CNN/Time National Poll

After the holiday drought, expect polls to come fast and furious. This one is the latest by Harris for CNN/Time. MoE 4.9 %. (November results in parenthesis)

Not sure 23 (23)
Dean 22 (14)
Kerry 10 (9)
Lieberman 9 (11)
Clark 8 (12)
Gephardt 7 (6)
Sharpton 6 (5)
Edwards 5 (5)
Kucinich 5 (2)
Braun 2 (4)

Dean also handily beats any of the other candidates in one-to-one matchups. Clark is the only candidate that keeps Dean under the 50 percent mark.

Dean 46
Clark 32
Not Sure 22

And since many of you like to play the "electability" game, here are the head-to-head matchups, coming back down to earth now that the "Saddam bounce" is waning. MoE 4%.

Bush 51 (52)
Dean 46 (40)
Not Sure 3 (8)

Bush 53 (49)
Clark 43 (42)
Not Sure 3 (9)

Dean polls the best against Bush, with Lieberman a point back (52/46/2).

Update: One last point: head-to-head polls for the general are about as practically useful as national polls for the Dem primary. That's because we don't have a national election, we have 51 state elections (including DC). Hence, as we all so painfully know, you can lose the popular vote and win the election.

As in the primaries, the most important polls in the general will be those from key battleground states. The national poll numbers will have valuable morale and PR value, but the real story will at the state level.

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  Doesn't that show that both Dean and Clark poll exactly the same against Bush?

  Looks like the ABB feeling has spread to the same people, regardless of candidate.

  Maybe if the Democratic candidate was a piece of wood, we'd get the same numbers ::chortle::

  by Kaushansky on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:08:31 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    I think it's a mistake.  The numbers are identical old and new which suggests Kos put Dean's numbers down for both and forgot to correct Clark's numbers.

    by seamus on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:10:55 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Bush vs. Clark is 53-43...

    by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:12:57 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Preview is my friend
    Preview is my friend
    Preview is my friend...

    by kos on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:16:59 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      Out here in writer/editor/publisher/html land, I've learned that my biggest screwups come when I fail to preview.  It really IS the one thing standing between bad judgement/html errors and publishing.

      by Melanie on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:15 PM PDT

      •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

        I wish we could edit posts.

        by Rob on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:58:52 PM PDT

        •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          Me too.  I feel humiliated seeing my comment up there first, now that Kos has fixed the original post ::blushes::

          by Kaushansky on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:02:53 PM PDT

          •  Fix then delete

            It would be cool to have a "Kos fix that then delete this" option.  Maybe it is an option. ??

            by Bruce Webb on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:03:13 AM PDT

  •  Re: Waiting

    I'm wondering if there are a lot of people like me, who do not want to fall in love with a candidate just to have to break it off later (breaking up is such a hard thing to do).  Because I am in a late primary state, I think the candidate will have been chosen by the time I have the opportunity to vote.  So, I'm waiting to see who that will be. I lean toward some candidates more that others, but if polled, I would probably fall into the undecided category. Once a candidate is chosen, I will accept the arranged marriage and learn to love that candidate so I can willingly do his bidding (campaign on his behalf).  

    by pacifica on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:28:07 PM PDT

    •  Re: Waiting

      Why are you undecided at this point?

      It seems impossible to me,  but voila, right before my eyes is one of those people I have been speculating about:  YOU.

      Please, please, tell me about it ...  What would change your mind?  Do you even know?  Are you really going to show up (or mail) on E-DAY?

      by WalterB on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:39:10 PM PDT

      •  Re: Waiting

        Walter, as I stated above, I reside in a late primary state.  People in the know believe that our candidate will be chosen in March. (Super Tuesday?) Our primary is in the middle of May.  I will most definitely vote on primary day, as I have for the last thirty years. There are qualities I like and I dislike in all (well most) of the Democratic candidates.  It's obvious that there is no perfect candidate.  However, Clark and Dean would be at the top of my list of people who would be easiest for me to support. If another candidate gets the majority of delegates before our primary, I will decide at that time whether or not to vote for that person (in the primary). Much depends what happens in the campaign between now and May.  I'm watching...

        by pacifica on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:22:27 PM PDT

        •  Re: Waiting

          This just doesn't sound enthusiastic.

