Grimis
Scrapple
  
   
       
 
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 748 days
Last activity: 545 days
|  #1 Posted on 9.1.04 1213.54 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | He might be, if these tracking poll numbers are accurate:
3 day results.....Jan 2-4 Jan 3-5 Jan 4-6 Jan 5-7 Jan 6-8
Dean........39%...37%...36%...35%...35%
Clark.......12%...14%...16%...18%...20%
Kerry.......14%...14%...13%...12%...11%
Lieberman....6%....7%....7%....8%....8%
Gephardt.....6%....6%....6%....6%....5%
Edwards......3%....3%....3%....3%....3%
Kucinich.....2%....2%....2%....2%....2%
Braun........0%....0%....0%....0%....0%
Sharpton.....0%....0%....0%....0%....0%
Other........1%....1%....0%....0%....0%
Undecided...17%...16%...17%...16%...16%
Here's a fun anectdoe from the story:
Over the past 2 days of calling, a number of older respondents registered as undeclared voters have reported that they have received telephone calls from a campaign informing them that they will not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary because they missed the deadline to switch parties. A respondent discovered, however, that when she told the caller that she was thinking about voting for Howard Dean, the caller told her that she would be eligible to vote.
Hmmm....
 | | Promote this thread! |           | godking
Chourico
Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto
Since last post: 3384 days
Last activity: 3329 days
| #2 Posted on 10.1.04 2052.50 | Instant Rating: 2.49 | First off, it's not a surprise regarding the upswing, because Dean's campaign is heavily focusing on Iowa right now to try and erase Gephardt completely while Clark, who isn't campaigning in Iowa at all, is working all his mojo on New Hampshire like a mother.
Second, Dean still leads by fifteen percent, which is damn hefty leadwise, you gotta admit.
And third, Dean's campaign already denied making those calls, and frankly I believe 'em - Dean's staff and volunteers are idealists who "believe in the phenom [1]" for the most part, and I can't see them resorting to dirty tricks. I'd guess it was another campaign - or Republicans - before it came from the Deanies, really. | MoeGates
Andouille
Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY
Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 23 hours
| #3 Posted on 10.1.04 2245.34 | Instant Rating: 6.28 | Come on. If you've worked on a campaign for anything from Congress on up you know that various rumors of push polling and other dirty tricks always surface sometime or another.
I wonder how much money George W. Bush gave Paris Hilton. | DrDirt
Banger
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #4 Posted on 12.1.04 0824.09 | Instant Rating: 7.54 | Originally posted by MoeGates
Come on. If you've worked on a campaign for anything from Congress on up you know that various rumors of push polling and other dirty tricks always surface sometime or another.
Moe is correct. Add to that the normal ebb and flow of this process. New faces (i.e. Clark) often create a buzz especially when compared to the stale, old faces who have been on the trail for a while. And as many have pointed out here before, being the front runner before a single vote is cast can be a very dangerous position to be in.
Perception is reality | Grimis
Scrapple
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 748 days
Last activity: 545 days
| #5 Posted on 12.1.04 2202.16 | Instant Rating: 7.29 | Originally posted by MoeGates
Come on. If you've worked on a campaign for anything from Congress on up you know that various rumors of push polling and other dirty tricks always surface sometime or another.
They don't surface if you're good at it :)
|
| | | | |
Thread rated: 5.59