Bush down in polls

January 24, 2004 8:22 PM

New poll: Bush sinking, Kerry surgingOverall, 52 percent of those polled by NEWSWEEK say they would not like to see Bush serve a second term, compared to 44 percent who want to see him win again...
posted by Slagman (64 comments total)

Wow. Poll results. Definitely FPP-worthy.
posted by davidmsc at 8:27 PM on January 24, 2004

...metatalk
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:29 PM on January 24, 2004

wow. snarking about the FPP. definitely comment worthy.
posted by quonsar at 8:29 PM on January 24, 2004

(continued)

"Still, voters question the ultimate electablility of anyone other than Bush in November. Seventy-eight percent of them feel it is either somewhat or very likely that Bush will be re-elected in the fall. Kerry appears to Democrats to be most electable out of the bunch, with 48 percent believing he was a good chance at defeating Bush (32 percent believe he has at least some chance). Before Iowa, 38 percent of registered Democrats thought Dean had a good shot against Bush, but that figure has dropped to 26 percent after Iowa."

OK, so let's get this straight. Most people who answered this poll don't want to see Bush re-elected. And they have a strong preference for a certain guy. Yet they think most other people won't find that guy or any of his opponents "electable." Voting decisions are getting so meta... We're not just looking at who we think should be president but trying to handicap what all the other idiot voters will do. Hidden in these poll numbers seems to be an electorate that basically has a very low opinion of its fellow citizens.
posted by Slagman at 8:31 PM on January 24, 2004

The likelihood of act of Al-Qaeda terrorism, before the November election, is almost certain. When this happens, poll numbers will shift very quickly.
posted by troutfishing at 8:32 PM on January 24, 2004

IMHO the words "electable" and "unelectable" are undefined, meaningless crapwords belching out of the business end of the media sausage grinder and avidly devoured by the idiot citizenry.
posted by quonsar at 8:35 PM on January 24, 2004

The likelihood of act of Al-Qaeda terrorism, before the November election, is almost certain.

at the very least, something will blow up, someone will die, and al-qaeda will be blamed, without a doubt.
posted by quonsar at 8:36 PM on January 24, 2004

Knock wood! No talking in the dugout!
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:39 PM on January 24, 2004

The likelihood of act of Al-Qaeda terrorism, before the November election, is almost certain.

Don't forget about these guys.
posted by homunculus at 8:45 PM on January 24, 2004

Fersure. Foreign and local terrorist groups both want to see Bush in power. Something has to blow.

Maybe the foreign terrorists will blow up the local terrorists...
posted by five fresh fish at 8:50 PM on January 24, 2004

More likely they'll dig Osama out of the spider hole where he is lying whacked out on drugs.

Then the voters will have no choice but to vote for Bush again, even though they would rather not see hiim in a second term. I'm telling you, this is a very odd poll.
posted by Slagman at 8:56 PM on January 24, 2004

quonsar, Curley, homunculus, five fresh fish, and Slagman - exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly, and excatly.

It's the ex-cats that you need to watch out for.
posted by troutfishing at 9:21 PM on January 24, 2004

^*(this poll is totally unscientific and based only upon those losers who have nothing better to do than sit at their computers all night eating Cheetos and playing Warcraft)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:31 PM on January 24, 2004

The likelihood of act of Al-Qaeda terrorism, before the November election, is almost certain. When this happens, poll numbers will shift very quickly.
Yup. They'll go much much much lower for Bush for allowing such a thing to happen for the second time on his watch...He wants to be the national security president, then let him choke on whatever dirty trick he tries to pull.
posted by amberglow at 9:32 PM on January 24, 2004

crash davis: bullshit. it's a scientific poll (yes, there's a link that lets you take it too, but your answers are not counted)

The percentages labeled Newsweek Magazine represent the results of the national poll, not including your responses. The percentages labeled WEB are results from this online poll and include your responses. For this NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,006 adults aged 18 and older Jan. 22 and Jan. 23 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For those questions which surveyed registered voters, 822 people were interviewed, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. For those questions which surveyed Democrats and Democratic leaners, 357 people were interviewed and the margin of error is plus or minus 6 percentage points. Internet surveys are not scientific polls.

posted by Slagman at 9:41 PM on January 24, 2004

also, it'd be interesting to see previous polls taken right after the state of the union...don't presidents usually get a bump out of that?
posted by amberglow at 9:43 PM on January 24, 2004

300 days is a long time for Americans to change their mind.

