Why I think Dean has the best chance against Bush.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=739

"The president would outpoll any of the current leading Democratic contenders if the election were held today. He would earn 45% of the vote against retired General Wesley Clark's 35%; would beat former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, 47% - 37%; would poll 47% against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's 37%; and would win over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, 49% - 37%."

Now compare that to the latest ABC news poll:

"If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were , for whom would you vote?" Names rotated

10/9-13 9/10-13

Howard Dean 16
Richard Gephardt 14
Wesley Clark 13
John Kerry 11
Joseph Lieberman 10
Carol Moseley Braun 6
Al Sharpton 4
John Edwards 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
None (vol.) 9
Wouldn't vote 1
No opinion 12
Bob Graham n/a

Bush = 44%
Democrat = 49%
Neither/Other = 3%
Wouldn'tVote = 1%
No Opinion = 3%

*NOW, let me be the first to say I realize polls can show different results, but I dislike the myth that Clark is the most electable so we should fall in line.

In addition, we know all the 'dirt' on Howard Dean, and it's managable. But, the dish on Clark is uncertain and it's quite a bit more controversial. I think the Bushies would slaughter Clark in a RW campaign against him. Just my humble opinion folks.

In the primary vote your heart, and in the election vote your head. ~ Molly Ivins.

Updated to quell the masses...

Looks to me like there is exactly 10% between Bush/Dean and Bush/Clark. And the numbers are identical with Kerry.

Bush is at 47-49 %
Clark/Dean are at 43/40 % respectively.

Lets face it the top dems are neck in neck and as Dean says there are 5 people (as of today) that can beat Bush. But, Dean has many new supporters that are not being polled, thus my hypothesis. I live in MN where Jesse Ventura surprised the hell out of the poll meisters b/c his support at the college level couldn't be gauged. I think were gonna see it again with Dean.

And considering a higher percentage of those polled said they did not want a Bush re-election??? I'd say Dean/Clark/Kerry/Gep/Lieberman could all beat Shrub...

Quote: "The president would outpoll any of the current leading Democratic contenders if the election were held today. He would earn 45% of the vote against retired General Wesley Clark's 35%; (That's 10%) would beat former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, 47% - 37%; (that's 10%) would poll 47% against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's 37%; (that's 10%) and would win over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, 49% - 37%."

that fuzzy math again....knock it off :)



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

Again, not to mention the numerous 'new' supporters that Dean has brought into the process.

Bush polled 47% against Dean and Kerry but only 45% against Clark.

Bush losses votes against Clark, but...

A tie. Same results.

Your phantom "numerous 'new' supporters" would also play into this poll's averages unless they're not part of the electorate.

Hell this isnt even a recent poll. Sept 25, give me a break. Clark was in the race what a week or two at this time. What is this poster trying to pull.

I agree. Way too early.

Besides, the Bush campaign hasn't even pulled out of the station yet. He won't do anything but raise money between now and the time a clear nominee emerges from our Party.

I'm still deciding myself who the nominee should be.

No experience in foreign affairs.
No knowledge of how to deal with the hawks in the Pentagon.

Dean said he actually voted against the Iraq Resolution.... supporters say he "mispoke" but Junior's henchmen will say he did it deliberately.

You seem oblivious to the "dirt" on Dean... when its mentioned, you just ignore it.

He's a chameleon with a history of disrepecting members of his own party... calling them "cockroaches".
Those Washington Democrats are working hard to get money to the states for Governors like Dean. They're the ones who have to make the tough decisions of votes like the Iraqi Resolution. Dean just used the Iraqi Resolution the same way Junior/Rove use September 11th. Disgusting.


Clark has proven he will stand up and do the right thing. What is contoversial about that?

Clue phone: Dean will have the ability to appoint a Sec of State, etc...

Let's see calling do nothing washington insiders cockroaches or VOTING FOR REAGAN/BUSH AND PRAISING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION?

I'll take the cockroach comment thanks.

Clark has proven he's an opportunist, nothing more. I'm still waiting to see his issues page.

BTW, I'm not oblivious to the Dean dish, I've read every bit of it. And, I've judged him impartially.

