Wake Up! Dean is the most electable candidate.

[stickdog]

Dean does very well with white males. Look at the NH polls.

Dean does very well with independents. Look at the NH polls.

The smarter you are, the more informed you are and the more you vote, the more you're for Dr. Dean. And the closer you get to the general election, the more people get informed.

Dean is a doctor. So he has immediate credibility on healthcare.

Dean was a fine centrist governor. This gives him immediate credibility on economic policy.

Bush's numbers have plummeted since Dean lept into the lead by telling it like it is about the boy king. Do you really think that's just a coinicidence?

Dean already has almost 420,000 supporters and 100,000 volunteers.

Dean's campaign is REVOLUTIONARY. It's not politics as usual. People respond to new, exciting campaigns -- especially campaigns with so much potential to change American democracy for the better.

Dean doesn't need to sell out completely to raise the money he'll need to fight Bush. This will allow Dean to put people before big corporations in practice, not just in rhetoric. Many people are smart enough to understand this, and have been disgusted with big money politics for a long time now.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush on ALL THE ISSUES. Bush has done EVERYTHING WRONG and Dean has been complicit in NONE OF BUSH'S HORRIBLE FAILURES.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the right on the deficit.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the near left on the war, abortion, corporatism, tax cuts for the rich and civil rights.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the center on the environment, healthcare, imperialism, secrecy, corruption, accountability and competence.

Putting the spotlight on Dean will show only that he's more of a regular guy and more of a centrist than the media initially portrayed him.

Because Dean is a fighter who relishes a fight and a tough guy who relishes making tough decisions, Americans will feel perfectly secure with him once they get to know him.

[RogueTrooper]

1. Excellent post stickdog

I would also add that Dean's support of second ammendment rights can also be deployed as a strong play during the general election. It will not win him the endorsment of the NRA but it may mute their patch of the mighty wurlitzer.

[WilliamPitt]

3. CANNOT overemphasize how important

this is. In the South and West, to defang the NRA is huge. Huge.

[RogueTrooper]

36. Indeed

and I believe that blue collar second ammendment single issue voters are, quite possibly, the most prisable from the Republican voting coalition.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

2. We'll see soon enough

Dean has to beat nine other comers, including a couple of very heavy hitters, before he gets to Bush. I wish him well of it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Excellent argument!

Thanks for these talking points. Yesterday, I had to go to a pest management seminar with a coworker. It was 100 miles away, so we had time to talk. He's a cynic, thinks all politicians are crooks, and hasn't voted. I think I've talked him into considering voting and into at least looking at Dr. Dean. These points will help if he asks more questions.

[Lexingtonian]

5. Gallup says Dean loses to Bush, but Kerry and Clark win

Dean is a doctor. So he has immediate credibility on healthcare.

Explain to me his distinction in that from Bill Frist- who was a heart surgeon, even, a specialty that makes Dean's look pathetic.

Dean was a fine centrist governor.

Whereas centrism is the view that you have no principles except one- to position yourself in the middle between people who do have principles.

Bush's numbers have plummeted since Dean lept into the lead by telling it like it is about the boy king. Do you really think that's just a coincidence?

Now there's a classical post hoc fallacy, stickdog.
Considering that Bush's numbers fell among people whose name recognition of Dean was under 20%, I'm sure Dean has secret telepathic powers over people who have no clue who he is and vice versa. (Now there's a point you may want to champion in your next thread! And I give it to for free! Along with other Clues!)

Dean's campaign is REVOLUTIONARY. It's not politics as usual.

Neither was Perot's, nor Nader's, or Buchanan's, LaRouche's, or Anderson's. It turns out that the 'revolutionary' thing in common between them- which is also Dean's central element- is to find emotional/combative white men who feel their privileges slipping away.

Yeah, I know I shouldn't be so cruel. But you know that your posts/threads are cries for help- you have evidently realized that Dean does cause you cognitive dissonance. I am slapping you only to help you see the light of day again! Let go of Deansanity- you know you want to, you know you need to! We're here to help you! But you have to come that last distance yourself! Begone, you fundraising Bats out of hell! Begone, you demons of Invincible Centrism! Begone, you wraiths of Bushysteria! Begone, you incubi of Morons Misquantifying Electability From Tiny Polling Samples! Begone, you ghosts of Angry White/breaded Manhood! Begone, you ghouls of DLCannibalism! Begone, you succubi of Internet Revolution! Begone, all cable connection political dorkdom! Return, oh ye spirits of integrity and inner strength, of insight and post-Hohosteria, of relevance to minority voters in 2004!