          Since I consider Oregon a swing state - and Karl Rove has you on his list - it's going to be hot, hot, hot this summer in the Northwets.

          Is there something that would get you out of the doldrums,  regardless of the May primary?

          by WalterB on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 12:00:22 AM PDT

          •  Re: Waiting

            Is there something that would get you out of the doldrums,  regardless of the May primary?

            Wow, I wasn't aware I was in the doldrums!  And, anyway, my fight is with Bush, not the Democrats...except for maybe, Lieberman.

            This just doesn't sound enthusiastic.

            Well, you just don't see me...right now I'm jumping up and down and shouting very enthusiastically!

            by pacifica on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 12:24:40 AM PDT

    •  Re: Waiting

      This was always me. I never wanted to get too committed or give money because the guy I liked was never going to make.

      Then last June, it finally dawned on me that I was letting everyone else make the decision for me,a nd those decisions were usually not great. I'm smart. I can do research. I have great judgment. After looking at all the candidates, I decided that Dean was not only the candidate whose positions were closest to my own, but that he had the best chance to beat Bush. I thought some more and realized that I could be a player in the so-called invisible primary by donating and then backing up my investment by volunteering.

      Guess I wasn't alone.

      by Grassroots Mom on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:34:07 PM PDT

      •  Re: Waiting

        Our primary isn't until the end of April, but I've made a much bigger difference than I ever have by just waiting to vote.

        by Grassroots Mom on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:35:40 PM PDT

      •  Re: Waiting

        Thanks.

        Now, if we can just tease the reluctance out of pacfica ...
        

        by WalterB on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 12:03:13 AM PDT

        •  Re: Waiting

          Take your best shot!  :-)  

          by pacifica on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 12:27:30 AM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  It's suppose to be

  Bush: 53
  Clark: 43

  Not the 51/46 split you have up there now.

  (see http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm )

  by enigmamf on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:12:19 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  Typo alert.

  Clark is 53/40

  This is excellant news for everyone because it shows that Bush's bunce is fading even faster than it has in the past.

  by Mike S on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:13:53 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    That's what happens when you write things with the flu. It's 53/43

    by Mike S on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:15:20 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      How'd you catch the flu from me?  I've been disinfecting the electrons before I send them out . . .

      by folkbum on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 02:22:10 AM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Oh the irony: A typo whilst correcting a typo!

    by enigmamf on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:33:40 AM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  OK.  I've seen enough.  Let's vote.

  by steina on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:14:02 PM PDT

•  Dean's electable after all

  This ought to be the death knell of the "Dean's unelectable" meme, although no doubt it won't be.

  by Frederick on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:14:57 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's electable after all

    Fortunately we won't have to wait long for the next poll to underline what we see in this one.

    by Marisacat on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:16:43 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  Dean does better in this poll than the ones before Saddam was captured. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

  by Box 13 on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:17:48 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Truth resonates.

    by J from VJ on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:19:43 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Because Dean is right. We aren't safer, and all the death, the orange alert, the canceled flights prove that.  

    by AEDem2004 on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:20:12 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Try this story on for size.

    by kos on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:20:18 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      You got to love Dean's willingness to not cede control of the debate. Quoted from the above article:
       

      
      Dean said even though he opposed the Iraq war, his greatest fear now is that "this administration will pull out of Iraq too early for political reasons," Dean said.

      If that happens, al-Qaida will move into Iraq and become more powerful than ever.

