Ok, people who think Dean is not electable...

If Dean is unelectable, your candidate can prove it by turning out more people to support him or her than Dean can. You can start with hardly liberal Iowa, and heavily Libertarian New Hampshire.

If your candidate cannot turn out enough DEMOCRATS to beat someone unelectable, how is he or she supposed to turn out enough Democrats AND swing voters to beat George Bush? Democrats do not just turn out for no reason.

Its really easy NOT to vote in this country, even if you are a Democrat. Its too easy to not take the time off work, too easy to think your vote doesn't matter. It's too easy to be bored of the race. It's too easy to vote for Nader.

So if your man or woman can bring home the bacon on election day, then we'll have averted an unelectability disaster. But if they cannot knock off Dean, then it will prove he is the best we have.

Maybe George McGovern was the best we had, same with Mondale.

may want to study up on this a bit

And you have over simplified the whole process....

And not answered the question....I noticed....but rather chose to be condesending....

Since I am a political scinetist who does study primaries...would you explain to me how a candidate who can not beat Dean in the primary is supposed to beat Bush?

And also provide the would've won winners in the following races too...since you know soooo much about the primaries:

Carter 1980....Mondale 1984....Dukakus 1988....Gore 2000....

All this is is an attempt to say I told you so after the election is over and pretend that your guy was the right one...sorry, but your guy isnt the right one if they cant even get enough support to win their own party's primary....spin it all you want.....the loser to the loser is a bigger loser....nothing more...

its not the same as who votes in the general election, its the more active of the party which in our case is the more liberal element. Dean appeals to this group and they will flock to the polls while the average general election voter will not. Dean will not resonate with the mix of groups that are necessary to win the presidency. Thats why McGovern wowed the primaries and snoozed the general electorate.

If you are a political scientist you know this very well.

I know that not all primaries are governed by the same electoral rules across all states....some have open primaries some have closed...so which primaries are you talking about?

But I guess you knew that...

As far as independent voters, NH is one of the more independent states in the US re voter make up....

But I guess you knew that too...

Perhaps I am confused...in the last eight Presidential elections both parties candidates were chosen by the primary system by the same states that are chosing now...so what was so different about 1976, 1992 and 1996 that makes you think we are doing something different?

By your definition of what general election voters will voter for...Bush never would have won...so I'm guessing that there is something more important in Presidential elections than what happens in the primary....

See your problme is that you cant explain the successes from the failures using the primaries as an exmaple...in science we call this no variation on the dependent variable....since all the candidates who won...and all the candidates who lost were all elected the party's nominee.....

You are doing nothing but talking crap... soory but I think you need to go re-read those books again....see, we've made some progress in methods in the last few years and most of what you may have been taught in college is now considered crap...

And if there is one area of political science that falls flat on its face is voting behavior....again...sorry....

I happen to agree with arewethereyet. I think a HUGE number of people will agree with arewethereyet. Perhaps you don't, but you might think about taking a step back and taking a deep breath.

but we're all entitled to our own opinions. if every flower was a rose how sad would that be for the world ?

primary.
IT happened here in ATL a year ago and I know they are planning it for the presidental primaries.

just watch...and C

"Perhaps I am confused...in the last eight Presidential elections both parties candidates were chosen by the primary system by the same states that are chosing now..."

Neither Iowa or New Hampshire have very good records (if you take out incumbent candidates)of choosing the eventual nominee.

and tell me why Dean can beat *?

Can ya?

Sorry...

I think you can get a good idea on how a dem candidate will fare in traditional red states by looking at primary data.

IMO in 1988 for example Gephardt or Gore would have been better choices for the final election than Dukakis based on their appeal in the southern primaries. Gore's in particular. (Gore was in the 40's and 30's in most southerns states in 1988 and Dukakis maybe broke 5% if he was lucky.) Gore fared well in red states in the primary in 1988 and in 2000 had much better election results in red states than Dukakis.

I'm not sure what the newest GSS survey says the distribution of dems/reps/gdi's is but the gdi's will decide the 2004 election. The point a lot of people are trying to make when they compare Dean and Dukakis is that both of them inspire the core Democrats and for that reason people think he is not-electable. Clinton embraced moderate view points in 1992 to win over those center voters, Bush did the same thing last election.

Basically all I am saying is that while democrats can make you the candidate, they can't elect you by themselves. The comparison of Dukakis and Dean is not far fetched...they both appeal really strongly to the activist wing of the party and inspire ‘true’ democrats. And while that will go a long way in winning him the nomination its getting him no closer in winning the election as a whole.

Since it can be assumed that the democratic candidate already has those hardcore democrats voting for him, and the swing voters and gdi's are the key...So peole questions Dean's appeal to the moderate voter and in my opinion that is a good question...and one that worries me if Dean does get the nomination.

on target.

that Dean is an extreme left hippy dippy liberal, which simply isn't true.

The far left of the party may like Dean, but that is because he is GENUINE and a FIGHTER. None of the others are coming off quite that way for his supporters.

Dean & Clinton have an awful lot in common, & Clinton managed to win 2 terms.

Why didn't he just run on his record as governor?

Dean switched on SS, AA, HMO's.

Dean most certainly is NOT genuine.

He is NOT an outsider.

