Des Moines Register Dem. Presidential Poll

[Heads22]

For democrat presidential candidates

 

1. John Edwards

2. Hillary Clinton

3. John Kerry

4. Tom Vilsack

 

Nice to see my guy out in front.

[Gregory Pratt]

Oh, my. IMO, that's awful.

 

Awful because I dislike Edwards and Kerry. I'm surprised that those two losers are doing so well, and I'm disappointed that people are following Clinton, too.

 

Go Vilsack, and Warner, and Gore!

[Heads22]

I think he's the best chance the dems might have. Too many people wouldn't vote for Hillary because a. she's a woman and b. she rubs a lot of people wrong.

[whitesoxfan101]

Hilary and Kerry would not be able to win. Edwards is BY FAR the best candidate in terms of ability to win for the Dems, so democrats should hope that the trend in this poll is accurate nationwide among their party.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Hilary and Kerry would not be able to win. Edwards is BY FAR the best candidate in terms of ability to win for the Dems, so democrats should hope that the trend in this poll is accurate nationwide among their party.

 

 

Oh I soooooooooooo hope they run a candidate who made his fortune with frivolus lawsuits against the Health Care industry. PLEASE DO IT!!!

 

That would guarantee Republican rule for at least another 4 years.

[Heads22]

Well, considering Iowa is the site of the caucus, I'd say it bodes VERY well for Edwards.

 

Also surprised Vilsack was fourth, considering Harkin crushed everyone else way back when, but I think Iowans are smart enough to realize Vilsack couldn't win on a national stage.

[whitesoxfan101]

Oh I soooooooooooo hope they run a candidate who made his fortune with frivolus lawsuits against the Health Care industry. PLEASE DO IT!!!

 

That would guarantee Republican rule for at least another 4 years.

 

Oh your definitely right that Edwards would have some issues, but he's the most electable candidate for the democrats. Kerry showed his true colors of ignorance and stupidity in the last election by losing an election to a horrible persident, and Hilary simply would never win though, so Edwards is the best option. I just hope the republican party gives me a candidate to be excited about and vote for, but I would be surprised if the democrats win this election, regardless of what candidate the republican party has. The democrats will gain a lot of power in the house and senate in upcoming votes IMO, but the party simply doesn't have much of anything in terms of candidates to become president.

[Gregory Pratt]

I think he's the best chance the dems might have. Too many people wouldn't vote for Hillary because a. she's a woman and b. she rubs a lot of people wrong.

 

I think that bit of conventional wisdom is nonsense. She's too polarizing? There's no such thing unless you're, I don't know, George McGovern or Pat Buchanan. She makes Republicans angry? Oh my, that's such a shift away from what Democrats typically do. Because, you know, Republicans want to give kisses to Walter Mondale and Al Gore.

 

As far as Hillary, I think the "she's a woman" talk goes both ways: surely women would be willing to vote for her in droves, but I'm not so sure men would vote for her. (I don't think they'd vote against her in numbers as large as some might suggest, though.) That -- the men wouldn't vote for her -- is probably the most potent opposition to her, but I think you'd be mad to say that Clinton -- whose husband was so Conservative with money -- couldn't peel off independents and moderate Righties who believe in fiscal responsibility. (Which isn't to say that I think she's as fiscally responsible as Bill: I don't. But their track record is just that, and I think that that perception of the Clinton years would work for them.)

 

Hillary bothers me, personally, because from all memoirs she's a paranoid, grumpy b**** -- Richard Nixon with ovaries, if you will.

 

Edwards is mediocre, IMO, and didn't even make a dent in Carolina. He sucked in the debates, and even on the stump. He's too sunny to be President, and I think he's about done. I think, for what it's worth, that he's very respectable, as a man, and I admire his soup kitchen work, post-2004. But President Edwards? I don't think it's happening.

[BHAMBARONS]

Well, considering Iowa is the site of the caucus, I'd say it bodes VERY well for Edwards.

 

Also surprised Vilsack was fourth, considering Harkin crushed everyone else way back when, but I think Iowans are smart enough to realize Vilsack couldn't win on a national stage.

 

 

Well I think Vilsack would win the Iowa causes like Harkin beating Clinton 14 years ago but I don't think he would win overall. He is a one of the candidates I hope the Dem's go with somebody out of the mainstream but from a good voting block like the Midwest.

