A note on Kerry's surge in state polls...

[Nazgul35]

Everyone here should consider a point that must be raised....

In all the mini-Tuesday states, Kerry was trailing badly. Now he is leading in five of the seven. In Michigan, Kerry was below 5% in the poll before Iowa, now he is at 36%, virtually swapping places with Dean.

How many here really want to suggest that this surge in polls has anything to do with Kerry's message and a detailed evaluation of his policies by the body politic?

Wouldn't it be better to suggest that in fact, Kerry is surging in these polls for the sole reason that he finished first in Iowa and NH, and that what Dem voters are responding to is his status as the winning candidate? How else could you explain the turn around? I won't go so far as to suggest that it is simply name recognition...

Here is the reason I raise this question, and I feel it deserves some discussion....If we have a candidate being selected based on performance alone, than those who live by the polls will die by the polls....

This is one of the things that is killing Dean. Many of the rank and file knew Dean was ahead, he didn't win twice, the media hammered him for months, now he is struggling to maintain 15% in most states....

The support for Kerry among Dems is soft! I'd even go so far as to say very soft...and this is potential trouble for us in the general. I have been through enough elections now to know what is coming from the repugs....

The shit storm that will emerge will be unprecedented in this nation's history! If Kerry falters for even a second, that support, which is based upon Dems belief that he can win, will evaporate!

So I would like everyone here to consider for a moment, just how much of this support for the front runner will be maintained and what possible repug/media slams will make it evaporate by next November....

This election isn't going to be fought over policy positions, but sound bites and appearances.....here are my fears:

1) Kerry's position re: the Vietnam War can be used as a negative, there are still many voters today who saw the anti-war movement as traitorous...

2) The South: they are already using the "more liberal than Ted Kennedy" meme and a NE Liberal will not play well in the south (Poli-sci studies have shown VP selection is not as important as Pres. selection re: region)

3) Guns: Goodbye WVa and Penn! Nobody cares if he hunts when he supports gun controls

4) His Performance: Yes he has the fire in the belly, but other candidates put it there, when they are gone, it will be gone from him. He still has long winded responses that he needs to trim down and put some punch in. He also needs to go for the jugular! Many of his positions over the last three years have excluded him from exploiting those very positions on which the Bush regime is vulnerable. His most recent blame the intelligence community stance has actually let Bush off the hook...

Please feel free to add or discount what I have raised. Try and keep it civil people. This is a very serious concern and one that should be disscussed...

[Demeter]

1. I Have the Same Nightmares

There isn't a good reason to support Kerry over any other candidate other than his early lead. If anything happens, he's toast. It's not like he stands for anything in particular.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

2. I've come to the conclusion that everyone's support is soft.

(Outside of the hardcore supporters I mean) You said it yourself, the polls are shifting wildly. Also look at how much shrub's support has dwindled, not just general approval rating, but specific topics such as war and economy.

However, I think we have one thing going for us that shrub doesn't have. People are itching for a change. You don't lose 3 million jobs (while talking up the economy), and get caught in a lie (WMD's anyone?) for too long before people start catching on that perhaps it's time for a change.

The love affair with Bush is over. It's kind of like a dating relationship... once things sour it's hard to recover. Proposals that might have endeared him in the past (Mars, marriage initiative, etc.) smacks of desperation to an increasingly jaded public. The further Bush pushes, the more the perception of pandering.

I actually think the 200 million war chest may leave him overexposed. How many ads (and news coverage) before people get tired of his smirking face? Ads can only sway people so much, the media can only sway people so much. When it comes to voting on an incumbant it generally comes down to one thing. Do you want change, or more of the same?

The first couple of years the public tolerated more because of nationalism around 9/11.. but time and overexposure have dimmed that effect. Now your average joe voter is looking at their own situation and saying, do I want more of this?

And as the polls show, the public is increasingly saying "No".

It doesn't matter so much who we put forth as far as electability, Bush's own record will beat him.

That's just my 2 cents. Flame away!