      "My fear is that the (Karl) Rove polls will tell him (Bush), 'You've gotta get out, you've gotta get out,' and he'll start doing that," Dean said, referring to Bush's chief political adviser.
      

      by Braintan on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:28:06 PM PDT

      •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

        I was just about to cite those exact lines!  I like how Dean pre-emptively pulls the curtain on how Bush operates.
        

        by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:31:24 PM PDT

      •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

        things like that is why he has the best chance to win IMO among the current candidates. the only one i see doing anything like what Dean does with the debate is Clark, when he's given the chance. the rest let themselves get jerked around.

        by skaiserbrown on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:31:28 PM PDT

        •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          I think this sub-thread seizes on what could be the key to the election -- if Dean (or Clark) can make the case that Bush is pulling out for political gain it will show how transparently self-serving the whole operation was. Even for those who supported the war, the idea that we are leaving the Iraquis in the lurch because of Bush's re-election will speak to the fundamental problem people, even his supporters, have with Bush -- how intensely political everything is and how lacking in principle he is.

          The Plame affair helps make this case.

          by desmoulins on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:42:58 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      That was a boot right to the nuts.

      The craven arrogance of Bush/Rove will be their own undoing.

      by Sidhe on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:32:19 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      Exactly so.

      Now, if we can convince half the people Saddam did not order the WTC attack ...
      

      by WalterB on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:34:16 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Well there is a new AP report out with Howard quoted as saying:
     Well, you have an Orange alert, international flights cancelled, others being escorted by F-16s AND they continue to die in Iraq, and it wasn't ever Saddam, it was Al Quaida, but who who who... did we go after... ?

    by Marisacat on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:23:12 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Here is a poll:

    "As a result of the capture of Saddam Hussein, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States will increase, decrease, or stay about the same?"

    12/21-22/03 Increase 31%, Decrease 15%, Same 51%

    It seems like the people agree that capturing Saddam has not made us any safer.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:24:49 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Dean was right and the people know it.

    by Chris Andersen on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:14 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Not only Orange alert, but Mad Cow -- Americans do not feel safer.

    by rlm on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:34 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Yeah, the Orange Xmas and New Year's resonated more with voters (how safe do you feel?) than Saddam's capture.

    Dean was apparently right, and people are cluing in--thus the closing numbers in the Bush v Dean head to head.

    by ogre on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:02:01 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    Not only was he right, but by speaking up against the wave of emotion and CW, he again showed that he is a LEADER - not a follower.

    This is a scary time right now, and people do need to feel like thier President will protect them. Folks respond more to personality traits than "policies". Dean is fearless, he fights, he is tough, smart, and right 95% of the time. These are great traits to have in these times - and balls are important too. That's why Rove made sure Bush's were on prominent display on the flight deck. In contrast, Dean never has to display his, because they are so prominently on display in his actions.

    by PLS on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:49:39 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      And once again the press is made to seem like fools for repeating the party line that we of course are safer and Dean is an idiot for thinking otherwise.  How do these people keep their jobs?  It reminds me of the economist who made such a big deal over Y2K (Yardeni).  Still has his job, still pontificating on CNBC.  Didn't miss a beat when nothing happened, not even in countries that spent no money upgrading.

      I keep telling you young 'uns.  The people aren't stupid. They want to believe the best of their leaders.  But they do get it in the end.  Ask Richard Nixon.  It just takes time.  Be patient and ready to strike when the time comes.

      by Mimikatz on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:25:05 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  I guess Jangle Bells doesn't play too well as Christmas music.

  -- Rick Robinson

  by al Fubar on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:27:42 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  surprising to see how high Kerry is nationally. Clark placing 4th is also very surprising, as is Dean being within 5% of Bush.

  gotta wonder about parts of this poll, i can't wait for more candy to issue from the polling palace!

  by skaiserbrown on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:29:24 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    The odd thing about Clark's poor showing in the horse race is that he does best in the 1-on-1 against Dean.

    And, in all honesty, I think Dean's number v. Bush is basically Gen. Eric Dem at this point in things.

    That said, at this moment I don't really care, because I'm so delighted to see any of our candidates polling so well against Bush!

    -- Rick Robinson

    by al Fubar on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:50:19 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      The odd thing about Clark's poor showing in the horse race is that he does best in the 1-on-1 against Dean.

