For all of the flailing, flagellating and flapping of wings in the blogosphere, two-thirds of voters - including two-thirds of Democrats - were unable to name ANY of the Democratic candidates for president, according to a CBS News poll released yesterday. This seems about exactly in line with what I have observed, and indeed felt myself.
- Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean topped the field in the poll, with relatively low numbers that suggest the race remains wide open.
Lieberman, Gephardt and Dean were the only three in double digits in support from registered Democrats. Lieberman, a Connecticut senator, had the backing of 14 percent; Gephardt, a Missouri congressman, was backed by 11 percent; and Dean, former governor of Vermont was at 10 percent. Other candidates were in single digits.
John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, was at 5 percent after being in double digits in national polls most of the year. Kerry will try to spark his campaign this week with the formal announcement of his candidacy.
Al Sharpton had 5 percent; Bob Graham, a senator from Florida was at 4 percent; John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina, had 2 percent; Carol Moseley Braun was at 2 percent; and Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, had 0 percent. [AP]
Kucinich energizing the electorate with 0%! Given the 4% margin of error in these polls, Dennis may actually be in the negative, pulling in support only from anti-matter voters. Damn, where would he be without the ringing endorsement of Willie Nelson and Ani DiFranco? It would take a cosmologist to figure that one out.
Meanwhile, even those Democratic functionaries who CAN tell the players without a program are worried:
- Many prominent Democrats said that Mr. Bush might be vulnerable, given problems with the economy, and continued American fatalities in Iraq. But they said he could be unseated only by an aggressive, partisan challenge that built on Democratic anger lingering from the 2000 election, and by a nominee who somehow managed to survive a complicated nominating fight that was pulling their party to the left.
Article comments
1 - Steve Rhodes
It is over a year until the election, so ofcourse most people aren't paying attention.
Bush is beatable. The Democrats managed to get more votes than him last time. In 2004, they just need to get thier voters out and get all of their votes counted.
Though in the long-term the abolition of the electoral college, instant runoff voting, and real campaign finance reform that doesn't allow one unopposed canddidate to amass $200 million for the primaries are needed.
2 - Natalie Davis
So far, I am an anti-matter voter. Until Nader joins the race, anyway. Down with the Demublicans!
3 - Michael Croft
Interesting. I don't find these numbers very meaningful, although it would be amusing to compare them to similar numbers from a similar period out in previous presidential elections.
By strange coincidence of timing (or perhaps not), George Will's most recent column was A Dean presidency is not inconceivable
4 - Steve Rhodes
I'd say because of Dean, more people are paying attention to the Democratic race than at this point in 91 or 1999. It is still a pretty small number (though if any Democrat had $200 million to match Bush, their name recognition would go up sharply - which it will anyway by next November).
I hope the Greens don't run a candidate this time. THey should focus on registering people to vote, local offices and helping defeat Bush.
But in the end, it will be about turnout and the parties are realizing this. There wasn't a shift in public opinion between 92 and 94. It was just that Democrats were demoralized by Clinton's early failures and Republicans were motivated to turn out.
5 - Eric Olsen
To be honest I was surprised Kucinich's numbers were so low since he did seem to be getting a fair amount of attention, endorsements, etc. It just shows that no one cares much about celebrity endorsements, I guess.
6 - Jeff Brokaw
This would seem to establish, beyond all doubt, that the media love affair with Howard Dean is driven more by agenda than by reflecting any true "momentum".
Wow - a media bandwagon in love with a far-left liberal and repackaging him as a moderate - couldn't see that coming.
7 - debbie
I don't really see the Electorial College as being abolished. It was set up that way on purpose to even out the election process for the country. That way, 3 or 4 main cities in the US couldn't run away with the presidential election, (it would also help reduce the impact of illegal vote tampering).
The campaign finance reform, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I feel that people should be able to send in their donations to political parties, however I really wish the reform would concentrate on the lobbiest, the perks given to congress/senate by the lobbiest should be strictly prohibited. It is too easy to buy off somebody that way. I don't know that it would be right to tell one candidate that he has to limit his fund raising because the others aren't getting as much or the other parties are divided within themselves.
8 - Steve Rhodes
The electoral college was designed for a very different country. No cities are going to be able to run away with the election while we have seen that one state caused the wrong guy to end up being president.
The best kind of campaign finance reform are the clean election laws.
Dean is mostly a moderate (and liberal on some issues not unlike Clinton). The DLC loved him when he ran Vermont and progressive weren't thrilled with him.
Lots of press don't like him (the press liked Bush). It is hardly a love affair. And things will only get more confrontational if he gets closer to winning the nomination.
Whether you like Dean or not, he has built support (both volunteer and financial) using the internet and has already drawn the kind of crowds that only Nader did in 2000 and that is a story.
9 - debbie
Steve,
I could easily see that if the electorial college was abolished that the large cities in this country would determine who the president is. That would also localize the process to the extent that illegal vote tampering could really cause a problem.
And if you are honest, the needs of the whole country need to be addressed, not just the large city folks, which is what would happen if the electorial college was removed. There would be no reason to consider the vast majority of states in this country, there isn't enough people in them. That would create a government that panders just to the problems of large cities and leave the rest out. (There would be no pay off in taking problems of small towns into consideration) I don't like that idea.
I think that the electorial college serves a purpose, like our system of Legislative government (House of Rep and Senate), in making each state important in an election. The only thing I would like to see differently is that the rules of "all" states be the same when it comes to the electorial college vote. (It isn't).
In your opinion the wrong guy got elected.. not everybody feels that way. Yes, sometimes it does come down to a single state. That does not invalidate the system.
This is the first I have read about clean election laws, what do they do with the surplus money that is donated to the candidates?
10 - Eric Olsen
The electoral college is going nowhere because there isn't even the tiniest possibility that smaller states will willingly give up the power they now wield, nor in the interests of republicanism, should they.
11 - Phillip Winn
Without the electoral college, a few cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago would effectively control the election. Florida only managed to hijack the election because the rest of the country was tied. Without the electorial college, a half-dozen big cities would render about 45 states worth of votes immaterial.
This is not theoretical: In 2000, Al Gore took only 51% of Michigan's vote, but 94% of Detroit's. He got the votes from Michigan. He got 80% of New York City's vote, which was enough to carry the state with 60%. The pattern repeated around the country: Without an electoral college, you can concentrate on just the big cities, and ignore everybody else.
If you don't think that matters, it becomes more clear that you live in a big city. So do I, for that matter, but I didn't always.
It matters on a state-by-state basis, as well. Los Angeles has more people than several entire midwestern states combined, so candidates would naturally campaign in Los Angeles and ignore the smaller states (like Montana or South Dakota, with less than a million people each). Los Angelenos would likely end up being swayed by argments that currently don't play in presidential politics but are nonetheless hot issues, like water rights.
Colorado would find itself pretty quickly drained of water if Los Angelenos had their way in direct election.
Proportional representation was not just for a different time or place. It helps us as a nation today, here and now. The 2000 election was a tie, hence the confusion. The electoral college was not the problem. Effectively disenfranchising millions by ending it would be a problem.