[mbee]

5. Kerry is a dull candidate when we could have had a true winner

in Al Gore. Dean is really the best candidate of those running in my opinion. The DNC/DLC must want Bush to win so Hillary can take over in 2008. I will never vote for her and I think she will never be President! I don't want these elites choosing who can and cannot run. If we aren't Democratic we should change the name to the Elite Party!

[Nazgul35]

6. I won't flame ya...

And I am hoping that you are right! I've just seen too many of these things go pear shaped!

That is not to say that the voter of Iowa and NH didn't get a good look at the Dem candidates, but the rest of the states can't make this claim....

Kerry's jump in Michigan cam without a single ad running!

This kind of media driven pollabilty makes me nervous, as the manipulation of the media over the last 12 years has shown that things are volitile!

I actually want the race to stretch out longer, especially through the swing states. We haven't had this much free publicity since Clinton's penis! The longer the Dems carry on the debate, the more chimpy will sink in the polls...

[nancyharris]

3. Your premise is incorrect.

<"Wouldn't it be better to suggest that in fact, Kerry is surging in these polls for the sole reason that he finished first in Iowa and NH, and that what Dem voters are responding to is his status as the winning candidate?">

In essence you are saying the Democrats in the "mini-super Tuesday" states don't vote on issues but rather blindly follow the lead of Iowa and New Hampshire. This is simply not true. The Democrats in these states are perfectly capable of looking at all of the candidates and deciding which they think (for any number of reasons) should be their party's nominee. To suggest otherwise is insulting to those who bother to participate in the election.

[joshcryer]

7. Of course it's insulting, and it's appalling that it's probably true.

Look at it this way. Kerry stragetists had been arguing for months that if Kerry didn't win those first two states, he was done, but he if did, he would win. Do you really and honestly think this is about issues? If it was, why would the two first states be "so important?"

This is a damn popularity contest, and I think it would take a lot to convince me otherwise.

[isbister]

10. You're right

It may be within the realm of possibility that Kerry's wins increase awareness about the elections and Kerry himself. Maybe, just maybe, voters are giving him a first or second look because of the attention he has earned with his wins.

[Nazgul35]

11. So you are saying...

that Kerry going from 5% in Michigan to 37% in the polls means that those 37% of voters lsitened to his speeches, and the others, watched CSPAN, looked at the literature, weighed the candidates against each other and that same Michigan voter, who like Dean at 36% to Gephardt's 18% the week prior to Iowa were responding to Kerry's better message?

I don't think that you are really being fair. Rather than discuss this you have chosen to paint me as being anti-voter. I would point out, however, that political science research about voters' level of knowledge of politicans' positions as horrendous, and that they respond exactly to the things I layed out in my orginal post....

Does this mean that voters are ignorant? No! Does it mean they are lazy? I don't know! Does it mean that they respond to perceived strengths and weaknesses in the candidates and that the media and campaign ads have alot to do with this perception....

[nancyharris]

22. Polls ask the question

“If the election were held today….” When people in Michigan were polled 4 weeks ago 38 % did indeed respond positively to Dean. But 4 weeks out from an election MOST people do not give it any serious consideration. As the election date draws near they take a closer look. Apparently, upon closer inspection they feel that “If the election were held today…” they would vote for someone other than Dean.

That’s the way elections work! That’s WHY we have elections rather than polls.

<” Does this mean that voters are ignorant? No! Does it mean they are lazy? I don't know!”>

The Democrats in Michigan (or any other state) are not ignorant NOR are they lazy. They evaluate a candidate just like you or I.

And YES – it is insulting to insinuate otherwise!

[Nazgul35]

26. please...

you have taken the time to focus in on a percieved bias that is not present anywhere in any of my posts while not responding to the larger question that I asked about how we avoid having a candidate who has vulnerabilities that can be exploited by the repugs....

And if you honestly think that voters are informed when it comes to politics in the United States, than perhaps you will explain to me why 70% of our fellow citizens believe that Sadam was involved in 9-11?

