Newsweek poll!

[knight_of_the_star]

Clark is up, Bush is in decline, and among other news, based on the survey conducted Clark has the best chance of beating Bush out of himself, Kerry, and Dean, and Dean, based on the poll, has the worst, losing by a whole 14 percentage points. If you don't believe me, here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?vts=092120030605

I think that this shows Clark is more electable than some here thought.

[seamarq]

1. DUPE

[newsguyatl]

2. it's

NEVER been a matter of electability with clark. i think we all agree he's electable.


his record. his true intents. where he stands on issues. his backers. why he's even IN the race.

THOSE are the questions.

[bowens43]

3. Agreed.

Most of the declared candidates would easily beat bush. Now it's just a matter of selecting the best of those.

[diplomats]

4. I'm beginning to believe we have several candidates

who could win.

[Jackson4Gore]

5. Gore still does the best

"If former Vice President Al Gore were in the race against Bush, the race would be close again: 45 percent of registered voters would vote for Gore and 48 percent for Bush. But if New York Sen. Hillary Clinton were facing Bush, Bush leads with 50 percent of the vote versus 43 percent for Clinton, the poll shows. "

George Bush Al Gore Other/Undec.

---

09/03 48 45 7

---

11/02 54 39 7

---

10/02 58 36 6

---

09/02 58 36 6

[seamarq]

7. his true intent??? his backers??? why he is in the race???

what are you trying to imply? his intent is being questioned because he decided to join the democratic party? i thought that was something we wanted to encourage...and it can be a powerful campaign point. he was brought into the race and is backed by a true grassroots effort that i thought was trait of the democratic party. he has made many of his stances clear in interviews and appearances....the guy has been in the race for a very short time...give him time to get out his message.

[Brucey]

6. The important thing to get from this poll

is that chimpy's support fell the most when he asked for money. When soldiers were dying, there still was support. When no WMD were found there still was support. These things can easily be interpreted in different ways and the sheeple will support the lying repugs. But when you ask them for $87 bn, there is just no way to spin this. Dems need to learn from this. Keep reminding Americans how much it's going to cost. Ask them if they think they got their money's worth.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. That's true

The thing that really caught my eye about that article was that it said Bush was down below 50%. THAT is good news any day of the week in my book, regardless of WHY he's down that low.

[madison]

8. It's nothing more than name recognition

National polls -- as contrasted with polling in states where the Democratic candidates are concentrating their appearances, such as Iowa and New Hampshire -- are nothing more than name-recognition polls.

In the early days of polling during this primary season, Lieberman routinely polled the highest.

Why?

Because he had run as Gore's vice presidential candidate and had campaigned nationwide.

So far, most of the Democratic candidates - and their views -- are seriously known only in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Wesley Clark is an exception to this since he has been appearing on CNN regularly for the past two years as their military consultant.

If you think that doesn't give Clark a bounce in name recognition, then explain to me why Lieberman led all the early polls but is failing now, when Democrats are gaining more awareness of the rest of the Democratic candidates.