Democrats: Who would you choose today? [Archive]

artist

05-31-2007, 01:13 AM

I chose Edwards, but I wish we had instant runoff voting!

Here is an interesting online poll on one of the Democrat websites where people can vote by ranking the candidates. Here are the results:

http://www.democrats.com/presidential-primary-poll-3

The results so far are below. You must login to vote.
The 1st Quarter fundraising results are in, and Obama's results are amazing given that Hillary and Bill Clinton have built their national fundraising network over 20 years, while Obama built his overnight. And while Clinton slightly outraised Obama in dollars, Obama had twice as many donors. But John Edwards also did extremely well - all three candidates broke the previous Democratic record.

Q1 Net Donors
Clinton $26M $4.2M 50,000
Obama $25M $6.9M 100,000
Edwards $14M $3.3M 40,000
Richardson $6M
Dodd $4M
Biden $3M

But money doesn't elect Presidents, voters elect Presidents. So looking at announced candidates only (sorry Gore fans!), who do you want to be the Democratic nominee in 2008?

This is an Instant Runoff Vote (explained here), so rank you choices in order. If no candidate gets a majority in the first round, the losing candidate's votes are re-allocated to their second-place choices, and so on until someone gets a majority and a winner is declared.

The table below shows you the number of first place votes for each candidate in each round until one candidate emerged with a majority in the Final round.

John Edwards (66.7%)
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Mike Gravel
Chris Dodd
Total votes: 868

Not that this is a scientific poll by any means, but I thought it was interesting. Also, any of you reading this can certainly still vote in that online poll if you're interested.

ETA:
For the poll I posted above, here was the order I voted...

Kucinich
Edwards
Obama
Clinton
(didn't rank the rest of them)

Niobe

05-31-2007, 02:01 AM

Obama, with or without Gore in the race. I really like Richardson too, but I don't think he has much of a chance.

I wouldn't mind if it ended up being a Gore/Obama ticket though.

ThreeYell

05-31-2007, 06:32 AM

Edwards, though I could be just as happy with Gore.

gayle

05-31-2007, 08:56 AM

For now I choose Obama, but if Gore were to run, I'd vote for him hands down. Actually, I would love to see a Gore-Obama ticket.

Ditto this, all the way!

maggieb

05-31-2007, 09:16 AM

Gore first, then Obama.

jenahdawn

05-31-2007, 10:22 AM

Okay, I was swayed to vote in this poll.

Edwards, then Gore (if he ran...), then either Hilary or Obabm, whomever gets the majority, I guess. But Edwards first.

larslobster

05-31-2007, 12:14 PM

I like Obama the best but I'd probably vote for Edwards because I think he has the best chance of winning the general election. But I'd also love to see a fellow Wellesley alum as the first female president too!

allyray231

05-31-2007, 12:29 PM

Edwards

I like Obama but I don't think the country is ready

sem426

05-31-2007, 12:31 PM

I agree with previous posters...I like Obama, but I think Edwards probably has the best shot at beating whomever the Republicans choose.

mindy75

05-31-2007, 12:46 PM

I mean really (I think I've mentioned it before) it would be such a story if the two nominees were both late-comers from the state of Tennessee.

Gore v/s Thompson would be fun for the rest of the country, I guess. The suspense...which one is going to carry their home state? I think I can answer that for you. Thompson, by a landslide probably. :(

Anyway, I pick Edwards then Obama. But if Gore was in, he'd be my first pick. Hilary, I do not like at all. The others I haven't paid too much attention to. I will as we get closer.

kam

05-31-2007, 04:50 PM

On heart alone, Dodd (but being from Connecticut, not only am I biased because of the home connection - I've had the pleasure of hearing him speak on a number of issues as well as meeting him way back when).

If I were to make a decision based on actual thought, probably Edwards because of his greater chances of winning.

