New Hampshire Poll: Bush 57% Dean 30%

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-12 10:13am

[Nelson Muntz] Ha-Ha! [/Nelson Muntz]

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13258.htm

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-12 10:24am

In December 1991, Bill Clinton wasn't even an asterisk on the map, and Saturday Night Live did a sketch lampooning the chances of a Democrat - ANY Democrat - to beat George H.W. Bush.

We know how this script ends.

Also, the NYPost (great source there, BTW) acknowledges that no Democrat polls any better than Howard Dean.

As it is, the only polls that really matter right now are ones dealing with Dean-vs-other-Democrat matchups, with the primaries right around the corner.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-12 10:28am

Also, the "Generic Democrat" measure is misleading and totally worthless, because you can cut and paste any policy initiatives you so desire on Mr. Democrat. While it's a reasonable measure of how popular the party is at the moment, it's worthless in determining a winner, because an individual candidate (especially a charismatic one like Dr. Dean) can make party v. party match-ups completely moot.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-12-12 12:17pm

Quite right.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-12-12 12:19pm

It is WAY to early to tell who's going to be polling what numbers come election season. Clinton did not throw his hat in the ring until mid October of the election cycle and he was basically an unknown for a while. I never pay attention to the polls this early.

Its usally after the conventions when we know who the candidates will be that we can start seeing the overall trends emerge.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-12 12:31pm

Iceberg wrote:Also, the "Generic Democrat" measure is misleading and totally worthless, because you can cut and paste any policy initiatives you so desire on Mr. Democrat. While it's a reasonable measure of how popular the party is at the moment, it's worthless in determining a winner, because an individual candidate (especially a charismatic one like Dr. Dean) can make party v. party match-ups completely moot.

"In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent."

It seems Dean would do worse than a generic democrat. Which suggests that he is indeed alienating the moderate vote which doesn't bode well for his chances. He spent too much time defining himself as the anti-Bush and with things looking up for Bush that isn't enough to carry him into office.

It's too early to call the election, I agree, but Dean is going to have to work to attract the moderate elements of the Democratic Party and of the American public in general.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-12 12:32pm

Bush a favorite, in New England? This is something I'd have never expected to see happen.

Of course, a lot can happen in a year, so we'll see.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-12 01:06pm

Bush is going to win anyway, due to the global mind-control network which the US Government's going to activate in the spring of 2004, unless somebody sabotages it all. That way, Democrat partisans might be voting for Bush, thinking they've voted for Dean.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-12 01:09pm

Joe wrote:Bush a favorite, in New England? This is something I'd have never expected to see happen.

Dean seems to be the only real Democratic candidate and I'm sure they're as familiar, if not more so, with Dean's tax increases and his plans for massive social programs. Money talks.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-12 04:44pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Also, the "Generic Democrat" measure is misleading and totally worthless, because you can cut and paste any policy initiatives you so desire on Mr. Democrat. While it's a reasonable measure of how popular the party is at the moment, it's worthless in determining a winner, because an individual candidate (especially a charismatic one like Dr. Dean) can make party v. party match-ups completely moot.

"In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent."

It seems Dean would do worse than a generic democrat.

Didn't I just say that the comparison to Candidate G. Neric Democrat is WORTHLESS? That means it HAS NO VALUE. When you construct an Ideal Candidate, he's going to look better than any of the real ones.

A LOT can change in 11 months. Early party vs. party matchups tend to be worse than useless in determining an eventual victor.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-14 10:35pm

Its New Hampshire. Not exactly Democrat central.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-12-14 11:09pm

A poll of the Presidential race... Nearly a year before the election? Yea, that's gonna produce wonderful data.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-12-15 02:40am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Bush is going to win anyway, due to the global mind-control network which the US Government's going to activate in the spring of 2004, unless somebody sabotages it all. That way, Democrat partisans might be voting for Bush, thinking they've voted for Dean.

They won't have to bother, because the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has already programmed all the electronic ballot boxes to register Republican no matter which buttons you actually push. I hear that in '08, there's just going to be a big red button that says "Republican", so as to dispense with the whole charade.

Now that I've told you that, I'm afraid we're going to have to ensure you don't talk. Off to Camp G. Gordon Liddy with you.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm aware that the Diebold controversy is actually a case of a serious conflict of interest and Diebold should either reveal its source code or step out of the voting machine business. So please, no rants about it, okay?

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-15 10:33am

RedImperator wrote:Off to Camp G. Gordon Liddy with you.

Or as the sign at Camp G. Gordon Liddy's entrance reads:

"At Least It's Not Camp Ann Coulter"....