His campaign may have taken in alot of smaller contributions but the FACT remains his campaign ORIGINALLY depended upon Vermont Yankee/Entergy (owned by Koch Bros.).

His Governership was very friendly to the Koch Bros. and in fact, it looks very much as if Dean helped the Koch Bro.s buy a power plant for a sum well below actual value.

Without the swingers and fed up republicans it's another 4 years of
H-E-double hockeysticks.

I'll see your B.A. in Political Science and raise you one...How about a M.A. in Political Science and twenty four hours of credits towards a PHD in Governement....

I don't really have a dog in this fight but it is axiomatic that Democratic primary voters tend to be more liberal than rank and file Democrats and Republican primary voters tend to be more conservative than rank and file Republicans....


Also, Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most homogeneous states in the Union...There are prolly more African American, Asian, and Hispanic folks in East L A than in all of New Hampshire and Iowa...


Whoever "deemed" New Hampshire and Iowa as key caucus and primary states was probably pilfering Rush's Oxy....

It takes all of 5 minutes to make sure you're registered the right way to be able to vote. In my state I can vote in any primary I want to because I'm a registered Independent. I know a bunch of Independents from NH and even Republicans who have changed their registration so they can vote for Dean.

If you honestly think only liberals are going to be voting in this primary season you aren't paying close enough attention.

if dean doesn't get the nomination?

this is Dean's challenge as well if he were to win the nom.

or will they stay home or,God forbid, vote Bush ? or green ? or red ? well you get the idea

NT

He appeals to a wide spectrum.

The Democrats will, I'm sure. As for all the Independents and moderate Republicans, I don't think they all will. I get a sense that the Anti-Dean faction of the Democratic Party are going to try to use superdelegates to prevent Dean from getting the nomination. If that happens, all hell is going to break loose and it will cause total devastation to the Democratic Party. Voters can't handle two betrayals in immediate succession of each other.

As someone who has witnessed Dean for a long time right here in Vermont, I will tell you that he WILL get swing voters, moderate Republicans and even some Greens and Libertarians. Those who oppose Bush won't have any qualms about getting behind Dean in the general election. In the 1990 Vermont governor's race, over half of Vermont voted Republican for governor. In 1992 three quarters of the state voted for Dean. He took a full 50% of the usual Republican votes away from the Republican candidate. That's a pretty good indicator of how he can take votes from Bush. That's solid proof he can appeal to swing voters and republicans, not just a prediction or hunch based on nothing factual.

Most of Dean's supporters are solid Dems & will vote ABB. Everything I've read from the Greens is that they want Bush out this time as much as we do. And more Independents than not are just as motivated as we are to remove Bush, so I suspect we will still have their votes.

I also know republicans in NH who've changed their registration to vote for Dean and against other Dems so that Dean will run against their guy Bush.

It happens every time, in 2000 I know Democrats who switched their registration to Republican to vote for McCain against Bush. They had always planned to vote for Gore in the general election, and thought McCain would be an easier opponent than Bush (b/c of money)

I am not saying that is what ALL republicans are doing - just that some do it for that reason.

I've seen Dean in action for many years, and those who are doing this because they think he'll be easy to beat are contributing to their own defeat. Dean will DEFINITELY beat Bush. And if the others can't beat Dean, there is NO WAY IN HELL they can beat Bush.

of the people who vote in the general election. If you can't excite them to overcome the many barriers to casting a ballot on primary day, how are you going to do it on election day better than the guy who can?

Its easier to tell a pollster you support Kerry than to pull a lever for Kerry. Same thing applies for Dean. If Dean can ENGAGE people and make them vote, especially those who haven't done it in a while, or never done it, he has a valuable skill.

Furthermore, in NH (and MANY other places) independents can vote as well. THESE are the general election voters. Dean is capturing around 44% of the indpenednets in NH. The participation of independents furthers my point. If you CAN turn out independents to vote for you in a primary (assuming Dean can) you have done so much to turn them out in the general.

for the most part.

its those 15-20% who don't that decide the general election but don't vote in the primaries.

IMO Dean cannot win these people.

that these "party line people" will vote no matter what? Even if we nominate a stale candidate, or a Joe Lieberman?

"stale candidate"?

Like Dean, the embodiment of every lib stereotype?

I say that as a wellstone dem.

Please don't even TRY to equate the two. Dean's economic positions are much friendlier to Wall Street than they are to Wellstone's positions. Even Paul's former press secretary agrees that Dean's no Wellstone.

Dean has simply put a shiny new package on the same old Clinton/Gore economic policies of the 1990s, which were little more than a small short-term reprieve from the Reagan/Bush assault for poor and working people.

I say this as somebody who busted his ass for Wellstone in 1990, organizing two precincts for him, and going all the way to the State Convention as a Wellstone delegate.

:)

the same base percentage voted with those guys

its public record, I mean come on

more than any of the others. IMHO.

who don't vote in the primaries, like who, republicans?

running a real liberal. but the idea that the liberal activists are so excited by a non liberal is exasperating.

You are a political scientist and you write "the loser to the loser is a bigger loser...nothing more..."?

If you study primaries then you must know that the primary electorate is different than the electorate in the general. The fact that 35% of Democrats in New Hampshire prefer Dean while 20% prefer Clark says nothing about what support either would receive in, say, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, Ohio or New Mexico.

