Poll: Democrat candidates for President

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Why don't you do a poll on Republic candidates for president?

None to date have declared their candidacy.

CkG

Edit - BTW it is "Republican"

Why do you think none have declared their candidacy? And do you agree with that?

BTW - if it is "Republican" it is also "Democratic."

Do you understand what "incumbency" means? How many "Democrats" tried to run in '96?

BTW - not it is not. It is Republican and Democrat.

CkG

I suppose the point I'm getting at is, why would a Bush supporter who claims none of the Democratic candidates can beat Bush post a poll about the Democratic candidate? I don't trust a partisan Republic polling this topic. Especially if he's a Limpbaugh listener.

And again, if it's "Republican" it's "Democratic." If it's "Democrat" it's "Republic."

Ah, the prejudice finally shows it's head This isn't a "biased" poll. It is a simple straight up poll - period. No spin- just a direct question. I just thought it'd be interesting to see which of the candidates are polling well here on Anandtech 13 months before the election.

No, There are "Republicans" and "Democrats" - not Democraticans, Democratics, or Republics. Nice try though.

CkG

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Why don't you do a poll on Republic candidates for president?

None to date have declared their candidacy.

CkG

Edit - BTW it is "Republican"

Why do you think none have declared their candidacy? And do you agree with that?

BTW - if it is "Republican" it is also "Democratic."

Do you understand what "incumbency" means? How many "Democrats" tried to run in '96?

BTW - not it is not. It is Republican and Democrat.

CkG

I suppose the point I'm getting at is, why would a Bush supporter who claims none of the Democratic candidates can beat Bush post a poll about the Democratic candidate? I don't trust a partisan Republic polling this topic. Especially if he's a Limpbaugh listener.

And again, if it's "Republican" it's "Democratic." If it's "Democrat" it's "Republic."

Ah, the prejudice finally shows it's head This isn't a "biased" poll. It is a simple straight up poll - period. No spin- just a direct question. I just thought it'd be interesting to see which of the candidates are polling well here on Anandtech 13 months before the election.

No, There are "Republicans" and "Democrats" - not Democraticans, Democratics, or Republics. Nice try though.

CkG

Hmm... and I thought Republics don't listen to polls.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Torghn Gorge W. Bush will be the republican candidate.

And he'll run unopposed?

He won't have any serious republican oponets.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Why don't you do a poll on Republic candidates for president?

None to date have declared their candidacy.

CkG

Edit - BTW it is "Republican"

Why do you think none have declared their candidacy? And do you agree with that?

BTW - if it is "Republican" it is also "Democratic."

Do you understand what "incumbency" means? How many "Democrats" tried to run in '96?

BTW - not it is not. It is Republican and Democrat.

CkG

I suppose the point I'm getting at is, why would a Bush supporter who claims none of the Democratic candidates can beat Bush post a poll about the Democratic candidate? I don't trust a partisan Republic polling this topic. Especially if he's a Limpbaugh listener.

And again, if it's "Republican" it's "Democratic." If it's "Democrat" it's "Republic."

Ah, the prejudice finally shows it's head This isn't a "biased" poll. It is a simple straight up poll - period. No spin- just a direct question. I just thought it'd be interesting to see which of the candidates are polling well here on Anandtech 13 months before the election.

No, There are "Republicans" and "Democrats" - not Democraticans, Democratics, or Republics. Nice try though.

CkG

Hmm... and I thought Republics don't listen to polls.

WTF? No, REPUBLICANS don't look at polls to determine their position on things as others have tended to do. This poll isn't about anything like that anyway. This is just to see where Anandtech stands at this point before the election. Cripes BOBDN get a clue.

Republicans - Democrats

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

General Clark and for all the reasons I've argued since he joined the party (the election one )

 

[Ferocious]

WTF? No, REPUBLICANS don't look at polls to determine their position on things as others have tended to do.

Anyways......I've already stated earlier that Gephardt will win the nomination.

Also Bush will win by a comfortable margin against Gephardt.

This thread can now end.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

WTF? No, REPUBLICANS don't look at polls to determine their position on things as others have tended to do.

Anyways......I've already stated earlier that Gephardt will win the nomination.

Also Bush will win by a comfortable margin against Gephardt.

This thread can now end.

Asshat comments get asshat replies His comment was way off base.

This thread can continue and get back on topic now.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

I predict Dean as the Nominee with Hillary as his running mate. Clark will certainly be invited to be in the administration probably as Secretary of State.