[WilliamTell]

Even though I'm a Republican, I'm ashamed seeing that this list is from Iowa. 1. John Edwards-that's not bad to start out with but I don't know if I see it happening, he'd be the one Democrat on the list that I'd consider to vote for. 2. Hillary Clinton-do I even need to talk about her? 3. John Kerry-give it up, nowadays I think you only have one shot at being elected. And 4. Tom Vilsack-good gracious, he doesn't stand a chance at being the Democrat representative. At least Howard Dean wasn't on the list. I would've liked to seen Wesley Clark higher though.

[Heads22]

I'm not suggesting that he'll win or any of that, but I'm saying I'd rather have Edwards on the ballot than Hillary.

[Gregory Pratt]

Oh your definitely right that Edwards would have some issues, but he's the most electable candidate for the democrats. Kerry showed his true colors of ignorance and stupidity in the last election by losing an election to a horrible persident, and Hilary simply would never win though, so Edwards is the best option. I just hope the republican party gives me a candidate to be excited about and vote for, but I would be surprised if the democrats win this election, regardless of what candidate the republican party has. The democrats will gain a lot of power in the house and senate in upcoming votes IMO, but the party simply doesn't have much of anything in terms of candidates to become president.

 

Nah. Warner is more potent than Edwards.

 

Just because he's cute and charismatic doesn't mean that he's electable. He was on his way to defeat in Carolina as a Senator until he pulled out of the race. Edwards is a political loser, with no accomplishments in the Senate, really, and nothing that'll catch the public's eye.

 

And, as far as your saying that hte Democrats have no candidates, that's nonsense. There'll be one, and a good one. what you're saying sounds like post-1988: "we don't have much of anything in terms of candidates" and then Bill Clinton stumbles along. How soon we forget history, however, and that most of our candidates HAVE been surprise, dark horses.

[Heads22]

The list is lacking in Joe-mentum.

[whitesoxfan101]

Nah. Warner is more potent than Edwards.

 

Just because he's cute and charismatic doesn't mean that he's electable. He was on his way to defeat in Carolina as a Senator until he pulled out of the race. Edwards is a political loser, with no accomplishments in the Senate, really, and nothing that'll catch the public's eye.

 

And, as far as your saying that hte Democrats have no candidates, that's nonsense. There'll be one, and a good one. what you're saying sounds like post-1988: "we don't have much of anything in terms of candidates" and then Bill Clinton stumbles along. How soon we forget history, however, and that most of our candidates HAVE been surprise, dark horses.

 

Fair enough...although it's understandable I don't remember the Clinton stumbling along thing since I was about 5 then.

[Balta1701]

Lieberman was ahead in similar polls taken in early 2002 as well. Why? Because he was the #2 guy on the 00 ticket, and despite the fact that people who actually read the paper know who people like Feingold, Bayh, Warner, et al. are, most of the people who are sampled by large scale public polls only really know the guy who was on the ticket last time.

[Heads22]

The guy that surprised me on that list was in fifth.... Tom Daschle? honestly?

[Gregory Pratt]

Fair enough...although it's understandable I don't remember the Clinton stumbling along thing since I was about 5 then.

 

Well I was three years old.

It's called a history book!

 

And there are tons of examples of candidates just coming out of nowhere.

 

The guy that surprised me on that list was in fifth? Tom Daschle? honestly?

 

He blows.

 

Anyone who loses their state in a purely state-wide contest is a loser.

[WilliamTell]

Well I think Vilsack would win the Iowa causes like Harkin beating Clinton 14 years ago but I don't think he would win overall. He is a one of the candidates I hope the Dem's go with somebody out of the mainstream but from a good voting block like the Midwest.

 

I'm sure Vilsack will have a very good showing in Iowa. But in the past, there hasn't been a great percentage of candidates who won Iowa thave have gone on to win the nomination for the parties. I think both Bush and Gore in 2000 did, along with Kerry in 2004 though.

[NorthSideSox72]

This poll is too early. Edwards, Kerry and Clinton are 1-2-3 because they have already campaigned in Iowa (Edwards anf Kerry in 2004). They are known commodities. People like Bayh, Warner, and even Richarson (not in the poll) will do a lot better when/if they start advertising and doing appearances. This poll, at this stage, is a 2004 popularity holdover.