Delta

05-31-2007, 09:04 PM

Recent polls show that Hillary's strongest demographic is the 18-40 year old female group (see here (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/parsing_the_polls_hillary_and.html)). So why no love for her here?

Gore could really shake things up!

Gore v/s Thompson would be fun for the rest of the country, I guess. The suspense...which one is going to carry their home state? I think I can answer that for you. Thompson, by a landslide probably.I don't know if 'fun' would be the right word, I am just a nerd and think it would be an interesting story. And no doubt Thompson would take Tennessee over Gore. Gore didn't even take Tennessee in 2000.

sublime311

05-31-2007, 09:14 PM

Gore, hands down. Then Edwards, then Obama.
Me, too.

Phen

05-31-2007, 09:58 PM

Edwards.

For me, no Hillary love here because, hm. I don't know. Funny to say this, but voting for her would feel like voting for Kerry again, and not like voting for Bill. Voting for Kerry was because he was the lesser of two evils in my opinion, but voting for Bill was something I felt very strongly and (er, perhaps the wrong word) very passionately about. I'm not talking about physical attraction here, either. Anyhow, Hillary is not exciting, the way Kerry was (most decidedly) not exciting.

Honestly, I'd be more thrilled to have Bill be the first First Husband than I am to have Hillary be the first woman President.

~ phen

mindy75

05-31-2007, 10:23 PM

Gore didn't even take Tennessee in 2000.

The thing about that is, he could have. He SHOULD have. He didn't campaign very hard here then. He thought he had it in the bag, I guess. If I remember correctly, the spin was then that Gore had never lost an election (in Tennessee). The fact that he's back in Nashville makes me wonder. One of the big charges floating around against him in 2000 was that he had spent too much time in Washington. His father was a senator, then he was, and then his VP-dom. A lot of people felt like he was no longer our native son. In any case, that's all water under the bridge. I really, really wish he would run! I'd love a Gore/Obama ticket!

[/hijack]

artist

06-01-2007, 12:11 AM

Recent polls show that Hillary's strongest demographic is the 18-40 year old female group (see here (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/parsing_the_polls_hillary_and.html)). So why no love for her here?

Gore could really shake things up!

I wish I could go for her, but she's too pro-war/conservative for me. Even Obama comes across too conservative for me. Kucinich is my ideal, but too unrealistic to have a chance in hell. Thus Edwards gets my vote.

As a Democrat, I'm so sick of Democrats NOT being anti-war enough and NOT having enough of a spine for political/career reasons.

allyray231

06-01-2007, 06:19 AM

I do not love Hillary. Didn't love her in the White House and I REALLY don't love her as my senator.

amew

06-01-2007, 07:12 AM

Recent polls show that Hillary's strongest demographic is the 18-40 year old female group (see here). So why no love for her here?

I like Hillary, and there's certainly part of me that would like to see her in the White House if for no other reason than because a female president really would warm my heart. I also think she has the ability to do pretty well in a the general, despite what many people think, simply because the Clintons are experienced at this game and seem to have an uncanny ability to get themselves elected. But I agree with other posters that she's just been a bit too conservative as of late to be my top pick, and my love of Edwards and Gore surpasses my desire to know that POTUS and I share the same reproductive anatomy.

Frankly, I am kind of surprised, but thrilled to see so many people in the Edwards camp.

ThreeYell

06-01-2007, 07:47 AM

But I agree with other posters that she's just been a bit too conservative as of late to be my top pick, and my love of Edwards and Gore surpasses my desire to know that POTUS and I share the same reproductive anatomy.

Me, too. I think the posters in this forum are more politically savvy than the average voter and are looking primarily at the issues. Much as I would like to see a woman in the White House, 2008 is a critical election and policy matters much more than gender.

ETA: amew - Edwards has been winning the monthly straw polls at DailyKos for a while. Warms my heart. :D

hockeybrat

06-04-2007, 12:49 PM

I can easily say Barack Obama.

