Posted on 11/17/2002 6:06:16 AM PST by kattracks
A shocking new poll of Democratic National Committee members shows that almost half want Al Gore to get lost in 2004, with nearly all DNC respondents saying they retain "great affection" for ex-President Clinton.
Gore received just 35 percent support from party insiders in the Los Angeles Times survey, with 48 percent telling the paper that he should sit out the 2004 presidential race.
The survey mirrors an October Gallup poll of Democrats at large, which found just 38 percent support for another Gore run - with 54 percent saying he should take a pass.
Asked who should be the party's standard bearer in 2004, a whopping 46 percent of DNC respondents said they had no preference. However Gore still topped the list of named candidates at 19 percent. The candidate with the next highest backing was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, with 18 percent support.
Results of the Times poll were seriously skewed by the omission of Gore's main rival for the 2004 nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who remains the number two pick behind Gore in every survey of Democrats that includes her name.
While Mrs. Clinton insists she won't be a candidate in 2004, her husband told reporters earlier this year that her candidacy is a matter of "when, not if." At the same point in his own campaign for the White House, Bill Clinton also insisted that was not a candidate, promising Arkansans in Nov. 1990 that he would serve out his full four year term as governor.
Unlike Gore, Mrs. Clinton received some good news in the Sunday survey, with 96 percent of Democratic insiders telling the Times they have a favorable impression of her husband, whose presidency she co-managed. Only three percent gave Clinton an unfavorable rating.
The poll also found that Democrats do not blame her husband for the defeats suffered by the numerous candidates for which the former first couple campaigned in this year's election.
Asked if they thought Mr. Clinton should reprise his role in the 2004 race, an overwhelming 88 percent of party insiders said yes.
36 percent said he should campaign in all 50 states for the party's nominee. 52 percent said he should play a more limited role, campaigning in just "selected states."
Only 5 percent said Clinton should sit out the 2004 race.
A Quinnipiac College survey released last week showed Mrs. Clinton running against President Bush almost as well as Gore. In theoretical match-ups Bush beat Clinton 55 to 38 percent. He defeated Gore 54 to 41 percent.
The Los Angeles Times surveyed 312 Democratic National Committee members from Nov. 7-14. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
In 2004, the legitimate, convention-nominated nominee will be forced aside or will suffer an injury/illness/death. He will be replaced with Hilary. She will run, as did Lautenberg and Mondale, on the coattails of sympathy and without protracted campaigning. It is her only chance. She cannot defeat W in debates because she has absolutely no experience.
She cannot run in 2008 because she will look ever more haggard and old. And while that is okay for the Lautenbergs and Mondales of the world, wrinkly old female leftists don't make for good tv (see Helen Thomas for details). This is her only chance - count on it.
Absolutely. And, as frnewsjunkie says, "ONE mistake by President Bush, and with the media's help.... the dems will be back in control." So far they haven't been able to djinn up a "mistake" they could get to stick, but they will keep at it until they do or till he actually makes one.
OTOH the Clintons may not have full control over the dynamics they have put in motion. Sometimes these things take on a life of their own. The black voters they bitch-slapped into staying home, just might remember. Evil allies sometimes get carried away and go too far or even turn out to have agendas of their own...
The Rats are stupid? Wow, what an understatement!
I agree with you on the way she'll have to get in. Test case A worked; test case B backfired. In fact it did more than backfire IMO. It killed the sympathy scam. The rubes have seen it too many times now. (I hope.) The brighter Rats will recognize it. Also, ANOTHER convenient plane crash might be pushing it even for them. It's gotta be A, a withdrawal for some reason IMO, and VERY close to the election.
Those statements don't show they're stupid. It shows they're evil.
Announcing Condi as VP 2004 would go far to guard against this event.
Hillary is the GOP's second largest fund raiser.
Don't believe me? The next time the Senate or Congressional Committees call you for donations, tell them you intend to donate directly to R candidates because you don't like some of the committee choices.
I guarantee the next sentence you hear will begin with "Hillary Clinton..." Also note the tone of the caller. They are laying down the ace of trumps with the Hillary card and they count on our fear of her (justified fear IMO) to produce for them.
The danger is the same for them (and US) as it is for the Clintons in that neither can fully control the dynamics they set in motion. Or in the pubbie case, allow to grow unattacked.
No surprising, but amazing. The only way out of the dark morass the Democrats are in is that they "de-Clintonize" themselves, but instead they cling desperately to Clinton and the "glory days" he represents.
Here's where the two parties differ big-time. I'll bet most Republicans, I believe, have an unfavorable opinion of Richard Nixon and blame Ford's loss in '76 on Nixon. Democrat's refusal to do likewise regarding Clinton will doom them to continued defeat.
A ridiculous and silly people, bound for self-extinction.
The democrats have been in decline we have been on the ascent. We have a solid base. They, on the other hand, are a skeleton with meat on their bones in only three areas. Los Angeles, New York City and Boston. And maybe a few Native American reservations in New Mexico.
But I think you're still thinking with too much decency. I don't even want to type it straight out, but consider. If the candidate herself lost a child, say right before her first debate (or at any time it started to get too dicey), it would be too cold and cruel to expect her to debate, campaign, etc.
Anyway, we all know her already, right? Surrogates could appear in her place shamelessly promoting her as the hard fighting champion of the little people...
It's not just Hillary getting that kind of treatment. My parents live in Phoenix. They went to a parade where a bunch of local politicians rode by in convertables. They could hear everyone sputtering and making comments about the democrats. The republicans got thumbs up in the air. The biggest response went to one elected official, Joe Arpio. They said you could hear the roar of the crowd the closer he got to where they were sitting.
I don't think that Tennesee would go for Hillary any more than it did for Gore.
Everytime she is attacked, her poll numbers go up. People that like her will continue to like her no matter what. There is no political advantage in going after her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.