Is the candidate you support the one you think will win the primaries?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Something I've been wondering for a while is how optimistic people feel about the primaries for Democratic presidential candidate.

What I'm wondering is if the person you support in those primaries and the person you think is most likely to win those primaries are the same person, or not; and - a very different question indeed - do you think the person who you support is likely to win.

(To see the difference, imagine that you think your candidate has a 20% chance of winning, and there are 8 other candidates with a 10% chance each. Your candidate is the most likely to win, but still very unlikely to do so).



FWIW, I don't support any candidate in particular; I think Hillary Clinton is much the most likely to win, but that it's still more likely that she will lose.


I'm interested in how the appraisal of candidate X's chances differs between their supporters and others.

Who do you back? What do you think are their chances?

[PresidentObama]

1. Wes Clark and don't know his chances yet....

I just hope the media stops relying on these meaningless polls and stop treating this like the Democratic three ring circus....

And oh, I think you're wrong. Hillary isn't the most likely to win. It's anybodies ballgame right now.

[HappyWeasel]

2. just to clear up

Clinton is the most likely to win, but she doesn't have a 50% chance.


The right is even more fragmented.

[BayCityProgressive]

I am backing Kucinich

I think his chances are low. However, if the violence escalates like everyone thinks it will...we could have a very crazy next couple of years here...

[Vexatious Ape]

3. Unfortunately no.

I'll be pulling for Dennis Kucinich. Proudly.

[Bucky]

4. Great question.

I'm a Clarkie, but I'm not optimistic considering the uphill (no pun intended) fight he faces trying to get the nomination. Clinton is coming off a stronger candidate than I thought at the moment and I always assumed it'd be a struggle for who could emerge as the anti-Clinton. That won't soften my resolve to work for my guy, but I'm thinking his odds dropped from 10:1 to 20:1 the day Obama joined the race. Another candidate to pay heed to is Richardson, whose expertise could easily cut into Clark's solidest base.

I'd be happy to vote for any of the nine potential nominees who are running. Yes, even Biden.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I support Obama and I do think he can beat Hillary.

I have a feeling Hillary is peaking now. I think Edwards and obama will overtake her and things will get tough in the spring and summer.
Hillary has lost supporters to Obama. Combine his time in the state with the US and he has the most experience of the 3. Hillary is still worrying her closest supporters about her negatives. They are not lowering.
I think Edwards will surge in front and it will be a battle between Obama and Edwards. I feel Obama will best him in the end.

[MH1]

6. Don't care.

The person who should have won has announced he is not running.

Based on history, whoever is leading now will be chopped liver by the time of the actual primaries.

In time, I will study up on the positions of the contenders and possibly dare to hope that a decent choice is made. But in PA, my primary vote doesn't count anyway, so it's fairly irrelevant.

Meanwhile, our country is headed into even bigger disaster in the Middle East as our people die, their people die, and billions of dollars are burned on the altar of war so that certain people can build ever bigger bank accounts. And people want to talk about which corporate lackey or near-lackey will be titular head of this country 2 years from now??

:banghead:

[illinoisprogressive]

7. Who was your pick that is not running???

[MH1]

11. Kerry. n/t

[Just-plain-Kathy]

14. I was thinking maybe Kerry could do some great things in the Senate...

then rejoin the race. He could join up with Gore and make this great tag team.

I was mad at Kerry for a long time for not cutting the White House down to size in '04. But, I realize now he was only listening to the Clinton camp telling him to -do nothing and just let Bush screw up.

[politicasista]

17. I like that ticket

Gore/Kerry (I know it's a longshot, but it's a good "We told you so" ticket). :hi:

[Just-plain-Kathy]

18. I always thought a "We told you so ticket" was a good idea!

One time a talking head over on FOX was talking about Gore, he said, "What would Gore do, run an I told you so campaign?...That would be the worst thing he could do". ...That's when I said BINGO, that's what the GOP would fear.

:hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I think that would be a bad idea.

I think that any of Gore/X, X/Gore or X/Kerry would be fine (Kerry/X has been ruled out, although I wouldn't have had a problem with it), but that putting the two men together would be a mistake - their strengths and weaknesses are arguably too similar, and the fact that they've both been candidates before would be an issue, I think.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. Hey, Ian. I just noticed your onscreen name is an author...cool.

Love his books.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Actually, it's a jig - as far as I know there's no connection to the author.

The author is just Ian Rankin, so far as I know.

Donald Ian Rankin is a Scottish jig, written by Muriel Rankin. I presume it's named after a relative of hers, although I don't know for sure, and I don't have anything to suggest any connection to the author.