Recent polls in the LA Times and a Florida poll suggest that only 1/3 of primary voters are inclined to vote strategically for the candidate most likely to beat Bush while 2/3 prefer to support the candidate they identify with most closely. This is a recipe for nominating an unelectable candidate.

missed my main point....

Since all candidates who run in the general election win the party's nomination...unless I missed something...

There is no variation on that variable....

Both the candidates who win and the candidates who lose were nominated by the primary system....for both parties....

In addition...both parties have voters who nominate candidates are "party activists" and both have the same problems....

So perhaps what you all mean to say....since you cant make inference based on the primaries...is that conditions in the general election matter more about who will win the general election than what occurs in the primaries....

The nomination process is the same for all the dem winners and the dem losers....so that cant mean anything...

So let's talk about the general...what matters?

Foreign policy has always been listed second or third in American elections...even now, it is second in polling data in concerns for the American public to the economy....

What many people seem to forget is that those who won the general election didnt react to the polls, they created them...and I am a bit concerned by those here who seem to think in terms of pleasing the polls...that's a sure way to lose!!

But as of right now....no one is offering anything more than personal opinion....if you want to win the election win the primary...dont whine about why your guy should've won and then say I told you so on election day because you stayed at home out of pique....

See I'm going to fight hard for any dem that wins because it is more important to me to remove the current evil that is destroying this nation that I love....so you sit on your hands becuase you were more concerned about being right than winning the next election...I know that i'll be able to look myself in the mirror come next Nov.

And personally I would love a Clark Dean combination because they are the best we have....but some of you seem to be only concerned with being right than getting Bush out. I've seen alot of people espouse the ABD nonsense which makes me question if they truely are concerned about our country.....

But go do your own thing....

And as to being pissy about being a political scientist...how many of you have a job where every Tom Dick and Harry offers up opinion about your job because they have the right to...having the right and being correct are two completely different situations....remember that the next time someone of the streets comes into your accounting firm and tells you how the tax code should be....or what legal defense you should mount, etc...

They just dont give PhDs away...you actually have to study this stuff...so yeah I get a little pissy when people say I dont know what I am talking about because they "think" they know how things work because they have a "right" to say things....

the trick is to find someone palatable to the middle and count on the left fullfilling the ABB pledge. pretty simple actually.

not so much in real life. Esp. when you throw laziness and Nader in the mix

NT

is that people operate on the flawed assumption that the electorate is fixed, all voters are forced to choose somebody and no one can be convinced to join the electorate if they werent there before.

the fact is: some Dems will stay home (or vote for Nader) if they feel no compunction to vote and there is potential among 100 million non-voters to get a few of them if our candidate can convince them to go to the polls.


If Kerry or anyone else cannot get these same dems to vote for him in the primary, HOW CAN THEY GET THEM TO CAST A BALLOT FOR US IN THE GENERAL?

It's not going to be the typical liberal base choosing the nominee this time around. I'm a registered Independent swing voter and I, like many more like me, and determined to get Dean the nomination because I want him to be the next president. I've NEVER voted in a primary before in my life. Neither has most of the people at my meetup. Dean supporters are changing affiliations and can't wait to vote in the primary. We will get out the vote for our candidate come hell or high water. The "base" this time around looks very much like the general election voters. Anyone close to the Dean campaign is able to see this change. You're basing your opinion on outdated data. Everything has changed and there's no way in hell that Bush can beat Dean.

n/t

You say that Dean supporters reflect the general election voters. This is not supported by any of the national polls I've seen, where Dean does worse against Bush than the other major Dem. candidates.

Until Dean starts doing better in the national polls, I can't accept your premise.

How many independents do you figure? Would their numbers and percentages for Dean be an indication of national support?

It seems to me, like Harry S Truman said, if people are given the choice of voting for a Democrat who acts like a Republican and a Republican, they'll go for the real thing ever time.

And MUCH more of the Independent votes. Some elections he took almost half of the Republican votes over the Republican candidate. Once Dean wins the nomination there will be more of a focus on comparing him to Bush, and his record is going to go a very long way with swing voters.

If Dean's our nominee, may he do the same nationally!

Please explain. If you're going to make a statement like that, you might want to offer a brief explaination as to why the poster doesn't understand primary politics. If not, then please don't bother to respond because a response like this is an utterly fucking useless contribution, nevermind disrespectful and arrogant. Please, share your abundant knowledge instead of trying to slap down someone who has made a sincere attempt to start a discussion with a smarmy one sentence reply.

As to the post--I disagree that Dean is unelectable. He has supporters from all demographics, not just from the ultra-liberal, GBL, anti-war crowd. Dean's ideas make enough sense that they will be able to resonate with the average American. He's not a BS'er and gets right to the point. I think a lot of people appreciate frankness and sincerity. I don't like the comparisons to McGovern because this is a different situation. It's not just about an unjust war this time around. Nixon was a liar and a sneak who tried to weasel around The Constitution, but he wasn't near the atrocity that Bush is. I think it's ignorant at this point to say that Dean is 'unelectable' unless you can pinpoint resons other than citing similarities to the McGovern campaign, which was in a different era altogether. I want to hear why Dean isn't electable in the 21st century.

Way to provide examples to back up your point. You clearly know ALL there is to know about primary politics.

