Wesley Clark Gaining Popularity with the Left?

[Dynasty]

Whenever I'm curious about what the far left is thinking on an issue, I check out the DailyKos. So, with a new Supreme Court nominee, I went over there.

But, I found something far more interesting. In a DKos 7/19 straw poll, General Wesley Clark is way ahead of all other Democratic candidates for President in 2008. (a 6/20 straw poll is in paranthesis)

Daily Kos community poll. 7/19. 8,027 respondents. (6/20 results)

Clark 34% (26%)
No Freakin' Clue 13 (17)
Clinton 10 (10)
Feingold 10 (10)
Edwards 7 (8)
Warner 5 (5)
Richardson 4 (4)
Other 4 (7)
Biden 3 (3)
Kerry 2 (2)
Bayh 2 (2)
Vilsack 0 (0)

Based on scanning some comments there, Clark has a very strong internet campaign already going. That's the type of organization which helped Dean get out to his lead in 2003.

Can anybody shead some light on whether Clark is quietly getting off to a good start with the Democratic base?

[JackWhite]

I have no insight on his organization at this point, but this poll doesn't surprise me. After 8 years of a Republican President, I think most Democrats are in the mood to win, and they would be willing to sacrifice some ideological purity in the process.

I am sure most Democrats would prefer Hillary over Clark; however, they would much rather swallow their pride and win with Clark than risk losing with Hillary.

I am probably in a minority, but Clark does not impress me as much as he does others. I found him to be a bit of a lightweight during his run in 2004.

[xadrez]

I am a democrat living in a blue state (NY) and most of the people I know are democrats.

I do not know 1 solitary person who is a Hillary Clinton supporter for president.

Barring the "sample size" remarks, I think that the supposed, phantom Hillary Clinton support among Democrats is something cooked up by the Right Wing. Nothing gets a Conservative to foam at the mouth more than mentioning a Clinton. Its like the political duplication of pavlov's dog.

[DVaut1]

Perhaps I'm going blind/confused, but I just went to DailyKos...and the poll has something like 1200 responses, not 8000; and (if it hasn't been said already), the poll was obviously non-scientific. The results seem rather random to me, regardless; I certainly don't sense any perceptible buzz around Clark, and I'm rather familar with Democratic Party activists (at least in the souteast Michigan area). Nor have I heard/read anything about him even having a campaign team in place. As far as I know, he's not raising money and has no paid staff.

[Zygote]

with madonna on his side, how could he lose? I thought sex sells!

Seriously, though, he is a very likely candidate. Especially likely amongst this group of potentials.

[Peca277]

If you remember the Draft Clark movement back in 02-03 was the reason Clark got into the race initially. I suspect that very organized online group is still active and does a decent job of getting the word out about any of these online polls. It's almost guaranteed that a phone survey of Democrats would turn out much different.

I'm telling you straight up, it's Mark Warner in '08 baby! Hop on the bandwagon now before people start looking down at you for it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever I'm curious about what the far left is thinking on an issue, I check out the DailyKos.

[/ QUOTE ]

"far left"? DailyKos???

LMFAO /images/graemlins/smile.gif


q/q

[goofball]

I'm a democrat and I would sooner die than have hillary clinton run for president (bill is another story).

I dno't really thingk Wesley Clark is that great either.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
If you remember the Draft Clark movement back in 02-03 was the reason Clark got into the race initially.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not really.

Liberal alert – what follows is sure to be called the “vast right wing conspiracy” or Extreme.

Clark entered the race for one reason – to derail Dean. The one thing the Clintons and DNC chair McCaullef did not want was a sitting president in ’08 so they ran Clark to destroy Dean.

Yeah,I know I’m a republican stooge, hate monger, blah blah blah. – whatever.
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[goofball]

i don't even really understand.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you remember the Draft Clark movement back in 02-03 was the reason Clark got into the race initially.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not really.

Liberal alert – what follows is sure to be called the “vast right wing conspiracy” or Extreme.

Clark entered the race for one reason – to derail Dean. The one thing the Clintons and DNC chair McCaullef did not want was a sitting president in ’08 so they ran Clark to destroy Dean.

Yeah,I know I’m a republican stooge, hate monger, blah blah blah. – whatever.
/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]I will concede it was likely the Clinton's ran Clark to kill Dean's momentum, but only because Dean had no chance of winning the general election.

To the OP, Clark has always had good online support, but if you look at polls of Democrats, he runs from 2 to 5% nationwide although name recognition probably plays a significant role in those.

