Regarding Dean's general election strategy should he be the nominee

Quote from yesterday's SF Chronicle:
------
Dean plans to reach out to 3-4 million who either sat out the last election or didn't vote Democratic. "This time we're going to do it. They're not only going to vote for a Democratic president, they're going to send Tom Delay back to Texas."

Dean said his strategy would be different..."We're not going to start with swing voters and try to convince them we're conservative enough for them," he said. "We're going to start with people who have been with us since the beginning, African-Americans and Latinos. When we do this, the enthusiasm is going to spread to independents and they're going to vote Democratic."
------

Ok, fine. I would love to see 3-4 million more Dems vote in '04. However, this is not a real strategy to win in November. The reason is that those 3-4 million Dem votes are at best going to mean that Dean would win by a wider margin in Blue states than Gore did, particularly WA, OR, and perhaps FL. The problem is, as an electoral strategy (which all general election strategies really are and ought to be) this doesn't solve two big problems.

1) If the Dem nominee can gain substantial support from a few southern states that would help tremendously. Dean's strategy does not address this. In fact, his appeals to Dem partisans will weaken him in the south. There is a reason he is not competing in SC and has no office there while Kerry and others do.

2) If the Dem nominee has a more partisan appeal he would be vulnerable in MI, PA and some of the other big 'swing' states where a moderate appeal is required to win the state. A couple extra hundred thousand Dem voters in these states is not going to make a difference if you lose the independents and all the Repubs.

These are the electoral realities. Clinton ( and Gore to an extent) and Bush were all hyper aware of this. Hence the "third-way" the "vital center" and Bush's education and compassionate conservative rhetoric. To deny this is to deny reality.

The NRA, record of economic stewardship, blah blah blah.

The only thing that *might* hurt Dean is civil unions, but the polling data doesn't indicate this either.

We're in good shape.

.

Is that the new meme?

People who think Dean is 'too liberal' to win an election need to smoke less weed.

That if people here on DU had paid attention to Dean as governor of Vermont, that he would have been seen much the same as Zell Miller.

There is a reason why folks try, even throughout the primaries, to have a message that resonates will ALL Americans, not just their own party. It's because in the general election, that's what they'll need.

Dean generates a LOT of energy in the base that loathes George W. Bush. But there are a LOT of Americans who simply don't feel this kind of hatred toward him.

I think you make a good point about the new voters being from places where there is already assured a pretty substantial net blue vote. Given the electoral college system we have in this country, I'm not sure how that will translate into a Dem win.

that was just part of a rally speech he delivered he isn't going to get down in specifics. But he is right that we have got to get the base excited and make sure that we get a strong turnout. That is not to say he is going to totally ignore Independents or even the few sane Republicans who are out there. As a matter of fact he already has Independents for Dean and Republicans for Dean web sites.

As far as attracting the "vital center" or Independents. Most of these swing voters are described as social liberals and fiscally conservative. This also to a certain extent describes Dean.

Dean has also said he will compete in the south. He will ask southerners, "you have voted republican for thirty years--and what do you have to show for it? Do your kids have health insurance? are your schools up to par?" and urge them to vote for him. He has also said he is inclined to select a running mate from the south should he be nominated.

I'm inclined to try it Dean's way in the general election in 2004. We did it the GOP lite way in 2002 and didn't get us anywhere. I say Dean is right to run a Harry Truman give em hell campaign.

There was no national approach to the elctions of 2002. Dems were divided over getting the governorship back in Florida, keeping the Senate and winning back the house. The reason we lost on all three counts, according to Clinton, was because Dem leaders did not offer a coherent alternative on security issues. Back in 2002 that was the most pressing concern. We did not have Bush's record job losses to play off of. Obviously, the base is important, particularly in non-presidential elections, but the Dems midterm losses were more substantive because of the reason I noted above.

was because we let Karl Rove define the electoral message. A fictitous war was invented to sell a President his midterm election and we fell for it. We kept agreeing with everything the President said, so we could get onto a domestic political agenda. Strategiees to demotivate the Democratic voter base have long been a favorite of Karl Rove. We fell for a strategy that was ment to disuade our own base from voting.