      I don't think that's terribly odd. If you assume that Dean and Clark are more alike than are Dean and other candidates, it's not hard to see there being a bit more shift from Dean to Clark than Dean to the other candidates in a head to head match-up. Further, it could point to significant resentment of the "inside the beltway" crowd, that given a choice between Dean and a Washington insider, a lot of people answer Dean to actively oppose the Congressmen. Maybe Dean doesn't benefit from that kind of protest vote when going up against Clark. All speculation, of course, but I don't think unreasonable speculation.

      And, in all honesty, I think Dean's number v. Bush is basically Gen. Eric Dem at this point in things.

      Which speaks well for Dean ;-) I think - that when people think of "Dem v. Bush" they think "Dean versus Bush". It's either that or when they think of, for example, "Kerry v. Bush" they're thinking "(not up to my 'Dem' standard) v. Bush"
      

      by asa on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:10:34 PM PDT

      •  Not odd at all

        "I don't think that's terribly odd."

        Nope, there are all kinds of Deaniacs who would have been Clarkies if the General came out earlier.  But they signed on with the Doctor and to date he has not given them a single reason to jump ship.  We picked the apparent winner and absent a huge sea-change are going to stay onboard.

        by Bruce Webb on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:13:21 AM PDT

        •  Re: Not odd at all

          Right. But for Clark to have been successful earlier, he would have had to come out against the war earlier. I believe he wrote a glowing article about it in June or July. I'm glad he's against the war now, but his earlier stance would have caused him some problems.

          People need to realize that this election is going to primarily be a referendum about Bush's war.

          by Ray in TX on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 01:36:08 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    The 4.9 MOE seems awfully high.

    by Yosef 52 on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:39:14 PM PDT

•  Carville's Odds

  Now, I know these are not exactly in line with what Carville was speaking about the other day, but could he have had some advanced knowledge about this poll?  The idea that Kerry's in second is almost exactly what he thought.

  by Kaushansky on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:35:07 PM PDT

  •  Hope not

    Because that would show Carville hasn't a clue about national polls and their relevance (or rather lack thereof) this far out.

    Good catch on you part about seeing the Kerry 2nd pattern though, but if this really is what Carville is basing his thinking on (which I doubt) then he has really lost it.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:37:31 PM PDT

  •  Re: Carville's Odds

    Seems like it, and an ear to the ground as well.  Even tho he doesn't interest me in the way he did in 92, 93 he seems closer to certain realities than Begala.  Or as someone posted once, the savage in him will end up loving this run.

    by Marisacat on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:43:25 PM PDT

    •  Re: Carville's Odds

      People 5% (4.9) margin of error.   Clark, Gep ,Lieb and Kerry are all basically tied.

      Also figure that he ,Clark got drowned out the past month, while the others bashed Dean.

      by PoliMorf on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:07:29 PM PDT

      •  Re: Carville's Odds

        Not true, this is not how MOE works.  

        by Asak on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:09:31 AM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  Not electable? This poll is all the answer we need for that.  Dean within the margin of error even while Bush is still enjoying his Saddam bounce.

  I have always thought that the Bush approval numbers were misleading.  They are reported as if people were answering the question "Will you vote for Bush?"  when what they are really answering is "Do you support the President?"

  A lot of people seem to reflexively support the Prez, whoever he is, even though they might not like him or intend to vote for him.

  And this latest poll is at a time when MANY people still dont even know who Howard Dean is (yes its really true) and even more have never heard him speak.

  I am optimistic
  

  by sck5 on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:51:10 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  And the idea that Joe does as well against Bush as anyone?
  meaningless re the primaries since he ain't winning many states, But it does suggest some major Bush vulnerabilities.

  by DemFromCT on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:58:08 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  The totals add up to 97...Guess that MoE really kicks in, eh?

  by Kaushansky on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:07:13 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    three percent for "other"

    by kos on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:09:49 PM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      Heehee...my bad.  Dumb Kaushansky.

      by Kaushansky on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:18:34 PM PDT

•  Where is BFA getting ther 1,004 sample size?

  I am assuming the CNN/Time Harris poll extracts we are seeing over on pollingreport.com are the same ones BFA was promoting to their blog front page, yet they are claiming a 1,004 sample size and a 3.1% MOE as a result.