To say that the voters are uniformed is not the same thing as saying they are stupid!!! But rather than address the point of what is causing this misinformation and may in fact be a major problem for our party in the fall....

please continue to lecture me about what you think I am insinuating, even though it is unfounded by anything I have posted in this thread...

I would also invite you to check out the American Political Science Review, The Journal of Politics and the American Journal of Political Science with regards to what the voters know and what how they make decisions on who to vote for.

Another good book would be Campbell's American Voter (a Classic) which lays out the psychological reasons behind voting.

[nancyharris]

37. Perhaps you don’t bother to read your own posts.

You asked the question:
<”How many here really want to suggest that this surge in polls has anything to do with Kerry's message and a detailed evaluation of his policies by the body politic?”>

And it is to that exact point that I responded. Yes, most of the Democratic voters in the 2 states did indeed respond to Kerry’s message, evaluated his policies and decided (for those and many other reasons) to vote for Kerry over the other opponents. You may not like that fact and it would be oh so much more convenient if you could describe the Democratic voters as “lazy” or “sheeple” but it simply is not the case. Democratic voters, especially those that vote in primaries take their vote seriously. Did you watch the caucuses on CSPAN? Were these people led by the media?

<’ And if you honestly think that voters are informed when it comes to politics in the United States, than perhaps you will explain to me why 70% of our fellow citizens believe that Sadam was involved in 9-11”>

This is simply not true. Sorry, – check your facts. You have associated yourself with a belief out of convenience – think critically.

<”But rather than address the point of what is causing this misinformation”>

Here is where your thinking really falls apart. Why do you think that the negative media portrayal if Governor Dean is “misinformation”? Perhaps most of it is right on the mark and you are just incapable of seeing that. You personal bias clouds your ability to think critically and honestly of the candidate you support.

Campbell's book “American Voter” is indeed an interesting book but its view of the American political landscape is antiquated. It was written before the days of the Internet and 24 hour cable news services that offer a multitude of ways for candidates to deliver their message to the public. If fact little of what the authors say has relevance in today’s politics.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. What is means

is that the average voter using a different method of choosing who to voter for than you do.

[krkaufman]

29. No chance in that little time

> The Democrats in these states are perfectly capable
> of looking at all of the candidates and deciding
> which they think

Not if they don't get to see them. And that's the point of the original post. The polls swung without and change in exposure to the candidates or their respective messages.

And with just 1 week between New Hampshire and "mini Tuesday", it's very likely that a lot of the voters still won't have a clue who's even running -- except for what they see on mainstream news (Kerry, Kerry and more Kerry, and nothing about the issues).

[nancyharris]

39. That’s nonsense

<” Not if they don't get to see them. And that's the point of the original post. The polls swung without and change in exposure to the candidates or their respective messages.”>

In the weeks before the Iowa caucuses and in the week before the New Hampshire primary all of the candidates were campaigning in those states non-stop. Most had upwards of 20 appearances a day. They held rallies, gave speeches and were covered extensively by both the local and national media. In addition, all of the supporters had hundreds (in the case of Governor Dean) thousands of supporters writing letters, going door to door and making phone calls. Those that decided to cast their vote did so with an enormous amount of information available to them.

[joshcryer]

4. Ahh, a very reasonable and insightful post. Thank you.

It really is. When Dean was ‘leading’ we had a similar thing going on, everyone looked at precisely what the media said and goes... "Oh, Dean? Yeah, him!"

Polls are the most convluted thing in our society.

[krkaufman]

30. Ban polling from Jan - Dec

Maybe we need to ban all polling between Jan & Dec on election years?

[Leilani]

44. Best idea I've heard today!

[Old and In the Way]

8. Try this hypothesis on for size.

A vast majority of non-posting, non-DU Democrats actually have followed John Kerry's 35 year career...many of the older Democrats trust John because of his efforts to end the VietNam War. Many were waiting for his campaign to ignite, which it obviously did just before Iowa. They have looked over all the candidates and feel that John has all the attributes that make him desirable to be our nominee for President.