Also predict this triple Combo will win the Whitehouse.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I predict Dean as the Nominee with Hillary as his running mate. Clark will certainly be invited to be in the administration probably as Secretary of State. Also predict this triple Combo will win the Whitehouse.

I'm not so sure, I would think Hillary would wait to run for president in 08 when she has a better chance of winning. I know she draws a lot of support from the left, but I also know a LOT of moderates, who don't like Bush, but would vote for him if it ment keeping Hillary out of the whitehouse.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Torghn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I predict Dean as the Nominee with Hillary as his running mate. Clark will certainly be invited to be in the administration probably as Secretary of State. Also predict this triple Combo will win the Whitehouse.

I'm not so sure, I would think Hillary would wait to run for president in 08 when she has a better chance of winning. I know she draws a lot of support from the left, but I also know a LOT of moderates, who don't like Bush, but would vote for him if it ment keeping Hillary out of the whitehouse.

I don't think Hillary would have a shot by herself in 2008. This way as Vice President and IF the Economy turns around under Dean/Clinton, then she would have a shot at winning the First Woman President.

For 2004, Clinton as VP on Dem ticket would pull a lot of Women and Minority Voters to assure a defeat of Bush. Dean or Clark by themselves would not win and they know it.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I believe that the 'Horsepower' for a candidate to be successful will be as a paired candidacy.

There are 2 possible pairings that may work, one being the Dean with Edwards as VP,
but it dosen't look strong if the pairing is reversed to make it Edwards with Dean as VP.

The other, but more viable pairing would be Clark with Kerry as VP, as this would be a very
strong Pro-Military ticket, removing the apparent 'Weak on Defense' aspect from the Democrats.

I don't think it would work - again if the paring was reversed, again with Clark as VP it's not viable.

Edit - I don't think a pairing of Clark and Dean is possible, as there is way too much polarity
in the way they are presenting their philosophies, in short - they would be a cat fight with little co-operation.

In retrospect, Liberman behind Gore actually probably removed more votes from the 2000 Election
than it gained, as there is quite a polarity against Liberman, and he was as boring as Al.
There is always the possibility of a 'Draft Gore' Convention move and putting Clark in as the VP

No other combination looks even appealing - what could you do with a Sharpton/Braun ticket ?
Maybe leave the country and hope theres something left to come back to in a few years.

Cad - could you refine the results and toss another poll out with some of the pairings taken into consideration ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Cad - could you refine the results and toss another poll out with some of the pairings taken into consideration ?

All in good time my freind. It is much too soon(IMO) to toss VPs into the equation as we still have 9 main candidates vying for position.

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Cad - could you refine the results and toss another poll out with some of the pairings taken into consideration ?

All in good time my freind. It is much too soon(IMO) to toss VPs into the equation as we still have 9 main candidates vying for position.

CkG

This is true, someone has to come out on top first. A little Cart before the Horse syndrome.

I mulled over all the above CaptnKirk pairings before he posted them and none of them would beat the Incumbent is the problem. They have to do something radical to sway the Electoral Vote, the last Election proved the vote of the Citizenry doesn't mean a hill of beans. Analysts are already talking about how Florida, Michigan and California determine the outcome of the 2004 vote.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Looking at the Poll Results, as you made them, as well as the political trends of the nation -
there are really only 2 political camps to consider:

Clark leads in your poll, and most others from the same 'Pro-Military' camp, as opposition to Bush.
Dean trails in your and others polls, and is more of the retreat and isolationist agenda, not viable.

Hence the pairings must come either to enhance one of the stronger 2 players, or to temper
the agenda that is not acceptable to some, but may be presented as more appealing if modified.

Clark cannot pair wirh Dean regardless of how strong each appears to be indvidually.

So the real puzzle is how to pair a front running Clark or Dean with the offsetting candidate
that will temper those who cannot accept all of one or the other candidates platform.

That is why I offered the pairings of Dean with VP-Edwards, and Clark with VP-Kerry.
I don't see any other of these combinations working to stabilize the Democratic Party.
Certainally not with Sharpton/Braun or Clark/Lieberman.

If Gore were to come back in it cannot be with Leiberman,
although either Clark or Kerry would be a possibility.

The most important consideration to be offered is a future of continuity, a VP
candidate that shows leadership capabilities, and can continue after the President
leaves office, as was hoped would happen with Gore after Clinton.

