Results of this morning's Unofficial DU '08 Straw Poll

[smoogatz]

Methodology: Poll was posted at 10:24 a.m., central time in GD. The likely top ten prospective candidates were listed alphabetically, without comment. They were: Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Richardson and Mark Warner.
Response: 158 DUers responded--a statistically significant cross-section of DU.

Results: Gore wins in a squeaker, with 51 votes, or 32% of the total votes cast. Not surprisingly, Clark finishes a strong second with 46 votes, or 29%. Russ Feingold, whose MTP appearance this morning was apparently a success, finished third with 30 votes, or 19%. Edwards (10 votes, 6%), Warner (8 votes, 5%), Kerry (7 votes, 4%) and Clinton (4 votes, 3%) split the remainder, with Bayh and Richardson picking up a single vote each.

Analysis: DU still loves Al Gore, though not quite as much as it did a couple of weeks ago (I did pretty much the same poll a while back, with Gore finishing in the high 40s). Clark's support base at DU is also still strong--no surprise there. The positive surprise might just be Feingold, who seems to be channeling the DU zeitgeist--but is viewed by at least some DUers as unelectable. Warner has also picked up a few votes since last time: he's the best-known political dark horse since, well, John Kerry. The negative surprise is John Kerry: DUers at large are in no mood for 2004 redux, apparently--despite the urgings of Kerry's very vocal band of DU loyalists.

This morning's poll is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1503083&mesg_id=1503083

[blm]

1. Or a bunch of us weren't around earlier and maybe other DUers aren't

as keen on open government and anti-corruption as the CONSISTENT proKerry voices.

We all have our priorities for what we feel is important, and are attracted to different aspects.

Anti-corruption, open government Democrats prefer Kerry.

I say every one have your preference, let them all run, and see who has the chops to carry off the campaign and the debates.

But the person who will DESERVE TO WIN will be the only who CAN win the general election - and that is the Dem who works to expose machine fraud and works with the DNC to secure the machines BEFORE the vote.

Where do any of them stand on that TODAY? I know ....... do you?

[smoogatz]

3. Update: Kerry gets 9th vote.

A regular groundswell.

[blm]

5. Voting machine fraud - What are you all gonna do about it when

your preference doesn't believe it or isn't interested in pursuing it as an issue?

[JNelson6563]

23. Well, I suppose we could concede

before the votes are officially tallied and blow an excellent opportunity to shine a bright light on possible fraud. How's that for a plan?

:toast:

[Ferret Annica]

17. I support Kerry too

I want him to get the nomination again in 2008.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. I didn't see that poll,

and I'm a Kerry supporter, as well. He has been consistently on our side for decades.

[sendero]

9. Kerry missed...

.. his once in a lifetime chance to step up and do something about election fraud, and go down in history for doing so.

He won't ever get a chance like that again, you can bet on that.

[blm]

14. Machine fraud has to be dealt with BEFORE an election - after is too late.

Can you name ANY of the probable candidates working on machine fraud NOW?

[sendero]

20. No...

... but I can say that Kerry TALKED like he had the situation in hand, and I believed him.

I didn't say nobody else would never get a historic chance to do something, I just said KERRY BLEW HIS CHANCE. You can argue until hell freezes over, but that is a FACT.

[blm]

21. The DNC blew it for him by believing they had a handle on election fraud

when they weren't even close.

The weak Dem infrastructure in crucial states loost BOTH 2000 and 2004 while the candidates themselves won. Had that party infrastructure been been stronger, the legal fraud that was going on even BEFORE Kerry was the nominee would have been prevented.

[sendero]

22. Nonsense..

.. I keep hearing that DNC excuse, it's ridiculous. It was KERRY's election, it was KERRY's responsibility. This old "the party shoulda done it" is weak.

Leaders know where the weaknesses are and deal with it. Kerry isn't a leader.

[blm]

25. So a nominee is supposed to handle the head of DNC's job, too, BESIDES

campaigning every day for the presidency?

Because that REALLY bodes poorly for us, since the nominee isn't even KNOWN until early that election year.

You think that the DNC should NOT be working to strengthen the party infrastructure and to prevent election fraud throughout the 4 years they are given to do exactly that?

The Dem party nominee shouldn't even HAVE To add the worry about secure elections to his plate - the Dem party is supposed to be in charge of securing Dem votes for ALL CANDIDATES, not just the top of the ticket who isn't even KNOWN until 6 months before the election.

I hope for democracy's sake that you are not advising the DNC at this point.

[sendero]

26. I hope..

... for the Dem's party's sake we don't nominate another person who is more worried about his image in future elections than in doing anything now that might offend the right wing noise machine.