But, if Gore decides to run, it would be Gore, hands down. A Gore/Obama ticket would be awesome!!

imagirliegirl

06-04-2007, 01:13 PM

I can easily say Barack Obama.

But, if Gore decides to run, it would be Gore, hands down. A Gore/Obama ticket would be awesome!!

That would be fantastic!

Delta

06-04-2007, 07:44 PM

Speaking as a conservative, if I had to pick a Dem out of the top 3 to be president, I'd pick Hillary, as much as it pains me.

msnicolea

06-05-2007, 07:57 AM

chefker

06-05-2007, 08:07 AM

My choices:

1) Gore (if he ran...fingers crossed!)

The remaining three are kind of 'tied' for me - I have trouble narrowing it down to one choice, amongst these three.

2) Obama - he's a bit green, but it's high time we have an AA president, I think.

3) Hillary. Not my fave, but I *do* want to see a woman in the White House. I don't know if she's the right choice, necessarily.

4) Edwards. I like his platform, and I kind of see him as a quasi-Gore type. :)

artist

06-05-2007, 09:07 AM

After the Democratic debates, I am still the most drawn to Edwards.

Delta, that is interesting! What would be your reasons for liking Hilary more than the other Democratic candidates? Also, do you think she has a chance of winning in the general election? Although I am more drawn to Edwards, I do think Hilary would make a great president and I think she's incredibly smart.

thelittlebabu

06-05-2007, 11:38 AM

Hillary owned the debate, IMO--she was absolutely the most "presendential." I assume Barack is playing nice (not that he isn't really nice, just in terms of politics), becasue he may want to position himself as her running mate. Neither Edwards nor Obama can win if they don't get more assertive and question her voting record.

I gotta say--I've been po'd at her for a while now, but she almost made ma a believer again. Impressive.
It's real early. These are the earliest pre-primary debates I can remember. Political geeks like us that inhabit this forum (:D ) can't get enough of this stuff, but the general populace might get weary from seeing too much of these candidates so early. I think Edwards and Obama are smart enough to pace themselves. They'll turn up the heat eventually.

msnicolea

06-05-2007, 01:02 PM

You know, you're probably right--and I am in no way advocating for a smear or negative campaign from anyone--but they are going to have to play hardball at some point, and it's a little hard to imagine my man Obama doing so--he's so innocent and nice ;->

jenahdawn

06-05-2007, 01:16 PM

Rosebud

06-05-2007, 01:25 PM

For now I choose Obama, but if Gore were to run, I'd vote for him hands down. Actually, I would love to see a Gore-Obama ticket.

Ditto.

I like Hilary, but I think she's too divisive and that's not what this country needs right now. I think it would just perpetuate the bitter red state vs. blue state stuff which really needs to die.

I also really like Edwards and think he's got a bright future. However, I think Obama really has the charisma and momentum that make him a viable candidate with crossover appeal. Unless Gore gets into this race, I think I'm on team Obama.

Rosebud

06-05-2007, 01:29 PM

Michelle

06-05-2007, 01:55 PM

Count me in as a Gore/Obama supporter!

I'd love to see a woman President. I'm just not convicnced that Hillary is the right woman for the job.

Delta

06-05-2007, 04:15 PM

Delta, that is interesting! What would be your reasons for liking Hilary more than the other Democratic candidates? Also, do you think she has a chance of winning in the general election? Although I am more drawn to Edwards, I do think Hilary would make a great president and I think she's incredibly smart.To paraprase Bill, it depends on what the meaning of "like" is. ;) I don't like her per se, but I think Hillary is by far the most competent of the top 3. She may be driven by blind ambition (as they all are but since she's a woman it's less forgivable for some reason) and triangulating all over the place, but I think she's up to the job. And after this current administration (which I supported and support to an extent ) competence is extremely important to me. They are all going to raise taxes and push universal health care (on which I am on the fence) so of the 3, I'd pick Hillary. I *like* Obama, but the longer he's around the more green he seems. Edwards seems phony and not up to it either. If I had to pick *any* Democrat as president (note I said president, not nominee) I'd pick Biden.