I realize he doesn't look like GI JOE, but that's ok by me.

I can't really describe why I feel that way but when I look at the general I'm reminded of bush. No slam, just my OPINION!

Guess dishonestly works for you Gully... but as I said those "do-nothings" are the ones fighting to get moeny to Governors like the ingrate Howard Dean.

And why doesn't it bother you that Dean was lionized by the Cato Institute?

And how can it not disgust you to see Dean sending out emails celebrating the Iraqi War Resolution and using that the same way Junior used 9/11?

What could be more opportunistic that Dean CLAIMING he wouldn't have voted for the Resolution?

Without having done that, he'd be a nobody. And the Progressives on this board would have looked at his actual record in Vermont and had NOTHING to do with him.

between that and Clarks waffling on the subject.

As far as the Cato institute lionizing Dean, that helps my 'electability' case thanks...

Dean has broad appeal.

One of the eleven was more of an honorary deal, so let's say 10. That is more than 20 percent of all

US Presidents. Eleven would make it more than 25 percent. Only one in last 100 years.

Yes Clark is an opportunist. He see an opportunity to right the ship.

:eyes:

And, being a General is 'criteria' for being President.

Sorry, I'll take the Gov...

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

boomer he is not impressed with this man, and is quite scared off by the way someone or ones are trying to shove this guy down his throat. I am a bit biased so I am not posting my opinion here, but the opinion of a baby boomer (i.e. pretty darned big group of voters) goes along way with me. And I have heard this same sense of distaste from others.

Although I'm sure some might argue about the nuts and bolts, but just by winning WWII, Ike stands alone at the top, hopefully forever.

Comparing them as candidates would have relevance, but I don't know enough about Ike's campaigning skills and Clark has only been doing it for a handful of weeks. Clark does seem the superior public speaker, from what little I can recall about Ike.

is Dean. I know many smart baby boomers who are extremely impressed with the man.

information that I had gleaned on someone who had already made me nervous. That and I've always respected my father's and my uncle's (career military,non Clark...hmmm) opinion. They have reinforced what I already thought. Something odd is afoot. I choose to stay away based on that. Like I said, Babyboomers are a huge group, and I am grateful there are quite a few not happy with this at all.

"SIT down and shut the FUCK up, or you're FIRED."

And one reason why I hope to heaven he won't be the nominee.

Seems to me it'd be pretty effective anyway. Sounds like the Pentagon needs a good "housecleaning."

But he has proven that he's the establishment's last chance to stop Dean and preserve the status quo.

Who will be a dupe for the Neo-Con hawks in the Pentgon.

Yeah. Dean's the stooge.

How much money has he raised for Republicans? How many members of the current administration has he publicly praised? How many times has he voted for Repubs? How long has he been registered as a Dem?

Oh, wait. That's the ultimate trustworthy Godlike Clark.

Sorry, I'll take my chances with somebody who is actually registered as a Dem. You let me know when the blinders come off, OK?

A smarmy, phony politician.

Tell us what you dislike about what he says. What about his economic policy that he outlined a few days ago do you disagree with? What about his Foreign Policy that he so carefully articulated that you disagree with? Now tell us what Clark has said about the economic posture of America? About our dealings with the rest of the world? :shrug: I am not bashing any Democratic contender and wonder about the motives of those that do. I would suggest we listen to what our candidates say and pick that apart instead of the person.

The man has no depth - no substance. Has Bush set the bar so low that any smuck will do?

them his own.

Dean was the first on MANY issues.

In fact, we still don't know what Clark's issues are? We don't know how he intends to manage our nation.

First you accuse Clark of taking Dean's positions on the issues. Then you state that Clark hasn't stated his position on the issues. So how in the heck would you know that "Clark has taken Deans positions and made them his own," if Clark hasn't stated any of his positions on the issues?

However, I'd rather hear it from the 'General' himself.

Given Clarks ability to change his mind drastically *Reagan Bush voter to liberal democrat and all, I'm a bit of a skeptic.

Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter. Only Bush Sr. could have been said to have foreign policy experience.