Ok, maybe I'm just a beginner at exorcism. But don't pretend that I didn't make the effort!

:D

[WilliamPitt]

6. "Morons Misquantifying Electability From Tiny Polling Samples!"

I just woke the house up.

SCREAMING with laughter. Oh man. Thanks.

Fuck'em. They need to get to work anyway. :)

[emcglynn]

8. Stop fawning over Frist

Family Practice Doctors are the foot soldiers of medicine. Bill Frist took cats from shelters to dissect in his reckless youth. Dean keeps gaining ground because he is right-before it becomes the accepted truth of the DLC. He appeals to feisty Americans who are tired of the same old crap-just as Reagan did from the other party. If Dean wasn't running the Democratic Party would have to create someone like him. Think Truman. Think Lincoln. Think about the possibility it wasn't DLC's genius that got him elected but the right candidate at the time. I think Dean is that person.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Yeah

but heart surgeons are pretty handy to have around if your heart, like, is all fucked up and shit. I hear that takes a lot of schoolin', but what do I know, coming from Boston and all.

Christ, am I defending Frist? Someone slap me.

[REP]

11. *Slap*

If one has a good GP, one has a better chance of avoiding heart surgery. Plus, surgeons are notorious for their arrogance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. He was an internist

not a general practioner or family practioner.... All three are distinct areas of medicine and require separate certification....

Internists generally work with folks over forty and treat conditions like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes...

Dr. Dean wasn't the guy your mommy took you to when you had a cold....

[jonnyblitz]

10. I like that definition of centrism. n/t

[stickdog]

12. Much like your post, Gallup says nothing.

Explain to me his distinction in that from Bill Frist- who was a heart surgeon, even, a specialty that makes Dean's look pathetic.


Frist is Repuke scum. Highly electable repuke scum. And your point is?


Whereas centrism is the view that you have no principles except one- to position yourself in the middle between people who do have principles.


Like Kerry did on the Iraq War Resolution? I don't mean to be flippant, but you're not seriously arguing that American voters disdain fiscal and economic centrism? Are you???


Now there's a classical post hoc fallacy, stickdog.
Considering that Bush's numbers fell among people whose name recognition of Dean was under 20%, I'm sure Dean has secret telepathic powers over people who have no clue who he is and vice versa.


What does Dean's NAME RECOGNITION among the general populace have to do with Bush's poll numbers going down because Dean's rise to the top of the field among activist Dems forced all Dem candidates to start attacking Bush aggressively? But thanks for the flawed lesson in flawed logic, anyway.


Neither was Perot's, nor Nader's, or Buchanan's, LaRouche's, or Anderson's.


All of these candidates were 3rd party or 4th party. None ever had anywhere near the money, active supporters, volunteers or organic, iterative, expanding, empowering grassroots organization that Dean is currently amassing.


Yeah, I know I shouldn't be so cruel.


Cruel? Ummm, no. You shouldn't be so undeservedly self-congratulatory.

[Lexingtonian]

18. Oh c'mon, have a little bit of humor!

Frist is Repuke scum. Highly electable repuke scum. And your point is?

That 'Dean is a doctor' doesn't establish credibility on healthcare per se? Hell, Frist even has a pile of relatives involved in managing an HMO- if resumes proved all that much, Frist is far ahead in the game you insist upon. I'm just rubbing in the point that you have to provide more relevant context to make an argument that is held together by reasoning rather than emotional associationism.

I don't mean to be flippant, but you're not seriously arguing that American voters disdain fiscal and economic centrism? Are you???

See, your connection from 'Dean is a centrist' to 'credibility' isn't made, again, and you rely on fudging emotional association rather than pointing out a solid causality. This works politically as long as people are not being seriously critical or start off assuming the opposite of what you do.

What does Dean's NAME RECOGNITION among the general populace have to do with Bush's poll numbers going down because Dean's rise to the top of the field among activist Dems forced all Dem candidates to start attacking Bush aggressively? But thanks for the flawed lesson in flawed logic, anyway.

You're doing wishful associations rather than causal connections again. Events/polling around July 10 (the Niger uranium lying starting to bite W in the ass, deriving from events in the British press and politics) had a lot more to do with candidates going over to attacking Bush than The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade. And the Dean name recognition number shows that a lot more people changed their minds about Bush's Incredible Adventure in Iraq than knew anything about Dean himself or people acting as a movement associated with his name. So that auto-shoulderpatting you're doing is not born out by any relevant facts.