I'm just not convinced that Hillary is the right woman for the job.If not her, then who? Do you mean because she is polarizing or because she's not qualified.

Delta

06-05-2007, 08:20 PM

And of the top three, Hillary is the only one who has a clue, IMO, about national security.

Scooter

06-05-2007, 10:00 PM

I wish I could go for her, but she's too pro-war/conservative for me. Even Obama comes across too conservative for me. Kucinich is my ideal, but too unrealistic to have a chance in hell. Thus Edwards gets my vote.

As a Democrat, I'm so sick of Democrats NOT being anti-war enough and NOT having enough of a spine for political/career reasons.

I agree with pretty much all of this, although I'm not a Democrat. I'm just too leftist for the party. :p But I tend to vote for Dem President candidates in the final election.

Hillary is too conservative to me and not anti-war enough for my taste. (I don't see anti-war as being a liberal vs. conservative issue, I see it as a Bush Admin vs. everybody else issue.)

Scooter

06-08-2007, 01:01 AM

Can someone PLEASE tell me what Obama stands for or his opinion on SOMETHING? (I had this discussion with a friend last night, I'm currently in the MD/DC metro area, and he couldn't tell me one thing either, besides AA and fom IL...)

There's always http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ (click on each issue for more in depth info) or http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm to help.

Regina Phalange

06-09-2007, 09:20 AM

Why is this poll closed?

If I had to vote today I would be honestly torn between Clinton and Obama. Edwards used to be up there on my list but the more I hear him speak, the more I think he is just a big ball of fluff. Nice man, but not the President.

artist

06-09-2007, 10:52 AM

I agree with pretty much all of this, although I'm not a Democrat. I'm just too leftist for the party. :p But I tend to vote for Dem President candidates in the final election.

Hillary is too conservative to me and not anti-war enough for my taste. (I don't see anti-war as being a liberal vs. conservative issue, I see it as a Bush Admin vs. everybody else issue.)

Yeah...I do still consider myself a Democrat, but I am more left than many in my own party! Just not left enough perhaps to be Green Party, etc.

Scooter

06-09-2007, 08:13 PM

Yeah...I do still consider myself a Democrat, but I am more left than many in my own party! Just not left enough perhaps to be Green Party, etc.

I was originally registered as a Dem, but over time I guess you could say I lost my faith in the Dem's ability to be cohesive and follow through on their initial platforms. If I feel like if one of these Presidential candidates can truly stick by some of the principles and values they speak about, I will happily vote Dem.

Yeah, there are some crazy leftist Greens, just as there are some crazy conservatives, but it sounds like you may be surprised by the core values (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml) of that party. I think they're a little more moderate than people think.

udsweetpea

06-10-2007, 09:40 AM

I'm surprised that so many people have said they think Edwards has the best shot at winning the actual election. Do you really think Edwards could beat McCain or Guiliani? Is that because he has support in Southern states or crossover appeal?

I think its that any Democrat can win over any Republican right now no matter what their name may be. Americans wants a Dem as a president no matter who it is.

ejs

06-10-2007, 12:07 PM

I think its that any Democrat can win over any Republican right now no matter what their name may be. Americans wants a Dem as a president no matter who it is.

I don't think that's necessarily true. You're forgetting about the religious right. While there may be many Republicans who are against the way the Iraq situation is being handled, there are many who will always vote for the Republican candidate.

udsweetpea

06-10-2007, 12:10 PM

I don't think that's necessarily true. You're forgetting about the religious right. While there may be many Republicans who are against the way the Iraq situation is being handled, there are many who will always vote for the Republican candidate.

