Assuming a Dean nomination, what are our chances of victory?

Taking into account the time span until November, if Dean were to win, what do you think his chances are against Bush?

You know, if we're this divided now, who here thinks that the Democratic Party is going to miraculously pull together in time to beat Bush? There's no possible way. I had an epiphany yesterday after signing on to DU and seeing the same 'ol stuff. We've already lost. If what we see here at DU is any indication of what we'd see when a roomful of Democrats and Greens are discussing politics (and it pretty much is), then we haven't got a chance in hell of beating Bush. My last bit of optimism has been sucked out by the energy vampires who can't seem to stop themselves from ripping apart our candidates. I hope you think it's worth it when Bush gets 4 more years of unfettered power.

what do you want ?

when I posted this, obviously in the wrong thread.

sorry bout that

either flat out liars or people who don't have a firm enough grip on reality to make judgements.

we are sooooo screwed.

Please please please everybody wake up and realize the star spangled gift our party has been handed.

If a fight over who is the best warrior/protector... Bush wins over Clark. Bush caught Saddam and there's nothing that Clark has to fight that.

If Clark gets the nomination, we lose the greens and the left side of our dem base. And the military vote is going to the guy who got Saddam.

Clark is a sure loser.

I think that there many here can be said to be pushing an agenda.

There is a large contingent of Kucinich supporters on DU, and they tend to vote in most polls (see the latest DU primary poll, if you want comparitive numbers).

So, don't be too quick to summarily dismiss the results.

In addition, blaming Clark and his supporters for all negative perceptions of Dean is rather misguided and obviously inaccurate, especially considering that some of his more vocal critics are supporters of Kerry, Gephardt, and others.

It is obvious that Clark people are still wasting their time swamping meaningless polls at DU instead of working for their candidates. I guess it's the "sofa activist" mentality. You guys should be out on the streets figthing for your guy if you were serious...

Because that would mean that everyone who bothers to vote in DU polls is guilty of the same, including you. We all make some time during the day to pop in & post, poll, etc.

If the #s are not where you'd like them, please do not look for rationalizations. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a fair % of people have doubts about the traction of Dean's "message", particularly since many his policies offer very little change from the track we are on and have been for some time under Dem & GOP control.

Some folks feel that the best course is to offer as clear of an alternative as possible. Though Dean has the image of that, his policies do not really back it up in any clear terms outside of the slogans & rhetorical flourishes. If we run with someone who amounts to an angrier version of Al Gore, it will not be an easy road and we must face that before it hurts our chances to unseat the usurper who has taken over our country. It will be Bush & Dean sniping at each other, which stands to turn even more people off the polls (and low voter turnout favors the GOP historically).

Enough of this happy, loving frivolity... back to work!

where he's spending so much money.

Political correctness is Killing us. I am reading the story about the teacher in Philadelphia who used the "N" word. It is stuff like that which is putting us on the wrong side of the issue on a daily basis.

Seems that I'm a little less pessimistic than the average DU voter.

I have to admit, these were not the results (so far) that I would have ever expected.

its about what I expected

might be opened and something will bite him in the rear

all the damn time first ! Assuming that he actually wants the nomination.

Obviously if they are not open to the public, he must be hiding something.

:scared:

a humiliating defeat to Reagan.

I thought I was a voice in the wilderness....

most definitely going to be perceived in the media as a tax increase, whether it really is or not.

If you don't think that this is likely, you haven't been paying attention to the media for the past couple of decades.

if for no other reason than that they do not realize that these cuts were not permanent.

This is so difficult to understand, because supporters don't want to admit it's the same losing issue we've seen before. But let's simplify it.

If you pay more taxes next year than you did this year.... you got a tax increase. Calling a spade a watermelon doesn't make it edible and then accusing anyone who refuses to swallow it a liar is political suicide.

This is "emperor's new clothes" stuff.

Dan Rather is killing us. I saw an article done by a marketing research group. They showed the story about the 9/11 commisiion to two groups of people. One told by Dan Rather, and another told by a stranger. The Stranger recieved a higher rating than Dan Rather.

to the constitution banning same sex marraige and civil unions.

Ken Starr or Ted Olsen will be the next Supreme Court Justice.

Jeb will succeed dumbya in 2008. The voting machines will be so rigged with all repukes in charge that a bush will be in the white house for the next 30 years.