There does not appear to be any forethought of continuity for Bush with Cheney behind him,
as Cheney has too much baggage to move up as a successor to Dubya, so the Republicans
look like they have conceded a lineage successor to Bush II, and few show the leadership
that would capture the spirit of the nation to follow them as a successor right now.
Actually from Ashcroft to DeLay to the end, only McCain has much appeal, and Mr. Rove
had to spent a lot of effort damaging McCain to bring Bush to the top last time.

 

[Nitemare]

Lol, the man who is leading...

"A couple of weeks ago, General Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a forum in California, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?" Shelton replied, "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early [i.e., was forced to step down as commander of U.S. forces in Europe] had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

From a womanizing used car salesman to someone who was fired because of integrity and character issues. The democratic party must sure want another 4 years of Bush.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Lol, the man who is leading...

"A couple of weeks ago, General Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a forum in California, "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark, and would you support him as a presidential candidate?" Shelton replied, "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early [i.e., was forced to step down as commander of U.S. forces in Europe] had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

From a womanizing used car salesman to someone who was fired because of integrity and character issues. The democratic party must sure want another 4 years of Bush.

There is a thread about that quote here. Anyway, Clark is the best chance for the Democrats. Dean, while popular with liberals, will swing less moderates than Bush. A Gore/Clark ticket would be my ideal, while a Clark/Kerry or Clark/Clinton ticket also favorable

 

[CaptnKirk]

Lets toss a real wild card in here - the Clark/Clinton Combination.

Not HIllary, but Bill - again.

1) Since he WAS the President he cannont run for President - 2 term limit,
but he CAN run for Vice-President.

2) As Vice-President he can assume the Office of President if the President
were to resingn, or pass away while in office. He just cannot run for re-election.

3) It would fulfill the wishes of the Right Wing Conservatives to have someone to dispise.

 

[amok]

There does not appear to be any forethought of continuity for Bush with Cheney behind him,
as Cheney has too much baggage to move up as a successor to Dubya, so the Republicans
look like they have conceded a lineage successor to Bush II, and few show the leadership
that would capture the spirit of the nation to follow them as a successor right now.
Actually from Ashcroft to DeLay to the end, only McCain has much appeal, and Mr. Rove
had to spent a lot of effort damaging McCain to bring Bush to the top last time.

Actually, since we are allowed to be speculative atm, I heard an interesting rumor while I was in NY this weekend . One of the companies I do business with up there is run by a die-hard republican, and he was telling me that they are trying to get Rudy Giuliani in as the VP on the next presidential ballot. Take that with a grain of salt, because he knows I'm a lib and may have just been goading me a bit to see what my reaction would be (which was a "yeah right" reaction in case you are interested). Still, it would be an interesting move. It would set up a very interesting race in 2008 if GWB managed to hang around for a second term.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Actually Rudy - in the wake of 9-11 was the ONLY polititian to step up and
show leadershio, and a take charge attitude, putting petty politics to the side.

All of the other polititians used it as no more than a photo-op, and showed
a complete lack of direction, and a vacancy of leadership.

Rudy as a Vice-Pres would be a strenght to the GOP ticket, but I doubt that
Cheney's ego would let him step aside for the good of the party, allowing
Rudy to be added to the ticket, and offering agenda continuity.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Lets toss a real wild card in here - the Clark/Clinton Combination.

Not HIllary, but Bill - again.

1) Since he WAS the President he cannont run for President - 2 term limit,
but he CAN run for Vice-President.

2) As Vice-President he can assume the Office of President if the President
were to resingn, or pass away while in office. He just cannot run for re-election.

3) It would fulfill the wishes of the Right Wing Conservatives to have someone to dispise.

I don't think Bill could be vp either

 

[ManSnake]

Bush is a dumbass and he will win in 2004

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I'm a Libertarian so my vote doesn't count for purposes of this poll. Joe Lieberman would make a fine if unexciting President, which I can't comfortably say for most of the others on the list. I honestly wish a true moderate of the caliber of a Sam Nunn was running this go around to keep the rest of the field honest and stop them from pandering to the lowest common denominator of their base. As it stands now the winner of the primary will have been pulled so far left that I'm not sure they can realistically compete with Bush.

Lieberman is a war mongering Israeli agent. Some libertarian you are.

 

[MrColin]

Darth Vader or ANYONE who stands a little to the left of Jr.

 

[Insane3D]

It's a little early for me to make my decision. When the field gets cut down a bit and the we hear more specifics on issues, I'll decide. We still have over a YEAR until elections you know...

 

[Electrode]

Clark/Dean 2004!

/me starts work on bumper sticker