And it was after the war??

Among the frontrunners, it's up to US to MAKE whoever our nominee is electable. I'm not a Dean supporter (will be if he's the nominee), but I'm tired of hearing the hand-wringers say this about any of the four or five in our field who DO have a good chance of getting the nomination.

We've gotta lay off the internecine ugliness here. I don't mind hard questions about any of the candidates, but what goes on in the bulk of the GD threads goes way beyond that. The candidate you're trashing so viciously today may be our nominee--so tread carefully.

It's in our hands. Why play these silly "my dog is better than your dog" games? I'd be willing to work for any of the frontrunners. They are all good men and tons better than Bush. If swing voters have misperceptions about the Democrat, it's up to us to turn it around. Going around repeating Rove propaganda is just nuts.

which will occur after millions of dollars are spent to educate the public (plus let's not forget the corporate press) Dean will be left with many disillusioned supporters (except for the hardcore fanatics).

no one is under any mysterious illusions about Gov. Dean. What do YOU know about Gov. Dean that no one else knows?

And besides, once we expose the true Geroge Bush, he will be left with many disillusioned supporters (except for the hardcore fanatics)

;-)

There isn't any, though. This is an individual who apparently doesn't bother to look closely at a candidate before supporting them because she assumes that everyone else doesn't bother to make sure they like the candidate before supporting them. :eyes:

He dodged the draft. He's admitted so, and would be DESTROYED by Rove & Co. Here's what Dean himself said:

Dean admits using deferment to skirt draft

November 24, 2003

BY DAVID RENNIE

WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has admitted dodging the Vietnam draft, obtaining a medical deferment for a back condition and then spending 10 months skiing.

Asked if he could have served 33 years ago despite his back condition, Dean told the New York Times: "I guess that's probably true. I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."

CONTINUED...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-dean24.html

People care about jobs. They care about health care. They care about good schools for their kids. They care about leaving their kids better off than their parents left them. Whether or not someone served in Vietnam is about as significant as the amount of sweat dripping off a donkey's balls in presidential elections.

It's ridiculous wasted time and effort on issues like this that lead to GOP wins. The Democratic party is famous for trying to make issues out of things no one gives a sweet shit about instead of focusing on the things we DO care about. There are all kinds of things to point out to voters about why they should vote for Democrats over Republicans, so why the hell are you busying yourself trying to make a mountain out of a molehill attacking another Democrat? That's why Kerry is doing so badly, you know. Dean is taking it to Bush and telling voters why they should vote for him. All Kerry is doing is telling voters not to vote for Dean without offering and good reason to vote for him.

:eyes:

The present occupant of the White House is no combat veteran, by any stretch of the imagination. And that's the problem. Bush doesn't know what he's doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea or any place because when it was Bush's turn to man the line, he copped out and joined the Texas Air National Guard.

So, Bushler never learned what national defense is really all about — personal sacrifice in the service of one's country. That didn't hurt Smirk none, as he's now the commander-in-chief. What's criminal, the lesson he missed is you can't ask American service men and women to assume a risk and sacrifice their lives when Bush opted out when asked to do the same.

Please, with all respect, tell me how that would be different for Howard Dean? He did not pass that test of character.

to her darboy. She's a robot, programmed only to post pointless, pathetic and pejorative posts. I challenge you to find ONE she's posted that's NOT talking about Dean, and that's not one line. You gotta almost feel sorry for the poor soul.

I get your point. And I think you are spot on. It's matter of igniting the electorate. That's what it's always been about. If these other candidates can't do it NOW, how the FUCK will they in the general election? So if they're that much better and can beat Bush, why not show us now? There's still time, right?

and it scares the shit out of me that that very same qoute will be run in an ad pointing out that Dean is completely out of touch when it comes to America's defense needs. This, added to his reluctance to confront Saddam, will be all Bush needs to convince a majority of Americans that Dean cannot be trusted to lead our military.

"beat" vietnam vet Al Gore.

Bush has damaging info about ALL our candidates, the trick is fighting back and working to engage the voters.

Ooh, also, a guy (you may have heard of him) who had three of his limbs blown off in a certain war lost to a Republican chickenhawk. What was his name? Max Cleland. And what state is that? GA? Is that in the south? yeah. the same south where everyone LOVES military people.

thats bizarre??? I guess serving in a war is not a panacea for Democrats, especially democrats who cave to the right wing.

He's the metrosexual liberal peacenik who was too scared to confront saddam.

Debate:

Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman/Edwards: George Bush, you messed up the iraq situation badly. the war was not a good idea. you are not good at foreign policy

Bush: But you VOTED for the war. It was good enough for you then. Why is it suddenly not good enough for you now? Maybe because you are politicizing the war on terror for your own gain?

K/G/L/E: George Bush, you have gone too far with the patriot act, i will repeal your horrible attempt to deprive us of our liberties...

Bush: Well you thought it was a good idea before, you voted for it... Why are you flip-flopping on the issue??

that this IS how you see Dean...

John McCain; * even turned the military against him.

Just look at the way the media is framing Dean's VT records issue versus how they frame Bush's TX records issue.

I can easily see how Dean's situation with the draft would be framed in a much more negative way than what Bush did - not saying that is right - just saying let's be honest here.