All of these candidates were 3rd party or 4th party.

Well, with Dean claiming that his supporters may not 'be transferable', the Dean movement evidently has lots of Democrats as supporters but probably is not Democratic in its essence.

None ever had anywhere near the money, active supporters, volunteers or organic, growing, expanding grassroots organization that Dean is currently amassing.

Perot did. Dean's appeal is levelling off, if you haven't noticed, with a peak looking to be around 30% of the Party and Independents. Perot got 18% of the popular vote in '92, which is about where Dean projects to (30% of the Democratic 40% = 12%, 30% of swing voters' 20% = 6%). Perot even polled a lot higher, in the 30s, for a time. Perot's people did a hugh amount for the guy, building up a whole political party structure, in lieu of give money. It was a touching enterprise, even though sort of hardboiled people like myself thought, as it turns out correctly, that it was all built on air.

[stickdog]

19. OK. You can't fool me. There ain't no sanity clause.

'Dean is a doctor' doesn't establish credibility on healthcare per se.


Sure, it does. As, like it or not, it does for Repuke scum Frist.


See, your connection from 'Dean is a centrist' to 'credibility' isn't made, again, and you rely on fudging emotional association rather than pointing out a solid causality.


My connection was "Dean was a fine centrist governor. This gives him immediate credibility on economic policy."


You're doing wishful associations rather than causal connections again. Events/polling around July 10 (the Niger uranium lying starting to bite W in the ass, deriving from events in the British press and politics) had a lot more to do with candidates going over to attacking Bush than The Charge of the Lightweight Brigade.


Warning: irony approaching.

No, you're doing dismissive "associations" but I'm supplying the "causal connections." Glad I could clear that up for you.


And the Dean name recognition number shows that a lot more people changed their minds about Bush's Incredible Adventure in Iraq than knew anything about Dean himself or people acting as a movement associated with his name.


First, more people recognize Dean's name than changed their mind on Iraq. Second, my point is that Bush's dropping numbers coincided with the opposition party finally getting the balls to criticize him -- thanks primarily to Dr. Dean. If you think there's not a clear argument for causality in that relationship, perhaps you should take an applied logic class.


Well, with Dean claiming that his supporters may not 'be transferable', the Dean movement evidently has lots of Democrats as supporters but probably is not Democratic in its essence.


Sound and fury. Your point is?


Perot did.


No. He had a lot of his own money. Nothing more.


Dean's appeal is levelling off, if you haven't noticed, with a peak looking to be around 30% of the Party and Independents.


I hadn't noticed. Perhaps you could supply this evidence for me?

[dave29]

35. Dean has credibility on Health Care

because, as Bill Clinton said, "nobody's been better on Health Care" than Howard Dean.

Period.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Sorry, but...

an endorsement by Bill Clinton does NOT equate to "credibility". Logical fallacy. Appeal to authority. Holds no water (except among people to whom logic is a foreign concept).

[ClintonTyree]

17. Contrary..............

to your suppositions, I am willing to bet that at least 50% of Dean supporters are, gasp, Women! "Emotional/combative white men who feel their privileges slipping away"............I believe this statement is not based on reality but on your own ideology.

[sham]

50. are you being ironic on purpose?

If so, well done!

I shall quote you. The title of your post is this:
Gallup says Dean loses to Bush, but Kerry and Clark win

Then, further down in your post, you try to slap us out of our "Deansanity" by saying,
Begone, you incubi of Morons Misquantifying Electability From Tiny Polling Samples!

Are you not doing the very same thing by mentioning the poll (in which, if you were honest enough to admit it, Kerry, Clark, AND EVEN DEAN were ALL within the MOE and therefore statistically capable of beating Bush*)? The original poster mentioned only specific NH polls. You are the one who is quoting irrelevant national polls with, yes, tiny polling samples.

So if you're trying to look ridiculous, well done. Otherwise, you might be well advised to take your self-aggrandizing elsewhere, because it's not really as charming as you think it is.

[PAMod]

7. Exactly right, stickdog

& the AMOUNTS of money he is attracting each quarter is simply astounding.

Democrats are very fortunate, the most electable is, in all likelihood, going to get the nomination - Dr. Howard Dean.