So for all you people caught up in Dean's momentum, while at the same time knowing that there are other candidates who have a better chance of beating bush, don't cry to me when all of the above on the bush agenda comes to pass. It won't affect me nearly as much as it will affect you. Keep thinking this is a game.

There is too much at stake for us to gamble in 2004 just to vent our anger. We need to be pragmatic or we will lose America as we know it forever.

are the ones spurring on the Dean express. How soon do you think it will be before the bushistas and their repuke henchmen start remaking the constitution? Ha! I'm almost dead. The ones causing the trouble now will be the ones to suffer the effects later. Not me.

and friends what's at stake for them. We need to remind all of our women-folk what they have to lose.

If Dean wins (highly improbable) they will have LESS rights not more. At least if Wes or Kerry win, they will fight for domestic partner rights.

The overturning of Roe Vs Wade.

Ken Starr as a justice. I'm old. I can't get pregnant anymore. I have a son. He can't get pregnant. I'm straight. I won't have a problem marrying. When the tide turns, so will my ears. They will turn deaf. I won't want to hear it.

Just the thought makes my skin crawl.

Mr. Spend $60 million following Clinton's penis around, sitting on the highest court in the land.

So there you have it. The future of the Supreme Court. Ashcroft, Starr, Olsen and maybe Katherine Harris for good measure.

....just in case some of you didn't know, it was none other than Kenny Starr who was in charge of digging up dirt on the Clintons during the 1992 campaign. Bush Sr promised him that he would be the next Supreme Court nominee in the second Bush Sr term - which of course didn't happen. Starr, reportedly has insisted that the Bush Criminal Empire hold up their end of the deal, especially after the whole blowjob impeachment mess.

Now on the other hand, Ted Olsen made the ultimate sacrifice for the 9-11 - Reichstag - Northwoods fascist power grab. And he had a great deal to do with the success of the Florida coup. That should score him some points with the Fraudministration.

Actually, what I fear might happen is that, even though we win the 2004 election, Junior will pressure two of the Supremes to resign (maybe even kill Justice Stevens) and put one or both of the above shitbags on a fast track nomination so the court can be screwed for years even without the fascists in the White House :scared:

Bigot amendments go nowhere. They're just Congress avoiding work.

state legislatures too. The repukes have the coattails and the voting machines. When we lose in 2004 we will have an indelible stamp as the party of losers.

STATE LEGISLATURES DID!!!!!!!! And Ohio State Legislature is working on a DOMA for Ohio. That's 38, the magic number needed for ratification.

I keep on saying it and it seems to fall on ears covered up while owner of said ears chants, "lalalalalalalala".

Rhetoric and talking about what has been done is not enough. We need a leader who will actually DO something about it when they get in there and Dean has made it plain that he is not that guy. The pattern follows for much of his "power to the people" schtick; in my not-so-humble opinion his policies do nothing to provide any significant improvement for the people of the Democratic party save for a marginally belligerent tone toward the GOP.

state's rights. I believe he will. My point is, bush and the republicans won't. Not when it comes to civil unions. What I'm saying is that people who back Dean BECAUSE he strongly supports civil unions need to consider the consequences of what will happen if Dean is the nominee and he loses to Bush.

Dean is not the only candidate who supports civil unions. If there is a stronger candidate against bush who can guarantee that there will not be a constitutional amendment banning civil unions, People need to weigh their options very carefully.

I'm not gay and I do not have a dog in this fight. But as an American who believes that the constitution does not ban gay marraige or civil unions, I am supportive of the issue as a civil rights and constitutional issue. And, I believe that an amendment to the constitution would be a tragic consequence of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Proceed as you will. No sweat off my brow. Unless DOMA is in a state's constitution, I'm sure you know it can be overturned at any time. Right? As republicans continue to gain seats in legislatures and an era of "conservatism" continues to gain support, you do realize that this can change. All it takes is a legal challenge from some conservative front group.

My "time machine?" Thank goodness for my "time machine" as you call it. It gives me the advantage of knowing how the opposition really works in the real world. Instead of floating around in never never land, wearing rose-colored glasses.

Where we disagree is your belief that Dean will undoubtedly lose to Bush.

because once inside they will start looking around and they will find out what Bush Inc. has been up to for four years. They cannot risk it, or W, Cheney and the lot will all go-go to jail. Iran-Contra will look like pee-wee baseball.