Saddam was incapable of doing any real damage to the U.S. The entire war is based on lies and no intelligent, informed American could ever support it, or truly believe that Saddam Hussein ever threatened the American 'homeland'. This war is an abomination. Are you military? I'm just curious, because if you're so gung-ho about confronting third-rate dictators by means of war, then there's a helluva lot more wars to be fought (or rather, brown people to slaughter), and I would hope people who support them are planning to sign up to fight in them. I'm guessing you've never served in the military. I could be wrong, but having been in the military myself, I'm betting you haven't.

and he was less than cooperative when the time came to do so. Just look at the polls which support the belief that dealing with Saddam was the right thing to do- and no I'm not military, and neither are most Americans.

The first will be..."here we go again, another tax and spend liberal." Then will come weak on defense. Reels and reels of tape. Finally, they finish up with "who do you trust?" The corporate media, currently running silent and deep about all things Dean, will rally for the "Who" election. Expect pictures of junior surrounding by the faithful, junior garnering large cheers from the military.

The economy will fade as a non-issue. Iraq will be seen as improving to great news. I imagine that the supporters will be a study in mom and apple pie vs the folks who ruined our nation.

And don't expect a rebuttal...oh you can make them, but America will not see them.

Ugly_very ugly.

I've seen this movie before, and sat in utter disbelief. Letting the rightwing chose your candidate is a big mistake.

I'm not surprised you are still the one-note.

Dean won't win many debates by arguing the point. The equivalent line of thinking you want to defend would have Germany inventing the atomic bomb before we did.

George Bush has been exposed every day since he was selected. Here are some examples and the media impact.

Vote fraud in Florida. Zero.
ENRON Energy Policy. Zero.
ENRON corruption and ties to Bush. Zero.
9-11 Incomeptence or Treason. Zero.
HARKEN inside trading. Zero.
9-11 Cover-up. Zero.
Phony Iraq WMD causus beli. Zero.
CIA Agent Political Outing. Zero.

Yeah, Dean will make a big dent in that media coverage.

Why bother going over the sparkling credentials of "boring" candidates when you can burn off your energy in the general election , putting out brushfires, with each revelation.

I'm sick to death of brief replies that slam something but I don't know what because the poster wants to play coy, or 'I know something you don't know'. Christ, cut the crap, okay? As a Dean supporter, I don't have any illusions. I've read some really derogatory stuff about Dean, but somehow, Dean still emerges as someone I really like and would want to be this nation's president. If you have some real dirt, like Dean is skeet-shooting babies in his spare time, please share. If not, then I think some of us are intelligent enough to make a judgement on whom we will support depending on our world-views and what we feel the most important issues are.

I might make it a canned response to the many "if they would just stop drinking the koolade" posts.

Dean will win! In fact, my hubby and I are going to tape the debates, just so we can watch them over and over and over again! Squirm Chimpy, squirm!

...now you're beginning to see.

It's not even necessary to entertain this type of poster, because extreme hatred makes all human animals suspicious, and people tend to dismiss such statements, and eventually the person making them. One wonders why is it this sort never (or rarely) posts positive things about another Democratic candidate. I mean, if one was really happy about another candidate, they'd be posting threads about him, trying to pump people up about him. So why instead would one choose to spend all of one's time bashing one man, who happens to be the Democratic frontrunner?

can beat Bush in a landslide if our election process is not compromised. I'm not a political scientist,just an ordinary citizen, but my common sense tells me that there are a wide majority of voters out there with the same common sense who would vote against Bush regardless of the candidate. If Bush wins, then that would be a mystery best investigated by election fraud agencies.

is that neither reflects the demographics of the country as a whole, either ethnically or economically.

Our primary system, especially in a crowded field, makes it possible for a fairly small but dedicated minority to "hijack" an election.

Dean = anger. I would urge all of you to reread this thread. If you can't see the anger, the outright bullying, the disgusting aggression, then you are truly delusional. Someone is owed an apology.

Deans biggest problem may turn out to be the mean people he attracts to his campaign. You guys had better start to address that issue. You can't win if you alienate all the other nominees' supporters to the point that they stay home.

Okay, attack away. I'm going to bed.


"Angry bluster rouses the party faithful, but it frightens centrists. The last two presidents who were fervently hated, Richard Nixon and Mr. Clinton, both won two terms; today's liberal disgust could do the same for Mr. Bush by leading to a nominee like Mr. Dean, who warms the hearts of the party's core but leaves others cold."

is the anger you feel...

because I am right :-)

sweet dreams and have a wonderful saturday :hi:

And then add in George Bush at the republican convention, reciting his "successes" to date in fighting against terrorism in that solemn way he reads what is written for him. And Peggy Noonan, along with the rest of the media, gushing and praising him for the way he leads, leads, leads!!!! Listen to him, they will say, believe him when he tells us about how hard he is working to protect americans from evil, evil, EVIL lurking everywhere, everywhere EVERYWHERE, especially in the hearts of democrats. And believe him, BELIEVE, when he reminds us that GOD has chosen HIM to be the ONE to take on terrorists and democrats, they will continue to say.