Attention supporters of the other candidates: Build your guy up to your heart's content, we're listening. But never, never say that Dean is unelectable - the latest poll proves that you are WRONG.

Keep you eyes on the PRIZE!

[HPLeft]

13. I don't think so

The polls don't show that (including yesterday's CNN poll), and common sense doesn't support it. John Kerry is by far the most electable candidate - because of his outstanding record in the Senate, his intellectual gifts, and his extraordinary biography.

I know that you Dean supporters believe that you've created something new here, but populist appeals and grassroots candidacies have always existed. There's nothing revolutionary about it at all.

In fact, I'd argue that the passion behind the Dean campaign is pretty similar to that behind the Schwarzenegger campaign - a lot of really angry people who've focused their hopes on a near-Messianic political figure. Look at your own words.


"Dean's campaign is REVOLUTIONARY. It's not politics as usual. People respond to new, exciting campaigns -- especially campaigns with so much potential to change American democracy for the better."


I don't think so. He's a good man, but he's shading his words and positioning himself just like every politican has since the beginning of the Republic. And he's run a populist campaign - which is also an extremely old tactic.

I don't know that John Kerry will recover from the aftermath of that Iraq vote, but John Kerry is clearly the thinking-person candidate. He is as well-suited to serve as President as any candidate who has run for public office over the past few deacdes, and he is a better man than Dubya and Cheney in every possible way. And President Kerry will be up-to-speed to serve as Commander-in-Chief on Day 1 of the Kerry Presidency - and because of his background, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee experience, he will never become hostage to his advisor's ideologies. As a man who couldn't even tell Tim Russert what the size of the American military was, I don't think we can say that about Governor Dean.

[stickdog]

16. Kerry is talking. You are getting sleepy, sleepy, sleepy ...

Howard Dean's organic, inclusive, responsive, continually expanding and ultimately empowering grassroots campaign is THE POLITICAL STORY OF 2003.

How can I possibly make this clear to people who simply don't want to comprehend?

Dean says: "We can't fail in Iraq. We need to commit more troops."

Over the next day or two, Dean's supporters make themselves heard via the campaign's blog, email, phone banks, meet ups, message boards, etc.

In response to his supporters' overwhelming feedback, Dean refines his message within days: "We need more troops in Iraq: but UN troops, not American troops."

This is the ultimate EMPOWERMENT OF THE CONCERNED AND INFORMED CITIZENRY over media punditry, corporacracy and the tyranny of the elite neo-politi-cons (of both major parties). Democrats can't compete with Bush's 200+ million by raising the money from rich contributors and corporations. But if 10 million concerned, EMPOWERED citizens contribute $20 each ...

Can't y'all just, for a second, step back from the personalities and policies and punditries and get a grip on the populist power we now have the potential to unleash if only we just stop doing everything we can to help the establishment suppress it?

Dean isn't the be all and end all. But by simply yet ingeniously harnessing the pent up demand for SOMEBODY to shout out that Emperor Bush is not only stark naked but also lacking all control over his bodily excretions, Dean's insurgent campaign has almost single-handedly invented the most important new paradigm for returning political power to the "informed and concerned masses" that has ever been anywhere near this effective on anywhere near this scale.

I'm calling it "Informed Populism" for the lack of a better term. Dean's campaign is the only one in history that has ever had it. And there just ain't no denying that America sorely needs it.

[blm]

30. Sounds like you're selling a talk radio host

who uses coarsened political discourse to attract loyal audiences. A centrist version of Rush Limbaugh.

[clar]

21. I think Kerry is the least electable

of the three. He's eminently qualified to be President, but I don't think the American people will cotton to him. In the abysmal but important regular guy contest, he loses. He comes off as a Boston brahmin. Unfair? You bet, but the reality is, Americans are suspicious of someone they think of as upper class ans "superior".

[salin]

38. and therein is the ultimate irony of our current dynast

the illusion that he is a bubba done well in texas. Where he is the true Northeast Blueblood - but worse he never 'done well' only success was through bailouts based on the strength of the family name. That is what makes the irony even more tragic. Kerry is all that junior is not. Hard working. Full of integrity. Dedicated to public service. Willing to take on the powers that be. Bush panders to and is a marionette of the powers that be. God I hate living in an orwellian reality.

[stickdog]

43. Yep. Bush gets the free pass Kerry does not because Bush is a chronic,

moronic underachiever who can convincingly ape a "forceful" dumbshit redneck.