That's very true, but I think there's a growing number of people outraged over the war and the religious right dominant administration who will actually stay in line to vote this time.

nylons73

06-11-2007, 07:54 AM

That's very true, but I think there's a growing number of people outraged over the war and the religious right dominant administration who will actually stay in line to vote this time.

The problem with this comment is that it is the religious right, more than any other group, that organizes and follows through on their political beliefs. Sure, there are people who are outraged and sure there are people who are upset at Bush, but....the past 2 elections have shown us that the people who actually GET to the polls and actually VOTE on election day are not the people who have all of this outrage. They are the conservative, highly organized, highly principled, religious right. All of the 'VOTE OR DIE' shirts worn by Puffy still couldn't get out a large number of the democratic constituentcy last time, and I don't expect that to change this time.

What will change is that some (non religious right) conservatives, will abandon their party in the general election and vote democratic this time around, unless their candidate is the left-leaning Guiliani, and then, it's anybody's ball game.

Delta

06-11-2007, 08:31 AM

The poll is closed because I just wanted it to be a snapshot of that point in time - it was a 7 day poll. I forgot to program the R poll to lock though. :mad:

udsweetpea

06-11-2007, 09:25 AM

The problem with this comment is that it is the religious right, more than any other group, that organizes and follows through on their political beliefs. Sure, there are people who are outraged and sure there are people who are upset at Bush, but....the past 2 elections have shown us that the people who actually GET to the polls and actually VOTE on election day are not the people who have all of this outrage.

Well, I think its a combination of a lot of things. A lot of people have jobs that don't allow for standing in a 5 hour line to vote, so they left and figured their one vote wouldn't count. But I stood in line for 5 hours and watched many Kerry voters (I could tell by their "Vote for Kerry" shirts) walk out the door because they didn't have the time to stand there. Or I watched many people stand in line for an hour and give up because their alloted time for lunch was up, and they had to go back to work. Generally, its the Dems who have jobs that don't allow for standing in line to vote for long periods of time, so they do make there but they can't stay.

msnicolea

06-11-2007, 09:44 AM

It is 2007--this election is by no means a "done deal." It's this type of complacence that will cause the Dems to lose again if we aren't vigilant!

Niobe

06-11-2007, 01:03 PM

I'm surprised that so many people have said they think Edwards has the best shot at winning the actual election. Do you really think Edwards could beat McCain or Guiliani? Is that because he has support in Southern states or crossover appeal?

I think that it's a combination of being Southern, extremely warm and likable, and able to bitch-slap those two adulterers with his good family values - same as Obama except that he's a Midwesterner.

I think that the Dems, if they play their cards right and the Republicans do nominate one of the three candidates with a history of adultery or the Mormon, could win the religious right in this campaign. I don't know if that's the route they will take, but I think it's entirely likely that the Republicans are about to get a taste of their own medicine with the whole "we're all about the family values" thing.

nylons73

06-11-2007, 08:24 PM

I think that the Dems, if they play their cards right and the Republicans do nominate one of the three candidates with a history of adultery or the Mormon, could win the religious right in this campaign.

Not going to happen. One word - Abortion. The religious right has a long history of forgiving divorce and adultery (Jimmy Swaggart anyone?) but pro-life is their bread and butter. Dems don't support a pro-life position. All Republican candidates but Guiliani do. Nuff said.

lawyerlee

06-11-2007, 09:54 PM

On the topic of being further left than most Dems, I definitely fall into that category and agree with the Green Party stance on most issues. However, I firmly believe we are stuck with a two-party system, for better or for worse, and day dreaming that we might be able to promote change from outside that system is a waste of time. So that's why I'm a Democrat. But maybe I'm just a cynic at heart. ;) :)

Delta

06-12-2007, 04:36 PM

This new WP/ABC poll might explain our CC poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102216.html

In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton led Obama by a 2 to 1 margin among female voters. Her 15-point lead in the poll is entirely attributable to that margin. Clinton drew support from 51 percent of the women surveyed, compared with 24 percent who said they supported Obama and 11 percent who said they backed former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is drawing especially strong support from lower-income, lesser-educated women -- voters her campaign strategists describe as "women with needs." Obama, by contrast, is faring better among highly educated women, who his campaign says are interested in elevating the political discourse.