As for the DNC, Dr. Dean is DOING SOMETHING about the sorry state of the Dem party overall, and I for one am sure his efforts will pay off, but not necessarily in the near term. Frankly, having control of Congress is 50 times more useful than having the executive, and that is what the DNC is working towards.

[blm]

27. And you just made my point - What Dean does today effects EVERY ELECTION

and especially the 08 cycle for the entire ticket.

And Kerry conceding had NOTHING To do with image and EVERYTHING to do with the LEGAL EVIDENCE IN HAND.

If you absorbed the SERIOUS articles written about that day you would have understood that by now.

[sendero]

28. If he didn't have the evidence in hand..

...its because he didn't set up any system for gathering that evidence.

How could he have POSSIBLY known about the "evidence" the night of the election when he conceded? Absurd. Revisionist. And I could care less about reading 500 puff-apologist pieces that carry about about as much truth as a right wing think tank screed.

I've read a few, they all make me laugh. Full of facts, devoid of truth.

[blm]

29. Kennedy's piece was devoid of truth - - OK - - that's YOUR take - -

And I do hope you are NOT advising the Dem party today.

[sendero]

30. And after the 2004 campaign.

.... I'm glad Kerry isn't either.

[blm]

31. Kerry WON all his matchups - the DNC did NOT - they failed MISERABLY

and I am glad Terry MacAuliffe is no longer there.

[sendero]

32. Bwwwwaaahahhaaha...

.....hahahahahh!

[blm]

33. Laugh all you want - - but, bottom line is that the RNC kept Bush in power

through all their chicanery. Bush, himself, was bested at every man to man matchup he had with Kerry.

DNC couldn't even do the job they were given for FOUR YEARS. If you think it's the nominee's job to secure voting access and prevent fraud, then you don't understand the purpose of the party infrastructure or how Dems are expected to participate on election boards.

Party infrastructure doesn't occur AFTER a nominee comes forth. Your argument against Kerry doesn't hold water.

[doc mercer]

2. Poll

and look for Feingold to continue to pick up support ... he is saying what folks want to hear

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. He will never get the nomination

How many times has he been married? And he is Jewish.

The swift boaters will easily destroy his candidacy.

[Sugarcoated]

11. Oh, baloney

The Rethugs have several divorcees, and messy ones. And anyone who wouldn't vote for a Jewish man wouldn't vote for a Democrat, anyway. The RW is begging a black woman to run, for Chrissake! Let's stop over-thinking it. We need to have the cohones to go for the right guy. Anyone we run will get the smear job - Feingold is proving himself excellent, so far, at deflecting it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. The rethugs are untouchable

Just think about it. They managed to get an AWOL deserter elected over a war hero.

They will crucify Feingold. And they will most likely get away with it.

[Sugarcoated]

13. Whaaaat?

Again I say, baloney. Don't believe THAT for a SECOND! :rofl:

[blm]

6. And he's been such a good voter all these years...and NOW he's finally

speaking up and taking on battles. I even wish for him to take on MORE battles with his newfound voice and fighting spirit.

I only wish he hadn't waited so long to step up when so many battles were being fought.

[ruggerson]

8. Does your poll have a paper ballot trail?

Otherwise, it's useless. No point in doing any more polls until Skinner fixes this problem.

[Thickasabrick]

10. Gore insists he's not going to run so I'd be curious to see a poll

without Gore - to get a better idea of where those votes would go.

[juajen]

15. I'm sorry I didn't get to vote for Hillary

N/T

[TahitiNut]

16. "Statistical" claptrap.

One can neither conclude that the answers given by 158 self-selected members of DU represent or don't represent the opinion of DU as a whole (whatever that might mean). Using the rhetoric of "a statistically significant cross-section of DU" doesn't change this. The "significance" of a number polled has meaning when the sample selection from a larger population has no correlation to the question being polled. That cannot be assured when the 'sample' is chosen through self-selection. Kucinich supporters, for example, might be more prone to ignoring such a poll.

The only conclusion one can validly draw from such a poll is that the result represents the choices only of those who answered the poll ... just like an election! (Yes, our elections cannot be validly claimed to match the actual opinions of the entire electorate - only those who vote.)

[smoogatz]

18. Well, duh.

What online poll isn't self-selecting? Jeebus.

[Rowdyboy]

19. Interesting. I seriously wonder how it would break down if Gore was left

off. Unlike many folks here, I tend to believe Al when he says he's through with politics. A man can only take being kicked in the stomach so many times.

My guess would be that Edwards, Clark, Warner and Feingold would benefit- in that order.

I think the race will eventually be Warner, Clinton, Feingold and Edwards. Who wins is anybody's guess.

[JNelson6563]

24. Wow!

Imagine if Gore people had "called out the troops" to actually pack the poll! It woulda been a slaughter!

:toast: