Howard Dean will not win the nomination

I just watched Meet the Press. I missed Delay, but does that matter? First Delay pretty much said give us Dean. Then Matlin did all Democrats a favor. She told us why Dean isn't the quality candidate/person we need running against Bush. This was followed by Carville telling us the problems with Dean. Carville was the one who said that Dean needs to learn to pick his fights. Carville said that he would be willing to beg Hillary to run if we aren't strong enough. Carville slapped Dean for attacking Clinton. These two made hard hitting points and I think they will stick. Most of what Matlin said was the usual right wing talking points, but the indictment of Dean was brutal.

And Carville offered an alternative. He mentioned Kerry and said that Lieberman has gone up. These people are sending us a message. I would like to say that Dean could change, but I don't believe it. Right now I believe that Dean is no longer viable as is. Dean needs to change more than I think he can. I am willing to bet today that Dean does not win the nomination.

These attacks are now sticking. The Gore endoresemnet will fade. The symapathy vote for Lieberman will fade. This leaves Kerry, Clark, and Gephardt if he wins Iowa.

If Kerry wins Iowa, this is huge. Gephardt is out. Dean is hurt and we go to NH. Kerry has become a strong wild card here. I don't believe that Kerry is an anti-Dean, but he has the potential to be THE anti-Dean.

Remember, NH is full of surprises. This is going to a great primary season.

:)

The sum of everything Carville said was: God, did we make a big
mistake with Dean! SOMEONE RESCUE US, PLEASE!!!

From the show:

Delay:

If Dean get the democrat nomination
"2004 is going to make the 84 election look like a sqeaker."

"I think it is wonderfull (chuckle) that he is doing what he is doing."

"I hope Dean is nominated by the democrats,(chuckle, chuckle)
I got to tell you."

Madelin:

(TOO EFFUSIVE ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF DEAN TO CAPTURE HERE)

But "Dean is widely viewed in the White House as a "Gift from God"


Carville:

"Must say, Dean's remarks weren't the most politically asture."

MTP: "Do you believe that Howard Dean is a strong candidate against George Bush?"

Carville: "Well, well .....if he makes a lot of changes .. he could become...BUT Kerry is coming on like gangbusters .. Lieberman is showing some movement .. It's not a done deal"

You can't be serious. This is the 'Carville slam on Dean'. :eyes:

If he thinks Hillary is the answer to winning this race I would say he needs to get his head out of 1992.

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

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

This is a week where we have had not just the right, but the left going after Dean for not controlling his mouth. Part of my argument is that he is incapable. Remember the movie Signs with Mel Gibson. If you saw it, that's what I mean.

Right and left were full of shit.

Keep praising the republicans and buying thier bullshit It is sure to be a wining strategy in 04

Why should Dean pick his battles when EVERYTHING Bush pulls is a load of crap?

i love carville, he is a great guy and a great democrat. i don't like matalin much either, but show some respect for carville. he still loves her.

That's really uncalled for.

Who ONLY managed to pull off a victory with Clinton against Poppy when Poppy's numbers were in the 80s-90s around this time of year with a candidate that NO ONE had EVER heard of? This guy MIGHT know what he is talking about when he says that Dean can't win.

Carville was half the brain that won in 92 and 96. But why should we worry about him now?

as a result of Dean's critique of Clinton and endorsement by Gore.

Odd, really, if true, when you consider how Clinton shut Carville out in favor of Dick Morris.

I'm willing to bet if he was running the DNC in 2002 we wouldn't have suffered a TENTH as much as we did. He is NOT afraid of fighting Bush, but he isn't STUPID about it.

I'm saying Carville certainly has political loyalties that could color what he's saying.

Kind of like what we all do here most of the time.

:evilgrin:

I think he is speaking objectively when he says that Dean can't win this one.

Carville may very well be speaking from his heart on this. However, his views are far from objective, in my opinion. His close ties with Clinton (whom Gore distanced himself from in 2000 and whom Dean is critiquing) may have some impact on his views of Dean. What's he going to say? "Yes, although Dean represents a new direction away from a Clinton/DLC definition of the Party, I think he'll win"?

Which bolsters my claim that perhaps Gore's endorsement and Dean's critique of Clinton may be coloring Carville's commentary.

That isn't an attack on Carville, it's just pointing out the political axe he might be grinding as a result of that.

What, was he breaking out in a cold sweat, biting his nails, trembling, shouting like that guy on "Network" that Dean is taking us to hell?

He can "seem" like whatever you want him to seem like. He's not god, though, as good as he is as a campaigner.

Or does that make too much sense?

http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1043744997,3256,.shtml

SNIP:..."Some analysts feel that the opposition has actually helped Chávez push forward his populist "Bolivarian revolution." The strike has weakened the private sector and allowed Chávez to force conservative elements out of PDVSA; a coup attempt last April gave Chávez a chance to purge the military of his opponents. "They've handed themselves to Chávez on a platter," a foreign diplomat told the Washington Post in Caracas. Veteran British Latin America reporter Richard Gott says the strike "appears to be concluding with President Hugo Chávez ever more firmly in the saddle."

Opposition leaders are now consulting informally with U.S. Democratic Party strategist James Carville to improve their public relations abroad. (WP 1/20/03 from correspondent, The Guardian (UK) 1/17/03)"

I don't pretend to understand the complex nature of this situation, but I do wonder why he has been working with the opposition to Chavez as a Democratic consultant.

He is so against Dean that I must wonder. Carter is mentioned in this article as well. Very complex.

Would you be willing to bet the farm? Your first born? I'm willing to bet a bunch. If you want to put your wallet where your mouth is, send me a PM.

For me to say it it means that I feel that it's over 50% likely that he will not win. I think the odds of him winning are less than the odds of him not winning. Of course things have changed before. I thought his odds of winning went up after Florida and Gore. I just feel like it has all changed.

i would love for carville to endorse kerry. and bill clinton and hillary clinton also.

It does more for you in the background than the foreground.

that James mentions Kerry first when discussing the strengths of the candidates. Did it on Crossfire and did it again today on MTP.

Another huge batch of Dumbya lies that Kerry and Lieberman raced to support. They supported the GOP lies and attacked those their own party. They will both pay for being so foolish as to not wait a few days and find out if the White House Story proved to be just another BS story like WoMD and Jessie "Rambo" Lynch.

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

A major news source to flesh that story out before we get carried away..don't you?

well, since Tom Delay, Mary Matalin, and James Carville all tell us this, I guess I have no alternative but to give up on Dean.

:eyes:

We should dump the strongest one we've got because Delay says the Pukes want him, and pick the weakest because Carville says he can win. Yeah! That's the ticket! Gee, I wonder if Hillary wants to run in 2008?

Thanks for that.

That's debateable and we are debating.

and you guys didn't tell me?!

Damnit!!!!

This really is sad....a bunch of candidates who cant seem to beat the worst possible candidate is going to do better against Bush than Dean will!!!

Than, should Dean actually win the nomination..these same doom sayers will sit on their hands...do nothing to help win the nomination..and should Dean come up short, these same freedom fighters will be the first to shout "Told you so.....we knew it all along..."

The fear in this party is pathetic.....don't blame our politicians for not having backbones...the party faithful dont seem to either....

I will help him if he wins. I would love nothing more than making the pukes wrong about Dean if he is the nominee.

I will tell you "I told you so" if we lose more than 35 states because of Dean.

If Dean can be such a strong debater against Bush, why can't he make mince meat of someone who he considers less than him like Kerry on national security policies?

Dean is a poseur.

policies will 'show up' to any debate anyhow. Should Dean debate CMB on health care when he's done? How bout Dennis Kucinich on the Iraq occupation? :eyes:

Dean will beat Kerry in NH unless some unforeseeable blip occurs. The question is are you going to back Dean as the nominee or help Bush to another four more years. By the way, knock off the namecalling, it sounds desperate

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I'm sorry to hip you to this disturbing bit of news.

Here's another: Kerry will be out of the race soon - likely, he might be the first to drop out.

vis a vis Howard Dean - is astonishing.

To say that people who don't support Dr. Dean will "sit on their hands" is an insult of the first order. I pray that supporters like yourself are not a true reflection of the Dean campaign.

I agree with the theory that Kerry's chances might be increasing. I remain skeptical about Delay. While I personally believe that other candidates are strategically stronger than Dean I also suspect that the Republicans remember the Carter movement so there is some concern about Dean.

More to the point- as it stands Howard Dean will win the nomination.

you were the one who posted the "Howard Dean will will the nomination, get over it thread." I forgot someone did that.

Sorry, I am dubious of anything Tom Delay has to say- you'll understand why I am dubious of those who repeat what Tom Delay has to say.

Not me. Remember, both of you want him to be the nominee. Maybe you should look in the mirror on this one.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Is not whether we believe him, its how many less politically adept people believe him or his outrageous lies. Remember 2000? or 2002?

Carville. As if he is the be all and end all of the democratic party. Whatever. Since he said he would get down on his knees and beg Hillary to run if our he doesn't perceive our candidate as strong enough, I hope you will take note of his lack of such a plea when Dean secures the nomination.

he didn't come up. But he didn't talk in broad strokes. He said that Kerry and Liebermans numbers have gone up.

I intend to. I am VERY curious as to waht James thinks of Wes.

on Crossfire. I have to wonder also. Clinton and Clark are friends, but I don't know if Clark and Carville even know eachother.

He's right.

A recent Mellman poll has Kerry right behind Dean with 24 points to Dean's 28. Dean is losing numbers in a big way in Iowa; that's why he's doubled his ad budget there. He's scared.

Kerry may win in Iowa. That victory would change the whole momentum in the following primaries.

It's still early, but the trend is that Kerry is catching up to Dean.

Campaigns don't run on air, but in John's case it may run on Ketchup!

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

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

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

Winning Iowa or NH brings in money. Especially for underdogs. Remember McCain. He raised $2 million in 2 weeks after NH.

All numbers in Iowa have been trending up over the last month for Dean and down for Gep.

I'd keep track of polling trends, and would like to add it to my links. Thanks :)

:)

and are also supportive of any candidate that endorses the environmentally-unfriendly, and taxpayers' boondoggle, ethanol program.

"I am an ethanol man"

--George W. Bush (2000)

Don't count Dennis Kucinich out. Why labor would vote for Gep over DK is a mystery to me. Dennis is a strong supporter, and he actually shows up to vote in the house on a regular basis. The campaign is active in Iowa, and getting a positive response.

He needs CMB Sharpton to drop without endorsements. Dean woudl need to look week also. There are Kucitizens with Dean bocause they think he can win. If they don't feel that way, he can do some damage.

I'm shocked.

Interesting that he suggested Kerry and Hillary - both voted for IWR. The voice of the DLC establishment speaks.

did except Kucinich. Besides that, he only talked about poll numbers.

I will not vote for any of the war supporters in the primaries, and I will cringe in the general election if Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, or Gephardt are on the top of the ticket.

I am saying that most of them are war supporters. 6 out of 9.

Then we'll cancel each other out, I will not vote for Dean.

Gephardt is the best guy to do it, since he would do well on Feb 3rd in such a scenario. A Kerry win would have a similar but smaller effect since Dean would not only still be in the game in states like Missouri and Michigan, but Clark would cut into Kerry's voting base.

Election Day 2000. He really helped motivate folks that day too. He seems to have a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth whenever he goes on NBC. Other than that, I like him.

Perhaps Kerry will offer the VP spot to Clark to get him to dropout, because that's the only way Kerry has a chance of winning NH, much less the nomination.

Dean retains lead in New Hampshire
Associated Press

December 20, 2003

CONCORD, N.H. -- Howard Dean retains a solid lead over John Kerry in New Hampshire, double his margin of just two months ago, and Wesley Clark is the only other Democratic presidential candidate with double-digit support in a poll out Saturday.

The poll shows, however, that President Bush easily would beat any of them in an election held now. New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary is Jan. 27.

<snip>

Dean, a former Vermont governor, boasted a 24-percentage point lead over Massachusetts Sen. Kerry, 41 percent to 17 percent. Retired Army Gen. Clark showed up third, with 13 percent, followed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and John Edwards of North Carolina at 6 percent; and Reps. Gephardt of Missouri at 4 percent and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 1 percent. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun attracted less than one percent.