Then add to that the non-stop barrage, speewwwing from the GOP propoganda machine and it's partner, the mindless whore opinion media, going out of their way to portray Howard Dean as a northereastern liberal former governor of a small state, who wants to raise middle-class taxes, loves gay marriage, and who has not an iota of foreign policy experience. And then go ahead and add in Howard Dean portraying himself as that same man the media is portraying him as. Soviet Union, twice he said it, no less. Not good!(By the way, I don't think they will hit Dean as hard on draft dodging as some people think. Because that will cause attention to Chimpy's controversy in the same area)

Then add in to the scenario that Bush's record as president, and his record prior to being selected president, WILL NOT be scrutinized/demonized by the media (because it never is, as he didn't get a blowjob in the oval office and he doesn't let people take their suitjackets off when they are in there.) And, finally, add in the constant barrage of implication from Bush bootlickers that Dean has nothing to offer, except for angry attacks on the poor, poor, honest, simple, yet determined unelected fraud, and there is the making of your Bush landslide. (And I am not convinced, frankly, one more time, that Dean has anything to offer other than what the media will say he does. On that I could be wrong, but it seems like Dean is coasting on something right now, and I'm not hearing too much substance from anyone in explaining what's so great about him. What is it again? Oh, right, he is winning, winning, winning. A winner!)

This year's general election will be mostly be about a democrat having the gravitas and the record to stand-up to George Bush on matters of national security and foreign policy. PERIOD! How can Howard Dean do that?. The honorable John Kerry can do it, however he has other problems. He has that, franky, old rehashed politician problem. In that way the same is true for Dick Gephardt, a man whom I admire for his stand against Nafta and his forever support of unions and working class people. But the Gephardts and the Kerrys, although they want to win, they are just too comfortable losing. They sound forced and phoney, and frankly, too political to win. Edwards, as good as his message is, seems, again, quite frankly, too green to seriously challenge an incumbent war-time President, who still has 50% support nationwide.

And it is that support that Bush garners, despite his record, that cannot be underestimated in the general election. The same media we all despise so much is still going to be on Bush's side, like they always are. They haven't turned yet. They will be spinning, lying, and distorting the real Bush that we all know and hate. The media that has managed to keep Bush at 50%, despite his horrifyingly, horrifying performance, will be working non-stop to ensure his reelection, nonetheless. You're either with him or against him. The media has obviously chosen to be with him.

I believe that General Clark can squeak out a victory against Bush, despite all that is against that happening. Why? Because he can realistically challenge Bush on the issues of security and foreign policy. That's it!!! He has an inspiring record. Criticism of his patriotism will garner laughter, even from Tweety, if Bush tries to go there to smear. And that's where Bush wants to go in this election. That's why General Clark remains on ignore in the Bush-loving media. Bush's political spots are already going there. And where else can he go? Terrorism and national security has been his whole presidency since 9-11. And he has even managed to fuck that up with Iraq. He won the 2002 congressional elections on blatant distortion of foreign policy and national security issuues. Does anyone think he wants to run on anything else this time?

I know there is no way to garner support for General Clark from people who hate our military, and from the lazy, who label Clark a certain way because he was a general in the military. My hope is that others, who feel uncertain that Dean can avoid a Bush landslide will take their own closer look at the General and think the whole thing through before jumping on the Ahhnold, um I mean Dean bandwagon.

A good idea is to try and get a hold of Clark's performance at Exeter, New Hampshire this week. He gave me goosebumps. He showed who he is when he told the people in line that he was sorry they didn't get their chance to ask a question because they were out of time. He even told the kid who, earlier in the program, wasn't allowed a follow up question by the man controlling the microphone to come see him afterward to talk more about his concerns. And then when he was done, the general got a standing ovation at the end. It really was that good. I am not saying perfect, mind you!

Please, watch that Exeter performance and then tell me that that man doesn't have the entire package. Tell me that Dean stacks up better than Clark against Bush. We must beat Bush this time! Clark might be able to. I'm sorry, I don't think any of the others can. If Clark is not the nominee, I swear to you, I hope I am proven wrong.

Meadows with birds sweetly singing, and flowers bobbing their heads in the summer breeze.

I don't think there's a single solitary soul on Earth (read: extremely small contingent) who voted for Gore in 2000 that are not going to vote for Democrat X (read: Howard Dean) in this election cycle, so as far as I'm concerned...he's already won the poplular vote...all he needs to do is gain a few swing votes, shouldn't be a problem with "this president". Hey, Bush is pretty smelly...this really could be a landslide.

assuming Bush beats Dean, would that mean that Bush could also have beaten Dean in the Democratic primary? Because after all, if Bush can beat Dean in a general election, it follows that he would have beaten Dean in a primary election, right?

Or maybe the voter base in a party's primary, no matter what state it is in, isn't truly representative of the voting population of a general election. Just maybe.

That picture of Bush with a headache.... you're causing way too many of those with your logic.

and by no means an extension of mine.

George bush being able to beat dean in a primary where his base is not allowed to vote is not the same as John kerry trying to beat george bush in the general if he cant get the dems to support him in the primary.

from capturing the base? The same skillset is required for success in both events -- according to the logic of your argument. Therefore, if someone is better at capturing the swing voters in an election (George Bush), they should be better at capturing a base of voters. It't your argument turned on its head (why did you go out of your way to try to portray Iowa and NH as 'non-liberal'...).

