Interesting Pattern

[Nicholas_J]

Most voters have yet to form favorable or unfavorable opinions of individual candidates, and the presence of a title does little to change that. Notably, neither Wesley Clark nor Howard Dean gain much from the inclusion of their titles in the question; nearly identical percentages of voters have favorable views of each candidate regardless of whether or not titles are used. The only candidate for whom the mention of a title makes any difference is John Kerry, whose favorable rating increases when he is identified as Senator John Kerry.



FAVORABLE VIEWS OF THE DEMOCRATS
(All Registered Voters)

Wesley Clark 16%
General Wesley Clark 15%

Howard Dean 13%
Dr. Howard Dean 12%

John Edwards 7%
Senator John Edwards 9%

Richard Gephardt 17%
Congressman Richard Gephardt 17%

Bob Graham 10%
Senator Bob Graham 11%

John Kerry 13%
Senator John Kerry 21%

Dennis Kucinich 7%
Congressman Dennis Kucinich 3%

Joe Lieberman 21%
Senator Joe Lieberman 24%

Carol Moseley-Braun 5%
Former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun 6%

Al Sharpton 7%
Reverend Al Sharpton 5%

The same pattern applies to likely Democratic primary voters

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/opinion/polls/main576342.shtml

[kang]

1. I'm not sure what that means

perhaps people don't identify who John Kerry is until they refer to him as the Senator? Or could it be that the Bob Kerrey/John Kerry confusion leads to some of this? Told you all they could've run together as the Two Towers of Kerr(e)y! Wait, the that's the bad guys...sorry I'm not a Lord of Rings expert. Still unclear what the poll means.

[JaneQPublic]

2. Interesting

Especially since I heard E.J. Dionne in a panel discussion claim that titles DID boost certain candidates in the ratings. Perhaps what he was stating as fact was mere speculation on his part.

Thanks for the heads up!

[On the Road]

3. I Thought I Had Seen Titles as a Positive in Polls, Too

For Dean, I understand why "Dr." would not have affected the the numbers that much. But "Former Governor" Dean might have made more of a difference. It would also apply to Bob Graham.

[w4rma]

4. Former Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

I'd bet that would boost favorability a bit more than just "Former Governor" or especially Dr. (Dr. of what?)

In fact, it would probably boost it so well that opponents would complain about it as being unfair, even though that's the most informative and concise way to write his titles.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Most people think "Dr." = M.D. but a lot of people

don't like M.D.s due to negative encounters with same. I don't believe there is any title that automatically helps a candidate. People know there are bad doctors, bad senators, bad judges, bad governors, bad reverends, etc.

[rucky]

5. What's up with the Congressmen?

Kucinich - down 4 points!

Gep - no change (name recognition, I presume)

Americans: Love senators, hate congressmen... don't care for doctors or military types?

Wonder how Governor Dean would've gone over...

[Frodo]

6. Perception of qualification?

Who is the last member of the House of Representatives elected president?

There is the perception of lesser experience and, of course, less qualification for the job. It isn't an executive position in any way and grants no assumption that he has the right skills. This is entirely seperate from his political positions.

House members also have (on average) more polarized views since they represent a small district (presumably drawn to lean toward one party). He hasn't shown he can even win statewide in Ohio... let alone nationally.

For good or bad, when you say "congressman" the assumption is "run for president in 10-15 years - after you've been a senator for a term and Governor of the state for a few years". I suspect Kucinich knows this and is just running for name recognition for 8-12 years from now.

This is the true reason he is "unelectable", He frankly isn't qualified - regardless of how much you agree with his views. It isn't an insult... I agree with my views 100% - but I still don't consider myself Presidential material (though by comparison to recent... well.... you know).

A man can have every "correct" poltical view under the sun and still not be qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Unfortunately for many of our candidates, the same holds true (to a lesser extent) for Senators. That's another reason so many people have been supporting Dean. The American people tend to elect Governors (or former VPs), not Congresscritters.

[molly]

7. Kerry's numbers reflect the confusion

between Bob Kerrey/John Kerry. There has been lot's of bad press regarding Bob Kerrey.

[Octafish]

8. Perception is reality.

What we need is for the candidates to start getting COVERAGE that lives up to their billing.

[Pez]

10. heh, yeah.

kerry's support is growing steadily despite lack of media coverage. imagine if cnn thought he would boost ratings?

we're overlooking the fact that most people don't know who the hell most of the candidates are. that's why lieberman does so well i bet; he had wall-to-wall coverage in 2k. and clark was all over cnn with aaron brown since 9-11. however, that proves that people are all over ABB... which in my opinion is a ~good sign~.

seriously though, even online we are dismissing the droves of dem peeps who are, say, pro-gephardt. i mean, how many die-hard gephardt fans are on here? cross-reference that with the polls as of late... we are but a demographic, and should realize that a ton (i would wager majority) of people out there are NOT online. while this is a great medium, we are not yet at the point where the internet = all. to ignore the rest of the population is a grave mistake. and kind of insulting.

internet != all. hit the streets. this is not the digital revolution... yet.

[JI7]

11. right about gep

i'm in california and he has some very strong supporters here. they don't use the computer often or EVER as i do.mostly working class, labor union types who know what help gep has been for them and are supporting him.

[molly]

12. I agree 100%

welcome to DU!