Noncandidate Clark is now polling ahead of Gravel (plus Gilmore, Paul, and Hunter)

[Czolgosz]

I'm not a fan of over reliance on polls this early, and I'm not a fan of any reliance on national polls (because it is pointless to measure the efficacy of the campaigns in the states where the campaigns are not yet operating), but I think polls in states where the candidates are actively campaigning can be a good snapshot of how well the campaigns are succeeding at getting out their candidates' messages. In that context, here is what the American Research Group has just released for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina:

May 29, 2007 - Presidential Preferences

Democrats
IA -- NH -- SC

31% - 34% - 34% ... Clinton
25% - 18% - 30% ... Edwards
11% - 15% - 18% ... Obama
08% - 09% - 01% ... Richardson
04% - 02% - 02% ... Kucinich
03% - 03% - 02% ... Biden
02% - 03% - 01% ... Dodd
01% - 01% - 01% ... Clark
01% - 01% - 00% ... Gravel
14% - 14% - 11% ... Undecided



Republicans
IA -- NH -- SC

25% - 30% - 32% ... McCain
23% - 21% - 23% ... Giuliani
16% - 23% - 10% ... Romney
06% - 03% - 13% ... F Thompson
08% - 04% - 06% ... Gingrich
03% - 01% - 01% ... Brownback
02% - 01% - 01% ... Hagel
02% - 01% - 01% ... Huckabee
02% - 01% - 01% ... T Thompson
02% - 00% - 01% ... Tancredo
01% - 00% - 01% ... Gilmore
00% - 00% - 00% ... Paul
00% - 00% - 00% ... Hunter
10% - 16% - 11% ... Undecided

In this context, it's a bit sad that noncandidate Clark is polling ahead of candidate Gravel. Likewise, on the Republican front, the fact that Fred and Gingrich are polling ahead of Brownback, Huckabee, Tommy, Tancredo, Gilmore, Paul, and Hunter ought to give them some pack-up-and-go-home worries. If you are working on the Paul or Hunter campaigns, how do you spin those numbers?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[Captain Hilts]

1. Clark is STILL my top choice. Something new. Energetic. Understands FP,

understands how civilian robber barons are ripping off the little guy, etc.

[Wickerman]

2. I love the General, but the Clark/Gravel positioning argument is

nonsense. Statistically it means nothing. They are both non-contenders. Gravel is there to have his voice heard and it is indeed a message that needs said.

On the 'Thug side, the candidates from Brownback on down should hang it up. They are a drag on the party. Oh, nevermind, carry-on. :yoiks:

[Czolgosz]

3. The point about Clark and Gravel is that Gravel's support is so near zero that a guy who's neither

campaigning nor even a declared candidate is getting more responses in the poll. This is not a point that has anything to do with the margin of error as both Clark and Gravel (and Biden and Dodd for that matter) are polling within the margin of error from zero in all three states. The point of comparison is just to show that Gravel is not getting hardly any support whatsoever -- I'm talking about near zero support as an absolute number not as a range for the purpose of statistical analysis. But it could be worse, just ask Duncan Hunter.

[Wickerman]

6. Gravel is there to have his voice heard and it is indeed a message that needs said

There was never a groundswell for a Gravel candidacy as there is at least imagined for Clark. By that definition one would think Clark would be more in Biden or Dodd range. So, yeah, its all still meaningless.

[Parche]

4. Mike Gravel

I dont care what anyone says....

MIKE GRAVEL ROCKS!!!! :rofl: :rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. More telling is that Clark is within 2 points of Dodd and Biden

Those two are veteran sitting U.S. Senators with high profiles in the National Democratic Party. Joining the race 6 months ago has done little if anything for both of those men. If anything it depleted any chance either of them has to emerge as a fresh face in the field since they are already semi-official also rans by now. Not to mention that they both tapped out a slew of contributers during the first two reporting periods with little to show for it.

Clark may in fact be better positioned if he enters in the next 6 weeks than he would have been entering 6 months prior. It is time for new blood in the race.

[Tejanocrat]

7. The current field includes the first woman and the first black candidate who are front runners,

plus the most passionate advocate for eliminating poverty since Bobby Kennedy, plus a Congressman with pending legislation for universal health care, plus the first Hispanic candidate who has established himself as a bona fide national candidate, plus two Senators with decades of experience.

And you think "It is time for new blood in the race"?

[FrenchieCat]

8. Well, others will see your statement quite differently......

And don't believe that this election will be either about promoting minorities or making poverty the number 1 priority.

When one looks at the election via the GE lenses instead of the Primary lenses, the Democratic candidates will not "look" as good as you think.

He's spoken in recent weeks to leading presidential candidates, said Clark spokesman Erick Mullen. "It's a regular dialogue with most of these candidates about war and diplomacy," said Mullen. And he's also emerged as a possible valuable supporter for Democratic front-runners with no military experience.