Having domestic experience is more important.

And the missing ingredient in all projections of the election is the performance of the candidates -- their ability to deflect criticism, to attack and draw blood, and avoid being "Gore-d" by the media. In these categories, I have to say Dean is the best so far.

Not to mention the strength of the campaign organization.

for the simple reason that they have the demonstrated experience in running government. All the social, fiscal, environmental, etc. issues.

Dean is the only one with that resume. The others are Washington insiders, senators, congressmen, a general.

may not have hurt him, but it sure hurt the country.

Post 9/11 is a different world - foreign policy experience is a much bigger thing now, especially with our troops fighting in (so far) two theaters. Dean is hugely vulnerable here. National security will be a major issue next fall, just like it was in 2002.

If the election comes down to that, Dean will lose. If the economy continues to suck, he's got a chance. There are other candidates better suited than Dean when it comes to national security, who can also take advantage of the economy and domestic issues.

so it's that same old adage "it's the economy *" that got Bush senior and will get junior. People vote with their pocket books to a significant degree. We'll have another year to experience the continuation of the bear market economy. If it doesn't resume in time, then you would have a good point, but I'm pretty sure it will.

The war mess that Bush has caused may be a factor in the election, but it will be a challenge for the Democratic candidate to show the public that Bush has failed the nation miserably. Dean has been doing this and will not let up.

There is no more foreign policy experience needed after 911 than before. The mess that Bush has created can be fixed by letting the U.N. take over.

If we wan't to end terrorism, we will have to stop screwing over the rest of the world, in particular, the Arab world. Dean, unlike Lieberman, understands that a neutral position between Isreal and Palestine is required. The source of terrorism is the unfairness of our foreign policy, particularly in our favoritism with Isreal.

although, he is more of a liberal...

As for foreign policy being more of an issue post 9/11, we'll just have to disagree.

attack committed on American soil. We have a mess in Iraq and have alienated most of the world. We need a reasoned person to clean up this mess, not an angry little man like Dean.

a reasonable job as prez. Also, there is so much more than to concern ourselves with than terrorism. We need a person who's governed and one with a good fiscal record. We need to undo the damage of this administration to our civil liberties, to our jobs, to our economy etc...

Also, I think dems are going to have more faith in a person with a solid political record, than a history fighting wars. Especially given the fact that Clark has questionable party loyalty.

For the record... Dean has some excellent ideas on how to protect our nation from terror.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_homelandsecurity

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign

Dean is the total package IMHO. He'll get the deficit cleaned up, create jobs, rebuild our relations with the international community and protect us against terror.

Also, I don't think Clarks experience fighting wars, doesn't lend itself to protecting us from terrorism *necessarilly.

I checked the Clark website, and he doesn't have his issues laid out yet or I would have posted his position on terrorism as well.

the general public will not vote for someone who is viewed as weak on defense.

Dean won't be able to do diddly. He's no more a uniter than Bush is. The Repubs are going to control most of the house and senate (please spare me Dean's b.s. that his "followers" will enable the Democrats to gain control of the house and senate - I'm not buying it). We need a president of substance, not some shallow smuck who cares more about his own self than this country.

"We need a president of substance, not some shallow smuck who cares more about his own self than this country."

Oh I see, the general cares about his kuntry and dat dar Gubner doesn't! This is ridiculous. Any Dem running for President cares about his country.

Let's see some of that Clark substance BTW? I'm still waiting for his updated issues page myself...

Oh wait! We have the substantial praise of Bush and co? Or the substantial vote for Reagan and Bush Sr? Now there's some substance!!

Yes, and Clark will single-handedly win back the house and senate :eyes: I forgot.

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

Sorry, not buying what your sellin' thanks!

you inferred i was. That said, The vast majority of Dems view Dean not to be the answer in 04 as all of the polls show, and im sure by the number of members in the republican media praising dean and rooting for him to win, that side isnt biting their nails over him being the possible contender.

Again, a myth perpetuated by Clarkies I'd say.

K, Im outta here for today.

"TAWK AMONGST YERSELVES"...