Pretty strange, eh?

[Nazgul35]

14. you really think...

that the majority of Americans know who John Kerry is?

Even Democrats? That anyone beyond Mass. has even followed his career?

I hope you are right. But that doesn't really address my original post, just offers an alternative hypothesis without discounting mine. Not good science.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Let's put it this way.

John Kerry, for anyone remotely interested in politics, has been on the scene for 35 years.

Edwards- 2 years, relatively unknown until this election campaign
Dean- relatively unknown until this election campaign (I live in Maine and I was only vaguely aware of him when he was governor)
Clark- became known during the Clinton years, but relatively unknown to the political word until this campaign.

Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun had more name recognition and longevity on the scene, but that isn't enough to make them serious contenders.

Liberman- has the name recognition, but no one is interested in seeing him lead us into the 2004 election.

It is no surprise to me that rank and file Democrats who know the man and his position on the issues, are clsoing ranks around him.

[edzontar]

50. VERY strange--and extremely UNLIKELY

The American populace is not among the best informed in the world as it concerns political issues.

You can be sure that MOST of the voters have not heard of Kerry until recently, and only became "supporters" (and I use that word in the thinnest possible sense) after he began to win last month.

The true horror is that THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHO THIS GUY IS......the reason Dean has high negatives is because he is STILL the big media story in the race...and it is almost ALL attack, attack, attack....

When Kerry comes fully into focus, his support will drop likle an anvil.

I know, I am from MASS and have followed his career from the beginning.

Kerry has a history of close campaigns and near disasters in a very Democratic state.....he is frequently terrible on the stump, is boring, and has a record so incoherent and conflcited that it makes Dean's supposed "flip-flops" look like the NOTHING that they are.

If Kerry is the nomineee, look to historic, catastrophic losses--across the board.

This could very well be the death of our party.

[KC21304]

9. I will try to keep it very civil, even after reading that Kerry doesn't

really stand for anything. How did Kerry win Iowa ? Dean was in the lead. At some point a number of people thought that Kerry could beat Bush and that means they saw something in Dean that made them hesitant to go with him. Saying Kerry is only ahead because he won the last one, doesn't explain how he won the first one.

[eyeswideopened]

33. I fear you are right

I hope not ... but I was really hoping for a stronger fighter as a contender. Right now he is not feeling the heat ... I hope he can fight off the republicans and the media when the time comes...I hope he demands a lot of one on one debates with Bush. I think he might be able to confuse Bush and get him to fumble in this arena.

[On the Road]

12. Well, We've Found Out How Much of Dean's Support was Soft

For weeks, I thought that Dean had teflon because his support seemed immune to attacks. The cumulative effect eventually killed him.

We'll see how well Kerry does. It is important to the party that he have more support than Dean did, or he'll end up as much of a caricature as Dean.

[DJcairo]

13. This is the way primary elections work....however,

there is another reason Kerry has become popular in these states. His demeanor, temperment and look of a president, not to mention is thought out policies and strong debate performance have allowed him to quickly turn his wins in Iowa and NH into a national bounce.

[Nazgul35]

16. true...

and I take nothing away from his wins in Iowa and NH. But to consider that his support in other states is based on any of this is not a stronger conclusion, I Believe, than the one I have reached. Based on what we know about public opinion, the evidence is actually on my side in this....

But my point was that this means that support could be soft, and what do we do to make sure it doesn't go up in a puff of smoke next FAll...

I raised some concerns which will factor into his performance in the Fall, should he be the nominee...these will need to be addressed or his support will quickly erode.

Another point. I myself discussed this affect and how important winning Iowa and NH would be for Dean, so I knew than what would be going on, and it is what's going on for Kerry...

Don't believe me....go out into public, ask Dems who they support for the nomination, than ask them why.....enjoy the responses...

I did not suggest that any other candidate's support would be any firmer, so we can stop that line of argument right now....