[salin]

53. great bush description...LOL

[izzie]

15. I am still just waiting to hear them all.

Oh top of that I vote the party if they run Roger Moore. Anyone but Bush. I must get a bumper sticker of that. I never put one on my car but I am this year.

[stickdog]

25. Yeah.

I guess waiting to hear them all would be a novel idea.

[DemPopulist]

20. A naysay

Dean does very well with white males. Look at the NH polls.

NH isn't remotely representative of the rest of the country. If it were, we'd have had President Paul Tsongas. NH, like the rest of New England, is extremely educated, well-to-do and prone toward a particular set of policies (social liberalism/extreme deficit hawkishness) that plays very well with the so-called "professional class" voters that are already turning heavily Democratic. (NH was the only New England state we didn't win last time, and that was because of Nader). His success with white males there says nothing of his ability to win their support in Missouri, Ohio, Florida or even some of the states we won last time.

Dean does very well with independents. Look at the NH polls.

See above.

The smarter you are, the more informed you are and the more you vote, the more you're for Dr. Dean. And the closer you get to the general election, the more people get informed.

This calls to mind Adlai Stevenson's famous quip, after someone said "All the intelligent people in the country will vote for you." Stevenson replied, "Yeah, but can I get a majority?"

Dean is a doctor. So he has immediate credibility on healthcare.

Anybody has credibility on healthcare next to George W. Bush.

Dean was a fine centrist governor. This gives him immediate credibility on economic policy.

Again, Dean's form of "centrism" on economic policy is extremely redolent of the New England Paul Tsongas/Concord Coalition style of extreme deficit-phobia that has literally never succeeded with a national electorate. Not when Mondale ran on it, not when Dukakis ran on it (and he was considered a fiscally responsible governor), not when Tsongas ran on it, and not when Clinton actually implimented deficit reduction in '93 and the Dems lost Congress the following year. People like the idea of "fiscal conservatism" in the abstract, but when you talk about raising taxes - and Dean's call for complete repeal of the Bush tax cut will be termed that - or when you suggest increasing retirement ages as Dean did a few times, people balk. Better to get elected as a feel-good economic liberal, as Clinton did in '92, and then call for sacrifice.

Bush's numbers have plummeted since Dean lept into the lead by telling it like it is about the boy king. Do you really think that's just a coinicidence?

Yes. Bush's numbers have plummeted because of nine more months of a jobless recovery and the quagmire in Iraq. None of the candidates are well-known enough to have had that much impact.

Dean already has almost 420,000 supporters and 100,000 volunteers.

Great, but he needs fifty million votes to get elected. I'm not knocking what Dean has been doing, but since so much of his support has been built up online, I'm not sure it's ever possible to put this in any real context. I mean, can you tell me how many people are "supporting" Kerry? Gephardt? Bush? Since all those candidates have run pretty close to Dean in the polls and have sometimes topped him, I don't think we can say that Dean is the only guy with really committed supporters; it's just easier to track his following because so much of it is/was organized online.

Dean's campaign is REVOLUTIONARY. It's not politics as usual. People respond to new, exciting campaigns -- especially campaigns with so much potential to change American democracy for the better.

Not always. William Jennings Bryan, Goldwater, McGovern - there's been plenty of campaigns that were very exciting for the people involved that failed utterly at getting elected. But yes, people do respond to something that's new and different.

Dean doesn't need to sell out completely to raise the money he'll need to fight Bush. This will allow Dean to put people before big corporations in practice, not just in rhetoric. Many people are smart enough to understand this, and have been disgusted with big money politics for a long time now.

I like this about Dean's campaign, but I don't think he's the best guy to carry the anti-corporate banner. He doesn't have a particularly significant or impressive record of fighting business interests and on economic issues, he's basically a an old-fashioned (read: pre-supply-side) conservative who throws a few rhetorical bones to labor.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush on ALL THE ISSUES. Bush has done EVERYTHING WRONG and Dean has been complicit in NONE OF BUSH'S HORRIBLE FAILURES.

True but this could legitimately be said of General Clark, Nader, me, my dog, or anyone who wasn't in Washington from 2001-03 (possibly excepting Dennis Kucinich).

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the right on the deficit.

Again, the public has just never show any concern - right, left or center - about the deficit. They didn't care when FDR was running it up to put people back to work during the depression, and they didn't care when Reagan created the largest in history with his massive tax cuts and defense giveaways. If there's a recession, the public will be interested in any critique of the incumbent's policies, but jobs, inflation, interest rates will always rank way ahead of the deficit in public concern.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the near left on the war, abortion, corporatism, tax cuts for the rich and civil rights.