:hi:

im getting sick and tired of spoonfeeding basic things to the military wing of the Dean campaign. Add up the numbers of all the candidates and then subtract Deans number to find out what i was referring to.

That said, according the ABC poll Dean is leading the field by 1% while Newsweek has him in 4th and Gallup has him in 2nd and both have him trailing the front runner by 5%. In other words, there isnt a clear leader of the pack, and only Dean has a clear lead in NH.

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

did you call him a cockroach?

and filled it out - asked good questions and anxious to see the results.

How is Dean going to fight the Repubs painting him as a "Deanie Weanie," a guy that evaded the draft then went skiing?

I think Ivins is really missing something. If you don't listen to your head and reason in the primary, you really won't have a snowball's chance in hell in the election.

They didn't care about Schwarzenegger molesting women or praising Nazis, they won't care that Dean wasn't accepted by the draft board for Vietnam.

Someone who is perceived as weak on defense makes the voter feel vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

GI JOE or bust. :eyes:

He can't go there.

remember Bush.... actual experience in Vietnam is of no importance now...

I don't see dodging the draft to be an issue for Dean unless Dean would somehow make issue of "flightsuit" being AWOL


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

According to the stats above, Dean and Kerry have an identical chance against Bush - 47% -37% with a difference of 10%. Bush vs. Clark is 45% - 35%, still with a difference of 10%.

among the new folks he brought into the process, who aren't being 'polled'? I'd say I'm right on.... ;)

BTW, at least I posted stats with my op... }(

..."expert" political analysis of the poll.

DESPITE Dean's "mucho supporters," and your hypothetical "new folks" who weren't polled :eyes:, Dean can still only manage a statistical tie with Kerry and Clark.

Out of the 1,037 polled, I'd say they missed quite a lot of folks who support all 9 candidates.

"The president would outpoll any of the current leading Democratic contenders if the election were held today. He would earn 45% of the vote against retired General Wesley Clark's 35%; would beat former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, 47% - 37%; would poll 47% against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's 37%; and would win over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, 49% - 37%."

Howard Dean is in the lead here...

presented by your link, or are you going to run away again?

it's a "HYPOTHESIS"... :eyes:

..you were trying to mislead with the Zogby poll.

remarks were there all along.

bwahahahahahahaha

If it was spin, I'd have done a better job.

thats why you changed the title of the thread after people pointed out the obvious

The zogby poll was a portion of my argument. I was incorrect in my interpretation of that particular data. BFD

I understood the data to show Dean had a 2% lead over clark, as wyldwolf pointed out, that was incorrect on my part *gasp*

eom

:eyes:

it begins with the words "Why I think"…not "Why I know".

Answer his question.

There wasn't a question.

Semantics aside, you still have failed to address his point that your title is misleading to the corresponding info in your message


Edit: Nevermind, you changed your obviously erroneous title.

:pals:

:evilgrin:

What this shows is that Clark is in heavy contention even with his very recent entry into the race. That is fabulous!

fundraising stats of $7.6 million or at least tied Lieberman's 2nd QTR stat of $5 million.

It makes me wonder after all the hype on Clark, if he's really just the Great White Dem Establishment Hope and not the Ike wannabe that he deludes himself to be.

Despite Dean's incredible job of fundraising and grassroots supports, he still only managed a statistical tie with Kerry and Clark in this poll.

Apparantly is is the grassroots who have taken him this far. If he were running a more traditional campaign, he'd be toast right now.

The same could be said for Clark running a 'traditional' campaign...

and I wonder how many Dean supporters have been polled versus those that don't follow politics, Repukes, and other Dem candidate supporters.

When I look at who donates to Dean -- 200,000 plus supporters -- and that most of his donations are less than $200/QTR, I wonder about who the pollsters are calling? I'm trully starting to believe that this 2004 revolution will not be televised or predicted by polls.

It's interesting in the following chart that Braun leads Dean in contribution greater than $200 30% to Dean's 13% and Clark only leads Braun by 1% more. Since Clark far surpassed raising Braun in funds in the 3rd QTR, that stat certainly shows that Clark's grassroots following is more hype than real.