  Where is THAT coming from?

  Mitch Gore

  Wanna win in '08...?

  Put your money where your mouth is.

  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:09:30 PM PDT

  •  Re: Where is BFA getting ther 1,004 sample size?

    I want to see the " Fox News Allstars"  show that Bush /Dean  51/46   is an insurmountable lead 11 months b4 the election

    by PoliMorf on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:15:09 PM PDT

  •  Re: Where is BFA getting ther 1,004 sample size?

    Presumably they polled 1004 people for the match-ups with Bush, but fewer than that for the questions about the Dem primary.

    by gong on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 03:56:13 AM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  Saying: "Dean polls the best against Bush, with Lieberman a point back" is just silly. ALL of the candidates mentioned are WELL within the margin of error. Writing a sentence like that is to deny the meaning of statistics. Statistically, they are all IDENTICAL; trying to make any points regarding differences between them is statistically meaningless.

  And of course we must mention, all of this assumes that there are no systematic biases in the polling which skew the data. For example, perhaps (just to make up silly examples) Clark voters are more likely to work at the time that polling is done, and hence not be polled, or Lieberman voters are more likely to be retired and overrepresented in the poll. These kind of systematic biases, which you can't really know, can easily be larger than the purely random statistical errors, which all assume there is simply a large jar filled with red and black balls and you are picking some at random. Voters are not uniform like the balls in that jar and even the specified margins of error are really statistically invalid for that reason.

  Waiting for the deadlocked Democratic convention to turn to...Kucinich!

  by elishastephens on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:32:09 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    But...but...if we didn't diddle with these poll figures like they were rock-solid, whatever would we do to fill the time between troll-bashing and ratings-wars in the diaries?

    by Vet 4 Dean on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:41:03 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    And of course we must mention, all of this assumes that there are no systematic biases in the polling which skew the data.

    That's where weighting comes in. Whether you like it or not, polling has been worked on and is pretty accurate.

    by Mike S on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:01:44 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  I note 2 things:

  Bush's blip on Saddam's capture is fading, as expected (the sawtooth wave)

  and

  Dean is approaching the number previously recorded for "generic Democrat."

  I think this means the race is firming up,  and most Democrats accept the candidate.

  Now the problem is raising the Democratic total to 48-49% or more vs Bush.  Bringing the race down to within 2-3% (the MOE) is critical; it makes everyone sweat.  Since Bush  has more to lose, he'll sweat more, and maybe stumble.

  The most important factor in that is not the candidate, but the message (which is what I've been trying to sell for a while).
  

  by WalterB on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:50:10 PM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      Being below 60, for the incumbent, is into "fucked" territory. George Bush is in trouble, and his polling numbers are undoubtably keeping Rove up late at night, trying to work out whether they can scare enough Americans to get Bush back into office...

    by Morat on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 03:49:13 AM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      Below 60 is risky territory. Below 50 is "Danger, Will Robinson". Below 45 is f*cked territory.

      by Bill Rehm on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 11:42:21 PM PDT

      •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          Given how weak a candidate Bush really is, below 60 is pretty bad. He needs high ratings and an asskissing press, because he's vulnerable as hell to anyone willing to take him to the mat.
        

        by Morat on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 06:35:05 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  Even granted Bush's Saddam bounce, the recent CBS poll (conducted 21-22 Dec) was SO out of line with this new CNN/Time poll that I can't help but wonder what's going on. Which national poll has THE best track record for accuracy, historically?

  by Yosef 52 on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 11:46:57 PM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  If we had polls for all fifty states, we could do an electorally weighted "popular vote" like I did here for 2000 (which shows, interestingly, that Bush actually had more electoral support than Gore), and actually have a clear idea of how the real election trends are going.

  by tunesmith on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 12:55:38 AM PDT

  •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

    What you did is very interesting, although it seems as though many of the people who posted on your diary didn't get it.  With the EC, I would prefer a system like yours, because it would make every person have a reason to vote.  Their vote would count, because it would be proportionately represented for their state.  I think it would make a huge difference in turnout.  Although I vote every time, I always feel my vote doesn't matter, because I'm a democrat in Hawaii, and there's no chance Hawaii won't go to the democrat.  But if the EC votes were awarded based on how many democrats voted, I would have much more reason to vote (and so would the republicans, which means I would have even more reason to vote, in order to counteract them).  Just imagine the change in voter apathy if this were the case.

    However, I disagree with the premise that the EC is a good thing.  I don't think state boundaries mean a damn thing.  We are all people who happen to live somewhere.  Our president should represent our wishes.  There is no reason why a 'state' should have some larger say just because it has a geographic boundary.  It's only the people in the state that matter.  So 3 million small-state voters having the same EVs (21) as the 9 million voters in Florida is just plain wrong.  There's no reason why living in an unpopulated place should make your vote count more.  It's ridiculous.

    by Katydid on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 03:12:58 AM PDT

    •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

      I'm softening on my point of view regarding the electoral college.  My only reason for supporting it is that I think America's heterogeneity and environment should be protected as well as its people's preferences.  If there's a region of the country that is an important part of America, and yet doesn't have many people live there, those people's opinions should count, on behalf of their region, for something.  Some sort of veto or extra weight or something, compared to the millions of people who live within a few square miles elsewhere and may have political views formed by an echo chamber.

      I don't believe the electoral college is the best way to do this.  I'd like some way to do this though... I'm not sure what to advocate yet.  And I'm mindful of how difficult it would be to change the EC.
      

      by tunesmith on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 04:37:11 AM PDT

      •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

        Particularly in this global age, why do you think a 'region' should have a political voice?  Everyone is  influenced by ideas from everywhere, which is why so many different types of people live in one state.  No place is monolithic anymore, although it might have been nearly true once upon a time.  The echo chamber is cultural, not regional.  And since minorities tend to live in inner cities, I think they would have more of a voice if their vote was counted equally with everyone else.

        by Katydid on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 04:49:12 AM PDT

        •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          I like the idea of different regions having entirely different feels.  It's bad enough to go across the nation and see yet another suburb with a Boston Chicken across the street from a Taco Bell.  I like knowing that if you feel out of place in one region, you can go to another region and feel in place.  I don't like the idea of all cultures being evenly distributed.  Quality of life goes down when things feel homogenous.  We need more individuality of regions, not less.  That's my preference, anyway.

          by tunesmith on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:13:14 AM PDT

      •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

        The electoral college is important because without it, candidates would never have any reason to try to appeal to people in rural areas. Who would go to South Dakota? The amount of money and time it would cost, even if you assume you could lock up every voter there, wouldn't be equal to the even grabbing a fraction of the voters in a population center like South Florida or the Bay Area or Houston.

        There was an article in Discover magazine a number of years ago that likened the electoral college to the World Series--scoring the most overall runs isn't as important as winning the most contests.

        But the most important thing to remember is that Bush didn't win--Florida was stolen. The problem wasn't with the Electoral college--it was with the Supreme Court and the illegal disenfranchisement of Florida voters. Let's not throw out a decent system because the Republicans abused it in 2000.

        by incertus on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:02:49 AM PDT

        •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          Ah ha! But with the electoral college, all one needs to do is win eleven states. Sure winning all 11 is a difficult prospect, but possible. And if you get exactly 50% plus one vote in each, that is a definate minority (30% of total pop I believe). Its stuff like that that makes me wish for a true national election with instant runoff.

          by Izixs on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:37:03 AM PDT

          •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

            Sure, 30% if you got 50% plus 1 in 11 states and ZERO votes in any of the other 39 states.  :-)  I'm having trouble seeing that case as evidence of a flaw, though.

            by tunesmith on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:16:29 AM PDT

            •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

              Yeah, if some clever candidate could pull off that trick, I say give him or her the White House.

              I'd love to hear that stump speech: and I stand here in Trenton asking for the votes of the good people of New Jersey--and of Pennsylvania and New York if you happen to be here--because I want to work for you, the people who make our country great.  Not those punkass rednecks from Delaware and Maryland!  

              by deminva on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 10:15:38 AM PDT

        •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          The electoral college is a festering piece of shit.  There's a reason why candidates shouldn't have to worry about rural regions: they are irrelevant to our society as a whole.  All the things that make our country great occur in the population centers.  The stuff that happens in Wyoming and Kansas simply DO NOT matter.  If it were up to these backwoods areas we would still be riding around in horse and buggies and learning Creationism in schools.  

          Individually people are dumber than bricks, but an interesting thing happens when they cluster together: they get smarter collectively.  We're just like the cells in our bodies.  Urban centers are more modern and forward thinking because they have more individual minds interchanging ideas and working on solving problems.  That's why the economy revolves around our urban centers.  That's why our technology revolves around urban centers.  

          Allowing rural areas to have a disproportionate amount of Representation is just pathetically counter productive.  We're talking about less developed areas that are economically and socially behind the times.  This is not an insult to the people who live in those areas, it is just a fact.  

          by Asak on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:21:07 AM PDT

          •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

            It seems to me that the change that needs to happen to the system is simply not adding 2 votes for each state, since this makes one person's vote in Rhode Island worth so much more than one person's vote in California.

            by sayonarabush on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

          •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

            Wow.  I'm tempted to give you a troll rating, but I actually think you are serious.  That's frightening.  That attitude is why Republicans hate Democrats.
            

            by tunesmith on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:17:38 AM PDT

          •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

            Whether or not you think rural areas are irrelevant is unimportant. The Founding Fathers put those protections in there for the small states for the same reason they put in protections for minority rights--to keep the country from devolving into a tyranny of the majority where individual rights could be stripped away at a whim. That's the reality that those small states would face if we didn't have disproportionate representation, and if you live in one of those small states, then that's important to you. I grew up in Louisiana and lived in Arkansas--should my opinion be ignored because I lived in a less-populated area than the people in Florida or in California?

            by incertus on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

        •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

          And yes... the way I like to look at it is pretty much the following:

          1. It would require massive congressional change to change the electoral college, so it's the only way to play the game for the foreseeable future.
          2. Republicans in general have about a 1% fraud advantage in any given race

          So this basically means that in order for us to have a shot, we have to beat the GOP convincingly - by more than 1% - in the EV-weighted popular vote.

          My analysis showed that Bush beat Gore in the EV-weighted popular vote, but I know that it was because of significant fraud.  On the other hand, I don't think that we've made inroads in neutralizing that fraud in time for 2004.

          And to change the EC?  A national Condorcet vote might do it, because of its emphasis on consensus.  Some sort of regional weighting would be good too, though.  I bet the EU consititution will give some good ideas.  I really like the idea of cultural diversity being protected even from state to state.

          by tunesmith on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:27:09 AM PDT

          •  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

            So this basically means that in order for us to have a shot, we have to beat the GOP convincingly - by more than 1% - in the EV-weighted popular vote.

            I'm all for beating them convincingly, but I'd also like to see all our votes counted.  I want an army of Democratic voters to spread out on Election Day, monitoring the voting in every precinct.  We need to:

            1. Learn the election laws in our states
            2. Have printed copies of the pertinent laws on hand, in case of disputes with polling personnel
            3. Get to know the officials who will be conducting the election and try to build positive relationships before the voting starts.
            4. Educate people on the ballot they'll be using and how to make sure that their vote will be counted.
            5. Be on hand in force at every polling station, with those elections laws and cell phones--ones that take pictures, if that's legal.
            6. Make it clear to voters that we're on hand to ensure that everyone's vote is counted.  Provide all the legal advice and Q&A that we can.
            7. Conduct scientific exit polling.
            8. If touch screens are to be used in our areas, push now for effective audit systems and anti-fraud processes.

            by deminva on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 10:28:06 AM PDT

•  Re: CNN/Time National Poll

  perhaps Dennis' best showing in a meaningless national poll (5%).  I'd like to see a current poll in Ohio.

  by green in brooklyn on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 03:05:05 AM PDT