Virtually any Democrat can do this. Yes, even the ones that supported the war. Even Lieberman, if he ever wanted to.

Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the center on the environment, healthcare, imperialism, secrecy, corruption, accountability and competence.

Ditto previous response.

Putting the spotlight on Dean will show only that he's more of a regular guy and more of a centrist than the media initially portrayed him.

First impressions are often the most lasting. Again, I don't think Dean's problem would be that he's not a centrist, more the type of centrist he is.

Because Dean is a fighter who relishes a fight and a tough guy who relishes making tough decisions, Americans will feel perfectly secure with him once they get to know him.

I think this is true of at least 6 of the ten candidates. (Of course one of them's not a guy).

Thanks for your time.

[stickdog]

22. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish ...

NH isn't remotely representative of the rest of the country.


It's the best data we have so far. Can you cite a poll showing Dean doing less than above the Democratic average with white males or independents?

Didn't think so.


Anybody has credibility on healthcare next to George W. Bush.


Dean has more.


Better to get elected as a feel-good economic liberal, as Clinton did in '92, and then call for sacrifice.


Bullshit. That's politics as usual. People know Bush has us headed for a big fall with his record deficits, and the only way they won't kick his ass out is if they feel the opposition is going to Trojan horse something worse on them.


Yes. Bush's numbers have plummeted because of nine more months of a jobless recovery and the quagmire in Iraq. None of the candidates are well-known enough to have had that much impact.


Wrong. Bush has been a failure since DAY ONE IN EVERYTHING HE'S DONE. So why were his ratings so high since 9/11 if not for the free ride he was getting from the media and the thoroughly cowed opposition?


Great, but he needs fifty million votes to get elected. I'm not knocking what Dean has been doing, but since so much of his support has been built up online, I'm not sure it's ever possible to put this in any real context.


Man, you're really reaching here. Would a 20 million dollar quarter be REAL enough for ya?


I like this about Dean's campaign, but I don't think he's the best guy to carry the anti-corporate banner. He doesn't have a particularly significant or impressive record of fighting business interests and on economic issues, he's basically a an old-fashioned (read: pre-supply-side) conservative who throws a few rhetorical bones to labor.


And an establishment candidate brimming with big bucks from big spenders can carry the anti-corporate banner better?


True but this could legitimately be said of General Clark, Nader, me, my dog, or anyone who wasn't in Washington from 2001-03 (possibly excepting Dennis Kucinich).


Except Kucinich & Nader don't have a chance, you & your dog aren't running and Clark's CNN gig & on-the-record statements in favor of the IWR compromise him when it comes to attacking the Iraq issue.


Again, the public has just never show any concern - right, left or center - about the deficit. They didn't care when FDR was running it up to put people back to work during the depression, and they didn't care when Reagan created the largest in history with his massive tax cuts and defense giveaways. If there's a recession, the public will be interested in any critique of the incumbent's policies, but jobs, inflation, interest rates will always rank way ahead of the deficit in public concern.


Record deficits breed record concern:

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/967401p-6783149c.html


Virtually any Democrat can do this (legitimately and potently attack Bush from the near left on the war, abortion, corporatism, tax cuts for the rich and civil rights and legitimately and potently attack Bush from the center on the environment, healthcare, imperialism, secrecy, corruption, accountability and competence). Yes, even the ones that supported the war. Even Lieberman, if he ever wanted to.


But not as legitimately and potently.


First impressions are often the most lasting. Again, I don't think Dean's problem would be that he's not a centrist, more the type of centrist he is.


What? Why do I feel like I just landed in the Monty Python argument sketch?

[einsteins stein]

26. Dean in the Polls

California Field Poll info taken from:
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2093.pdf

>>Dean does very well with white males. Look at the NH polls.

>NH isn't remotely representative...of the country.

California is fairly representative of the US, in it's racial, economic, and geographic diversity. According to the poll, Dean leads among males at 34%. The next highest category is "Undecided" at 19%

>>Dean does very well with independents. Look at the NH polls.

>See above.

In the California field poll, Dean ranks second, behind Liebermen, (41% to 37%) among Independents (called "Non-Partisan" in the poll).

>>Dean can legitimately and potently attack Bush from the right on the deficit.