Put on your tin-foil hat if you must, but this administration is by far the most secretive in history. We (the owners) are no longer allowed in the White House building. They have secret courts, secret laws, secret prisoners, secret soldiers, secret budgets, secret locations and secret government agencies. These facts are not in dispute (the government has always had secrets, but not nearly to this degree). They're hiding a lot, no doubt most of it illegal, and they can't risk any of it coming to light. Bribery and corruption are just the tip of the iceberg.

Bush Inc. will attempt to steal (again) the election in 2004. We're talking major vote fraud, led by voting machines that don't leave a paper trail. That's just for starters. Voting rights? That's so 20th Century. Court challenges. Constant gerrymandering to make every district results give a Republican majority. And a lot of people fear they will stage a (another?) major catastrophe to justify placing the election in abeyance.

They won't give up the WH without doing a lot of damage to this country.

We better fight back hard and better start now. Use the courts. Sue every state to demand paper trails for voting machines. Sue every state that violates the Voting Rights Act. Sue the White House to release all political prisoners. Sue the Justice Dept. for violating the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act. Sue the press for unequal coverage of the political candidates. Sue the Republican Party (they should just call themselves the "War on Terror Party" and get it over with) for illegal gerrymandering. Sue the White House for not naming an independent prosecutor over Enron, the Plame case, 911, and administration officials' lies to Congress and the UN about Iraq. Recall Arnold. Compel the rich not owned by Bush Inc. to use their wealth to file these suits. George Soros, this means you!

http://www.unembedded.com

W's capture of Saddam renders the AWOL thing moot, and without that point of attack, Clark has nothing.

Clark can not beat Bush now. Bush would win 40+ states vs Clark.

I don't think the Saddam capture is as significant as you do. If Clark can keep hammering on the FACTs that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a significant threat to the US, his military background will still be an asset.

Is the percentage of these votes, small as the sample might be, that rates the odds of a Dem win with Dean at 90% to 100%. Over 20% in that camp so far. About 1 in 3 think the odds are 70% or more for a Dean victory.

That is scary. What it says to me (warning: this is just my opinion) is that either some people are intentionally using this exercise as a pep rally with little regard for any real analysis, which isn't that scary actually but it would annoy me, or some poeple are wildly naive and blinded by their own certainty. That choice is the scary one. It is a dangerous way to approach politics. I'm sorry but Jesus Christ would not have a 90%+ certainty of beating Bush in 2004 (well maybe he would, but it's getting late for him to enter the race.)

They better get real.

and does not rely on grey matter all the time

hope everyone reads it.

like a bug.

"He's immoral, he consorts with prostitutes!"

"What a liberal, chasing those good Republikan businessmen out of the Temple. Plus, I think his civil disobediance means that he's a potential terrorist..."

Hell, they might even "Wellstone" Jesus' liberal hippie ass!

E-C-O-N-O-M-Y

That is going to be the dominate issue in the 04 election. Any body that says it isn't is in deep denial. Remember 9-11 really did happen. It wasn't just a read scarry TV show.

in a fight over who is best on current national security issues... the guy who caught saddam wins over the guy who got fired from his command.

We can't afford to gamble on Clark.

With Electronic machines, and no paper trail?? Don't look good!

Same as anybody else.

latest ARG poll that has him losing to bush by 30pts. So, what states will Dean win that Gore didn't win?

No other candidates were polled in that question...we don't know that anyone else would have done better.

than Dean in that poll. Meaning that Dems crossed over to bush if Dean is the nominee.

Yes, just like there will be crossovers with any other specific candidate.

no matter who we nominate. I like Dean's chances the best, but I consider him by no means a shoe-in, and I'm not convinced about anyone else either.

looks like the borg have gone to sleep

Guess y'all want 4 more years of Bush...

but I have to be honest. I suppose I could lie... would that be nicer?

n/t

There are a ton of Dean supporters that jump into just about every poll on DU. They apparently aren't as confident of their candidate as they claim to be in their postings. Otherwise, Dean's 90-100 would be at least double its current numbers.

is almost the same proportion as the votes for Dean and Clark in the candidates poll posted by Skinner.

Let's assume you're right.

Ignore those two categories and look at the rest of the results. The perception of Dean's electibility looks pretty bleak.