"Wesley Clark is an asset and has a lot to offer, and we'd certainly value his support," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton agreed and said Obama recently spoke with Clark. "Like most Americans, Sen. Obama thinks that Gen. Clark has a wealth of experience in issues of national security," Burton said.
<>
Clark occupies a unique role in the Democratic Party. His military credentials, stretching from service in Vietnam to the position of NATO supreme allied commander during the war in Kosovo, stand out in a wartime election in which none of the front-running Democrats, and only one leading Republican, served in the military.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12266

[Tejanocrat]

9. You and I have a different view of the current field of candidates, which is OK. You know that Clark

isn't running, right?

I say this because I think we agree that Gen. Clark is a very smart man, and because he is a very smart man, he would not make the same mistake in '08 that he made last election and get into the race too late to finish in the top three in Iowa.

Clark is so smart he knows that only three candidates will advance from Iowa with enough momentum to have a decent shot at the nomination, and he learned in '04 that you can't "skip" Iowa. If Clark was going to run to win, he's smart enough that he'd have a campaign in place in Iowa, and he doesn't have a campaign in place in Iowa so we can conclude that he's not going to run (which isn't to say that he wouldn't make an excellent VP or that he might not get into the race late to position himself as a possible VP selection or to promote his agenda like Kucinich is promoting his agenda by running).

[FrenchieCat]

11. Personally, I just hope that Clark is "leader" enough not to buy into the

"follower's" conventional wisdom that others have put out there as to why it would be too late for him, but not too late for Thompson, Hagel, Gingrich or even Gore.


Those who listen to conventional wisdom on all things, are bound to be proven wrong on all things.

[Tejanocrat]

12. But it IS TOO LATE for Fred, Hagel (if he wants the Repu nomination), and Gingrich.

I will bet you anything that the Repu nominee will be Romney, McCain, or Giuliani (my money is on Romney).

If Hagel runs, it WON'T be as a Republican so he's on a different time table.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. We can simply agree to disagree on this

My full statement about timing for new entrants into the race can be found here:

http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/05/2008s_second_season.html

[Tejanocrat]

19. Three questions: (1) when's the last day Clark can enter the race and still win? (2) will Clark skip

Iowa again or will he compete in Iowa? (3) how do you predict the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries will play out (list top three in order for each vote)?

My answers to these questions are (1) Memorial Day, (2) Clark is too smart to skip Iowa again, he has said in the past that skipping Iowa is what cost him the race in '04, and he will have learned from that lesson, (3) Iowa may go Edwards, Obama, HRC and New Hampshire may go Obama, Edwards, HRC (I think a third place finish in Iowa for HRC would hurt her going into in New Hampshire) - I could be wrong about the order of course but I don't see how Clark finishes in the top three in Iowa and I don't see how a candidate who finishes fourth in Iowa can come back and pull off a win or near win in New Hampshire.

PS - I did read your link before asking these questions.

[BootinUp]

22. Gee, let me get out my super duper

crystal ball.

The real question is whether there would be excitement generated by his entrance to the race. The kind not unlike what happened in 04. No two races are exactly alike, and momentum can shift unexpectedly in a political race. Impossible to predict with much authority.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. A conservative answer to question number one would be...

...a week before the round of DNC scheduled and sanctioned candidate debates begins, which would mean approximately July 15th. Before that date it is a no brainer to me that there still is time for Clark to enter the race and win. Keep in mind that winning isn't a given for any candidate no matter how favored they may be now or when they first entered the race, but Clark would have a full competitive chance in my opinion if he avails himself of that Thompson window I wrote about. But I am not absolutely convinced that a conservative answer is the right answer. The actual answer might be late August. Clark has a new book coming out early in September, and an August entry still would solidify his participation in the race before the Labor Day weekend.

Clark starting his 2008 campaign in August of 2007 would put him in the functional equivelent of where he would have been at had he started his 2008 run in May or June of 2003 rather than the mid September launch that actually happened. Clark was a complete political novice in 2003. Then he had no political staff who had been with him for years, unlike now. Then he did not have national contacts at every level of the Democratic Party, unlike now. Then he did not have a full set of positions clearly articulated on a wide range of issues facing America, unlike now. Then he did not have an extensive email list of prior campaign volunteers and donors, unlike now. Then he didn't already have hundreds of campaign speeches and media appearances under his belt to sharpen his delivery, unlike now. Then he didn't have thousands of Democratic activists who have already done their homework and know why and how to defend Clark against the false character smears and disinformation campaign that was used against him immediately after he announced for President. Clark has a grassroots network of supporters already in place now ready to be activated.