My concern is what to do in the General election to harden up that support for the eventual nominee....

[poskonig]

15. That's the point of winning NH and Iowa.

It should be common sense, but people here argue against it like the notion is crazy or something.

Winning NH and Iowa gives people 50-100 million in free coverage, winners questions from the media, "frontrunner" status, and a big boost in fundraising.

[Nazgul35]

17. which is not the point I am arguing.

Again.

I am suggesting that his support is soft.

As would have been anyone's.

My question had to do with his potential problems that could cause that support to soften up for the general election....

No one has addressed that yet, and I fear, no one really wants too!

PS: you have the honor of my 1,000 post...

woohoo.

[poskonig]

20. I'm myself a "soft" Kerry voter.

It is conceivable I may switch my vote to Edwards, Clark, or back to Dean. I switched to Dean a week before Iowa.

However, I'm surely not going to be voting Bush in November, and I'm not sure how one could suggest otherwise for similar voters. The large turnout in the primaries are an auspicious sign.

While Bush is the brainless scarecrow, and Cheney is a heartless tinman, the Democratic party, afraid of its own shadow, has become the cowardly lion.

The Gore + Nader voters in 2000 outnumber the Bushkeviks by 2.5 MILLION. We poll better than Bush on all of the issues expect defense, and even that is narrowing. Bush is running on bodybags and three years of job losses. There is no reason to be the cowardly lion.

[Nazgul35]

21. Yes....

and thank you for responding to my original question.

I do believe Dems are pissed off. But they were pissed off in 1984. They were pissed off in 1992 and Clinton squeeked out a win....

This election is going to close and down to the wire...that I certainly know for sure. What I want to think about is how we can minimize Kerry's possible weaknesses while heightening Bush's in a climate where the repugs control the media....

It's going to be tough and require a considerable amount of effort on our part. I personally think the biggest problem is the NE Liberal. No VP pick is going to help Kerry in the South over this and we can not afford to surrened the South...we must make the repugs fight everywhere!

I have been thinking that Max Cleland would be an excellent VP pick and the ultimate FU to the Bush admin.....but will that help in the south? I don't know!

I do think the eventual nominee needs to take up Dean and Edwards tack -- what the repugs will call class warfare, after the last three years it is going to be hard for repugs to say they are not helping the rich at the expense on the middle class and the poor....

[poskonig]

23. I thought you said issues didn't matter.

Now you're saying Kerry is going to have trouble because of issues. I'm confused! :P

[Nazgul35]

25. You think those are issues?

To me issues means things like:

The Israel-Palistine conflict...
Funding for education
The Death penalty
Tax policy and the budget
health care
the Iraq War and the war on terror...

What I listed were sound bite positions that are meant to simplfy a very complex subject by boiling it down to 25 words or less...something that Repugs are much better at than Dems.....and Kerry is not known for his ability to be short winded...

[krkaufman]

31. E X A C T L Y... War is on, but only one side's been fightin

E X A C T L Y... The Class War has been ongoing for some time, but only one side's been fighting. It's time for the people to fight back.

[Old and In the Way]

35. I see Kerry's support building momentum.

Perhaps it's wide and not deep today. But Dean's situation is the opposite- it is deep, but narrow. I think Kerry easily has the ability, over time, to deepen his support.

I have no idea why you'd think his support would "soften" in the GE. Where is this support going to go? Bush? Nader? If he wins, I think you'll see a man that will energize the entire Party and convince a strong majority of independents to vote for him. Hell, I think a sizable chuck of Republicans will vote for him (see NH write -in results).

I mean Kerry vs. Bush....it's no contest.

[TruthIsAll]

36. No, Bush's support is soft. ABB is getting hard like a rock..

Let the Repugs and the Mediajerks go after Kerry.

Been there. Done that. They savaged Gore. ABB will not let it happen again.

Bring on the mediawhores. Bring on Rove.

