"Clark appears to be gaining steam" in New Hampshire

[PSU84]

Clark stays on the warpath with talk on security

By JOHN P. CURLEY PoliticsNH.com

MANCHESTER, Dec. 19—Gen. Wesley Clark appears to be gaining steam as he heads into the home stretch of the retail political derby. In a town hall meeting that was filmed for use in a commercial, Clark appeared confident and energetic, raising his voice at times to drive home arguments that were generally well received by the audience.
Jennifer Donahue, senior advisor for political affairs for Saint Anselm College, said Clark’s new confidence came as a result of a clearer definition of his message and his credibility on the topic of Saddam Hussein’s capture. Clark, a retired four-star Army general, touched on education and the economy but was most emphatic when dealing with foreign affairs and national security.

MORE... http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/december/12_19Clark.shtml

[Myra]

1. He's a seriously quick study.

And if his voice has mended from weeks of campaigning and days
of testimony at the Milosevic trial, that's a plus. :)

[tsipple]

2. What Is Success in New Hampshire?

What would be a good outcome in New Hampshire for Clark? Five points over Kerry? Ten points? Will he need to win delegates (i.e. get at least 15%)?

Conversely, losing to Kerry would be a defeat at this point, right (with the polls showing that Kerry and Clark are competitive now)?

[Renew Deal]

3. Success is third.

A solid 3rd close to 15% would be a great thing. 4th would be a disapointment. Better than 3rd would be unreal.

[maxr4clark]

7. Third

There are three candidates running from states next door to NH: Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman. Clark being third makes him a major candidate, because he can beat a serious candidate in their own back yard. At this point, Clark may come in second in NH; in fact, I suspect he will. Kerry and Dean have been known entities in NH for years; Clark is still being introduced to them, and it appears that among people that have heard of Clark, his popularity is rising. Among Dean and Kerry and Clark, then, the only candidate that appears to be gaining ground in NH is Clark, although Dean may still be gaining by virtue of being the frontrunner among nine candidates; some people will choose Dean as their Anybody But Bush in NH simply because he is the frontrunner.

If Clark does beat Kerry in NH, he'll probably get at least 15%. It will also be the first clear indication that this is going to be a two man race: Dean and Clark.

[mikehiggins]

17. Huh? Are we defining things in our favor, by any chance?

How does coming in third or even fourth signify a defeat?

Everybody warns that the campaign started too late, and took a real dip at the outset, and the frontrunner has been planning his run since 2000, and the runner up has been in the public eye since the VietNam War, and so THIS candidate has to come in second or he's beaten?

The fact that they even spell his name right on the ballot is a victory, pal. Coming in third or fourth is a clear victory, though not the one we want.

How many delegates are in play here anyway? And with the 15% rule in place, Dean still doesn't have to win the majority of votes, he just has to be the only one to break 15% to get all the delegates.

With everything that has led up to this vote if Dean doesn't get over 50% of the votes, what kind of victory will that be? Heh, heh, heh.

Hey, defining the game for the other guy is fun!

[tsipple]

18. "There Can Be Only One"

(Quote from Highlander there.)

How does coming in third or even fourth signify a defeat?

The Democratic Party will only get to pick one individual as its nominee. I'm pretty sure that nominee will win lots of primaries and caucuses. :-) Come in first, in other words. :-)

I'm just asking the questions. What's a win? What's a loss? Not spinning anything here. By what standard should we judge Clark's performance in New Hampshire?

[maxr4clark]

20. Wasn't I clear enough?

Like any other Presidential election, it isn't the number of electoral votes that is the most important point to be won in NH; it is the momentum that a win in NH gives going into February.

There are three home teams in New Hampshire: Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman. The two that lose at home are in serious trouble, and anyone who beats even one of them has to be considered a major contender. Dean appears set to survive at home; Kerry and Lieberman don't. If Kerry or Lieberman can hold on to second, best case is they could spin that as a tie. If Kerry or Lieberman comes in third, that is a devastating loss at home for either of them, and at least one of them must place no higher than third.

Any other candidate that beats any of the three home teams can count it as a strong win. Any other candidate that beats any two of the three home teams can claim to be a major candidate nationwide, because they are beating other candidates in their home turf. The fact that none of the three are from NH itself makes no difference for the candidates who are not from that region; any New England candidate calls New England home compared to anyone not from New England.

Clark supporters like me are proud that our candidate appears to be set to beat one or two of the three home teams. The other candidates and their supporters have reason for concern that, so far as momentum goes, their campaigns may never take flight. The one exception is whoever wins Iowa outright, which appears to be either Gephardt or Dean.

The real question will be who wins the February primaries and caucuses; by March, the candidates with a real shot at the nomination will be easy to distinguish from those who need to start finding other ways to contribute to their country.

[Kahuna]

4. Clark polls better than Dean with ALL voters in NH..

like he does almost everywhere else...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031220/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_2004_8
snip...

Head to head with Bush, the poll of 600 likely voters gave the president a 25-percentage point lead over Dean, 57-32 percent; 15 points over Kerry, 55-40 percent, and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) 54-39 percent; and 19 points over Clark, 56-37 percent, and Dick Gephardt, 55-36 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points. <end of snip>

I just want to keep pointing this out for those who really want to see bush out in 2004.