We should have been fighting the Whitehouse about Iraq right from the very start. Not once should we have given any legitimecy to the "Threat of Iraq". We should have called him on it from the very start.

"
We should have been fighting the Whitehouse about Iraq right from the very start. Not once should we have given any legitimecy to the "Threat of Iraq". We should have called him on it from the very start."



I thought so at the time and, of course, even more so now!

So it's not "Monday morning quarterbacking".

working and I think the more he is out there on the road talkin' to People.. the more he learns everyday about how to keep his base energized and reach out to Southerners and Independents and, of course, the non voters! How many in the 2000 election? 100 Million! :kick:

And I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of republicans for Dean who, I'm sorry to say, are a whole lot smarter than dems for raygun.

One part of Dean's strategy is to go after the people who have stopped voting, or have never voted.
I would say about The South...

Howard Dean does have a strategy for the Southern states.

South Carolina. Dea is polling as a top-tier candidate in South Carolina and the polls show that his support is trending upward. We are not at the head of the pack but we are definitly in the running.

I do not think the Dean campaign thought that they were going to be competitive in South Carlina, hence the low priortiy given to campaigning in SC by the campaign. However, recent polls, and other "on the ground" evidence, has suggested the campaign take a different course. Resources are starting to be directed towards South Carolina. I believe the campaign's South Carolina offices will open in October. Meanwhile, the South Carolina activists who organize through Meetup will hold the fort.

A friend of mine described Vermont as a Southern state in the North. I cannot help but think that there is a grain of truth in that statement.

Dean's support of the second ammendment will play will in both MI, PA and in the South. This is a very important issue to a great many people and they vote accordingly. Many of these people are middle and working class Americans who have suffered greatly under the Presidency of George W. Bush.

On health care, balanced budgets, and equal rights Howard Dean has a message for the South. And with two decades of succssfull campaign experience in a rural state; the knowledge to make the most of that powerfull message.

And don't forget the mighty Texas. A state Dean has been working hard.

Dean has tons of new political participants signed-up, giving money to a candidate for the first time ever, going to monthly MeetUps, etc. Go to one of his activities; it'll be asked - "Who here is new to politics?" (or some wording like that). Anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 will raise their hands.

This is hardly indicative overall, but there was a surge in participation at the Tennessee Labor Day straw poll where Dean won by a nice margin over the 2nd place finisher. More evidence that he actually is bringing those new folks into the voting process.

The next test of this "I'll Bring New Voters" strategy is in Iowa. If turnout jumps there and it's linked to a Dean victory, the strategy is working.

As far as moderation is concerned, Dean has credentials of his own that he can point to in the general. His core is well-aware that he won NRA support, balanced budgets, had battles with the Left as governor, etc. With civil unions, he can keep a copy of the 2000 Cheney-Lieberman debate, where both candidates' positions are close to his own. I can hear it now: "If supporting civil unions makes him an extremist, then I guess Cheney is one too."

2) If the Dem nominee has a more partisan appeal he would be vulnerable in MI, PA and some of the other big 'swing' states where a moderate appeal is required to win the state. A couple extra hundred thousand Dem voters in these states is not going to make a difference if you lose the independents and all the Repubs.


So because he opposes Bush at every turn, he's "more partisan". But the guy who voted for the war in Iraq was actually opposing it???

Seriously, you're losing credibility withg your blind attacks on anything and everything Dean does. Choose your battles more wisely and don't over-reach.

Because if the time comes that Dean wins the nomination, you're going to have a tough time reconciling it.

We ALL understand who you want to win. But when you have to stretch the boundaries this far to attack somebody, you're really making yourself look silly.

Opposing Bush is fine but not offering any real policy solutions that aren't stolen from other candidates is not going to appeal. Only Dean's anger holds appeal.

