Discussion of new Zogby poll, Dean and the others.

[jobycom]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=755

This poll has been posted already because it shows Bush slipping and Dean leading the Democrats, but I have a different question.

Roughly, it goes: Dean 15%, Clark 10%, Gephardt and Lieberman 9% (each), Kerry 7%, Sharpton 4%, Edwards 3%, Kucinich and Braun 2% each. 34% undecided (including me).

The impression is that the race is between Dean, Kerry and Clark. So, who would get the most votes from the others dropping out?

Depends. Are people supporting Lieberman because he's a moderate, because he's a pro-invasion Democrat (with Gephardt), or just because of name recognition? See, if it's because he's a moderate, then his support would go to Clark. If it's because he was for the invasion, it might go to Kerry. Same with Gephardt's voters. If it's because of name recognition, then the support will probably go to Dean, since he's the frontrunner for now, though it could go to Kerry. Or, it could be a little of each, in which case the votes might just split up equally and have no effect. There are probably other angles, but that's enough.

My thought is that if Gephardt or Lieberman dropped out now, it would help Kerry most, since they seem to have the most in common with him, background-wise. They all are long time office holders, supported Bush on the war resolution, and have strong name recognition and strong political organizations. Obviously some of the vote would split with Dean and Clark, but even there I think Clark would get more of the vote than Dean, because he's seen as more mainstream-moderate, and has a star quality so far.

Edwards is the one southerner. I think Clark would benefit most in the south from his departure (Dean too liberal, plus his retreat on the flag kills him in the south, Kerry too northern). If he has support outside of the south, I think it can be lumped with the remaining three candidates-- the liberal/progressives.

Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich. I believe they are the three liberals, and if two of them drop out I suspect the majority of their votes would go to the one who remained. If all three drop out, the votes would go mostly to Dean, I think, though that may have changed with the flag comment, misrepresented though it was. I doubt Edwards's voters would go to Dean. Also, many of their votes might just sit out, or be split amongst the three.

So, hypothetically, if it were down to Dean, Kerry and Clark, I'd give Lieberman's and Gephardt's votes mostly to Kerry, boosting his 7% to say 19%, and giving the rest of the Gep-Lie votes to Clark, boosting him to 16%. Give Clark a two point boost from Edwards, to 18%. Combine the remaining voters plus a percent from Edwards (9% overall), give most to Dean, throw out the others, adjust the numbers up for those who are staying at home, and you have, VERY roughly:

Dean 22%, Kerry 21%, Clark 20%. Undoubtedly there is no way these numbers are anything other than impressions. My point is, because of the different spectrums of the party and the candidates, Dean's lead is minimal at best, so far. Now, drop out either Clark or Kerry (Dean's not dropping out, I think we'd all agree), and at least a slight majority of their votes goes to the other candidate, not Dean. Kerry is closest to Dean, but he's split too much with him for his supporters to just move over.

In other words, it's an open race, more between different aspects of the party than between candidates.

One more numbers game. Let's combine the liberal votes, to get 11%. Let's say only one liberal candidate survives. That candidate moves into second place in the original tally, ahead of Clark, behind Dean. That gives them a lot of momentum, and makes them legite, which would draw some of the undecided votes. And, since I suspect that many of the undecideds are liberals not satisfied with any of the front-runners, many of those undecideds could go for that candidate, boosting him or her to Dean's level. Such momentum could also attract those who decide on name recognition and popularity, further attracting voters from the others, since each candidate seems to have weak support beyond a certain core (that's why the numbers are all over the place).

All these words, and what I've concluded is the race is wide open, ANY candidate could win it. The presence of so many progressive/liberals in the race hurts the progressive/liberal numbers, but if a couple drop out, those numbers could become competitive. This race is still between competing ideologies as much as any candidate.

The three main ideologies would be the moderate-liberals (moderate on money, somewhat liberal on social), the progressive-liberals, and the plain ole moderates. Part of the problem is that no candidate lines up perfectly with two of those groups, and the progressive-liberals have too many candidates. Which means that the winner will be (as always) the one who unites the most factions of the party, and that is still open to debate.

Anyway, obviously this is just a point for discussion, and like all my long rambles, is mostly sleep-deprived nonsense. So, discuss.

Sorry, Carlos, for giving one of your style posts, without anywhere near the quality of thought!<G> I'm trying to avoid yardwork by writing.

[chaumont58]

1. One thing to bear in mind

These are polls. In a couple of months, actual voting will begin. What the polls said in October and November will be worth roughly the same as last week's newspapers.

