Poll: Dean Has Best Chance To Beat President Bush

[arcos]

Poll: Dean Has Best Chance To Beat President Bush

DURHAM, N.H. -- More New Hampshire voters think former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean can defeat President George W. Bush than any other candidate.

In a poll of likely Democratic primary voters, 37 percent said they believe Dean is the most likely candidate to defeat Bush. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was second, with 21 percent saying he's the biggest threat.

The poll of 446 voters was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and sponsored by WMUR-TV. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6 percent.

After the two leaders, the other Democratic candidates didn't fare so well, with 8 percent naming retired Gen. Wesley Clark, 6 percent naming Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, 3 percent naming North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 2 percent naming Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and 3 percent naming other candidates.

http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/2643335/detail.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. The 446 voters polled must not have seen this poll of 1003 voters

[Ediacara]

3. wow, that 5% spread is sure significant

Especially with no margin of error. I'd sure advertise a 3 week old WP poll without an aparent MOE. LOL....

[Padraig18]

6. Apparently those people didn't talk to Gallup.

George W. Bush Howard Dean Neither (vol.) Other (vol.) No Opinion
% % % % %
11/03 53 44 1 - 2


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

The same poll has shown a 6% drop in Senator Kerry's chances vs. *, btw...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Gallup

The poll you are refering to shows Kerry doing better than Dean against Bush. (In case you didn't notice, lol)

Bush Dean
53 44

Bush Kerry
52 46

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

It has Clark doing best, btw.

So I guess we can both find something to be happy about in that poll...

[Ediacara]

15. and as usual

if you bothered to put in the MOE, both Dean and Kerry would be within MOE, making them tied. Imagine that...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. It's possible

to point out the MOE without being so snarky about it.

[Ediacara]

23. true

yet, it's also possible to post poll results while listing the MOE. Posting a 1% poll lead as if it meant something, while failing to mention the MOE is well.... I'll let you decide what that is.

[Racenut20]

2. Where is New Hampshire????

I seriously doubt the voters in the rest of the country are too concerned with what a few voters in New Hampshire think. Except that there is too much emphasis given them in the selection of the party candidate.

[arcos]

5. They know the candidates better than the rest of the country...

so they are able to compare better. All the candidates have been campaigning for a few months now in NH... people know them. In the rest of the country, they don't. They don't know where they stand are not paying attention in general

So, yes, I would trust NH voters right now. They are more informed on the candidates than the rest of the country.

[AP]

7. What this poll basically asks is, 'would you bet on the frontrunner or

a long shot vs Bush?"

It doesnt' ask you the voter prefers, and it doesn't ask who the voter is going to vote for. It asks who do you think has the best chance against Bush. (Does it even ask if you think that candidate would beat Bush?)

The point of this poll is to create good news for people in the lead and hurt people who are trailing.

And it's almost impossible to draw any valuable conclusions from it.

[Scott Lee]

9. Actually, the NH primary is seen as the first important one to grab

whether you know about New Hampshire or not.

Sorry to let you in on that.

[caledesi]

4. Well, my 89-year old mother says that "all the talk in New England"

is Howard Dean and we know this little old lady can't be wrong!

LOL!

[Padraig18]

8. A more maningful analysis, state-by-state, can be found here:

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html#map

[Dems Will Win]

10. Whatever Dean gets in a poll, add 5% to 7% in New Registers

they are not included by the pollsters in their calling and they will be at least 80% for Dean in any primary or in the general.

So when Newsweek recently had Dean 45, Bush 49, the actual election would turn out to be Dean 51, Bush 48--which is probably going to be damn close to the final a year from now!

[caledesi]

11. Pad, are you saying my 89-year old mother's voice isn't meaningful?

<just kidding>

[Padraig18]

12. Hehehe

:P

[sandnsea]

14. Isn't Howard polling at 45%

How come only 37% of voters believe he can beat Bush, when 45% of voters are supposedly voting for him? That's strange.

[openyoureyes]

17. Clark and Dean are TIED...

...according to a USA/CNN gallop poll released today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-11-17-bush-poll.htm

I really doubt anyone but Clark will beat the south and the mid-west.

[CMT]

16. I put more faith in this poll because

New Hampshirites have been paying attention to the campaign and know the candidates better than most people around the country with the possible exception of Iowa.

[arcos]

18. EXACTLY! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

24. Maybe they are serving

Kool-aid in NH right about now!

[openyoureyes]

20. Clinton lost...

...Iowa and New Hampshire.

Dean won't win the south.

[Rose Siding]

21. It *can* be won without the South

A Route for 2004 That Doesn't Go Through Dixie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40359-2003Nov14.html

We could win with the Gore states and NH and WV or with AZ

[Zynx]

22. He polls 25% in NC.

[Skwmom]

26. If they knew the candidates

there is no way Dean could be the frontrunner.

[Adjoran]

25. It is dangerous

to stake your hopes upon doing something that has never been done in 204 years of trying.

It is certainly possible to imagine 270 electoral votes without any southern states. But no Democrat has ever been elected without winning at least two of them. Ever.

Any possible count that can be imagined assumes winning every single Gore state - several of which he won only narrowly, and Gore won't be the candidate this time around. He was a popular, well-known, eight-prosperous-year VP with years of experience and exposure.

Any "south-less" strategy would leave no margin for error whatever. Not to mention, it's never happened.

Planning to win without southern states is wasted time; might as well start working on 2008.

[Skwmom]

27. So who cares if our country is facing financial

ruin, we have soldiers dying in Iraq, and we'll most likely implement a draft after the next election and continue our march to war. We'll just wait until 2008 to put up a viable candidate.

[Padraig18]

28. We have *several* viable candidates.

Dean, Kerry, Clark, Graham and Edwards are all 'viable' candidates, IMO.

[indigo32]

30. Exactly...

except you meant to say Gephardt I believe

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. Gore almost did it w/o Florida

however, I wouldn't look at any poll from any state picking its two neighbors as the 2 best potential Bush beaters.

[9119495]

31. No Supreme Court ever decided an election before 2000

So in 11-00 it must have been impossible. Never gonna happen.

But I'm told it did happen.

If Dems win, it will be without the south no matter who is running. Them boys love bush and ain't gonna let no one kick him out.