Kerry served in Nam. He has fire in his belly. I would prefer Clark, but Kerry will be very strong. His support will grow as more and more people compare him to the AWOL creep in the WH. No comparison.

Bush is Toast. Even Diebold can't save him.

[ScreamingMeemie]

18. A lot of votes in Michigan were cast before the New Hampshire

primary...it will be interesting for sure. :hi:

And on edit: Why don't those pollsters every call me??? sniffle.

[Nazgul35]

19. lol...

you are right there!

What would be an even more interesting scenario would be that if Kerry does win five of seven states Tuesday, turnout will be low as everyone will believe that the race is over.

Many of the Dean and Clark supporters have already voted online. Kerry could come in third because of low turnout. Also, the usual election sites have moved, I sure hope someone is telling Kerry voters where to go...

I have already voted. As has many of the Dean volunteers. Plus, Repugs are pissed at what Dems did to Bush re: McCain in 2000 and may come out to vote for the alternative to Kerry.....it will continue to be interesting...

[adadem]

41. Many, many Kerry

supporters have already voted, too! Thousands sent from Vets and Fire fighters, don't forget that Michigan has the 4th largest Veterans Home in the US...and vote by mail/internet registration forms were delivered to them. Plus we have Granholm, Cherry and S. Levin... The MEA and other unions in MI. Our calls to remind folks of their caucus sites are highly positive toward the Senator.

Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

[Ugnmoose]

24. Kerry's baggage is exploitable

And I totally agree with your thinking. I'm deathly afraid that if Kerry is nominated all of this is going to come back and haunt him. He might still win, but it will only be for the fact that so many people including many independents and even some Repukes abhor Bush.

[maxr4clark]

27. This is my worry about Kerry, too.

Getting chosen among the Democrats is one thing; getting elected running against Bush is another. Kerry has more exploitable baggage than any other candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. All of the candidates have baggage that is exploitable

There are no saints in politics.

[maxr4clark]

28. Where has our belief in democracy gone?

One thing we should all admire about those who support Dennis Kucinich is that they are supporting him for the right reason: because they believe in his message, and believe he would make our country better.

I believe in Clark the same way, and when I get my chance on Feb 7, I'm going to vote for him. He has every characteristic I look for in a President. AND I think he has the best profile to run against Bush in the general election--but I'm voting for him because of who he is, not as the answer to Bush, and not because of where he places in the polls.

The morning after election day, I will know that whether the Democrat wins or loses, I will have done my part to elect him.

[krkaufman]

32. I'm w/ ya, maxr4clark n/t

[TheDonkey]

38. Remember when Dean was polling @ 1% and surged?

After it was known he raised an impressive amount of money.
There is a reason more complex than just saying, "o sheeple... blah blah blah".

Kerry (like Dean before) now is getting
+more media coverage
+more time in the spotlight of people's minds
+more money
+more legitimacy

All this comes from him winning IO and NH. It's not a simple as him just "winning" the states as a domino effect but states that wrote him off are definetly starting to look at him again. Remember the undecideds were and still are quite high.

As for those points as JK's weakness... uh no. Gore won (takes out 3 & 4. 2, America is not just the south and southerners are not that dumb to JUST vote for whoever lived there at one time.
And for point 1.... no? The frindge right who hate the anti-war movement are out there but so is the nazi-sympothy vote, should we cater to them?

[John_H]

42. If Kerry falters ...that support, which is based upon Dems...

belief that he can win, will evaporate!" This is why the media is ignoring Clark. We need to wake up and nominate the candidate they really fear. " It just can't be any more obvious.

[progressivebydesign]

43. Good points in there..

I was thinking about Kerry today. I'm not particularly anti-Kerry, or really anti-any candidate right now. I have my candidate, and will stick with him until he either wins or drops out.

Kerry's surge in the polls. Hmmmm. My thought is that people like the idea of Kerry, like his photos, like the fact that he's won two contests (out of 50, but America has a short attention span). I really have gotten no feeling from reading any exit polls, or any other analysis, that Kerry is being supported for more than his perceived ability to defeat Bush.. or his electability. It doesn't seem to be his message, particularly. If you asked those people that decided to vote for him, most could not tell you.. they'd tell you that he looks presidential, he has a presidential demeanor, that he has military experience so he'll be good against Bush.