When it comes down to 48 hours before the election wake me up. These minute by minute polls are not useful.
posted by infowar at 9:44 PM on January 24, 2004

Uh, technically, Infowar, it's not much more than that until the next election... New Hampshire primary is Tuesday.
And Kerry is looking strong. I don't really care for the guy,
but what the hey.
posted by Slagman at 9:46 PM on January 24, 2004

Yes, amberglow, you'd think Bush would have have had a bump coming out of the speech but he's actually doing worse than he was before it... Apparently, there were a lot of horny teenagers and steroid users in the sample who were not happy about the speech.
posted by Slagman at 9:48 PM on January 24, 2004

"crash davis: bullshit. it's a scientific poll "

Bullshit? You french-kiss your mama with that mouth?

1,006 out of 100,000,000 don't mean shit.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:49 PM on January 24, 2004

"scientific poll" beats "creation science" in oxymoron olympics! film at eleven!
posted by quonsar at 9:50 PM on January 24, 2004

film at eleven!
Is it that cool Outkast/peanuts thing, or Howard's scream? ; >
posted by amberglow at 9:52 PM on January 24, 2004

The State of the Union speech was not good or particularly memorable. It probably hurt him. But he can recover from that over time. I'm tired of polls, though. We have too many of them, with the worst offenders being "tracking polls" of the sort that too many political blogs are going on and on and on about.
posted by raysmj at 10:05 PM on January 24, 2004

My mama is dead.
And 1,000 is a pretty good sample for a poll... If it's random and meets other criteria, it does indeed mean something.
You said it was unscientific. You were wrong.
Think of it this way -- if you have 100,000,000 marbles, and 2/3 of them are pink, and you thoroughly mix them up, randomly and scientifically, then draw out 1,000 of them,
guess what -- 2/3 of your sample will be pink, within a margin of sample error.
Interestingly, the sample showing Kerry's lead is smaller and less reliable, so Dean might not be toast yet, depending on
what the undecideds do.
posted by Slagman at 10:11 PM on January 24, 2004

Yes, polling is tiresome, but I've been in quite a few campaign headquarters on elections over the years, including local, state and national campaigns, and by 3 in the afternoon, just about everybody knows the result already, they can't hide it. The winners have big shit-eating grins and the losers have hangdog looks. Tracking polls are pretty reliable -- for the given moment. Voter opinion is fairly fluid until the days before the election, unless one of the candidates is a complete dawg.
posted by Slagman at 10:14 PM on January 24, 2004

Yup. They'll go much much much lower for Bush for allowing such a thing to happen for the second time on his watch.

No way. Another attack and we'd all be living in the UFA again (United Flags of America). We wouldn't dream of a regime change in the heat of battle. I may have mentioned this before (or maybe it was on my blog), but my shitty local newspaper recently ran an editorial proposing that a law be passed that the US not be allowed to choose a new president while we were at war, and that this "war on terrorism" would qualify. It's horrifying, but this is how many Americans think.
posted by jpoulos at 10:26 PM on January 24, 2004

Slagman: I remember reading a Wall Street Journal article in 2000 (I remember where when I was too - Tallahassee, oddly enough, a few months before the debacle of the fall) about how polls had wide discrepancies from pollster to pollster, however. One given reason was a decline in response rates.

And all polls, tracking and regular types, were showing wider discrepancies than at any time since Mr. Gallup's unveiling of the scientific poll. I wonder if that's going to get worse this year, given how many phone options people have now. (For background: You're supposed to interview people at home, only. A call forwarded to someone in an office or on a cell phone should not count.)
posted by raysmj at 10:26 PM on January 24, 2004

The only bump that came out of the State of the Union address was the sound of people falling off their couches as they were bored to sleep by Bush's campaign-speech blather about the found "Weapons of Mass Destruction related activities."

You know -- WMD related activities -- like thinking about someday starting to make a list of the materials needed to someday start to make some sort of factory that would someday make weapons. Very imminent, right?