A chart by the Center for Responsive Politics shows the reliance of most of the Democratic candidates on donations at the $2,000 level. (The percentage is of all contributions greater than $200. See opensecrets.org.)

Edwards: 67%
Gephardt: 56%
Lieberman: 54%
Kerry: 53%
Clark: 31%
Braun: 30%
Dean: 13%
Kucinich: 12%
(Accurate information for Sharpton was not available.)
from Dean, Kucinich Democratize Fundraising http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wx101703.html

Thanks.

I agree with you 'the revolution will not be televised'...

What a great way to put it!

:yourock:

Like I said in MN, when Ventura ran, the polls had him being slaughtered by Humphrey. Granted I voted for Humphrey but...needless to say the world was shocked at the outcome. No one predicted a Ventura win.

Hey atleasty y'all won't die in a plane crash.

LOL!!!

At least not yet.

I think I will stick with the most recent polls that show Clark doing well. Why would you post a poll almost a month old to support Dean. You seem desparate. By the way I am not against Dean, just dont put much faith in old polls.

the lead is a week old.

He first posts that the latest (month old) Zogby poll has Dean doing best against Bush.

It gets pointed out that Dean, Kerry, and Clark are in statistical ties in those regards.

Then he gives us a really odd hypothesis about how the poll doesn't take into account Deans "new mucho supporters..."

THEN he edits the subject line to make it look as though he wasn't trying to spin and mislead in the first place.

Bookmarking this thread for future reference :eyes:

I stand in awe of gully :-)

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

I admited my error. however, my opinion remains the same.

If I were hiding anything, I'd have deleted the message .... :eyes:

AT first, I appeciated your changing the subject line becuase I thought that it demonstrated a desire for honesty in posting. But then I read your comments.

Originally, you tried to argue that Dean was the most "electable" based on that poll. Now that you were called on that, your argument has changed, and you are now objecting to "the myth" of electability, and arguing that we shouldn't vote on the basis of electability.

Your argument is fraudelant

I stand corrected on the zogby poll, but my opinion hasn't changed.

and can stage any interview with any General or other bring along to trash Clark effectively when its necessary. They won't do it until they know he has moved up and taken a sizable amount of the democratic support.

:shrug:

Screw the polls though. It is too early to handicap this race by them anyway.

First, I like most of these guys and would vote for anyone of them who gets the nomination. I have contributed to several dems and intend to keep it up.

So far no candidate other than Dean has shown a sort of campaign style that could take on Bush*. This is why the some of the others are muttering Dean, Dean, Dean..... It is also why he is, at this writing, the best qualified candidate to take on Bush*.

The debate here often hovers around an attempt to discern that magical set of resume elements and policy positions that will result in victory. While these things are important considerations, there is no definitive solution to this equation.

Winning an election goes far deeper than having the magical set of perfect policies and resume elements.

Put the perfect policy positions and background in the hands of a Chester Milquetoast and watch 2000 or 2002 repeat itself.

This election is going to be an ugly, bloody, nasty, bludgeoning match in the style of WWF matches. The repugs are not going down without a fight and it looks like they are going to have a lot of money to carry it off.

Dean has shown an ability to go toe to toe and trade shots with the opposition and walk away smiling.

He has built an organization that believes in him, and apparently gets stronger when the other side attacks.

This is why they mutter Dean, Dean, Dean...

This is a refrain I can only hope Bush* will need to learn.

Clark may be a general, but he hasn't a clue how to run a civilian political campaign. Kerry does, but he's compromised himself with his war vote and ignoring the anger and frustration of the Dem base against Bush and the Dem leaders for caving into Bush.

Dean does know how to run a campaign and considering where Dean came from -- obscurity -- to frontrunner or tied for frontrunner status in Iowa, NH, and California, he has demonstrated the energy and drive it will take to defeat the Bush-Rove Goliath. Clark has name recognition, but his campaigning skills and savvy are nonexistent.