The funny thing is, we agree to an extent: it is silly -- just as it is silly to hide electibility behind the primary. Arnold would not have made it through the Republican Party primary; the naked pictures of him alone would have killed him, but there he is, governor of California, because the smart Republicans were able to outmanouvre the more ... idealistic Republicans, along with the Democrats, and get him in front of the average voter. There doesn't seem to be enough smart Democrats to make the same decisions, however.

:eyes:

of course they're different, but people who vote in primaries vote in the general too, if you can convince them to..

must be able to win primaries, it is true.

It is not true that they must win Iowa (a caucus state, not a primary) and New Hampshire, though. Iowa has never been predictive of either the nomination or the general election. New Hampshire used to be able to say "No one has won the Presidency without winning the NH Primary" in the post-WWII era, but Clinton in '92 and Bush in '00 broke that mold.

Besides, the primary schedule is drastically foreshortened next year. The normal media "bounce" from IA and NH won't last as long. There are more than a dozen primaries within two weeks of February 3rd. That is where the nomination may be won or lost.

Some candidates' supporters may be ready to declare victory on the basis of a few polls before any votes are cast. They would do well to talk to President Muskie about that.

There are other theories, however. Here is a theory by Nicholas D. Kristoff of the NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/06/opinion/06KRIS.html

<snip>

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Mr. Dean on many issues, and I admire his willingness to oppose our Iraq invasion from the beginning. But shiny-eyed teenagers who distribute leaflets for him in places like Yamhill County are going to get very cold stares — and end up heartbroken.

If the Democrats are serious about governing, they should remember the words of one of their nominees, Adlai Stevenson. After one of his typically brilliant campaign speeches, someone shouted out to Stevenson from the crowd that he had the votes of all thinking Americans.

Stevenson shouted back, saying that wasn't enough: "I need a majority!"

In another time and another place I would have agreed that Howard Dean was the best candidate for President. That would have been a time and place where no 9/11 had ever happened, there was no war on terror and there was no war in Iraq. That time and place is not now. I believe it will be the intent of the Republicans and the Rove machine to make the 2004 election a referendum on Foreign Affairs and the War on Terror. Unfortuantely, I don't believe that Dean has the resume, biography, or experience to compete with our disaster-in-chief on these issues. It's all about perceptions. Who could possibly compare the resumes and experiences of George W. Bush and Al Gore and ever think that Dubya would have been elected?

you speaketh the truth. I just wish someone would listen, especially anyone who wants to walk around bragging ahead of time about how the next election is going to be a democratic landslide. We are overestimating ourselves while underestimating the opposition, when we do that. That's what long-term losers are prone to do. I am really hoping this is what actually happens to loser George Bush. Remember how high he was riding only a few short months ago. Now he is in danger of losing. Oh my god, I hope so! His arrogance could be coming home to roost. Let's not act stupid and have our own arrogance prolong the misery of Bush.

it's all about perceptions!! the 2000 elections was a perfect example of this- an experienced combat veteran who just had the benefit of 8 long years of foriegn policy experience losing the national security battle to .....a spoiled AWOL brat whose sole foreign policy experience consisted of preparing his texas rangers team to play the montreal expos in canada once and a while.
What this tells me, and what rove and bushco have known all along- is that political cunning and skill is far more important than actual attributes. clark has one of the most impressive service records in history- but bush will still look better if clark fails to get his point across. we need now, more than ever- a shrewd, conniving politician with skill to counter that of rove. Yeah, dean was skiing the powder in aspen, but bush was awol SNIFFING the powder in texas during the same time! we have the dirt on bush to win- we just need a candidate with the daring and ability to smear bush in his own shit. dean, more than anyone else right now, is doing that. we will not win this election from a defensive posture, no matter how great OUR guy is. we must ATTACK! it's time to play hardball, folks...

general election, if he modifies his stance on the entire repeal of the Bush tax package. He could even stand on that complete repeal issue if he addresses the effects it would have on middle class Americans better. Right now, looking at his web site and his statements in public concerning this issue, it looks and smells like a tax hike to middle class America. A "TAX and SPEND" liberal will not fly in middle class America, period. He's DOA for the general election if he doesn't do something about this.

That's like the Chicago Cubs' Fans saying their team was better than the Marlins and could have beat the Yankees in the World Series.

Sorry, if you can't beat the Marlins in the Playoffs, you don't deserve to play the Yankees.

Sorry, to all the Whining Dean-Bashers, if you can't beat Dean, you don't deserve to run against bush*.

Pretty simple, and I am NOT a political Scientist.

Not your political bias reasoning. Dean CAN NOT beat Bush.

You are wrong.

Lets see the reasoning, or lack thereof!

I think Dean is electable. I think Dean is better than Bush.

The question is, "Why can't we do better than the status quo?"


TWL

because every living American right now has something to angry about. Forget the rich who own TV's,but listen to the average voters. All we have to do is listen and you can hear it. Worried about paying for college for the kids, worried about crime going up, worried about mad cow, worried about paying the tax man, worried about keeping jobs , on and on.

...millions of things that worry the average American and some of these issues make them angry. Anger motivates, don't kid yourself. It works on republicans every election time and they know it they just don't want us to know it.

Now republicans are maxed, that haters always vote. They are angry for plenty of BS reason but they vote. The ONLY way we will win is to show them how it's done and to bring some of the non-voting public back. I already got in 3. What say you?

