A blind poll conducted by Zogby Polls gives unknown Wesley Clark a big lead over Bush based only on Clark's resume.
""More importantly, perhaps, to the Draft Clark folks is that Clark's resume beat Bush in a hypothetical contest. The poll compared Clark and Bush this way:
"If the presidential election were held today, which of the following two candidates would you vote to be the next president? The Democratic candidate is a former four-star general and NATO supreme commander during the Clinton administration. He was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar, is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and is a national security expert. He is a successful businessman leading the effort to reduce our dependence on oil. Is a moderate on domestic policy issues and is from the South. The Republican candidate is George W. Bush."
The Clark resume beat Bush's name by 49 to 40 percent.
For the poll survey, 1,019 likely voters were interviewed Aug. 16-19. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the sample to this question.
The way the Draft Clark people see it, Clark would move immediately to the top of the Democratic field by neutralizing voter fears about the party's weakness on national security issues. Clark, who opposed the Iraq war and gained significant exposure talking about it on CNN, brings a credibility to the anti-Iraq war argument that most of the Democratic candidates lack, his supporters say. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep2.html
To be blunt, this kind of poll is practically meaningless. A blind poll gives respondents a sketchy look at two or more candidates and then asks who they think would be better for a particular job. It's rooted in a high-minded notion that other things being equal, Candidate X could beat Candidate Y. But the world simply doesn't work like that. Things aren't equal. Human being generally don't make choices in the way that blind polls suppose. Some people will like a candidate based purely on gut feeling. Others because of ideological, moral or economic reasons. Others still because one candidate happens to be President and that has a lot of pull.
Had Zogby asked the same respondents who they would elect as President in 2004, I suspect the answers would have been different. The polling firm likely knew that too, hence the choice of going with a blind poll.
And that leads me to my next point. There's a business angle to this issue that I find equally bothersome if not puzzling. When the subject of a poll is the same as the client who is paying for the research, it's a pretty safe bet that the results are going to make the client look good. From a perspective of "give the client what they want," this makes fine sense. But from a public trust and credibility perspective, I'm always a little surprised that polling firms pull this stunt as often as they do.
Having said all of this, I suspect the real purpose behind this poll is to position Clark as a potential running mate for Howard Dean, who has beaten his competitors handily in generating the all-important PR buzz.
No doubt you are correct on the business of polls. Polling firms generally ask (how may we help you?) the client's questions and I don't think motives were hidden by the draft Clark folk. It looks like a successful requisite PR move that got Clark onto the Washington Post, a huge player in the Democratic machine.
I'm sure that the Gore supporters from the last time around are holding back until someone breaks through. Democrats certainly have the numbers to defeat Bush and Clarks credentials might seem too good to pass on for those that aren't impressed with the current lineup.
"Democrats certainly have the numbers to beat Bush..."
In what parallel universe would that be, macello? [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img]
Because, in this one, two thirds of the people who usually vote democrat could not name even ONE of the faceless clones who are running for nomination as democratic candidate.
And, as far as I've seen, most aren't drawing anything more than 10% approval so far. Senator John Kerry (also a decorated war veteran and a very capable man with lots of experience in government) is currently scoring the very same numbers as the rev. Al Sharpton! [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]
Lots of democratic voters voted for a republican President and a republican Congress last time around. Want to bet that they are going to switch camps for somebody that most of them have never even heard of?
Especially with what's been going on since 9/11?
If so...I'll take that bet. (I could use the extra cash) [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/heybaby.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img]
But those darned "rolling on the floor" ones just seem to pop up by themselves whenever I am replying to one of your more excessive flights of fancy. [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]
Damn! There they go again! [img]graemlins/heybaby.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/lmao.gif[/img]
I think the fact is that increasing numbers of people in America now feel that Bush is actually beatable. The list of Democratic candidates is long (it always is) but its the realization that Bush can be beaten that will drive this campaign into a new gear. Won't be easy. But 4 months ago the Democrats couldn't see a crack in the defensive/offensive armour of nationalism. Now the pigeons/problems are slowly coming home to roost.
At least it'll be a decent fight (unlike the accession in Ottawa).