 

And I really don't think Vilsack has a chance outside Iowa.

[BHAMBARONS]

This poll is too early. Edwards, Kerry and Clinton are 1-2-3 because they have already campaigned in Iowa (Edwards anf Kerry in 2004). They are known commodities. People like Bayh, Warner, and even Richarson (not in the poll) will do a lot better when/if they start advertising and doing appearances. This poll, at this stage, is a 2004 popularity holdover.

 

And I really don't think Vilsack has a chance outside Iowa.

 

He doesn't I like guys like Richardson, Warner and Bahy guys out of the national spot light but still have a name known by most people. I also think that the voting block is key those guys they are very popular in there states which are normally Red states in which any state could be the difference in a election.

[Gregory Pratt]

He doesn't I like guys like Richardson, Warner and Bahy guys out of the national spot light but still have a name known by most people. I also think that the voting block is key those guys they are very popular in there states which are normally Red states in which any state could be the difference in a election.

 

Vilsack has as much of a chance as Bayh or Richardson, for sure.

Warner is a stronger candidate on the surface than any of those, though.

 

But if the Democrats could take Indiana or Virginia, you're right, it would probably be a deathblow to the 2008 Republican candidate.

 

That's moot, however, as the likelihood of it occurring with Bayh is minimal, and I don't really think that Warner is likely to win the nomination but, if he does, it's a good omen for Democrats.

[NorthSideSox72]

Vilsack has as much of a chance as Bayh or Richardson, for sure.

Bayh has a much better chance than either Vilsack or Richardson. National polls I have seen show Bayh as 3rd or 4th, and Vilsack and Richardson are nowhere to be seen.

[Gregory Pratt]

Bayh has a much better chance than either Vilsack or Richardson. National polls I have seen show Bayh as 3rd or 4th, and Vilsack and Richardson are nowhere to be seen.

 

Clearly you don't know politics.

 

Using 1992 as an example, Paul Tsongas was polling better than Bill Clinton because Clinton dodged the draft, had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers, and was the Governor of a "small state". Clinton went on to win the Presidency, even though he was a little known candidate.

 

We could go all through history with this: James K. Polk. Jimmy Carter, for two other examples.

 

Just because people are unknown pre-Presidential race doesn't mean a damn thing.

 

I am confident enough to say that Muskie couldn't have won where Carter did, Tsongas would fail where Clinton didn't.

 

I like Bayh. Very much. But Presidential races are long, grueling affairs, and being unknown isn't that much of a handicap. Certainly not in climates like today's which are conductive to newer faces.

[BHAMBARONS]

Clearly you don't know politics.

 

Using 1992 as an example, Paul Tsongas was polling better than Bill Clinton because Clinton dodged the draft, had sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers, and was the Governor of a "small state". Clinton went on to win the Presidency, even though he was a little known candidate.

 

We could go all through history with this: James K. Polk. Jimmy Carter, for two other examples.

 

Just because people are unknown pre-Presidential race doesn't mean a damn thing.

 

I am confident enough to say that Muskie couldn't have won where Carter did, Tsongas would fail where Clinton didn't.

 

I like Bayh. Very much. But Presidential races are long, grueling affairs, and being unknown isn't that much of a handicap. Certainly not in climates like today's which are conductive to newer faces.

 

That's is very well said these contests have grown to be so long starting right after the midterms are done. You really could go on and on with the dark horses infact this point of 1990 the front runners for the '92 elections were Gephardt and Cuomo. But they backed out so there is no telling who could win the nomination maybe somebody not even on the map yet.

[southsider2k5]

This poll is too early. Edwards, Kerry and Clinton are 1-2-3 because they have already campaigned in Iowa (Edwards anf Kerry in 2004). They are known commodities. People like Bayh, Warner, and even Richarson (not in the poll) will do a lot better when/if they start advertising and doing appearances. This poll, at this stage, is a 2004 popularity holdover.

 

And I really don't think Vilsack has a chance outside Iowa.

 

Thank you. I don't care which side of the aisle the poll is for, it is so early, that poll is only useful to line my catbox with. Get back to me in a year from now...