0
   

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 04:32 pm
Hehhehheh ...

I was bored. And its very easy to do, just takes a long time (put the data into an Excel sheet, save the graph as a gif, resize it with Adobe).

ADD: Oh - if anyone was still looking for remixes of the Dean-scream ... here's a bunch.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 04:41 pm
And the 2004 Major Poll Geek Award goes to...

nimhrod! :wink:

(Just jokin'...really)

Andohbytheway, Bush's poll numbers rightfully belong in a thread about him;maybe the "Let's talk about replacing"... one rather than the Democratic Contenders...my own geeky 'let's stay on topic' rant, expressed softly...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 04:49 pm
I have mentioned a few times that I haven't had any TV at my disposal for the last several months... I've seen reference to but did not SEE Dean's apparent rant. Can anyone give me a summary of it? I followed nimh's link and there were some fuzzy, hand-helled videos, but I still don't really have a feel for it. (Is that on-topic enough, PDiddie? Wink )
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 05:17 pm
Well done, mother-of-sozlet.

Go here and look at a two minute version shot on a camcorder from the audience (this is not the version that has been played ad nauseum on the news).

You need a media player and a braodband connection for best results.

Then go listen to nimh's selctions of The Scream remixed with Ozzy Osbourne, Guns and Roses, and others.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 05:30 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Andohbytheway, Bush's poll numbers rightfully belong in a thread about him;maybe the "Let's talk about replacing"... one rather than the Democratic Contenders...my own geeky 'let's stay on topic' rant, expressed softly...


Nah, that doesnt work ... I mean, I can go post it there, of course (phaps some people like it). But from what I got looking in every once a while, its a very different kinda thread ... its not called, "Bush's chances in the elections", its called "Lets talk about replacing Bush". Lot of discussions about what he and his politics have done to the US, all he's done wrong, about activism, what can be done to oust him ... all that ... its a thread about the contents of politics, not about the process of politics (as in, who's up, who's down, who's gonna win and why).

Anyway, I posted it here cause we're talking about the chances of the Democratic contenders, right, against each other but also against Bush. Well, the Bush numbers are the inverse image of the Democrats' chances, so ... without including that we're just whistling in the wind. MHO.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 05:36 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
This president’s job approval rating surpasses his father’s at the same point in that administration, and ties Bill Clinton’s.


Thats an interesting take from CBS, there. For two reasons:

1) "ties with Bill Clinton's" - this is true for the positives (50% for GWB, 49% for Clinton), but not for the negatives (45% for GWB, 40% for Clinton). I.e., Clinton had +9, GWB +5.

2) "Surpasses his father's" - this here was a CBS/NYT poll. CBS compares the 50-45 for GWB with a January 1992 43-47 for Bush Sr. - which makes GWB look good in comparison. But the NYT, in its graph, compares the 50-45 for GWB with a January 1992 48-39 for Bush Sr. - which makes GWB look worse in comparison. Must be a different Jan '92 poll. Ah, polls ...

Carter and Reagan, meanwhile, both did a LOT better than GWB at this point in time ('ccording to the NYT graph, anyway).
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 05:43 pm
It's cool here, nimh. I was just breakin' your you-know-whats...

soze, here's another audio link.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 08:41 pm
The dynamics of the polls nimh so laboriously graphed out (good job, BTW - thanks. I was too lazy to do it. Thought about it, but just didn't take the effort). Anyhow, Approval seems to have a floor of around 50%, give-or-take, from which it rebounds in short order, averaging mid-fifties, while Disapproval exhibits a ceiling of around 48%, from which it retreats in short order, averaging somewhere in the low-to-mid 40s. There seems to be solid resistance at the 50% level, both on the upside and the downside. A few weeks in a row below 50% Approval would indicate trouble, but dips here-and-there are not uncommon, and have proven to be abberational over all.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 09:04 pm
Looks like at least two of my three modest predictions may just be coming true ...

Quote:
Latest N.H. poll holds hope for Dean
One-time front-runner gaining on Kerry


MANCHESTER, N.H. - The Democrats’ fierce battle for New Hampshire entered its final 48 hours Sunday with the latest MSNBC poll showing one-time front-runner Howard Dean making a strong comeback from his stumble in the Iowa caucuses.

Sen. John Kerry still held double-digit leads in most of the polling data released Sunday, and a seven-point advantage in the three-day figures from the MSNBC/Zogby Reuters Poll, which showed him leading Dean 30-23 in Thursday-Saturday totals, down from 31-22 the previous day.

However, in just the Saturday survey, it was 28 for Kerry to 25 for Dean, a statistical dead heat in the poll’s four-point margin of error. The Friday-only figure was 26-22.

A tracking poll totals three consecutive days of polling, then tosses the first day’s results each time a new day is added. [..] The figures mean that Kerry’s overall seven-point lead is significantly skewed by the double digit-lead Kerry enjoyed in Thursday polling, done before a key debate in Manchester, N.H., and while Dean’s Iowa concession “screech” was still being replayed and ridiculed over and over on national television.

“Dean had another good polling day, actually bouncing back,” said pollster John Zogby on Sunday. “The race looks as though it is tightening, however, it is Kerry’s to lose at this point.”

Of the other major contenders, the three-day results released Sunday showed Wesley Clark dropping one percentage point to 13 percent and John Edwards and Joseph Lieberman both gaining on Clark at 9 percent.


Among the details, it's interesting to see how Clark has ratcheted up unfavourables, too, I dunno why, really? He has 28% somewhat/very unfavourable, still less than Dean (34%) and Lieberman (36%), but considerably more than Kerry (17%) and Edwards (12%).
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 09:09 pm
"hand-helled"? What was up with that?