Frankly, your personal anger directed towards me is unbelievable. Is it because we hold different views? I wasn't bashing anyone, but was simply describing what I see as flaws in Dean's self described strategy.

It's too bad you need to criticize others to make yourself feel better. Try drinking...it works better.

Virtually all of Dean's positions were out there BEFORE the other candiates, including Kerry. Most of them have borrowed liberally from Dean's positions.

Dean is right on the issues for Michigan voters. Guns are very big hear and Dean has a sound position on this one. Jobs, and health care are huge. He just needs to come hear and hold several rallys. When the people hear what he has to say and how he says it, it is over. Geb. is in the lead in Michigan because of early union support, but the average union voter has not made up his mind yet. I hope the Dean folks are reading this, get your man in hear very soon, and we will carry Michigan for Dean.

I've thought for a while that the problem with the Democratic message these days is that it isn't presented in words that regular people relate to. The forest issue is presented as sacrificing jobs in order to save an owl. It's more than that, but somehow our party can't get past the image of tree-sitters and owl lovers. Dean is very good at presenting a debate in terms that actually relate to people's lives. His biggest problem is going to be overcoming his back and forth on issues and the fact that Vermont might not be looking so economically stable next year. But I like his idea of standing on traditional Democratic values and bringing those non-voters back. It's all in how he presents it.

I believe he's the best candidate to pull together an independent/center/left coalition to beat Bush's corporatist/right coaltion.

That's the main reason I can't support Kucinich or Kerry at this time. Please don't take that as a knock against either of them. I just don't see either pulling together the diverse base of support that I see Dean being able to do. My opinion. Not the law fresh from Mt. Sinai or anything, so please don't take this as a smack against either Kucinich or Kerry.

and Dean has zero credibility on this issue.

Kerry's vet background helps him with one of the largest voting blocks in the country and they usually vote Repub overall. This is a huge issue and one Dean supporters will never talk about. Despite an anti-war stance (which doesn't help Dean with vets) Dean can offer very little that doesn't sound like he is just stealing from Kerry in terms of foreign affairs. To underestimate this issue is political suicide. It was the reason Dems lost in 2002.

John Kerry has two war votes to his name. The first war vote was against the first Gulf War. It is a shame that the experience John Kerry has amassed in current affairs has not been matched with good judgement.

I think you will find Dean a much stronger candidate on security matters than you would wish. The way Dean spoke against the Iraq war was not that of an anti-war dove. Many of the things Dean said were similar to the utterances of senior military personel and experienced diplomats.

I think you have a poor understanding of why we lost in 2002. I would direct you attention to the points I made up thread.

You can have experience in foreign policy but CRAPPY JUDGEMENT.

Signing a blank check comes to mind.

I prefer a president who has made a host of good judgements on military and domestic issues. And, if a persistant misunderstanding of the senator and his vote is what you prefer than go eat cake.

but I just handed you quite an effective comeback on the foreign policy topic. No one forced Kerry to sign a blank check for war - he could have very well insisted that conditions be included in the resolution, but he didn't. That's either cowardice, poor judgement, or political maneuvering. Any of those three isn't very attractive.

And I very well understand the other positons that Kerry takes. I generally like them. I find it arrogant that you would characterize me in such a manner.

in fact, it was largely due to his influence that the House version was narrowed in teh Senate and specified only Iraq, not the entire Middle East as Gep and Lieberman had supported in the house version. Besides, need I remind all of you that Dems didn't control congress and this resolutionw as going to pass no matter what. Any responsible Senator could realize that and therefore fight to make the resolution as good as it could be made. Either way, Bush could have gone to war no matter what. The Vietnam era War Powers act only allows Congress to cut off funding after 2-3 months if they don't support it.

and why he chose to vote that way. He voted for the Iraq war because he was running for President. He blinked in front of the Mighty Wurlitzer and that does not bode well for next November.

Most of the swing voters he is talking about, Hispanics and Blacks support the dmeocratis party. This does not translate into them supporting him SOme very late polls indicated that Deans politics are diametrically opposed to the interests of the swing voters.