>Again, the public has just never show any concern - right, left or center - about the deficit.

I disagree. Perot rode the deficit issue to national prominence, and might have used it to win the election if he hadn't proved to be a little tweaky about the edges.

Also, when Reagan ran up the deficit, there already was a deficit. When Bush took the reigns, there was a record surplus. We all know this. You can't compare the way people feel about the deficit now to the way they may have felt then. Having a surplus, then losing it, is much more painful than never having had a surplus at all.

[w4rma]

23. Don't forget that until Dean came onto the scene the DLCers were expecting

to lose this election, in my understanding, and just try to offer up someone who could make a good showing.

These pink-tutu Dems in Congress had to learn from Dr. Dean HOW to attack Bush, and I don't think they've quite got the hang of it yet as their attacks tend not to resonate with folks (except for Gephardt's "miserable failure" one liner) nearly as well as Dean's do. IMHO, this stems from the better connection with Americans that Dean has (Note, Dean spent lots of time with ordinary folks as an internist, unlike anyone else running).

[He loved Big Brother]

24. Dean will win because he can rally the youth vote

much better than the other candidates.

[AP]

27. Didn't I see a poll yesterday that had Dean losing head to head vs W?

But with Clark beating him 43:41 and Kerry losing 42:41?

I think Dean was 36 or 38 to 45 for Bush.

Notwithstanding many of the points in this thread, I don't think Dean matches up against Bush very well.

[PAMod]

29. Yesterdays was 49 - 46 Bush over Dean, a statistical dead heat,

in essence, same as Clark & Kerry, in SEPTEMBER 2003!

Take that, add Dean's fundraising prowess, his ability to attract a large number of new participants - I think we have a winner!

At least one winner, looks like three!

Keep your eyes on the prize.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. There oughta be a primer for this stuff.

Look to the states where the candidates are known. Those polls have some meaning. Half the people in this country can't name a Dem candidate. So why would you put credence in a national poll? Lieberman is in third in that same poll. That gives you an idea of its worth.

[AP]

41. Here's the poll. Lieberman, Kerry and Clark do better vs Bush

and Dean and Gephardt do the same against Bush, and this is with about 51% of the electorate paying attention.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-09-22-bush-poll.htm

And you have to wonder whether the people who aren't paying attention now are the kind of person who'd support Dean or would support someone like Kerry. There's a chance that the Dean is tapping out his potential base more than other candidates have.

Furthermore, it makes sense to me that Dean doesn't do well in a head to head vs. W. He may attract lots of Dems with his 100% focus on hating Bush, but when you match it up with Bush, there's a polarizing effect which makes people at the center-right rush to the defense of their attacked candidate. Furthermore, there's the problem of the working-middle class voter not hearing the talk about the economy they'd like to hear, so you don't get those votes like you should (and, when you compare Bush to Dean, you see two guys who seem out of touch with the working class).

Just some ideas. I could be wrong.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. Interesting and valuable thoughts.

I think the middle-class voter is being addressed but I could be wrong, too. Hmmm, good input, whether I agree or not.

[stickdog]

48. My idea.

The demonstrably false, Rovian meme that Dean is an ultra-liberal combined with Dean's lack of name recognition is hurting him with a small percentage of the currently woefully uninformed national voters.

[dolstein]

28. Silly me, I didn't realize the electorate was comprised entirely

of white, anti-war Bush hating liberals. If that really is the case, then I'd agree with your assessment of Dean's electability.

[stickdog]

33. Too bad Dean can't take full credit for Bush's resounding success in Iraq

like Lieberman can.

Face it, dolstein. You bet on the losing whores.

[tjdee]

44. Actually I think dolstein likes Clark.

Just because someone *Defends* Lieberman doesn't mean he's their guy.

[stickdog]

47. Really?

I didn't hear the cock crow the third time yet.

[RogueTrooper]

34. I think you are mistaking Dean's demographic

with Kucinich's, Dolstein. Beign against the war does not automatically make one either white or anti-war. History will tell you that wars started on a lie rarely end well for the protagonist. It was not only pacificsts who were against this war. Howard Dean speaks for those people.

[JohnKleeb]

52. umm pardon me thats not all of us

It is me though lol. The Kucinich crowd is pretty diverse, when I went to a rally in June, it was pretty diverse. Now I admit I am a white guy liberal but not all my comrades are. I for the record am not a pacifist and neither is Kucinich not a bad thing.