Why do these threads at all if the only point is to stack them with 0% victory chances vs. 100% victory chances in a head on popularity duel? Neither estimate has any bearing on reality. It just makes all of us look dumb or adolescent.

It is not Dean against Clark here - we are trying to win a general election. I voted honestly - if you want everyone to vote 100% then people would have to lie - is that what you want?

It is not Dean against Clark here - we are trying to win a general election. I voted honestly - if you want everyone to vote 100% then people would have to lie - is that what you want?

I voted 30-40% chance, probably favoring the lower end. That is my realistic assessment. In the Clark poll I voted 60-70%, my personal estimate for Clark is probably around 65% if he gets the nomination. I would estimate any of the other candidates chances even lower than I estimate Dean's. I think we're deluding ourselves if we think this is going to be a cakewalk even if we put forth our strongest possible candidate.

Just letting you know that not all Clarkites are out to "get" Dean and running around "freeping" all the polls. Some of them certainly are, just like some of the Deanies are.

I think you would probably get a more realistic idea of what people really think by simply eliminating the top and the bottom 10% of any of these polls.

So let's assume the obvious; that all 25% of those who say 90-100% are Dean supporters. And then we take the DU primary poll, which says that 35% or so of DUers are Deanies. Do the math, and you find that over 70% of Deanies are REALLY that deluded. It'd be interesting to see the same poll for another candidates, because clearly no candidate (even the one I support) can beat Bush/media/Diebold that easily. Those who voted 90-100 (slinkerwink couldn't possibly be one of those), please come forward.

I love Dean, and even I doubt that he can win. But I refuse to jump on the crowded "ABB 2004!" bandwagon. Contrary to popular belief here in DU, the world will likely not end because Bush gets a 2nd term. It's just that the good things that could and should happen won't happen. And standing on principle, especially the principle of commitment to improving the lives of hard-working families which will always exist in large numbers and will get even more numerous and anxious every times the economy goes sour, will ultimately benefit the party in the future, even in a losing cause. Just ask blue-collar union members about their feelings about the current direction of the party.

I certainly hope you're right

I'll say it again: Who do you personally know who did NOT vote for George last time but IS voting for him next time?

Who do you personally know who DID vote for George last time but is NOT voting for him next time?

Count those numbers.

but by who we'd want assuming it'll be hard (even if you do think it's going to be easy).

30 pts. against Dean. Your logic is very flawed. Without the right candidate, he will probably win PA too.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/nhp45.html

say they will NOT vote for dean. i don't know for sure that they will actually vote for bush but they may just stay home if that are their chocies. they are dems back for three generations. but they say they will NOT vote to increase their own taxes.

the next catagory, in either direction are people who know the first and last categories are BS and are trying to look reasonable. looking at the remainder of the categories may prove interesting.

you think Dean will win that bush won in 2000. He'll more than likely lose a couple of blue states and pick up no red states. That's my honest opinion. Bush has an overwhelming lead in NH right now. Bush will probably pick up PA and maybe MI and WI. So, my assessment is based upon honest reflection. If I see Dean losing some of the blue states and picking up no red states my assessment of 0% is my honest opinion.

there are too many variables to judge there to be 0% or 100%. bush could die of a heartattack leaving cheney to run or some other opponant which would blow the whole thing in another direction. too many variables to vote anything more that the middle ranges IMHO.

Remember those?

... a plausible scenario where Dean wins 270 electoral votes, I would be delighted to see it. I haven't seen one yet.

:( :cry:

The key is turnout. Dean (and his army of supporters) will be the best able to get people to the polls.

bush. Army or not. :eyes:

but I'm talking about turnout. Lots of people say they are going to vote. Historically, republicans do. Democrats go out and vote when they are nagged into it by phone calls and visits.

(past week or two) all show Clark with a better spread.

Dean can motivate it better than any other candidate because his supporters will work at it more fanatically than any other candidate's will.

Clark vs (The guy who captured saddam).


Clark has nothing else to run on... the capture of saddam makes clark the weakest candidate running.


It also means that the candidates who have foocused more on domestic policy will be in a stonger position.

also extremely wel organized and will be working like mad to turn out their base too. It balances out. The swing voter is the key, just like always.

Will cross lines and vote for Clark, Independents and moderates will rally to him too, these don't show up in many of the polls out now. They won't do it for Dean.