This is my very first post...the first thing I have to say is...I Love Howard Dean! I'm a Vermonter! Voted for Dean every election! Joined his meetup last year...Then after seeing Clark on CNN and MUCH research...I was converted...big time! Joined the early draft movement and donated many times. Soooo now I'm a Clarkie and proud of it! You will never catch me saying anything negative about Dean. I still love and admire the man and how he dared to attack Bush. I'm eternally grateful and I understand why all the Deanie's feel so passionately about Dean...because I now feel that way about Clark. Yeah! He's the man!

I fear that all that much deserved passion will put him on the ticket! That will be awful as Bush will win the election. What Dean will do is raise the number of votes in the blue states...but that will mean nothing...(look what happened to Gore) we already have the blue states! We need someone who will get us some red Southern states. Do you really think Southerners will vote for an anti -military person over Clark or Bush? Do you really think they would pick a Northerner over a Southerner? Southerners love the military and Clark is all for protecting the military...Dean is anti-military. He'll not get their vote. It only stands to reason that Clark can get more red states than Dean. How can anyone disagree with that?

Some other misc. facts...Clark has world wide respect and recognition and could bring back foreign respect for America. I really believe other countries would help us/Clark out with Iraq if we'd only get rid of Bush. They hate the man and would never do anything to help him. Whether or not you like Clark's past military decisions... the rest/most of the world do! Remember the Kosovo's were Muslims...and that could cool the flames in the area. Dean has a BLANK slate when it comes to war! I don't know how Dean would solve the problem...he needs to talk more about that...just being against the war is not enough! So am I! Picture this...Dean and Bush debating the war and how to deal with terrorist...then picture Clark vs. Bush on the same subject. Could there possibly be anyone who (isn't totally bias) thinks Dean could do better than Clark? That's why I want Clark...he CAN win...Dean MIGHT win. But we HAVE to win! So vote for Clark! Whew!

DUer's should be working to the best of their ability to get a Democrat in the Oval office. That should be our objective! But some here seem to be more interested in flaming the other candidate and tearing him down rather than building up there own. The flame and hate threads here made me hesitate in joining...they don't help any candidate. They just divide us and that's not good. I promise never to do that. Let's have positive vibes here.

I don't think I'll be posting much on this site in the future because I'm not a good writer, type with two fingers, and I'm a terrible speller. I'm better in math and science than English. I think I identify more with Bush...horrors! But he probably stinks at math and science, as he does with everything else...especially politics, but damn, Rove sure is gifted!

Bye for now...even if you don't see me...I'm always here as I have been for many months. Thanks all you Clarkie's (except some flamers) for holding down the fort and sticking up for Clark and setting the record streight. Wish I could be more help getting Clark elected!

Marilynn

He's anti-military?

You know what? Never mind. It's not even worth debating. let me just say that I don't believe you ever supported Dean as a presidential candidate.

Damn....my very first post and I've already been called a lier! Isn't that a personal attact?
Why can't you believe I supported Dean?...alot of people used to support one candidate and changed to another. I can't recall them being accused of being liars. Can't you please tell me you're sorry? Pretty Please?
My zip code is 05251...right in the heart of the beautiful
Green Mountains (with 6" of new snow, so far...truly winter wonderland. Just love it!) Also the heart of DEAN country. Why oh why would you call me a lier rather than believe I used to love Dean, and still do. I'd support him in a heartbeat if he wins the nomination...but I FEAR he will because he might lose the national election. Again...Why would you personally attack me when you don't even know me yet! Instead...you should have refuted some of my reasoning and questioned my conclusions. By the way...isn't that what this thread is about? Weren't we suppose to explain why we didn't think Dean was electable?

I'm sorry I said Dean was anti-military...poor choise of words but I was trying to save words since I'm not a typist. I KNOW he isn't anti-military...I figured you'd know what I meant..but I'm new at this and putting my thoughts into words. I'll try to be more careful in the future...if I dare ever post again!

i dont think alot of clark's supporters quite understand that there is a certain percentage of the population down here ( including most ALL of the single issue military and defense voters) that WILL NOT vote for a democrat, whether it be wesley clark, or jesus christ himself!! it is scary, but i know and have debated with many of these people, and they approach politics and being a republican exactly as if it were a religion. there is the same loss of objectivity, the same irrational thoughts and bitter defense of previously formed and unsubstantiated "beliefs". we have as much ofachance of converting these people as we do of convincing a thoroughly religious person that thier god doesn't exist. fortunately, the south is not all like this, there are many democrats, swing voters, and even liberals down here too. there are also many moderate (read:fiscal) conservatives here that just vote thier pocketbook, and nothing more. i think these are the only ones we have a shot in hell of converting, and i think they will be drawn much more to dean's fiscal conservatism than to the shiny brass on clark's uniform jacket. and oh yeah- welcome to DU!! (from another semi-nooB)

:)

I haven't seen/heard that - the discussions I've been in revolve more around which Dem has the best chance of beating Bush.

To phrase the heading as "not electable" spins the issue and the discussion in a way that mispresents the discussion/concerns.

This is the tile of this thread. "Ok, people who think Dean is not electable..." Isn't that what this tread is about?

n/t