Here's Why I Believe Clark Has a Big Advantage for the Nomination

Clark has a huge advantage in the South, not just for the general election, but also in the Democratic primary. The current Gallup polls show Clark with 25% support in the South, compared to 8% for Dean. Not only does this translate to wins all across the South in the primaries, it potentially means BIG wins for Clark, which is very important for the proportional apportionment of delegates that the Democratic Party uses.

When you couple this advantage with Clark's probable advantage in superdelegates, Dean will have a very difficult battle securing the delegates necessary for the nomination. He will have to beat Clark decisively in not only the early states for momentum, but also in the most populous states, which are CA, NY, FL and TX. Two of those four states are in the South. For CA and NY, Clark is leading by 5% in CA and 2% in NY, according to the latest polls.

This race is a long way from over, and if Edwards hangs tough, he will obviously have a big impact on the South. But IMO there are some natural advantages that Clark has in this race. If it gets to a brokered convention, again, considering the establishment hostility to Dean (oft-cited by Dean supporters), Clark will have an advantage.

Just my $0.02.

DTH

Honistly, this sothern tunnle vision is getting rediculess. But then again, the guy has no record to run on, so lets run on gimics.

And I love how that must really chap your hide! :D

DTH

I know no such thing. The South hasn't carried the dems sences the 60's. If Clark is going to win, he is going to need something a little more current.

That's the beauty of it. He doesn't HAVE to focus on the South. It's a natural advantage, one that Dean will have a very difficult time overcoming.

Meanwhile, Clark can focus on staying halfway competitive in IA and NH, and working his tail off in CA and NY.

DTH

He can win the south with both hands tied behind his back. Right. Yay. Thats it.

Clark can't carry the South. And he sure the heck ain't if he isn't even going to try. Unless he is frends with the pig man too, like he was with Kisinger.

Clark won't have to make the South a huge focus. Big difference from taking it for granted or being able to win with both hands tied behind his back.

But if your platitudes and unsupported assertions make you feel better about the difficulties Dean faces on his way to the nomination, by all means, feel free to continue deluding yourself. :-)

DTH

Speaking strictly of a presidential election, here are the Southern States and electoral votes carried by Clinton, 1992:

Kentucky - 8
Tennessee - 11
West Virginia - 5
Arkansas - 6
Louisiana - 9
Georgia - 13

Source: Wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

In 1996, he lost Georgia (13), but gained Florida (25).

Moral of the story: if we want to win, we'll need all the help from the South we can get in '04.

The Dems have a bad habit of going up against a man who can't win, and finding a way to lose to him. We just had a huge example this last week. They need to be out their taking care of buisness. But noo, we like to play the demografics like a giant craps game.

The appitite for DLC failer is nothing short of breathtaking.

Clinton carried the following three, crucial states in both '92 and '96:

Ohio: 21
Michigan:18
Pennsylvania: 23

In '00, Gore carried Michigan and Pennsylvania, while Bush (narrowly) won Ohio.

Ohio's 21 votes would have been enough to carry Gore in '00, even though he lost every single southern state. So, while I like a southern strategy, we could still concentrate our nominee on those three states and not even need to win a southern state.

There are a few different ways to look at this; I still feel Clark will play better in both the South and the Great Lakes (especially my own, underrated state of Ohio, with its phatty 21 electoral votes).

That's what I thought.

No proven record except for his military record. That's all. I know he's an econ expert, but what else can he bring to America? If being a military guy is all you need for a president, then I suggest you move to Pakistan where there's a military guy by the name of Musharaff, and he's doing a very poor job of running the country - (think bin Forgotten).

However, I would support Clark as a VP, not a President. Ask me again in 2012, when Clark has over 8 years of political experience. Maybe he will be well-versed in political matters, but he is not ready yet.

Hawkeye-X

Particularly California.

:puke:

Regardless, I think Clark has sufficiently relevant experience to assuage the great majority of voters. That's held true to this point, and I bet it will continue to hold true all the way to the primaries.

DTH

I have yet to see any crededenchels here. The only thing I see thus far is that Clark gave a few lectures on economics at West Point.

Can the Clarkies show me the sheep skin?

in economics from Oxford.

Clarkies just love to lie about this guy. I need to see some proof of this.

But the econ stuf from him thus far makes me think he gradwated from the Austian School of economics.

It's common knowledge. I don't really care if you want to deny reality. That's your problem, not mine.

DTH

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And your lack of Internet research skills aren't my problem. Clark has a Masters in Econ from Oxford. That is an undisputed portion of his biography. There's probably a Rhodes Scholar website out there, too.

And now he has campaing fiance issues? Are you BRAIN DEAD? Do you even remember what the Repugs did to the last guy?

He has no campaign finance issues. The FEC took absolutely no position, but in an abundance of caution Clark returned the cash anyway. It's a dead issue.

DTH

Oxford.

Some folks make it so hard. :eyes:

What makes you think you deserve anything but contempt?

"Clarkies just love to lie about this guy." -- Code Name D.

DTH

:nuke:

:D

DTH

that body of water gets AROUND

:D

Wes Clark speaks fluent Spanish...too bad he didn't get to answer any questions during the "3 minutes" questions and the "1 minute" answer Town Hall? format.

The guy is a leader, and it shows. He will win. period no comma.

Whether that's a good thing or not is up in the air.

Can't always get what you want. But I think Clark's a good man and is seriously concerned about the danger that Bush presents. I'm glad to have him and hope he picks Dean as his VP

Although I really do hope he keeps it positive, and doesn't continue to go negative on Clark.

DTH

with both of which Clark has ZERO experience. Keep it in your pants DTH.

I'm sorry my analysis is causing you such consternation that you resort to dismissive ad hominem comments.

Regarding econ and healthcare, Clark is releasing detailed positions within the next two weeks. I'm sure they will garner a lot of attention, and that they will be rock solid. After all, Robert Rubin has already endorsed Clark, and he's one of the best around on domestic policy.

DTH

'I'm sure they will garner a lot of attention, and that they will be rock solid.'

Sounds like you're just a little ahead of yourself DTH. Infatuated, maybe?

His jobs plan was solid, his foreign policy as expressed in his books and essays have been fantastic, and his staff is incredibly experienced.

He has a track record of success in his endeavors. But doubt away, I won't mind waiting-and-seeing, certainly. :-)

DTH

in his first month as a Democrat, and he has wonderful plans...

Don't we all. I'll put my support behind experience.

I think Clark does have experience, he's been the executive in charge of large military communities, he's negotiated alliances and conducted diplomacy, he's done so many things during his career.

But your concern is reasonable, IMO, even if I might disagree with you.

DTH

It really blew me away. It is a very important issue for me, and Clark's plan to cover catastrophic costs is just plain visionary.

Not sure what you're referring to, here.

DTH

lol ;)

...I saw a smart guy, and "everyman" with a resume!

I did not see ANY resemblance to Bush/Rove, despite those claims.

He was a little unpolished, perhaps a bit green, but over all I felt like he was OK.

He is friends with President Bill Clinton and Al Gore- that says a lot to me.

Apolitical types who "vote for the man, not the party" will go Clark- we could use a few extra votes ya know!!!!