<snip>

Similar polls for the Monitor show Dean steadily building support since March, from 11 percent in March to this month's 41 percent. Kerry steadily dropped, from 38 percent in March to this month's 17 percent this month. Kerry trailed by 12 percentage points in October, half the latest margin.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/state/hc-20235239.apds.m0920.bc-ct-democdec20,0,5478446.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

Clark isn't. He's composed and tough. Yet he clearly takes
subjects seriously. When Dean's confronted with a subject
he doesn't like (like draft dodging), he just blurts out
a canned and terse remark ("I took a physical, I failed a physical.
If that makes this an issue, then so be it.").

That style's not gonna fly in the GE with a hostile media.

is the nominee than we deserve four more years of the chimp! I personally think the DLC wants the Democratic candidate to lose. There's no other way to explain the nonsense that is taking place.

And it will be a great outcome for the Democratic party!

Dean would be the weakest candidate against Bush.

Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and Gephardt would all have a much better chance to win vs. Bush.

I guess that settles that.

It will be because Clark beats him.

I'm more convinced than ever that Republicans are truly scared of Dean winning the nomination. Why? Well it's simple if you think about it. IF Republicans REALLY want Dean to win the Democratic nomination, why would they continually talk about it? I mean, doesn't this pose a problem for Dean? If Republicans continue to harp on the fact that Dean can't beat Bush, doesn't that set on some minds of the voters? I think it does - so why would they openly state they wanted Dean, knowing very well that doing so could hurt his campaign?

Republicans talking enthusiastically about how they want Dean to win the nomination indicates that they're AFRAID of him? Common sense tells me the opposite is true.

They wouldn't want Dean to win the nomination unless they were confident that they could beat him.

Only hardcore Dean supporters have tried to spin it as fear, from what I've seen. On the other hand, I do think they underestimate him to some degree, and overestimate W's ability to win.

He doesn't get much press time.

If Republicans continued to bash Dean by saying Bush would KILL him in the general election, wouldn't that instill a fear into Democratic Primary voters' minds? It's a big risk for the Republicans, because Democratic Primary voters will think twice abour supporting Dean if they feel he can't beat Bush in the general election.

So in reality, if the Repubs keep this talk up, Dean MIGHT lose the nomination because of the ABD movement might take off. If solid Democrats feel there is no chance in 2004 with Dean, most will go with someone else. Repubs MUST know this, so why would they feed into it with the anti-Dean talks?

I hope it's my guy, Gen. Wesley Clark, who wins. I think he gives us the best chance in the general election. Peace.

How Dean Could Win . . .

By William Kristol
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27
…
Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It's Bush, Dean will point out, who's trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.
…
The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47806-2003Dec8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=24883

TO: Moore Information Clients & Friends

FROM: Hans Kaiser & Bob Moore

RE: Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

A recent article by David Brooks left readers with the distinct impression that Republican pollsters are all of the opinion that Howard Dean cannot possibly beat George Bush. We regret that he didn’t check with us first, as it is our belief that Dean has the potential to be a formidable candidate who could give the President a very difficult race.

The conventional wisdom that has some Republicans giddy about a potential Dean candidacy is not only misguided, it is counterproductive. Writing off a candidate like Dean by selectively sorting statistical gobble-de-gook and mixing it into a broth of “empirical” sociological evidence ignores the political realities of our time.
…
The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle. More than any other candidate in the field, he will be able to present himself as one who cares about people (doctor), who balances budgets (governor), and who appears well grounded while looking presidential. To be sure, he doesn’t look that way to the GOP base, but that has no bearing on the election, because they will never vote for him anyway. He can appeal to the middle and Republicans can ignore his candidacy at our peril. We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover.

Howard Dean’s appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan’s than any other Democrat running today. Granted, that’s not saying much with this field, but there are similarities here. The Democrat party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes which they believed would marginalize him to the far right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. Howard Dean has the potential to offer a similar type candidacy.
…
http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=709103

Bush team considers Dean formidable Republicans admit they underestimated Dem candidate

By Judy Keen
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Republican Party officials and political advisers to President Bush admit that they underestimated Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and say they now consider him a formidable potential adversary.

Some Bush allies say he reminds them of another insurgent candidate who once bedeviled Bush: Arizona Sen. John McCain. His wins in Republican primary elections in New Hampshire and Michigan rattled Bush's 2000 campaign.

''There is something going on there, and I tell you, if we don't pay attention . . . we're making a big mistake,'' says Tom Rath, a Republican strategist and Bush adviser in New Hampshire.
…
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030908/5477666s.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=103020