The true test of Kerry, if he gets the nomination, will be the general election. Then, those who chose him at the last minute in the primaries, based on sound bites and polls, will find out who they chose. The supporters of other candidates seem to really have a strong feeling about the message that candidate is offering, for the most part, rather than their electability.

This concept worries me. I worry that we are choosing the nominee, American Idol style.. but that's the American way now. Style over substance. Polls win elections. I'm worried.

[Andromeda]

45. Kerry got lucky because he got...

Gephardt's and some of Kucinich's supporters going into Iowa and that put him way over the top. I think it was planned that way. I think Gep knew he wouldn't win, Kucinich knew he, himself, didn't have a prayer so he threw his support to Edwards and what was left over went to Kerry.

After Kerry won in Iowa voters perceived him as a winner, thus made it easier for him to win in NH. Kerry didn't suddenly have an epiphany that opened doors for him and made him rise in the polls. It was the sheeple who were hypnotized into thinking Kerry was the most "electable" because he's a Senator, Vietnam vet, etc. Whatever the reasons, it worked.

I do believe Kerry's support is soft now but it may strengthen if he doesn't get hammered with any negative publicity like Dean did with the "anger" meme or the "scream" non-story. Kerry may have a few diehards who would jump off a cliff for him but I would venture to say that most people aren't that impassioned with Kerry and I can understand why. He doesn't have one piece of legislation that is in his name. His record is thin even though he supposedly has been a legislator for many years. He loves to tell people he is a Vietnam Vet which is good but he has to have more going for him than that. He's a long-winded, bombastic politician with a patrician air and he lacks charisma and personal magnetism.

Kerry is just too "establishment." He's pretending to be just one of us and it just doesn't fly.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. How many of Gepahrdt's and Kucinich's supporters did he get in Iowa?

I am rather sceptical of this, especially of the Kucinich supporters. The entrance polls showed the four top finishers with close to 100%, meaning that there weren't that many that went in supporting DK, Sharpton, Lieberman, or Clark.

[markus]

47. Kerry is comfort food for anxious Democrats

He is not a strong candidate for the reasons already outlined above and elsewhere by me.

He's a poster child for good old fashioned patrician liberalism gonna come and save all us poor working folks.

He's going to be incredibly vulnerable in ways Dean would never be: guns first and foremost. Fundraising and special interests are another. How the hell is he going to go after Bush effectively on this one? Rove will turn that message if 48 hours, and it will be off the menu.

More liberal than Ted Kennedy. Mike Dukkakis' Lt. Gov. That about sums it up. There is no way he will run in the South outside of Florida, becuase he is doomed there.

Many Dean supporters didn't scrutinize his record closely, either. They were not deeply committed, and peeled away quickly. But I believe they are Dean's to recapture.

Dean has middle american values. He balaces state budgets. He appoints tough on crime judges. He's gets the NRA's endorsment eight times.

He also provides health care for virtually anyone in Vermont who can't get it through work or Medicare/Medicaid. He works to create jobs (in a gubernatorial sort of way for which he was attacked here and elsewhere, but in exactly the same way every other Democratic--and Republican--governor goes about it, sucking up to industry. He didn't make those rules, he just played by them effectively).

Dean should stay in the race because, on close scrutinty, he is the better candidate. That's his gamble on the field, and that's where I'm putting my money for now.

I'll support anybody (even Clark). Lieberman would be a stretch, but he has not hope of getting the nomination unless all of the other candidaes are killed at a debate he misses.

[Shanty Oilish]

48. If you're right about the volatility

it means people are paying attention, and if they are, they could also be thinking for themselves.
The Dem candidates are in a race. It's getting coverage. That's good!

Have you seen Bush's numbers recently? They're down.