[tsipple]

5. Kahuna, Got Three Polls?

Here's where you'll get my (and anyone else's) attention.

Show us three (or more) national polls, taken in the same month, that show any Democratic candidate running stronger against Bush and outside the margin of error.

Absent that, I think I speak for everyone when I say that we remain unconvinced. But if you can meet this reasonable standard in making your argument, I for one (and many others I'm sure) will at least be curious.

There's another reason for skepticism about your argument, and it's a simple one. Michael Dukakis was 17 points ahead of George H.W. Bush, and that was a finding consistent with multiple polls. And that was also 90 days before the general election.

Campaigns matter. Dukakis ran a lousy one, and Bush ran a great one that year. The ability to wage an effective campaign dwarfs anything else.

I happen to think that Dean is the only candidate demonstrating effective campaign skills right now. That's another standard any Democratic candidate must meet in order to win.

But let's start with my three poll test. Show me that, and you have my attention.

[Kahuna]

6. Try to pretend that you don't know that almost every..

head to head poll shows clark doing best against bush. I won't try to stop you. The majority of DUers know that I am telling the truth.

[Alex146]

8. where are the polls tsipple asked for?

Put your money where your mouth is.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Why don't you

just put the defeat of Bush over the nomination of Dean......

that would make sense.

[Kahuna]

11. I'm sure you could find them for yourself at pollingreport.com..

You don't need my help. We post polls every other day on DU with the results. If you can't keep up, don't pester me to do it for you. I won't.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Is

Joe Trippi running? oh, ok.....didn't think so.

I will never vote for a campaign that's only got 25-30% of all Democratic voters (according to polls)...... that's 75-70% that ain't buying it...and that's just on our side.

We need 51% and the electoral votes to beat George Bush....When I add it up, it doesn't spell W-I-N-N-E-R!

[Kahuna]

13. AND, this is with the Gore bump...

for what its worth.

[Kahuna]

12. On Dukakis. He looked as ridiculous in that helmet as dean would..

Clark is authentic. Clark in a tank with a helmet is a non issue. So, your dukakis analogy is pretty lame. Clark is no dukakis. Not even close.

[maxr4clark]

14. Three significant polls is one too many

Even in scientific journals, two independent lines of evidence suffice.

Please see my separate thread in response to your point. I'm sure you won't be satisfied, but you should admit that the evidence is nearly significant enough to convince even you.

Can you find three reputable national polls, taken since Nov 1, that say Dean does better Bush v. Dean than Clark does Bush v. Clark? If not, you can't refute the statement you were responding to; you can only say you're not yet convinced.

Maybe then we can take a look at the polls from November, or better yet January.

[tsipple]

15. No, I'm Not Making the Argument

I'll note that no one has yet answered my all-too-reasonable request for proof.

My argument is that all major Democratic candidates are equally competitive against Bush in current polling, although I've said elsewhere that I'm deeply troubled by the fact that Clark (and other Democrats) are handicapped by spending limits and will be utterly mute in the face of the Bush $100 million ad blitz. I don't think a non-famous general like Clark can survive that onslaught. (Bob Dole was better known and he was on the receiving end of that blitz from Clinton.)

If you're making the argument, prove it. It's a simple and reasonable request.

[maxr4clark]

16. Three solid, independent lines of evidence

Firstly, two independent significant lines of evidence is the standard for scientific discussion, not three. This is an informal discussion, not a formal one, so a reasonable request wouldn't even require two. Your request for three polls is therefore not reasonable.

Nevertheless, there _is_ statistical evidence that Clark does better than Dean in one-to-one matchups _this month_; I posted it in another thread. Your position, that there is no difference between Clark and Dean vs. Bush, is refuted with a 99% confidence. What is truly surprising about this is that Clark is behind Dean in the race for the Democratic nomination, and he _still_ polls better in one-on-one matchups with Bush. That is highly unusual, and should not be ignored. Let's call that one significant line of evidence.

Then there are the other lines of evidence. Bush plans to run on foreign policy; so far all he has run on is foreign policy. Dean has no background on foreign policy, and has only made his first attempt to formulate his foreign policy in the last week. Dean cannot compete against Bush on foreign policy. In contrast, Clark can. He has a whole career in foreign policy, and has successes he can point to that compare favorably to Bush across the foreign policy board. That's two significant lines of evidence.

The third line of evidence is the expert testimony of one Karl Rove. Rove says he would rather face Dean than Clark or Kerry. He is not some pundit whose opinion means nothing; he is Bush's campaign manager.

In short, then, despite your unreasonable insistence on having three lines of evidence rather than the two typical in a formal discussion, or the one that is more appropriate for an informal discussion, there are three solid, independent lines of evidence that Dean does not match up as well as Clark against Bush--and not one that I've heard that Dean matches up better against Bush than Clark does.