This tidbit is especially interesting:
A large gap also appeared on the question of which candidate seemed the most honest and trustworthy: Clinton was considered most honest by 42 percent of women who had only a high school education, compared with 16 percent for Obama. But only 19 percent of college-educated women said Clinton is the most honest; 50 percent chose Obama.

(Yes, right now the D race is more interesting to me than the R race.)

Rosebud

06-12-2007, 10:30 PM

There was an interesting article in the L.A. Times today saying that according to polls, Fred Thompson has nearly caught up to Giuliani as the Republican frontrunner (Giuliani: 27%, Thompson: 21%). The article also talked about who's at the front of the pack for the Dems and how they'd stack up against a Republican opponent.

L.A. Times Story re: Recent Polling (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-poll12jun12,0,6280343.story)

Just one of many interesting tidbits from the article:

Among the Democratic candidates, the race remains little changed from a Times/Bloomberg poll in April.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains a solid lead at 33%, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama at 22%. Running third, with 15%, is former Vice President Al Gore, who continues to say he has no plans to seek the office he barely lost in 2000. Fourth is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at 8%.

Despite Clinton's lead, Obama is the strongest Democrat in hypothetical match-ups with Republicans in the general election, running even or well ahead of the GOP's top contenders.

Clinton, in a showing that could spark concerns among some Democrats, does not fare as well. Against Giuliani, for instance, the poll found she would lose by 10 percentage points.

Niobe

06-13-2007, 12:26 AM

Fred Thompson's picture on his wikipedia page scares me. Look. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_thompson) I'd have nightmares if I had to watch his State of the Union address.

ysolde

06-13-2007, 10:15 AM

I thought Romney was a bit of a flip-flopper on the abortion issue. If Romney is a true Mass. Republican, in the footsteps of Weld, I think he would be a great candidate. His personal views on abortion and homosexuality don't mean a hill of beans to me as long as he is willing to support a woman's right to choose and gay rights politically. I think he may get there, if the circumstances are right. And I would never make anyone's religion a litmus test for election.

bookworm

06-13-2007, 10:44 AM

If Romney is a true Mass. Republican, in the footsteps of Weld, I think he would be a great candidate.

Unfortunately, he is not. He was pretty good as a candidate for governor--pragmatic, fiscally responsible etc. Then he completely reversed his postions and sold out the state to win over the Bible-thumpers down south. He would fly down, taking state troopers with him at taxpayer expense, and belittle the state.

(Note: It's reasonable for a governor to take security on political trips. It is NOT reasonable to mock the state paying for them while you're there.)

udsweetpea

06-13-2007, 10:48 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Biden. Does anyone think he has a chance?

bookworm

06-13-2007, 10:58 AM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Biden. Does anyone think he has a chance?

No. Which is why I haven't mentioned him :). I heard an NPR interview with him awhile ago--he had that "statesman" quality I haven't seen lately.

EJH

06-14-2007, 01:48 PM

Hillary gets my vote.

And if Romney somehow becomes president I will leave this country. He is a terrible man. His response to the marriage vote in MA today...well he's hateful. No other word for him.

msnicolea

06-14-2007, 02:19 PM

Romney makes me sick--as a member of a religious group that has experienced persecution historically, you'd think he'd know better. He's a hypocrite and a flip-flopper.

His quote, FYI:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, now running for president, called the vote "a regrettable setback" and said it makes it more important now to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.

"Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility," he said.

And here's a sample of what he said in 1994:

"For some voters, it might be enough to simply match my opponent's record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will. I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party, and I would be a voice in the Republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts," Romney said, according to the transcript.