I know nothing about the group that did the polling...and it is the New York Post...but I thought some of you would be interested. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13258.htm DEAN IN FOR N.H. BUSH-WHACKING: POLL December 12, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state. Bush gets 57 percent to Dean's 30 percent among registered voters in the American Research Group poll. In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent. Another ARG poll this month showed Dean with a 30-point lead over Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) for the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary, the second test after the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses. The new poll seems sure to fuel claims by rivals that Dean would be another George McGovern debacle for Democrats in the general election.
Although interesting, it's way too early to make anything of this. the polls will tighten considerably, no matter who the dem nominee is, after the conventions, and trust me, at some point Bush will be behind in some polls. they only really start to mean anything after labor day.
Don't tell the folks up there I said this but New Hampshire is only important because they are the first primary. In the general election their whopping 4 electoral votes don't mean diddly squat.
The dislike for Dean is just another chapter in the pointless rivalry between New Hampshire and Vermont. New Hampshire built a mini-mall, so Vermont built a bigger mini-mall. New Hampshire built the world's largest sandwich, so Vermont burned down their courthouse.
i don't think that's the point...i think that's an area that traditionally leans left...right??? and, though admittedly quite early, it's 2-1 for bush. i didn't post this to say, "well...looks like bush won the election"...i just found it interesting...there are all sorts of qualifiers on it, to be sure.
Am I getting my states backward? Isn't New Hampshire a little more conservative anyway? I know Dean is Governor of its neighboring midget state, but he is more centrist than liberal. I do wonder if Karl Rove has rode shotgun with the media to get them to anoint Dean. But it all comes down to who the party nominates, and I don't think Dean is the shoo-in. If Wesley Clark can steal Dean's post-Iowa thunder, and if he can convince voters that he's not a war-monger (I read an article where some uninformed lady said she wouldn't vote for a general, which struck me as funny, considering the armchair general we have in office now) then Clark might just get the nomination instead. But that, too, has its advantages for Bush (*ugh*), as there is no clear frontrunner until the nomination (Al Gore's endorsement was a surprise, but in the end, not a slam dunk, as far as I'm concerned).
Dean getting blown out in a Northeast state? Ah... to bad for Howard. Just wait for the Southern states! LIFE SUPPORT
I'm not sure of the significance of the poll. New Hamshire voted for Bush in the last election but Clinton in the previous 2. I've always thought of NH as being more conservative though. They have no state income tax, no sales tax (not sure where they get their money), and the state motto is "live free or die".
LOL There's definitely a subtle rivalry between the two states. Subtle, but definitely there. Vermont is the last bastion for liberalism in the United States (hell, our Congressman is *literally* a socialist) and New Hampshire prides itself on its libertarian past. They said they'd get back at us by spiking our water supply, but they didn't have the guts to do it.
From what I've heard, they have obscenely high property taxes. But I spent 6 weeks there one summer, and I noticed prices for goods there are higher than in Texas.
I forgot to add that while I was there during the summer of 2001, there was a fight over taxes (from what I recall), so several counties threatened to secede from the state. I was impressed; no county here would have the balls to threaten to secede.
This just reinforces the fact that most Americans align themselves with the views of our President even though the vocal majority would like us to believe otherwise.
New Hampshire is politically unlike the rest of New England. It is heavily Libertarian and has leaned Republican for the past few years. The only state in the Northeast that Bush carried in 2000 was New Hampshire. They just recently put in John Sununu Jr., quite a conservative republican, in the Senate. I don't think this is surprising at all. Now if Bush led Dean by 2-1 in Mass, VT or Maine, that would a different story.
As stated in my other thread New Hampshire has voted for a Repiublican presidential candidate 75% of the time since 1972. The fact that Bush has a lead in that state right now only reinforces what statistics already tell us. 55% approval rating for the Presdient as of today is barely more than half. It doesn't exactly scream that "most Americans aligning themsleves with the views of the President."
Well, if you consider more than 50% to be "most" then it does. I know I've said it before, but polls like this are meaningless because so much can change between now and the election. At this time in 1991, there were very few people who thought Clinton could win against GHWB. As that election showed, a President can't rest on his laurels. He has to be active. He has to campaign hard, even if he thinks he's got it in the bag. So, even a Bush supporter should not look at polls like these and take comfort because any election is a tough battle, and I expect this one will eventually be that way, too, especially once the Democratic candidate emerges from the field.
The next real "race" will be in 2008. When Al Gore faces Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination, and niether places the loser as the running mate early enough to be considered legit by the masses. Mondale meet Ferraro. The New Hammies need something to be their "claim to fame." Too bad it never really means enough to the rest of us... or does it? Who won't vote because of this "polling?" Scary.
New Hampshire often votes overwhelmingly republican. They voted for Bush over Gore in the last election.