I don't have anything against Howard Dean. I just see plenty of evidence that we have a better candidate available in Wes Clark; not just for winning the election, but for being President afterwards. As I've said before, I'd like to hear more evidence that Dean would be a good President, beyond whether he will or will not be the Democratic nominee. The fact that Dean's year-plus campaign, largely against Bush's foreign policy, has not produced any alternative foreign policy plans until just this past week REALLY worries me as far as what kind of President he might be.

[tsipple]

19. OK, I'll Answer My Own Question

1. Gallup 12/15-12/16: Dean -23 to Bush, Clark -16 to Bush. MOE +/- 4. (Clark may be 7 points stronger.)

2. NBC/Wall Street Journal, 12/14: Dean -21, Clark -25, MOE +/- 4.3. (Dean may be 4 points stronger..)

3. NBC/Wall Street Journal, 12/13: Dean -12, Clark -16, MOE +/- 4.3. (Dean may be 4 points stronger..)

4. Newsweek, 12/11-12/12: Dean -7, Clark -6, MOE +/- 4. (Clark may be 1 point stronger..)

5. Quinnipiac, 12/4-12/8: Dean -11, Clark -9, MOE +/- 3. (Clark may be 2 points stronger.)

Those are the December poll results. We can go back to November's national polls and see the same thing.

But if we go back to October's national polls, then Clark is in trouble, because you see this historic poll from Marist College:

6. Marist, 10/03: Dean -8, Clark -19, MOE +/- 3.5. (Dean may be 11 points stronger.)

That one is well outside the margin of error in the poll, and it's historic because it's the only one to show any Democratic candidate breaking out of the margin of error pack. In this case it's Clark breaking down out of the pack.

That's why I ask for three polls. It's possible to have an outlier -- maybe even two. There have been five national polls taken already in the month of December (according to Polling Report), and they're scattered in their conclusions except that we've got a big Democratic margin-of-error blob with all the major candidates. It's certainly a reasonable request that at least three of them be consistent in showing an advantage for any candidate. (I asked for three because that would be a majority of the five national polls. Simply asking that a simple majority reflect the argument made.)

So, once again, to quote the great Wendy's ad: where's the beef? If you're going to make an argument that Clark is so much more scary competitive against Bush, show us the data. Because one certain fact we do know is that Clark will have far less money to spend beating Bush than Dean will. Clark decided he'd remain handicapped by spending limits. Dean opted out.

We also know for certain that Clark has no experience running for any elected office, and we hope (pray?) that he'll have the top flight campaign skills needed to win the top elected office in the country. Many of us are certainly skeptical.

Like I said, if you're going to get my attention, or that of any other Dean supporters, show us the data. Otherwise, find another argument, hopefully one based on facts and evidence.

[Jerseycoa]

21. Would this be true as well?

1. Gallup 12/15-12/16: Dean -23 to Bush, Clark -16 to Bush. MOE +/- 4. (Clark may be 7 points stronger.)

2. NBC/Wall Street Journal, 12/14: Dean -21, Clark -25, MOE +/- 4.3. (Dean may be 4 points weaker..)

3. NBC/Wall Street Journal, 12/13: Dean -12, Clark -16, MOE +/- 4.3. (Dean may be 4 points weaker..)

4. Newsweek, 12/11-12/12: Dean -7, Clark -6, MOE +/- 4. (Clark may be 1 point weaker..)

5. Quinnipiac, 12/4-12/8: Dean -11, Clark -9, MOE +/- 3. (Clark may be 2 points weaker.)

Those are the December poll results. We can go back to November's national polls and see the same thing.

But if we go back to October's national polls, then Clark is in trouble, because you see this historic poll from Marist College:

6. Marist, 10/03: Dean -8, Clark -19, MOE +/- 3.5. (Dean may be 11 points weaker.)



Answer: We do not know.

[maxr4clark]

22. Time goes forward not backward

...and Clark only entered the race in October, so poll results from that month are neither representative nor relevant.

Regarding the two supposedly separate NBC News/WSJ polls, thank you for bringing them to my attention. I am still having trouble finding the data on Clark vs. Bush on the Web to verify your claims, I can only assume that you get the WSJ delivered, which I do not.

Those are two halves of a single poll, with a total of about 1000 people; the total poll has an MOE of 4.3%, similar to the other polls which also included about 1000 people. The poll was split because of the news regarding Saddam Hussein's capture, which occurred during the polling period. Each half of the poll should have an MOE of 6.1%, however since the results are the same I see no reason to keep them separate; this is therefore one poll, with Dean showing better than Clark against Bush at the MOE of 4%. At least, I'll agree to that when I get to see the Clark v. Bush numbers from the source. But for now, you get the benefit of the doubt.

There is therefore evidence from three polls that together gives a 99% confidence that Clark does better than Dean, and evidence from one poll that Dean does better than Clark at a 95% confidence level. To me, that is plenty of justification to claim, in a forum like the DU, that there is evidence Dean doesn't match up well against Bush. You also have evidence you can cite to the contrary.

And then there are the other two independent lines of evidence, which you didn't mention at all. Even in the absence of poll data, or in the presence of contradictory poll data, those two lines of evidence would be sufficient for a formal discussion forum.