You can listen to it at http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/cgi/abc/tunefind?P=ian+rankin&find=FIND&m=title&W=wide&limit=1000&thresh=5

:-)

[Mass]

9. No favorite for now (my candidate just dropped out).

Among those running, I prefer Kucinich, Dodd, and Obama (add Clark and Gore in the list as soon as they declare).

I think Hillary Clinton is well positionned as of now, and Obama too. However, it is way too soon to know what will happen in one year. The situation may change drastically and the issues that seem important today may become less important tomorrow; a candidate that the media ignore may become attractive while others show they are not ready for the job.

So, I would not make any prognostic that early.

[eyesroll]

10. I don't have a candidate yet, but I never end up supporting anyone who wins primaries.

1992: Jerry Brown. (I was 17, so I didn't vote, but still.)
2000: Bill Bradley
2004: Howard Dean
2006 midterms: Every single candidate I voted for in the primary lost, except those who ran unopposed.

So, by default, no. The candidate I will support is unlikely to win the primary.

[FrenchieCat]

12. I support Clark, and I don't know how things will be in January of 2008....

What I do know is that Kerry was dead in the water and Edwards was at 3% this time prior to the primary vote last presidential election period.

Then Dean had all of the publicity and was pressumed the nominee for quite a few months.

I don't know what the future will bring, but I'll be damned if it is the media that will predict it for me.

It is my beliefs that my candidate has the best to offer to this country in terms of a serious statesman who thinks out of the box and is not interested in nothing but the best for this country and for the world. An unusually intelligent man who has seen what the ravages of war does to families (including his own, since he was in Vietnam when his son was born, and since he almost died taking 4 bullets).

A man who negotiated a successful peace treaty still holding after a decade (Richardson's fell apart before it started although the valiant effort doesn't go unnoticed), and won a war in where the country has streets named after him (2 of them) and hang portraits of him in their home. A man who had enough insight to try to have us intervene in Rwanda prior to 800,000 deaths, and faced a dictator at close range (100 hours of conversation) who ended up in the Hague at the end of it all.

A self made man who has a masters from Oxford via a Rhodes Scholarship in Economics and has been a successful investment banker since 2000. A man who has been married for 40 years, served his country for 34, and has done well in everything that he's ever attempted (including his short run in 2004, that was not as unsuccessful as many have tried to portray it.) A Southern General who is perceived as moderate but is as liberal as everyone else running if not more so than most. A man who knows enough about politics to have kept a 19 country coalition together by dealing with heads of states. An outsider who listens to the people and walks among them sans handlers and pomp and circumstance a la rock star. A man with courage to dissent when it was out of style on national TV and also while he was still in uniform (hence his early retirement). A man of courage in many examples, who's only motto is Honor, Duty and Country.

So my candidate is supremely qualified for the executive position of President and Commander in Chief, and there is no reason that he shouldn't appeal to those who want someone who understood what would happen in Iraq before it did, and who spoke about it publicly and worked against passing a Blank check resolution in the only way that he could.

If it doesn't happen, and my candidate doesn't become the nominee, it won't because of my candidate is lacking what is required to lead this nation, it will be because this country is no longer a true democracy, and that cash and flash is all that is required to make it to the big house. and if that is the case, then there is little need to discuss primaries, because the winner has already been preselected before any votes have been counted.

If wanted to resign myself to the alleged inevitability one year prior, then I would not participate in politics and I would just take my place among the sheeps.....and just wait to be told who to vote for.

[flaminbats]

13. interesting question...

in 2004 I started by backing Howard Dean, but ended up voting for Kucinich because Dean dropped out before my state's primary.

in 2000 I voted for Bill Bradley, mainly because I enjoyed reading his book "Time Present, Time Past"..but also because he staked out a more progressive position on healthcare reform in the primaries than Gore did!

and in 1992 I backed Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton because I felt Tsongas had taken the bolder position on reducing the budget deficit.


The only primary which I remember supporting a candidate who won the nomination was in 1996! ;)
But in the fall I have voted for every candidate our party has put on the ticket..enough to convince me I'm not an independent.

I usually don't settle on a primary candidate until I have seen a few primary debates. If a candidate shows consistency when speaking out on real problems and how to solve them, that candidate will win my vote in the primary!

So far the candidates who top my list are John Edwards, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich...but this may change with time. It will probably take another year before I know who to vote for in the primary.

[Contrite]

15. Kucinich is my first choice right now.

Does he have a chance? If everyone starts thinking he does, yes.