[BonJoviJones]

Why is he unpopular with the dems? I don't really remember specifics, but I think I had a good impression of Clark during the last election (I'm pretty right-leaning). My one-off answer is, leftist, but still good on national security, seems like a winner. What's the deal? Does he have genital warts or something?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is he unpopular with the dems? I don't really remember specifics, but I think I had a good impression of Clark during the last election (I'm pretty right-leaning). My one-off answer is, leftist, but still good on national security, seems like a winner. What's the deal? Does he have genital warts or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what makes actual leftists scratch their heads; and this is nothing against you BonJoviJones. But when people on the left hear things like "Clark is a leftist" or "Hilary Clinton and the far left", they should realize the deck is stacked against them and they never had a chance.

[Matty]

We don't dislike him. He has about a 60-15 favorability rating among Dems and that 15% probably just don't like that he voted for Reagan and the responsible Bush. It's just a name recognition problem nationwide. Hillary could conceivably have $50 million in the bank by early '07, and there is a tendency to back the winning horse. Most of us liberals who closely follow politics really love Clark. I'm really putting my money on him being Hillary's VP.

There are many Democrats I would be happy with in 08, Warner, Clinton, etc. But only two could beat McCain (who really does have a chance at winning the Rep nomination) and they are Wesley Clark and John Edwards.

A friend of mine tapes FoxNews whenever Wes Clark on (he's a contributor for them now) and I gotta say, this man has potential out the roof. He could unite America like no one else. His failure to win the nomination in 04 was only due to his unbelievably late start and a general lack of preparedness.

Being from Virginia yourself, would you cross party lines for Warner?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anybody shead some light on whether Clark is quietly getting off to a good start with the Democratic base?

[/ QUOTE ]Clark is for all political intents and purposes a Clinton and two Clintons are not going to really compete with each other and split their demographic within the Democratic Party. Like I said earlier, look for Clark to play very nice to Hillary if he runs for the nomination to the point of outright defending her against others, not really try too hard himself, and then accept the VP role from Hillary.

[lehighguy]

John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal. And you can't beat his backround story.

Dems should ahve picked him in '04. He was the only candidate of the nince of them I liked at all.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal. And you can't beat his backround story.

Dems should ahve picked him in '04. He was the only candidate of the nince of them I liked at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for him in the primary. I think he's done though (he probably doesn't think so).

-ptmusic

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edwards reputation during the 2004 campaign was that he was bad on the stump and wasn't much more than a good looking guy with a nice hairdo (IOW, he had no cache). Take it or leave it, but certainly after the primaries, 'great campaigner' and 'John Edwards' were not frequently heard together in the same sentence.

IMO, he's so photogenic that people don't take him as seriously as they might otherwise; and it unnecessarily contributes to the criticism that he's "too young" to be President, despite the fact President Bush was only two years older than Edwards when he became President.

[AngryCola]

Wesley Clark has a much better chance of being elected president than does Hillary Clinton.

[lehighguy]

I don't know. Like I said he was the only Democrat I could really stand when he opened his mouth. Even if I disagreed with him I got the feeling he cared alot and was trying to do his best.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Wesley Clark has a much better chance of being elected president than does Hillary Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm pretty sure I said the same thing, but Hillary is the heavy favorite to win the nomination.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]Edwards reputation during the 2004 campaign was that he was bad on the stump and wasn't much more than a good looking guy with a nice hairdo (IOW, he had no cache)

[/ QUOTE ]This is pretty much the opposite of the truth. lehighguy is right, we should have nominated him.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wesley Clark has a much better chance of being elected president than does Hillary Clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm pretty sure I said the same thing, but Hillary is the heavy favorite to win the nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting you were saying that.
I was just adding my comment to the thread.

The Democrats should get behind someone with an actual chance.

I firmly believe there will be a female president within my lifetime, but it will not be her. A former president's wife will never be viewed the same way as a woman who made her own name.

[Matty]

I agree with your post except for the end. I think Hil has a 50% chance of getting the nomination, and about a 50% chance of winning the general election as well.

Also, the overwhelming majority of women in high places of power during the past couple centuries got there by being associated with a powerful man. From Ghandi to Dole to Hillary, to many others that I read about in some sociology or political science textbook that I forgot about.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the overwhelming majority of women in high places of power during the past couple centuries got there by being associated with a powerful man. From Ghandi to Dole to Hillary, to many others that I read about in some sociology or political science textbook that I forgot about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but you're in murky waters when dealing with this issue in the U.S. Presidential Election. I just have a feeling the voting public of this country will never be able to accept Hillary in the role of president. Still, that's obviously just speculation on my part.

I would guess she has about a 35% chance of winning the nomination and a 5% chance of winning the general election.

[Matty]

So you'd give me 10-1 odds that Hill is our next Prez? =D

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
So you'd give me 10-1 odds that Hill is our next Prez? =D

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the amount was reasonable for a far from wealthy man, yes. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Matty]

10 from me, 100 from you?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
10 from me, 100 from you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try to remember this (I probably wont) once it gets a bit closer to the election.
Let's at least wait until 2006!
I would give you the same odds.