And there are wild cards at play also that could alter the race, like a serious escalation of tensions with Iran, or a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Or what if Al Gore announced that he wasn't going to run in 2008, but threw his support behind Wes Clark instead. Or what if John Kerry threw his support behind a late Clark entry, with his massive email list of grassroots Democrats put to work for Clark?

I know for certain based on statements that Clark has made that he would not skip Iowa again. And I have no reason to doubt that Clark could gain traction in Iowa relatively quickly. Barack Obama certainly did, remember? You know John Edwards finished fourth in New Hampshire last time, and went on to win a primary shortly after in South Carolina, but I will not grant you that Clark can't finish in the top three in Iowa. Furthermore, if the spread between the top four candidates is in Iowa is narrow next time (it was far from narrow last time) the aftermath from Iowa may be very different than it was in 2004. In 2004 Iowa started a steam roller for John Kerry who only lost one primary after that until Clark won Oklahoma. What if no overwhelming favorite emerges from the battling front runners early in 2008?

A fourth place finish in Iowa, with numbers close to the top three that also widely seperated Clark from all the other candidates who finish below him there, could have the opposite effect from what you envision. It could make Clark the one and only official dark horse wild card of the field, increasing interest in him. Often exceeding low expectations plays far better than falling slightly short of high expectations. If Edwards, Obama and/or Clinton show signs of underwhelming, support from one or more of them could start flowing to Clark, and that could become the makings of media buzz.

[Tejanocrat]

29. We don't entirely disagree. We have less than a two month difference of opinion about

when Clark needs to enter the race if he going to have a good shot at winning.

We agree that Clark has made it plain that he wouldn't make the mistake of skipping Iowa.

It seems that we only differ in two points and one conclusion to be drawn from those points.

First, I think Clark would have to finish top three in Iowa to overcome the money and organization advantage that HRC has (Obama has money, too, but less organization, and Edwards has great organization but it's mainly focused on Iowa and New Hampshire -- so I think HRC's combination of money and organization makes her a tough challenger for Clark). I understand that we see this issue differently.

Second, I don't see how anyone is likely to squeeze into the top three in Iowa because Edwards, HRC, and Obama have the state blanketed. It would require a total collapse by one or more of the front runners to create an opening for anyone else to crack the top three in Iowa. I understand that we see this issue differently too.

My conclusion is that Clark probably sees the same (or similar) scenario. I'm sure he sees slight differences (like our difference on whether he needed to get in by Memorial Day or whether he can wait until mid-July), but I'm sure he sees the clock running. Clark is just not acting like someone who's going to announce in the next six weeks in time to join the DNC-sanctioned debates.

It will not hurt my feelings if I'm wrong because I like Clark very much, but I just don't see it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. True, we do not see wildly different realities

Regarding Iowa, it is now conventional wisodom that the top three finishers there will in some order be Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. Unless all three of them cluster together closely in the neighborhood of 30% of the votes, at least one of them is likely to have what will be deemed to be at least a somewhat disappointing showing. For example, if Edwards or Obama came in third with 17% of the vote while Clark got 14% to come in fourth, and assuming that Richardson and Biden etc were held to single digits, I think that result would be helpful to Clark. It would establish Clark as the person postitioned to move up if any of the established front runners fail to perform like front runners once the primaries actually begin, which I see as a very plausible scenario. Momentum is an amazing thing. In my opinion in the above scenario, the third place finisher would lose momentum while Clark would gain it.

The commentary I hear in my mind's ear is something like this: "...while Retired General Wesley Clark had a surprisingly strong showing, finishing in 4th place just X% behind _____ , who until recently was thought of as a possible Iowa winner. With these results, ____ risks dropping down to the second tier of candidates, which could disappoint some of his/her current financial backers. General Clark, on the other hand, may now warent a closer look, as he clearly distanced himself from the remainder of the field who no doubt all were hoping that a stronger than expected showing in Iowa would breath some new life into their up until now lack luster campaigns".

[Tejanocrat]

31. I don't disagree with the commentary in your mind's ear.

When I say that I can't see anyone but the top three Iowa candidates having the momentum to surge toward an ultimate victory, I don't mean to be a fundamentalist about it.

If Clark -- or, for that matter, Kucinich, Dodd, or the rest -- were to pull of a much-much-better-than-expected 4th place finish which was within just a few votes of third place (sort of the like the Edwards-Clark finish in New Hampshire '04), and one of the top tier performed so far below expectations that it fatally wounded the campaign (like Dean in Iowa '04), I could see the 4th place candidate coming into New Hampshire with enough momentum to take flight.

Still, while I can invent scenarios where a fourth place finisher in Iowa goes on to win, it's much easier to envision the winner or runner up in Iowa going into New Hampshire with momentum and then riding that momentum through the next primaries like Kerry did.