Otherwise, I guess I'd chose Clark, then Obama. I'm thinking right now Obama would beat Clark but who knows what will happen by the primaries?

I hope Gore announces. It'd be a landslide of grassroots/netroots support.

[poverlay]

16. I'm going to do what's right and vote for Kucinich regardless of whether or not he can win..n/t

[nevergiveup]

19. I am supporting Obama

I believe he is the only one who can stop Hillary and as of now I think he has an excellent chance. I also like Clark but for some reason he never seems to be able to gain momentum. If Richardson can pick up the funds (unlikely) he might become a serious contender.

[Vidar]

20. Of the declared candidates, I support Kucinich, but I feel the DLC,

coporations & AIPAC will sentence us to Hillary.

[fujiyama]

21. It really is tough to say who will win just yet

I mean, sure Hillary has huge leads in polls, but I think the lead will tighten.

Obama and Edwards have a good chance. Gore and Clark could shake things up if they enter. Maybe Richardson will start doing better.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. I'm undecided, and for me, that's the best way to be right now.

I need to see more of all of them (except Biden). However, I can say that I am fairly (though not absolutely) certain I will not be backing Hillary. I am absolutely certain I will not be backing Biden (I called for him to drop out of the race after his slam on Obama.) Dodd, Richardson, and Vilsack are relatively unknown quantities to me. I having a hard time distinguishing between Edwards, Obama, and Clark. They all seem to be bringing more or less the same message, though Clark has distinguished himself on Iran, and Edwards for his straight up support for public financing and unions. If none of them ends up distinguishing themselves enough, I can go for either Kucinich or Gravel to make a statement about ideal in my heart.

What I am trying to say is that there is no way I am ready to make a final decision. Needless to say, I also have no idea who is going to win the primary.

[Trajan]

23. I will vote for party ideas ...

Like free public education, alternative fuels development, increased wages and pensions, protection of social security ... The REregulation of industry for taxation and environment ....

EVERYTHING that the GOP have destroyed or tried to destroy : EVERYTHING that helped the Middle Class grow strong : THAT is what I will vote for ...

Frankly, I dont care which party nominee carries THAT baton ... But they will get my vote once they get out of the convention ....

I dont have time to argue about minute details : There are BIG picture issues at stake, and there is no doubt that it will be FAR superior to elect a Democrat, even a bad one, to another GOP pResident ....

[goodhue]

24. not necessarily

picking the winner is for race tracks not politics

[salin]

26. Don't yet have a candidate (too early)

and I think it is far too early to get a sense of who will do well or not in the primaries.

[LWolf]

27. I haven't thrown my vote into the ring.

But I already know that if I like that candidate, Democrats won't nominate him/her. What I used to view as a small gap between mainstream democrats and me has widened into a gaping chasm that gets harder and harder to bridge. The party seems to be going a different political direction than I, to value different things, or at least have a different vision of how to achieve those goals.

There are numerous Democrats I would be happy to vote for in the general election. A few will probably be on my primary ballot, or at least on ballots in states with early primaries. I don't believe I'll see anyone I care to cast a vote for on the ballot in the general election.

I guess that's ok. The party has identified the target voters and votes that "matter," and mine isn't one of those. Mine is one taken for granted. After all, what other choice will I be left with?

[wyldwolf]

28. yes and no... my choice is muddled

The candidate I think is most qualified - Bill Richardson - will not win the primaries.
The candidate I would most like to see win for a variety of reasons (including it will piss off the rightwing and the leftwing), Clinton, probably will win the primaries.

I like Edwards. He could win it.
I like Visack. He won't win it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Judging from what happened last time

unless the media stop treating Kucinich as the "can't win" candidate before a single vote has been cast, he won't win the primary.

I believe that he is the only candidate who has even come close to to defining what America needs right now, and that's precisely why the MSM are scared of him and ignore him.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. My sentiments exactly.

The Kuch is my only choice at this point -- he is 98% right on all the issues. At this point, the only other candiates I will be looking at at all are Richardson and Obama, only because I really don't know everything I should know before coming to a conclusion about them.

Kuch will get my vote in the primaries and, unless someone else really comes on strong, will get my write-in vote in 2008.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. Do you think Kucinich would want you to vote for him if he loses?

My guess - although I don't know for sure - is that if he loses the Primary, Kucinich would want you - and everyone else - to vote for whoever wins it, not for him.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. Nope...won't do it.

I already cast one Presidential vote for a Democrat who voted for the IWR, I will not do that again -- after all the carnage I couldn't live with myself. If the nominee is Clinton or Edwards I write in my choice, it's that simple.