[Matty]

If I bookmark the page will the url always take me here?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
If I bookmark the page will the url always take me here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, because it will undoubtedly be moved to the archive server by that time. One of us will just have to try to remember. Maybe we'll even both still be on 2+2 when the time comes. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[lehighguy]

To harsh. Politics is completely random. People vote on the most random bullshit. I give any candidate a 40% chance to win if they are the nominee.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I give any candidate a 40% chance to win if they are the nominee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, unless it's Hillary Clinton. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many Democrats I would be happy with in 08, Warner, Clinton, etc. But only two could beat McCain (who really does have a chance at winning the Rep nomination) and they are Wesley Clark and John Edwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the mainstream Republicans are onto McCain in that he's a RINO - I doubt they'll fall for that again.

Warner would be a disaster - He has been here in Virginia.

As a Democrat - How do you think Dean's being the party chair will affect Clinton & or Clark considering what they did to him in 2004 ?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edwards reputation during the 2004 campaign was that he was bad on the stump and wasn't much more than a good looking guy with a nice hairdo (IOW, he had no cache)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the opposite of the truth. lehighguy is right, we should have nominated him.

[/ QUOTE ]



Edwards's has won two elections in his life: his first victory came in his 1998 Senate race against an unpopular, 70-year-old first-term senator. Then he lost every presidential primary save South Carolina and was an ineffective campaigner for Kerry down the stretch. His supposed strength was that he could connect with Southerners, but forget carrying any southern states, or his home state: Edwards couldn't even carry his home precinct.

Like I said earlier, I like him alot and I don't think he's treated as seriously as he should be. But if he were even a medicore campaigner, let alone a tremendous campaigner (as some here have claimed) - he'd be President right now; he easily could have been a media darling. Consider all the characteristics about him we've mentioned - he's got a fantastic biography, a cute family, is highly telegenic/photogenic, had a "Two Americas" populist message that could even put a smile on Bill O'Reilly's face: put this all together and he should have ran away with the general election, let alone the primaries.

Why didn't he? He's got a reputation, and it's not a good one: many seem him as a stuffed shirt, a pretty face, a nice hairdo, and not much else. Is it a fair reputation? I don't think so. But it's certainly dogged him. But he certainly hasn't helped himself with lackluster campaigning/stump speeches.

[slamdunkpro]

The big spear through Edwards was that he made his millions as an ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The big spear through Edwards was that he made his millions as an ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the right always accuse the left of being enamored with trial lawyers? If so, that should have made Edwards even more popular among the Democratic base; but even in the primaries, his inability to connect with voters was evident, despite all the positive qualities he has - and I think a lot of this can be attributed to his reputation; a reputation that has developed, in part, to his substandard abilities as a campaigner.

[lehighguy]

Kerry and Edwards did very well in Iowa. Kerry defeated him narrowly. The entire primary process was over at that point. At least that's how it looked to me. The person who won Iowa just plain won. Clearly, winning that state didn't make you the best (look at Kerry) but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The whole idea of elected primaries is a relatively new political concept and largely a failure in my mind. They should go back to party selection. It tended to produce more moderate and intelligent candidates.

[lehighguy]

Dean will become the Karl Rove of the democratic party. A mudslinger and dirty political games guy. He's not as good as Rove though.

[shots]

My take on Clark is that his run in 04 was just to get his name out there. When Hilary wins the primary she will pick clark as VP to try to "toughen up" the ticket, this could only be done after Clark's 04 run because no one knew who he was before that. This is just my own personal theory but I think it makes sense.

[lehighguy]

Whatever, I thought Kerry was gonna win easy. So I don't know what I'm talking about.

Though I did win a lot of money trading Bush futures on tradesports. I should listen to the gambler in me.

[Peca277]

[ QUOTE ]
Warner would be a disaster - He has been here in Virginia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define disaster, please. I hate to tell you that you're in the VAST minority considering he has 60-70% approval ratings. Latest poll had him at 63%. Pretty damn good for a Democrat who persuaded a Republican legislature to raise taxes, and in a state Bush won with 55% of the vote. Warner has gravitas, something that Edwards is unfortunately lacking.

If we chose candidates based on stump speeches, we should've picked Sharpton. When I saw Sharpton, Clark, Edwards and Kerry speak before the VA primary last year, Sharpton was the only one that was vaguely entertaining. Edwards was a distant second with Kerry and Clark both boring the hell out of me.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty damn good for a Democrat who persuaded a Republican legislature to raise taxes, and in a state Bush won with 55% of the vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

He raised taxes? That's handing the Republicans a club which will be used to beat him over the head with throughout a general election campaign.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty damn good for a Democrat who persuaded a Republican legislature to raise taxes, and in a state Bush won with 55% of the vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

He raised taxes? That's handing the Republicans a club which will be used to beat him over the head with throughout a general election campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is he just doesn't come of like the typical tax and spend liberal and it will be hard for the Republicans to pin that on him. Democrats that I like scare me, and he scares me, in terms of Presidential politics.