Hard to think Bush got a bump in poll numbers from failing to address the concerns of the majority of Americans. Then again, I don't think anyone expected him to.
posted by nyukid at 10:33 PM on January 24, 2004

if you have 100,000,000 marbles, and 2/3 of them are pink, and you thoroughly mix them up, randomly and scientifically, then draw out 1,000 of them,
guess what -- 2/3 of your sample will be pink

but that's NOT what you have. THIS is what you have:

100,000,000 marbles, and 2/3 of them are pink, AND ANY ONE OF THEM CAN CHOOSE ANY COLOR IN THE RAINBOW BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER, and you thoroughly mix them up, randomly and scientifically, then draw out 1,000 of them,
guess what -- 2/3 of your sample will be pink, TODAY ONLY.
posted by quonsar at 10:40 PM on January 24, 2004

Have pollsters taken steps to account for the fact that it is largely only bored housewives and old people that answer these things?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:45 PM on January 24, 2004

quonsar -- they'll probably be pink on Tuesday, too. Dean is toast. Anyway, that wasn't the argument. The other poster said the poll was unscientific. He was wrong. Do polls have limitations? Yes. Do they predict results absolutely? No. Does this mean Kerry will win the nomination and beat Bush? Of course not. It's just a pointer for TODAY. But we are living today, not in November. Polls do give us some guidance in how to respond and think about a situation TODAY even if NOVEMBER is unknowable. Gosh, when I right in capital letters, it feels so much more emphatic and TRUE.
posted by Slagman at 10:45 PM on January 24, 2004

space coyote -- pollsters have a number of methods for
trying to eliminate the kind of statistical bias you mention.
calling at different times of day, further randomizing the
calls by sometimes asking for the oldest male in the household, the youngest female, etc. And of course, old
people actually vote.
posted by Slagman at 10:49 PM on January 24, 2004

er... I meant "rite" of courwse.
posted by Slagman at 10:50 PM on January 24, 2004

Slagman: Don't feel bad. I meant, "I remember where I was when I read the article too," not "I remember where when I was too." And I'm presuming you mean "of course."
posted by raysmj at 10:52 PM on January 24, 2004

jpoulos: you'd better be lying about that editorial or by god I'm gonna have to drive on over there and start shooting editors.
posted by aramaic at 10:57 PM on January 24, 2004

Despite my defense of poll accuracy, Ray has a good point. Polling is getting harder and harder... and I don't think it's
a bad thing. You should use polls to point to broad trends
rather than predict winners. And the message here, for the first time in months, is that Bush is actually vulnerable, but
the public perception is that the Democrats seeking to unseat him have yet to present themselves as viable alternatives.
That's a more interesting point than Kerry and Edwards are
burying Dean, or Kerry is in a tie with Bush. Really, you'd have to do state by state polling to get a clear view of the final electoral college leaning anyway... a national poll doesn't tell you that. Kerry might have great numbers but he's still a northeast liberal who might have no hope in the south. Just one example.
posted by Slagman at 10:58 PM on January 24, 2004

i was WRITING in capital letters to highlight my added verbage, not to slag you or create emphasis.

Polls do give us some guidance in how to respond and think about a situation

no, polls are an attempt to influence the undecided and the unthinking through a form of faux peer pressure, as are words like "unelectable" when stated flatly as fact without context or rationale. polls and other media excreta are really only interesting from that perspective.
posted by quonsar at 11:00 PM on January 24, 2004

Quonsar: I don't happen to think Newsweek really cares to influence the undecided and the unthinking with its poll. Just wants a jump on the news or to create a news event, if you must be cynical about it. As for tracking polls, campaigns often keep these under wraps, especially if the results are bad. It can go the other way, you see, if you don't like your poll's numbers, you don't crow about it. Polls have many uses for those that pay for them. It is true that polls can be used as peer pressure -- but only if they are going the way you want them to go. Then there are the insidious unscientific polls that are really campaign calls to voters' homes with slanted questions. But that's another story.
posted by Slagman at 11:05 PM on January 24, 2004

*(this poll is totally unscientific and based only upon those losers who have nothing better to do than sit at their computers all night eating Cheetos and playing Warcraft)

** Mmm... cheetos...
posted by Coda at 11:06 PM on January 24, 2004

1,006 out of 100,000,000 don't mean shit

Actually, it means a margin of error (=95% confidence interval) of about 3 points around a sample proportion.