PDiddie, audio doesn't do nothin' for me, in case you forgot. Cool

Edwards = nice is still making me nervous. Fine for Democrats voting for Democrats, not at all sure he would be able to withstand Bush Inc.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 09:12 pm
sozobe wrote:
PDiddie, audio doesn't do nothin' for me, in case you forgot. Cool


I did indeed Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 09:14 pm
sozobe wrote:
Edwards = nice is still making me nervous. Fine for Democrats voting for Democrats, not at all sure he would be able to withstand Bush Inc.


This report might serve to reassure ... A Smile of Steel

'Course, there's a dozen articles like that on each of the candidates, but it reassured me a bit, and I happened to read it just six minutes ago ;-)
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 11:21 pm
nimh wrote:
Among the details, it's interesting to see how Clark has ratcheted up unfavourables, too, I dunno why, really? He has 28% somewhat/very unfavourable, still less than Dean (34%) and Lieberman (36%), but considerably more than Kerry (17%) and Edwards (12%).

I'm guess it's due to his questionable loyalty to the party.

Clark is the only candidate consistantly losing ground in NH. His strategy of skipping Iowa and concentrating on NH was a total failure.

We all dismissed Kerry but he really is electable, perhaps even more so than Clark. A Kerry/Clark ticket would be very strong but very unlikely to happen. Clark's been critisizing Kerry. At the moment my money would be on a Kerry/Edwards ticket but who knows. Last week I would've bet on Clark/Dean or Dean/Edwards.
Theoretically Kerry should win NH and go downhill from there but he may be able to hold on for the nomination. Unless the others screw up bad, I think Dean is already done. Clark and Edwards will do better after NH.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2004 11:32 pm
This says it all.
*************
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED

FOR THE SAME REASON
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2004 03:20 am
That's pretty much a given, c, i, Laughing

I dunno ... its not uncommon for a campaign to be carried by a darkhorse. Edwards sorta meets the profile, moreso than either Dean or Clark. Gephardt's endorsement will be of huge advantage to whomever gets it, and right now, I see only Kerry and Edwards vying for Gep's nod. Kerry likely will survive with or without it, but would be all that much stronger with it. Edwards, however, desperately needs it. Will Gephardt throw in with the Old Guard Kerry? That would have strong precedent, but Gephardt could gain instant Respected Elder Statesman status as the kingmaker behind an emergent Superstar. NH is known for surprises. In fact, you can just about count on 'em, no matter what the polls show. It wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting now if the polls leading up to Iowa had been more congruent with the actual results.

Looking back to the runup to Iowa, I was a lot more accurate in my assessment of Edwards than of Gephardt, and while I expected more of Dean, I felt Kerry and Edwards had unsuspected strength, while Dean stood at risk of chastening. I gotta say Gephardt both surprised and disappointed me; I figured he'd have been a bit stronger, and that he'd not give up untill after NH.

Going into NH, I see a three-way tussle for a strong 3rd place showing. Without a significant rebound, Dean goes into the February scramble at severe, if not insurmountable, disadvantage. Clark and Lieberman both essentially have "bet it all" on NH, and both must either surprise or succumb. One or the other is doomed, and without a strong showing, neither has prospect of ultimate success, if history is any guide. I think I feel sorry for Joe.

OK, I'm ready for my surprise :wink: Laughing
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2004 06:09 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Another thought, here; tomorrow and Tuesday's weather throughout Iowa is forecast to be clear and, relative to the region, seasonally mild, something which no doubt will mitigate towaerd relatively heavy turnout. This, in turn, easily might heavilly influence the eventual outcome of the Iowa contest ...

Any predictions made so far could be mooted by participation numbers beyond best estimates. Something which merits perhaps greater attention than who wins might be how many folks participate. The expectation would be that participation would be of historic proportion ...

Should record, surprisingly abberational caucus attendence not prove to be the case, called to question would be the overall signifigance of Democratic prospects nationally re the '04 General Election as a whole. If turnout in Iowa, regardless of outcome, is less than absolutely astounding, The Democrats nationally may have considerable cause for alarm.


Surprisingly aberrational caucus attendance did turn out to be the case:

Quote:
More than 122,000 Iowans participated in Monday night's (1/19) caucuses. Johnson County had the second highest turnout statewide, second only to Polk County with 21,000.

Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett said Monday's caucus had the highest turnout since the 1988 presidential race.


Iowa City Press-Citizen
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2004 07:16 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I think I feel sorry for Joe.


Not feeling that Joementum, eh?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/us.iraq/story.lieberman.jpg

Me neither... Cool
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2004 07:31 pm
Joe's had a tough week in NH. He's starting to get those sad puppy dog eyes already. From the way things are sounding his showing tomoorow is going to be embarrassing low.

With the primaries in NH tomorrow I'm a bit surprised though. I've seen Kerry, Dean and Clark ads on TV over the last few days but nothing from Pokin' Joe, Sharpton or Edwards.

I expected Edwards to put on a big advertising push after his showing in Iowa but it hasn't materialized. *shrugs* Mebbe he's saving his money for the next round.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2004 07:41 pm
Hmm, PD, half full or half empty?

Right before the caucauses, speculation was more about with how much atttendance would surpass 1988's one ... hell, the Dean campaign was claiming a 'hard count' that consisted for two-thirds out of new attendees.

Nothing like that happened, tho attendence was fair enough, fersure.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2004 07:48 pm
nimh wrote:
Right before the caucauses, speculation was more about with how much atttendance would surpass 1988's one


I missed that specific speculation. Where did you see it?

Speculation regarding the number of votes cast in NH tomorrow range from 165,000 to 175,000. I can't seem to find out if that is considered high or just medium. Anyone?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 04:54:07