I live in CA -- if the Democratioc candidate can't win here without my vote, they don't stand a chance anyway.

[Auntie Bush]

31. If CLARK runs I BELIEVE/hope he could win the primary. That will

be the hardest thing to accomplish. If he is our candidate...I KNOW we could win the election. He has ALL the qualities to win a general election by winning many Southern and mid-Western states. The only thing some many consider a short come is his lack of experience as an executive in congress. That can be easily compensated for by his choice of VP. No other candidate has his expertise in foreign affairs and the military which we sorely NEED. He could whoop any Republican!
Yes,I have confidence that my candidate could win the general election! :hop:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. You keep saying "could".

I don't like that word. All sorts of things "could" happen; my impression is that "could" is usually a way of hiding from "will", or from "probably won't".

"Could" makes it sounds as though one has more control over the course of events than one really does.

With Wes Clark as candidate we certainly could win, but so could the Republicans.

[Auntie Bush]

36. Since I'm not psychic...I used the word could.

But yes, I do like the word "will" better...sounds more positive!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

33. Yes, I think if Gore runs, he will win the primaries. n/t

[mtnsnake]

35. I hope Obama wins, but I think Hillary will. I'll support any Dem who wins, though.

[SaveElmer]

37. I think the odds are definitely in her favor...

And I think her position in the polls actually understates her strength....

However, this is politics...ANYTHING can happen!

[Dean Martin]

38. I honestly feel a Hillary nomination gives us 4 more Rep. years

Many people across the country loved Bill Clinton but despise Hillary. I do not like Hillary, but I'm not speaking for myself. I'm honestly afraid if she gets nominated the Reps will once again win the Presidency, despite GW. I've heard countless people in Indy say they'll vote for Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry, but that if Hillary runs they will vote for whoever runs against her.

[SaveElmer]

39. Hmmm...

Well I live in a bluish area of a red state, am active in the party, and am a precinct captain...and I hear significant enthusiasm for Hillary...

And recent polls would suggest the meme that she cannot win is just plain wrong...

[Dean Martin]

40. Polls are usually biased

based on the location and whoever is responding. If you were to do a poll in Indianapolis for example, you'd probably have Hillary getting about 10%.

Actually, I hope someone here does to a poll, I'd like to see how her numbers come out here. I know quite a few people who liked Bill. I haven't talked to anyone who likes Hillary at all, regardless of their party affiliations.

[SaveElmer]

41. Latest Polls in Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arkansas...

Not to mention national polls show Hillary not only leading decisively, the Democratic primary field, but defeating McCain and Guiliani, and Huckabee, as well...

[Dean Martin]

43. Who did the polls?

I'm 47 years old and not once in my lifetime have I ever been approached to particpate in a political poll.

[Strawman]

45. Quinnipac University

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1009

But it's only Ohio...not like that's a key swing state or anything.

[SaveElmer]

46. Well in a country of 300 million...

That is probably not surprising...

The Ohio Poll is Quinnipiac...

Iowa ARG...

National polls recently Newsweek, Time, ABC/IPSOS

[Dean Martin]

47. Well, we'll see what happens!

After all, we've got a lot of time until the conventions.

[PresidentObama]

50. I live in a solid red state as well.

I hear nothing but "NO" on Hillary from local Democrats who had great enthusiasm about Kerry/Edwards in 2004, and are committed to turning this area blue in 2008. I see you have different results in your area, but I've heard several Democrats on DU say the same thing about there areas--Democrats having serious questions about Hillary.

We will see!! She has no better chance, IMO, then her challengers. None. Polls are meaningless, and Obama and Edwards will give her a run for her money. No telling what other surprises will occur.

[Strawman]

42. Nope

Kucinich is who I support because he's earned it for being right on everything and having the courage to say things when they were not politically convenient to say them. And he says things that need to be brought into the primary season conversation that no other candidate will. He speaks for me.

But I am under no illusions about him winning or about him being able to excercise any significant amount influence on the eventual nominee this time around.

And if by supporting him, I'm helping Hillary Clinton win as a fait accompli, and I'm fine with that too. There's little difference between the rest of the candidates, and she probably would be the most politically effective in office. There's enough overlap between her views and mine that I find the prosepct of an HRC presidency somewhat encouraging.

[Breeze54]

48. What primaries? What candidate? What election?

:sarcasm:

[noonwitch]

51. I'm voting for Hillary, so yes, I think she'll win the primaries

I voted for Clark in the 2004 caucus, and Tsongas in the 1992 primary.