1006 would be a perfect representation of a population of 1006, would be an amazingly accurate representation of a population of 10060, is a very accurate representation of a population of 100,000,000, and would be an almost-equally-good representation of a population that is infinite (in fact, that's what margins of error and the like usually assume, for convenience). It's just the way the math shakes out.

Have pollsters taken steps to account for the fact that it is largely only bored housewives and old people that answer these things?

Yes. In addition to the sampling measures slagman mentioned, you can also incorporate a model of survey response into the inferences you draw from the sample.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:07 PM on January 24, 2004

losers who have nothing better to do than sit at their computers all night eating Cheetos and playing Warcraft

Look up from Warcraft for a moment, my fellow losers: the second rover has landed. Whee!
posted by homunculus at 11:27 PM on January 24, 2004

polls are an attempt to influence the undecided and the unthinking through a form of faux peer pressure, as are words like "unelectable" when stated flatly as fact without context or rationale.

Bingo.
posted by homunculus at 11:29 PM on January 24, 2004

From an AFSCME mailing in South Carolina
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:00 AM on January 25, 2004

A sample of 1,006 people can give a pretty accurate representation of a population, within margins of error, sure. So it is a scientific poll. But unfortunately, it's one of those polls that chooses the wrong population. Tracking polls need to survey likely voters to have much credibility. Ones that survey registered voters are less accurate, but still can be useful for certain purposes. But any poll that just surveys adults, like this poll, isn't worth spit.

Historically, also, polls that survey "adults" tend to overestimate support for Democrats. And there have been instances of Democrats using this overestimation to generate buzz - releasing a poll in which they look like they're golden. I'm not saying that's happening in this case; I have no evidence of that. But the Democrats do have a very vested interest in beginning to make Bush look vulnerable.

So I wouldn't put a bit of stock in this poll. It's bad methodology, no matter what the reasons. And I say that as a person who'd love to see Bush replaced in November.
posted by Chanther at 5:37 AM on January 25, 2004

soon we'll know how many polls it takes to fill the albert hall.
posted by quonsar at 5:43 AM on January 25, 2004

The likelihood of act of Al-Qaeda terrorism, before the November election, is almost certain.

Haven't they been threatening us with that since September 12, 2001? It's getting quite tiresome, maintaining this feeling of terror, and my spine is quivering from all the cowering under the bed....
posted by rushmc at 5:55 AM on January 25, 2004

Slagman: While NH is very soon, I was referring to the inevitable Bush vs Dem aspect of the article. While I am sceptical of any Dem winning, the "anybody-but-Bush" aspects I keep hearing about frightens me more than anything else about the election so far, even the overabundance of minute to minute polls.
posted by infowar at 6:23 AM on January 25, 2004

Why would terrorists attack again before the election. I can see it going both ways. If they want to re-elect Bush that might be a good way to do it, but it would refocus fury which can hardly be in their interest.

Then again, it cannot be good for America to be putting so much of it's money into a concept fighting mission which produces nothing tangible. Despite everything that has happened, those who oppose US forces could not be getting a better return on their lives sacrificed. They are changing America more than anyone would have thought possible 5 years ago.
posted by thirteen at 6:44 AM on January 25, 2004

Chanther makes a good point about the methodology, although a lot of the techniques for identitfying "likely voters" can be suspect. No methodology is perfect. The proof tends to be in the pudding and polls at this stage are indeed snapshots of volatile moments -- a pro-Dean backlash already seems to be starting in some opinion pieces here and there, and Bush does indeed have months and months to get it together. You might discount these polls but I assure that in private, campaigns and politicians take them very seriously, even if they say are quoted publicly about polls not meaning anything. The loudest and most desperate anti-polling comments in Iowa came from ... Dick Gephardt. He knew the polls were saying he was toast, and most important, the polls were right. Often the private campaign polls are better than these media things.