Dean is also polling best int he 2nd choice catagory.

Most of the votes are clustered at 0-10 and 90-100. Come on people, what planet do you live on? Do you just vote knee-jerk for/against whatever candidate you love/hate? Not one of the candidates has a 90% chance to beat a strong incumbent with broad popular support, and none of them has as low as a 10% chance.

I don't ever want to hear about Kucinich supporters not being in touch with reality. This is just ridiculous.

People on DU are some of the biggest proponents and opponents of political figures around.

I have seen many Dean supporters say that his victory in November 2004 is an unequivocal slam dunk and that there is no way Bush will beat Dean. At the same time, many Dean opponents have said he has no chance, for a variety of stated reasons.

So, I don't think that the 0-10 and 90-100 people are necessarily knee-jerk voting. I think many people honestly believe it's a done deal one way or the other, regardless of future events.

But asking people at DU to seperate their own political beliefs from political reality is an exercise in futility.

and the fact that they are dominating the voting is telling.

The re-election of an incumbant is like sex in a relationhip. If the incumbent is ok, it only counts for about 10% of the relationship. If he's is bad, that counts for 90%.

This election will mostly be an up/down vote for *. Even if Jesus was our nominee, his merits would only be a 10% factor in the race.

If Cheney is on it, the odds are at least 50-50. If Powell replaces Cheney (and don't think Rove wouldn't dump him in a defibrilator beat!) then I see gloom and doom.

It is exceedingly dangerous to wish this question into oblivion.

Clearly, the majority of responders are not voting based on realistic expectations but on their own pro or anti-Dean chants.
BTW, full disclocuse -- I voted 30-40%.
Dennis I would give 60-70%, not that anyone would ask.

the people voting 0-10 and those voting 90-100 are over the top -
so throwing those 196 votes out

that leaves us with a mean of 45.7%. Not the most enthusiastic endorsement.

and so only looking at 40-60% (21 votes) and 50-60% (36 votes)
we get a mean percentage of 52.6% which is slightly optimistic.

not.

beat Dean like a drum. :-(

From what can be gathered from this lil poll, unlike Bush that splits America 50/50, repub against Dems. Dean further splits the Dems.

2/7 to 1/3. Bush is a 3-1 favorite for re-'elect' right now; that would be against a generic Dem. Dean is a weaker matchup against Bush than a generic Dem, so I'd say he's slightly worse than a 1 in 3 shot. That's actually better than I think his real chances are; I'm simply going by what the oddsmakers have down.

African-Anmericans do not support Dean: his support comes from the white middle class and upper middle class. The African-American vote is vital for Democratic candidates, and Dean, despite leading overall, is the second weakest AA support after Lieberman.

:shrug:

It forces non-Dean supporters to either go negative (thereby undermining our ultimate battle against *), or indirectly give Dean a boost in the primary battle.

and the excitement of the Democratic convention, the Republican one will be a rubberstamped foregone conclusion. I wonder if that will have any effect on the voters? This election is turning into the Howard Dean Story. Win or lose, he is getting all the attention.

so that it WILL be a foregone conclusion...... IMO.
:-(

DemEx

and he's doing that with the Clark and Kerry folks working round the clock to trip him up.


I voted 80% to 90% because once Dean is the nominee and the Dean haters see their agenda to take out Dean at all costs failing... and once Dean gets the convention bump and the VP bump, Bush will not stand a chance against him.

Whereas Clark can not win vs. Bush because the capture of saddam really takes away Clark's biggest attack. THe AWOL thing is meaningless now that W caught Saddam. Bush will win in the who is the better warrior/protector piss fight.

Strange things happen in elections, like UPSETS

Feels good at the time, but makes you sick later on.

it helps to throw out the outliers at 0% and 100% and look at the bell curve in between. It shows a cautious optimism, which is probably the best place to be right now.

What's needed is a good campaigner to win the nomination. Period. If Gore (who had some limitations as a campaigner), could come from 18 points down to overtake Bush, then any good campaigner can.

getting on TV as a pundit. :)

A Dean nomination would be a disaster! He's too liberal to get elected, he's too moderate, he's an anti-war hippy, he's not anti-war enough, he's too wooden, he's too angry, and black people hate him. Plus he's short and he doesn't smile enough.

Hey, that's kind of fun! I can see the appeal of Dean-bashing.