap shot, a still frame
ican711nm wrote:Is an actual election also just a
Quote:snap shot, a still frame
Taken out of context, as a single event, of course an actual election is a snapshot. It is over time, over the series of elections, that the structure of the movie begins to appear, and, of course, one must consider also not only the top-of-the ticket election, but the ancillary contests. The Democrats, for instance, retained The Whitehouse in the '96 General Election, but the subtext included the weakening of their grip on the Houses of The Legislature, Governorships, and individual State Legislatures, a progression which has continued trending against the Democrats all the way through the '02 Mid-Term Elections, and which appears to have been validated by the '03 individual state elections, including the Republican pickup of 3 out of the 4 Governorships at contest, as well as gains in State Legislatures. The past decade has not been kind to The Democrats, and little appears to be going their way now. We'll see, of course; any scene may have a twist, and any movie may have a surprise ending. Just because things appear predictable now doesn't mean they'll necessarily remain that way; it means merely they probably will continue to follow the clearly established trend.