Infowar: I don't know why "anything but Bush" sentiment would bother you. This is typical behavior in any election. There was "anyone but Clinton" sentiment. When it comes to the voting booth, though, assuming people get themselves into the booth, they have a concrete "purchasing" decision to make. One has to assume that if the choice is Bush or some incredibly inappropriate candidate, the American voters would choose Bush. But in fact the Democratic field seems fairly responsible, even the yeaagh-ing Dean, who has been smeared. The primaries are a vetting process, a crucible and trial by fire that in theory will weed out anyone completely nuts or evil. I happen to think the system works. All of the candidates, including Bush, can do the job. We are lucky in that respect. It is important to resist cynicism and not get caught up in the tendency to demonize the opposition. It would be preferable for both sides to stop with the Hitler/Nazi comparisons, for example. But perhaps I am in the minority in this view... Don't know, haven't seen any polling on it. I tend to be more interested in general political polls rather than horse race polls, but what the hey. There's nothing inherently evil in polling. It's a tool. You take it for what it's worth. But it is not completely without value and those who ignore the results are doing their side a disservice.
posted by Slagman at 7:28 AM on January 25, 2004

Holy crap. We're still before the FIRST primary and caught up in these polls?

Bush has got a long stretch of time to improve his standing and not do/say anything idiotic.

Personally, I'm shocked they haven't at least planted some hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That would propel Bush past anyone thrown at him.

Who here has sat through a poll-taking?
I started to, but had to bow out after 20 minutes.
They said it would take 10...
posted by Busithoth at 8:51 AM on January 25, 2004

soon we'll know how many polls it takes to fill the albert hall.

Nicely done, Mr. Q.
posted by SPrintF at 8:51 AM on January 25, 2004

Get Your Steroids On
posted by homunculus at 10:27 AM on January 25, 2004

i was WRITING in capital letters to highlight my added verbage
posted by jmd82 at 10:33 AM on January 25, 2004

soon we'll know how many polls it takes to fill the albert hall.

From the same album: I'm Fixing a Poll
posted by wsg at 11:45 AM on January 25, 2004

Ob-La-Dean, Ob-La-Da? : >
posted by amberglow at 12:15 PM on January 25, 2004

A conservative Republican's take on the Newsweek poll

"I'm not much of a poll-watcher, but I do glance them over from time to time, and so the latest Newsweek poll strikes me as rather remarkable. Unless I've missed something, this is the first major poll that shows the President losing to a particular Democratic candidate -- in this case, Kerry. Certainly not good news, and indicative in a way of just what a disaster, on several levels, the State of the Union address was. It was a disaster rhetorically (I'm still dumbfounded at the steroids language), and it was a disaster conceptually: in hammering on old themes that worked in the electoral one-shot of '02, it offered little new, and worse, left unanswered old questions. You can't always take the SOTU as indicative of a president's governance or campaign themes, but in the case of GWB, it's more telling than not. His two previous SOTUs were fairly good guides to his thinking and strategy for the coming year. If this one is -- well, God help us. Patriot Act renewal is not the wedge issue that the creation of the DHS was (as an aside, those standing against the latter were right); not one of our three wars (in Afghanistan, Iraq, or against Islamist terrorism worldwide) is even close to some sort of satisfying denouement; and Clintonian policy by a thousand cuts is workable only in an era of peace and prosperity, when it doesn't matter all that much what government does. The White House has gotten things badly wrong this time, as both party and people start to peel away. Conservatives are starting to revolt over ludicrous spending levels, and there are a lot of Americans who will not feel that they're better off in November '04 than they were in November '00. You can argue the factual merits of that last point, of course, but what's going to matter on election day is perception. Watch what happens as we move into summer, once a Democratic nominee is de facto chosen. If the reelection effort is geared more against the Democrat than for Bush, then the latter's campaign agrees with me, and feels consequently threatened.


"But even if they don't feel threatened, we're in trouble. There are core principles within the Republican party; problem is, we don't act on them much at the top levels these days. If you told me in fall '00 that the next Republican administration would embrace mushy multiculturalism; wipe out our reputation for fiscal rectitude; preside over a massive entitlements expansion; embrace secrecy as a good in itself; and unnecessarily strain the US armed forces to the breaking point, I would never have believed it."
posted by Slagman at 1:06 PM on January 25, 2004

as someone who really doesn't care for (or would vote for) Bush, I'm curious - do you guys ever bore each other with such a unanimous support for one take on reality?
More interestingly though, how come it is always about how Bush is bad, not how Dean / Kerry / whoever is good?
And also, this "he will just drag Osama out of the hole" mood - how is it different from conspiracy theorists in the article that Homunculus linked?
posted by bokononito at 2:41 PM on January 25, 2004

how come it is always about how [X] is bad

Because that seems to be the basis for all American politics.