[whirlygigspin]

2. Yardwork time!

c'mon, you need some sun.

[jobycom]

4. Yes and no

They give a good idea of what's going on, and candidates base their every thought and action on them. But of course the picture will change by election time. But they give an insight into what voters are thinking, or maybe just how they are thinking, which is what determines elections.

So they will change as circumstances change, but the processes people use to determine who they vote for won't change too much. Progressives may change their mind on who they believe is progressive, but they won't change their basic ideology, for example. Same with every other factor. Dean was the perfect liberal-moderate, but the flag issue means he's less liberal now, and those voters will have to reevaluate their support, but their leaning hasn't changed. Just their perception of the candidate.

[chaumont58]

11. Regarding the so-called Flag Issue

I consider myself a moderate, a pragmatist. I don't fault Governor Dean one god damn bit about his take of the Confederate Flag on pickup trucks. I seen trucks like that. Even here in California, and I think the same as Governor Dean: they ought to be Democrats. The only thing those people have gotten from their support of repukes is a royal hosing. To imply that Governor Dean is some sort of bigot or racist is just bullshit.
I agree with you about using polls to tell the then current effectivness. How else? But, they are just that, a snap shot. They are not the end of anything.
As an added thought, the same can be said about Christians. They the repukes, but get little but lip service for their troubles. I have long thought the only thing they got from Raygun and Bush(ver 1.0) was blistered lips from ass kissing. Nothing else.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Interesting ideas

One thing I think is for sure: whoever gets the nomination will get the vast majority of their rivals' supporters, because NO ONE wants Shrub reelected.

That being said, I will comment on the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia controversy. I don't see that it "killed Dean in the South." Southerners who are politically active at this point in the race are looking for more substantial issues on which to base their support. From my observation, the other Southerners, at least those living here in Arkansas, aren't even really paying attention to the Democratic primary right now. I've had one person ask me who Dean was-he was surprised to find out Dean was running for President. They couldn't name anyone who was, including native Arkansan Clark, who has been getting quite a bit of ink from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state-wide paper with the largest circulation. Most people I associate with aren't interested in politics right now-they are interested in jobs and what they perceive as a shrinking economy (despite rosy economic news from Washington, business is dead here). I think they will wake up when the nomination is made, and will be paying especial attention to the message of the candidate, whoever it is. It is vital that the economic issues be stressed, as this is what these folks are interested in.

This might have been posted elsewhere, but yesterday on NPR they talked of a NC textile company owner gathering his workers together and telling them that, although their jobs were safe for now, he couldn't be sure of the future. He said he'd be giving them literature suggesting what candidate would be in their best interest. He passed out voter registration cards, and promised to take all his workers to the polls next November. The US Textile association is madder than heck at Shrub promoting cheap textiles overseas, and they are working to make sure that someone else gets in the white house. The most telling part of the piece was when, at a meeting of the association, someone asked those who voted for Bush in 2000 to raise their hands. All did. Then they were asked if they'd vote for him in 2004. ALL THE HANDS WENT DOWN. And these were mill owners. This underscores the vulnerability of the GOP, and the chance for Dems to take back the South.

[jobycom]

7. Maybe.

I see the flag issue as an albatross for Dean, and the fact that no one is yet paying attention only hurts him. When people tune in, they will hear the one-liner that Dean supported the flag then apologized for doing so. That will hurt him, especially considering that his style doesn't play well to the south.

His saving grace may be that no one else will appeal much, either, in the primaries.

In the general, Dean will have to face charges of being against the flag from the Republicans, and then he will have to find a way to answer that without distancing the south or the north. Bush did it well last time. He stayed silent on the issue, but quietly removed confederate symbols from Texas government houses. This angered both sides a little, but more importantly, gave both sides a little of what they wanted, and thus made some people think Bush could compromise. Dean's an all-or-nothing kind of guy, and this issue will take a subtlety I don't think he has.

Gore was good on the gun issue, but it killed him in the south, even his own state, because people didn't care what he actually said, only what their worst impression of it was. The same will happen to Dean, I think. Could be wrong-- I frequently am. Just my impression.

[blm]

13. In SC a local poll showed that 62% never heard

of Kerry and 51% never heard of Dean.

Pretty pathetic since Kerry led investigations into some of the biggest stories in modern history - BCCI and IranContra. Most of these people have no sense of current history let alone current events.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Why do you think Gephardt or Lieberman would drop out

before Kerry? They're beating him in the polls.

Disclaimer: I'm English, and have no preference for any candidate.

[La_Serpiente]

6. Well

I do not think they could win any individual state.

But I could be wrong.