If the Democrats pick Hillary over him it will be a bold statement about which direction the party is truly headed.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is he just doesn't come of like the typical tax and spend liberal and it will be hard for the Republicans to pin that on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry started his convention speech by saying he was reporting for duty. Within a month, his service was being questioned constantly.

If he's actually a tax raiser, it's going to be easy to label him as one.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem is he just doesn't come of like the typical tax and spend liberal and it will be hard for the Republicans to pin that on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry started his convention speech by saying he was reporting for duty. Within a month, his service was being questioned constantly.

If he's actually a tax raiser, it's going to be easy to label him as one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that will really carry much weight? Clinton was a tax raiser. IMO it's effectiveness is A) mostly dependant on the economy - that is the better it is doing the harder it is to argue for any tax raise and B) how the message is delivered. AS long as the democrats go with the class warfare message of basically the rich are screwing you over I think they will have a hard time but from what I remember President Clinton went with a softer those that have more can and should help a little more message. While it is of course the exact same thing I think Clinton's message will go over better than say Gore's more angry one.

Now let me contradict myself. I think the country as a whole has and continues to move in a fiscal conservative direction so in general a fiscal liberal position is at a disadvantage.

[Peca277]

You'd think he'd be viewed that way in Virginia then. He's viewed as a true leader instead because he cut $6 billion dollars in state spending and realized that there still wasn't enough money to adequately fund core necessities like education, and medicaid. The state almost lost its Aaa bond rating, but didn't because of the tax increases.

He also was smart because his plan would have lowered taxes for 65% of Virginians. It called for raising the state sales tax by 1/2%, and raising the cigarette tax from a nation low 2.5 cents to 30 cents, while reducing the food tax, increasing the personal income tax exemption, and fully implementing the car tax repeal. The only people who would've paid more were smokers and rich people who buy a crapload of stuff.

The budget that was ultimately passed (after a record long extended session) included an increase in the recordation tax so anybody who buys a house or refinances pays more... but it was almost essentially his original plan. While the Republicans might say "he raised taxes," (most Rs in Virginia aren't even saying that) it would be easy to shift that to the role of a strong leader who stepped up to the plate when it was needed most. He came in to a record budget deficit from the previous Governor and fixed the problem. It lookes like he will probably be the same situation in 2009 when he takes office. Hopefully he can put the country on the right track then too!

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem is he just doesn't come of like the typical tax and spend liberal and it will be hard for the Republicans to pin that on him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry started his convention speech by saying he was reporting for duty. Within a month, his service was being questioned constantly.

If he's actually a tax raiser, it's going to be easy to label him as one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that will really carry much weight? Clinton was a tax raiser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a middle class tax cut. He knew he couldn't be viewed as a tax raiser.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to tell you that you're in the VAST minority considering he has 60-70% approval ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

That dosn't make me wrong - time will tell.

Warner carped about budget crisises and such to ram his tax increase through, then backed off on killing the car tax. Now, after a year of "budget crisis" we have the largest surplus in the Commonwealth's history. Does Warner plan on refunding it back to the taxpayers? No. He just announced that he wants to spend it on new "social" programs.

This is a Clinton tactic; scream the sky is falling to scare the legislature into raising taxes, get a big surplus them pi$$ it away.

Also Warner has spent less time in Virginia than any other govenor in Virgina's recent history. I think the number was like 3 months out of 10; or 7 months out of State.

[Dynasty]

Largest budget surplus in history and it's being followed by spending rather than tax cutting?

More fuel to the fire.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Largest budget surplus in history and it's being followed by spending rather than tax cutting?

More fuel to the fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought when I read his post as well. It looks lik once again Dynasty was right.

[Peca277]

You can't count on the economy growing 16% a year continually. In Warner's projected budget he had the economy growing at 9%... that's pretty damn robust if you ask me, and the numbers still didn't work out.

Republican Governors Allen and Gilmore were planning on the 1990s boom continuing forever when they implemented no parole and no car tax promises. The car tax is a $1 BILLION spending item I will remind you, in a state budget of $12 billion.

Warner wanted to fulfill Gilmore's promise and finish off the car tax entirely. However, the legislature didn't go along with the proposal. The House passed it but the Senate killed it because they see it as a growing monster that's consuming the state budget.

I forgot to add that CONSTITUTIONALLY 75% of any surplus goes into the Rainy Day Fund, and the rest is being spent on TRANSPORTATION. This happens to be the biggest need in the Commonwealth. Anybody who says it's being spent on new social programs has no idea what they're talking about.