[Clark2008]

17. Too late for Fred?

:rofl:

He'll be their nominee, Tejan. Trust me on this one. I hear the near orgasmic explosion from the Republicans on local talk radio from here to Ohio on a daily basis.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Yup, sure do.

The two Senators with decades of experience aren't making much of a dent. Actually, I kind of like Dodd, but Biden has done a number of things throughout his career that would make it very hard for me to muster any enthusiasm. And I don't seem to be alone in that. And no one would mistake Biden for new blood anyway. Plus I think Richardson is a lot weaker than his resume looks.

And the general public isn't going to care whether or not our candidate field looks like an affirmative action forum, they just want to elect just one person who they trust will make a good President. Edwards keeps stepping on his own message with his own actions (the "4 H Club"; House, Haircuts, Hedge Funds, and Honorariums) which would come back to haunt him big time if he became our nominee, PLUS he only served one term and was absent from much of it while campaigning. The world (rightfully so) looks dangerous nowadays. The relative lack of experience that both Obama and Edwards can bring to the plate does not inspire confidence in their leadership, if you step away from hard core democratic activist circles.

As for Hillary, she is a real pro BUT she is someone who a substantial part of the public loves to hate. Couple the fact that Republicans can easily unite against her with the fact that a lot of left leaning Democrats are not at all pleased with her, and her unfavorables begin to become daunting.

[BootinUp]

14. From the clips I saw

Richardson was very unpolished yesterday, and I don't think threatening Olympic boycotts is going to go over well with the general public.

[Clark2008]

16. Good work, Tom.

I don't see the current field as a "bumper crop," either.

It doesn't matter to me that we have this minority or that minority running - what are their stances. I can't really see the "good" in people who voted for the war, particularly when they had information available to them that showed how incomplete the evidence was and didn't even bother to read it.

Then, there are those who either weren't there to vote or didn't vote in support of it. Of those, well... neither can win, in my estimation, one, because we don't value ideas over looks and the other precisely BECAUSE he's a minority and this country is still so very racist.

The election season started MUCH too soon this year. Most people aren't even paying attention and, when they do, what are they going to see? The status quo, unfortunately.

[BootinUp]

13. "Clark may in fact be better positioned..."

Tom, I think I was saying something like that a few months ago. :thumbsup:

[Adelante]

18. Candidate Edwards losing to Non-Candidate Gore

It must be hard - 8%!! :cry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_060307.html

[Czolgosz]

20. Not in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, but winning isn't everything. Kucinich is no less

correct in his analysis of the issues just because the voters haven't caught up to him yet.

For the record, I hope Clark runs next time there isn't an incumbent Democratic president (which I hope is 2016).

[Adelante]

21. South Carolina: Obama 34%, Clinton 31%, Edwards 15%

June 04, 2007

Obama, Thompson Lead in South Carolina

According to the latest Public Policy Polling survey of likely South Carolina primary voters, Sen. Barack Obama leads the Democratic presidential race with the support of 34%, trailed by Sen. Hillary Clinton with 31% and John Edwards with 15%.

On the GOP side, Fred Thompson leads his rivals with 27%, followed by Mitt Romney at 16%, Sen. John McCain at 15%, Rudy Giuliani at 14% and Newt Gingrich at 11%.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/06/04/obama_thompson_lead_in_south_carolina.html

[Czolgosz]

23. I didn't see Gore's or Clark's numbers in that poll. Does the poll confirm that even noncandidates

are polling ahead of some of our candidates in early caucus and primary states? I couldn't find all the numbers.

[Adelante]

24. No wonder Edwards is going home to South Carolina!

But back to non-candidates - in Iowa

May 2007 Iowa Poll: Edwards 29%, Obama 23%, Clinton 21%, Richardson 10%.

But Iowans want to see non-candidates: Gore 44% Kerry 23% Clark 20% Sharpton 6%:

A new Des Moines Register poll suggests that Iowans likely to participate in the January caucuses aren’t entirely satisfied with the list of declared candidates.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070520/NEWS/305200007/-1/iowapoll07

I guess Iowans aren't all that settled? Campaigning there for five or six years probably helps with five or ten points, but it's rather shocking Edwards isn't topping 40% after all that hard work and $$$.

[Czolgosz]

26. While Clark's only in third place among noncandidates in Iowa he has 3 times the support of Sharpton

I hope Clark runs next time.

I'm proud of Kucinich for running even though it's a tough field.

[Adelante]

25. In SC non candidate Clark within the MOE

for every candidate except Clinton, Obama, Edwards - a couple of weeks ago.

That would be in this order:

Biden
Kucinich
Clark
Dodd
Richardson

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15945

[Czolgosz]

28. That's awesome! I wish he'd elected to run this year. I'd like a candidate who can win in the South.

[Catchawave]

32. Honey, I poll ahead of those guys....

:eyes: