2008 Slog Tracking Poll: Who Do You Want to Be the Democratic Nominee?
posted by on September 10 at 10:42 AM
It’s been about a month since we did our last poll of Slog readers on the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. I know, I know: These internet polls are way unscientific. Tell it to the comments.
But they do provide a sense of the Slogosphere, and I think it will be interesting to track the sense of Slogosphere over time, as we approach and then head through the Democratic primary contests.
To recap: In August, the top three, when Gore was excluded, were: Obama (39 percent), Clinton (24 percent), and Edwards (19 percent). When Gore was included it was Gore (45 percent), Obama (24 percent), and Clinton (13 percent).
Here we go again. One poll with Gore, one without. Vote in both, please. Poll closes at 5 p.m.
Ch'yeah right. The guy who killed ManBearPig is a loser.
Just me or is the poll not showing up?
@2: What browser are you using? You might need to quit and re-launch. That usually solves the problem.
Firefox. All better, thanks, I wouldn't want to not vote in this very important Slogosphere poll!
Can you guys get over Gore running? You might as well list Santa Claus and Ghandi in the poll along side Gore.
I can't get the poll dialog on three different machines, on two of which I deleted the cookies and the other had never visited slog. (Internet Explorer 7).
I agree with the above. STOP polling Gore at this point. It is too late for him to get into the race at this point. If he does get in it would be as a third party candidate and we know that they never ever win.
We are simply going to have to get behind a candidate who is actually running for the White House.
I went with Obama for both, but I have to admit that I've been hearing good things coming out of Dodd's mouth recently.
Claus/Gandhi '08!!!
Hey raindrop @6.. We can't reproduce this problem on IE7. Email me at anthony@thestranger.com and we can try to get to the bottom of it.
Anybody who thinks--all kidding aside--Gore is a great candidate for President is a fucking idiot. Period.
I'm voting for whatever candidate eats at Taco Bell the most.
I switched my vote. I'd been supporting Richardson, but I moved to Obama. At this point, I cringe less when Gravel talks than Richardson.
@Mr Poe, I have mono. I blame my ill judgment on the fever.
I don't trust any of these candidates. None of them. They can all "sound good" and "say good things" now and then, or even consistently, but I'm concerned that not a single one has what it takes to launch this country out of the hole into which it has dug itself. I feel like I'm watching a soap opera unfold. Who will get amnesia next? Quelle horror, he doesn't like her SUIT?
It's ridiculous and it scares me that this is the state of politics these days. Someone, please, give me something to believe in again. Otherwise, as soon as this fucking fever goes away, I'm on a flight to a country where it's easier to ignore The Shit.
Thank Goodness Katelyn. Hopefully they won't have internet access there either, so we won't have to deal with any more of Your Shit.
Gore may be great on the environment but THATS ABOUT IT, guys. Tipper Gore as First Lady? You're clearly on crack. Rather (were that I could do so), I'd nominate Gore for Secretary of the Interior.
Yah I could never get past Tipper either.
Once again, the people say Gore/Obama 08!
Cool. Tipper would be better than any of the Red wives.
Isn't anyone doing any real polling on this in Washington yet?
Oh... my apologies, GoodGrief, I didn't mean to admit that the state of affairs in our government can affect us personally. I will return to being cool and uncaring.
Where is the "None of the Above" check box?
What's the appeal of Obama?
Too inexperienced, too fluffy. Plus he's stinky and snorey. But, on the plus side, he is a clean and articulate black man.
The Gore fetish is completely predictable. Seattle Democrats have a pathetic tradition of favoring fantasy candidates over reality. (Recall when Gore was actually running in 2000 that rather than rally around him to defeat Bush, Seattle was swooning over Bill Bradley.) But go all the way--why not Tsongas instead of Gore? OK, he's dead and all, but the 43rd District Democrats sent more Tsongas delegates to the State convention in 1992 than any other candidate even though Tsongas had withdrawn from the race. Continue the tradition! Tsongas/Gore in '08! (Although Claus/Gandhi is also a pretty catchy ticket.)
amen @ 22. jesus, get over it folks, gore is NOT running.
Katelyn, I don't get why you find this slate of candidates so disheartening. Most people seem to feel that Clinton/Edwards/Obama (listed, ahem, in alphabetical order) with Biden/Kucinich/Richardson to inject important things into the debate, is the best field we've had in many, many years. Kerry/Dean in '04? Gore/Bradley in '00? The Seven Dwarves in '92? Dukakis in '88? Do you think any of the top three, if elected, wouldn't be heads and shoulders above any of the R candidates in advancing liberal and progressive issues?
@24 - NONE of the top three will be advancing liberal and progressive issues. If elected, their claim to fame will be rolling back progressive legislation at a slower pace than the Republicans.
1 Step Backward instead of 3 Steps Backwards -- Yippee! Let's hear it for "less evil"!!!
I voted in the one with Gore, then tried to vote in the other one, and it told me I had "posted too many comments in a short time" and that I should try again in a bit. When I try again it tells me I've already voted.
@22 - you mean like the Uncommitted delegation - largest in the history of the State - that we Harkin Tsongas and other people who wanted to hear what the candidates positions on issues was?
Yeah, we so failed. NOT. We got them to talk about the issues.
Which part of redefining the battlefield don't you get?
Mahtli69, politics is *always* the lesser of two evils. Always, always, always.
Only 20-25% of the electorate describes itself as liberal (according to this weekend's Washington Post poll). The first step to changing that is to stop electing douchebag Republicans. Good is not the enemy of great.
@28 - Politics in the United States is *always* the lesser of two AND ONLY TWO evils.
It's too bad that the 20-25% of the electorate describing themselves as liberal are not represented in government. No wonder people don't bother to vote.
Mahtli69, politics is always the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils because it's always about compromise. If you are going to wait for a candidate who agrees with you about everything, you are going to wait forever. All three of these candidates are pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-evolution, anti-theocracy, pro-women's rights, pro-public education, pro-art, pro-gay (YES, though they could be even more so by supporting gay marriage), pro-sex ed, pro-cervical cancer vacine... it goes on and on. There is a HUGE difference between Dems and Rs.
Please, please, please don't let a few hot button issues obscure the big picture of what a difference a Democratic president in 2009 would mean for our nation and the world.
ps- it's tragic that the Republicans have been able to cast Democrats as "crazy liberals", when reservoirs of actual liberals (like folks on this list) seem to hate the party only slightly less. I wonder of conservatives pour as much venom on Republicans (I refuse to go to their web sites to find out.)
Yeah, Big Sven, you're right -- I just had a disheartened moment back there. I DO agree that a Democrat in the Oval Office would mean a lot for the country, and I'm actually pretty confident we'll elect a Dem this time around... When I look at the list of Dems up for the job though, what I see doesn't give me a clear picture at ALL of what the next decade will look like for the States. The big picture looks grim to me.
@30 - I agree that politics is compromise. For me, the lesser of three or four evils would be much easier to stomach than the lesser of two and only two evils. I also agree that there are differences between D's and R's.
That said, I'd like to have a candidate that will get us out of Iraq. I guarantee you, none of the Big Three will accomplish that. Universal healthcare would also be nice, but I'm not holding my breath about that either.
I think the main advantage to a Democrat in office is I will feel less ashamed when traveling abroad.
Mahtli69, I suspect *any* Democratic president will get us out of Iraq quickly (3-6 mo), but they don't want to lose any of the (few remaining) "9/11 Democrat" votes, so they pretend like they'll keep this hideous monstrosity of a war going. A cynical ploy, I suppose, but I so want to win this time around that I turn a blind eye to it.
I'm with you about the universal health care, though. Sadly.
Is anybody else contemplating suicide? That is, is anybody else contemplating suicide after reading these comments?
@34: Not suicide. No way. I'm hopeful! and supporting the Tsongas/Harkin ticket so we can finally get these candidates to talk about the issues, just like @27 Will in Seattle said the 1992 uncommitted delegates successfully did. Why bother to join forces to beat the Republicans when we can instead "redefine the battlefield" by backing fantasy undeclared candidates?
I have to say to see the poll results for Seattle favoring Obama and Gore is bit frightening to me. Maybe, I'm not as liberal as I thought or I don't fit in with y'all wierdos!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).