It's a tyranny of "not the worst."
posted by five fresh fish at 2:48 PM on January 25, 2004

this poll is totally unscientific

crash_davis ... don't cry just because way more than half of americans do not want to reelect - your lying, awol, soak the poor and help the rich, cokehead, destroy the environment, thinks god talks to him, machiavellian president.

try to imagine any --- i mean ANY gore or nader voters jumping ship AWOL ... add in pissed-off independents - in fact anyone who dislikes the unparalleled growth of government, and massive deficits as far as the eye can see... and the cheney/bush have a real problems on their hand, whomever the nominee is.

kerry is looking like the man to do the job on them... the only question now is who do they pick to help secure the southern vote?

bill richardson?

bill nelson?

sam nunn?

edwards?

ann richards?
posted by specialk420 at 3:13 PM on January 25, 2004

Personally, I'm shocked they haven't at least planted some hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That would propel Bush past anyone thrown at him.


It'd be a waste of time.
Presence of WMD's in Iraq? Mission accomplished already.
Polls (by the Washington Post, ABC and other notorious liberal Satan-worshipping media outlets) demonstrate that people think those (phantom) WMD's were found in Iraq, they think WMD's have been found already. and that Saddam was involved in 9-11.

there is no doubt about that

heh

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it," Fleischer said. "The Iraqi government has proved time and time again to deceive, to mislead and to lie."
Iraqi Denials Dismissed
White House Says It Has ‘Solid Basis’ for Claim That Iraq Has Weapons
By Barry Schweid
The Associated Press

...

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.''
In the 48-hour warning to Saddam on March 17, 2003, Bush said, ''Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.''
On March 30, a week and a half after the start of the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boasted about the weapons of mass destruction, ''We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.''
Still no mass weapons, no ties to 9/11, no truth
The Boston Globe
12/17/2003

posted by matteo at 3:15 PM on January 25, 2004

Slagman: Call e an optiist, a cynic or whatever, but I would prefer the campaign was phrased as "the best candidate should win" not "the least worst, most electable candidate should be selected". The frontloading of candidates combined with the decline of media coverage makes me ill. It simply demeans the whole idea of a republic and demeas it into whoever the media presents the best will win.

IOW, what bokononito said.
posted by infowar at 5:15 PM on January 25, 2004

The frontloading of candidates combined with the decline of media coverage makes me ill.

Frontloading? What people who are just tuning in may fail to realize is that most of these candidates have been at work for the past year getting their message on the road, strategizing and whatnot. And guys like Kerry have been waiting for something like this for decades -- it's not often the Democrats can rally this much interest, let alone support, for the political process. While the media does tend to show its hand more often then not (their treatment of Dean's outburst a great example), there is so much coordinated effort, both by the candidates and grass-roots organizations, that you've always got some kind of spotlight on what's going on.

As for the lesser-of-evils argument, I don't think if you've really looked at the candidates you would feel like the Democrats are "settling" with their choices. You have pretty much the full gamut to choose from: Liberublicans like Lieberman, old-school Union guys like Gephardt, grass-roots candidates like Dean, "uber"-liberals like Edwards, or Kerry, you're "classic" Democrat, and even Clark, whom I can only classify as a Demopendent. And each of these guys are tops in their department. Four-star general, Skull & Bones cum War-Vet, long-time Congressman, etc. This is the best primary race the Dems have had since '72.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:07 PM on January 25, 2004

infowar & the other guy -- I'm not sure what I said that made y'all think I'm voting against somebody. There are many things I'd be voting for. Turns out the guy in office is not the guy to accomplish those things. For the first election in a long time, I think all of the candidates in the Dem field are excellent. I'll be happy with the result no matter what. I actually was kind of inspired by Dean early on, and I have an open mind, the scream didn't bother me, and the most important issue here is who can raise the money to beat Bush. Based on that, it's Dean or Kerry. The rest are shackled to public financing. Tougher race.
posted by Slagman at 6:10 AM on January 26, 2004

Surely 44% for Bush and 52% against means victory for Bush.

Sorry, it's just hard for us foreigners to fathom American politics after the runner-up ended up in the Whitehouse last time around.
posted by jack_mo at 7:49 AM on January 26, 2004