And dreaming about a Clark-Bush, Kerry-Bush, Dean-Bush etc. debate is daydreaming. Rove will not let English-challenged Bush debate any of them, so the Democratic candidate who has boundless energy and drive on the campaign trail and the ability to inspire the grassroots will have the edge over Bush. Clark hasn't shown competence on the campaign trail and he's got a short learning curve.

amusing. Haven't seen a convincing one on behalf of any candidate. Thus I am prone to believe that the purpose is either rallying up ones own troops - or taking glee in riling up someone else's troops.

but I don't think you proved anything with this
post.

Dean has the best shot at the nomination. However,
him being the best chance to beat Bush?

My arguement is as good/bad as the conjecture that Clark is the best ticket against Bush or Kerry or??? Heck, we could have professional political analyists disagree till the cows come home about who has the best shot.

It's all nonsense isn't it? Some more so however. ;)

*I'll also note that my arguement was very poorly stated in the first place.*

However, I genuinely feel Dean has got the best chance against Bush. Also, I think he's the best qualified for the job.

*We can only hope someone who actually represents "us" in the end will take Bush out (period). And that we'll have an honest election.*

I think many of the dems can beat bush in 2004. I really do. It's up to us, isn't it?

:thumbsup:

It's time to break out of this speak easy and preach the word of DEMOCRATS in the real world!

Tell your friends!

Sometime in late winter 2004, they will fund their picked candidate into the nomination, and I fear it will not be Dean or my other favorite, Sen Edwards. These persons have their insider reasons for their choice, and I really do not think that victory over Dumbo is their main criterion. It's all inside baseball, so to speak.

But would it serve the DNC to throw funds before the nomination? I mean, it's OUR job to choose who we think is most electable. At least, IMO, OUR opinion is the most valid one. It seems like it would make the most sense to wait until we pick a guy, and then spend their money on getting the nominee elected.

Bush isn't taking matching funds. He will have $300 million to spend. The only D even considering NOT taking matching funds is Dean. Anyone who does take matching funds will only be able to spend $40 million of his own money. It makes more sense for the DNC to save for the money battle with Bush, considering that by the end of the primaries, the nominee will be out of money.

Any candidate who takes matching funds is limited to a spending a total of $45 million for the entire primary season, which does not end until he is nominated formally at the convention in July. Dean has already raised $25 million, of which about $10-$12 million is eligible for matching funds. That would limit his further fundraising from now until mid-July to under $8 million. Do the math.

it brings up a fundamental question that I have. Does Dean need to raise more than that to win the primary, and will any democrat get the full support of the DNC?

I didn't know they pick a candidate. ??? This pisses me off if they do, as I've contributed to them believing differently.

Let's call it the 'party machine'; they are the power brokers, the ones who control the purse strings, and they are on their OWN agendas. As if by magic, soon after the primaries actually begin, one candidate will suddenly break out of the pack, seemeingly regardless of the votes up until then. We saw it in 1984 with Mondale, 1996 with Dole, and *perhaps* in 1988 with Dukakis. After all, how many *ordinary* Dems were really excited by Mondale, before the primaries began?? Gary Hart (pre Donna Rice) was all the rage, but he was sidestepped. He suddenly began losing primaries -- that was when the 'fix' kicked in.

I fear we will see this again early next year.

I hope you're wrong!

But if anyone doubts that party bigwigs can install a nominee, then HOW did GWB beat John McCain in 2000?

??

Polling data and the political environment can change. If the polls indicated Edwards, as a random example, was now currently polling the best against Bush, would this imply Edwards has the best chance of defeating him?

Certainly not.

Candidates must be able to run against effectively against Bush's well funded smear machine. Since Dean has been through organized hate campaigns before, has an excellent campaign staff, has the fundraising thing nailed, and has vast grassroots support, it is clear Dean will do well against Bush. However, whether Dean would run the best against Bush out of all the Democrats is debatable, since other candidates, such as Kerry, Clark, Edwards, et cetera, each bring particular sets of strengths and weaknesses to the table.

"Since Dean has been through organized hate campaigns before, has an excellent campaign staff, has the fundraising thing nailed, and has vast grassroots support, it is clear Dean will do well against Bush."

;)

That's about the finest post I've seen in a while.