[jobycom]

8. Yeah, that's my feel, too.

Kerry has a chance of making up ground. He's generally liked by the Democrats, or at least was until the primaries began. I kind of expect him to find his voice sooner or later. I think Lieberman and Gephardt are maxed out on support. Gephardt resigned as House Majority Leader in defeat, if not disgrace. Lieberman's respect is low because of a couple of issues-- mainly the war and the entertainment industry. Both come across as bad Democrats, and right now, Democrats are really partisan, like I've never seen them. There is a pure hatred for Bush amongst Democrats, and I think that will destroy Lieberman and Gephardt, who sided with Bush on Iraq.

Kerry voted for the Resolution, so he is tainted, too, but he has claimed that Bush misled Congress on the Resolution, and has been critical of the invasion after the fact, which keeps him viable. Also, he generates a few warm fuzzies over his Viet Nam opposition.

Gephardt and Lieberman have no chance, and know it, and will come to believe it more in the next few months. Kerry has an outside chance, and if Dean stumbles, would likely be the frontrunner.

One more thing: Gephardt is used to losing presidential races, and Lieberman has a lot of power to lose in the Senate by a poor performance. Both will be quick to bail. Not so of Kerry, who's not the quitting type.

[boxster]

9. Frankly, I think the 34% undecided is much more important...

than where the votes of the others will go should they drop out.

That 34% is huge barely two months out from Iowa, and it basically makes the current polls meaningless, especially when factored with the margin of error. Dean supporters and much of the media act like he's above and beyond everyone else in the polls, while 1/3rd of Democrats don't even know who they will vote for. A large lead in one state (NH) does not a primary win make.

Politics is funny, and small events can have big consequences and change momentum. In '92, Clinton came out of nowhere, began to build momentum about this time of the year, and surprised a lot of people, including political analysts.

That being said, your analysis is very astute. It's very difficult to tell where supporters will migrate if and when their candidates drop out of the race, primarily because it's very difficult to determine the reasons people support various candidates in the first place.

Re: Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich - keep in mind that Clark is putting forth a pretty liberal agenda, so depending on when these three would decide to call it quits, he could get more of their votes than one might expect. I'm not expecting him to get a ton of them, but he might draw a few from the other candidates.

It's going to be quite interesting to see how long the various candidates hang around.

[jobycom]

10. Yes, no and thanks.

Thanks for the kind words.

Yes, I agree that the undecideds are more important now, but I don't think the number is much larger than normal around this time. By this point in the 92 election I didn't even know all the candidates, and I was a political junkie back then. I didn't decide between Clinton and Harken until just before the primary in Texas. So I don't think that's too unusual. But it is a big factor.

But I don't think it makes the rest of the numbers inconsequential. Undecideds tend to do two things. They tend to make up their minds in the same way those who have already decided do, or they tend to not vote. So most of them will not affect the polls too much. Where they will affect the race is if something new happens that draws them in-- bad press or really good press for a candidate, for instance, or the entrance (unlikely) or departure of candidates into the race. A lot of media people assume the undecideds just haven't seen anything they like yet, but more often it is that they haven't been watching the race much.

The no is on a minor point: Clinton was not unknown at this point. Political observers had made him the frontrunner from the beginning, and he was even talked about as a future candidate at the previous convention. He stumbled a bit at first because the bad press had already started-- mainly because Bush was most worried about him. If any candidate reminds me of that right now, it's Kerry, because of his early start, and because he is laying low right now while others surge ahead of him. That's why I haven't counted Kerry out, yet. He may rope-a-dope like Clinton in the early parts of the 92 election. Probably not. Just maybe.

[boxster]

12. Re: undecideds

Yeah, you're right. The reason they're undecided at this point, of course, is that one candidate hasn't won them over. As the number of available candidates declines, the decision gets a little less complicated (notice I said "complicated", not "difficult" :) ).

I didn't really mean to summarily dismiss the current polls as much as I did - the tendency to overemphasize them (especially by the supporters of whomever happens to be the frontrunner at that moment) drives me a little batty. Some Dean supporters, for example, looked at his large lead in NH and declared the primary over. Never mind that Clinton lost both IA and NH in 1992 and still won the nom.

Re: Clinton - I didn't recall him being the perceived frontrunner initially, but I don't doubt your statement. True, he wasn't really an unknown to the party leadership, but it seemed like he didn't really hit the general public radar until fairly late. He really picked up momentum at the right time and overcame losing Iowa and New Hampshire.

I wonder how much Clark's campaign is patterned after Clinton's. Not idealistically, of course, but from a timing standpoint.