[Emillereid]

31. Amen -- Dean has the cahones to take Bush on!

[Spider Jerusalem]

39. Okay...a point-by-point analysis.

Dean does very well with white males. Look at the NH polls.

That's nice, but what would his numbers be in heavily non-white urban areas? There's a chance of backlash there, you know. And white males comprise a decided electoral minority.

Dean does very well with independents. Look at the NH polls.

This goes for point #1 as well: it's a mistake to extrapolate from the polls in NH to a nationwide scenario, as nationally the demopgraphics are VERY different (plus Dean has greater name recognition in NH, right next door to Vermont, than he would in other parts of the country.)

The smarter you are, the more informed you are and the more you vote, the more you're for Dr. Dean. And the closer you get to the general election, the more people get informed.

This is absurd appeal-to-emotion bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is. I'm fairly smart (tested IQ above 99th percentile, SAT scores the same, et cetera), consider myself well-informed (I read the news from a variety of international sources every day in order to obtain a clearer picture of events than that afforded by our American corporate media), and I've voted in every election since I was old wenough to vote, and I'm not very impressed by Dean thus far.

Dean is a doctor. So he has immediate credibility on healthcare.

Another logical fallacy. Dean's medical training doesn't "automatically" give him credibility on healthcare, any more than George W. Bush's MBA gives him automatic credibility on the economy.

Dean was a fine centrist governor. This gives him immediate credibility on economic policy.

Another fallacy, and it seems to say exactly NOTHING. "Centrist" is a nebulous concept which has no associative indications of what his ability to manage the US economy would be.

Bush's numbers have plummeted since Dean lept into the lead by telling it like it is about the boy king. Do you really think that's just a coinicidence?

Considering that a large percentage of the American electorate wouldn't know Howard Dean if he walked up to them on a street, yeah.

Dean already has almost 420,000 supporters and 100,000 volunteers.

So did Eugene McCarthy. So dd Ross Perot. So did several others I could name (none of whom were elected, I might add).

Dean's campaign is REVOLUTIONARY. It's not politics as usual. People respond to new, exciting campaigns -- especially campaigns with so much potential to change American democracy for the better.

PR bullshit. You sound like you're quoting campaign literature.


You really should try giving reasons and explanations for these claims you make, rather than issuing them as some sort of oracular proclamation with all the force of divine edict...you're preaching to the choir, and not winning any converts. Perhaps it's time for you to rethink your rhetorical tactics?

[stickdog]

46. Yeah, Spider. I know you're backing the Smiler.

White males comprise a decided electoral minority.


Yes. A decided electoral minority that has been a Democratic achilles heel in the last few elections.


It's a mistake to extrapolate from the polls in NH to a nationwide scenario.


Every poll that has polled for this data in the past two months has shown Dean to be relatively strong with white males and independent voters.


This is absurd appeal-to-emotion bullshit. I'm sorry, but it is. I'm fairly smart (tested IQ above 99th percentile, SAT scores the same, et cetera), consider myself well-informed (I read the news from a variety of international sources every day in order to obtain a clearer picture of events than that afforded by our American corporate media), and I've voted in every election since I was old wenough to vote, and I'm not very impressed by Dean thus far.


This is an appeal to yourself. A recent national poll showed Dean does better with more educated voters. Another showed that Dean does better with people who say they ALWAYS vote than people who say they USUALLY or SOMETIMES vote. Both came out in the last month. But since you are so well-informed, I'm sure you already know this.


Another logical fallacy. Dean's medical training doesn't "automatically" give him credibility on healthcare, any more than George W. Bush's MBA gives him automatic credibility on the economy.


Dean was a successful practicing doctor who became a governor and used his bully pulpit to medically insure 98% of his states' residents.

Bush was a C+ legacy student known for bankrupting businesses. However, his MBA certainly DOES give him a modicum of credibility on economic issues that he wouldn't have without it.


Another fallacy, and it seems to say exactly NOTHING. "Centrist" is a nebulous concept which has no associative indications of what his ability to manage the US economy would be.


OK. Dean was a successful, fiscally responsible, budget balancing governor who left his state in far better ecomonic shape to weather Bush's recession than Bush left Texas. But I thought you were informed enough to fill in the blanks.


Considering that a large percentage of the American electorate wouldn't know Howard Dean if he walked up to them on a street, yeah.


What does Dean's NAME RECOGNITION among the general populace have to do with Bush's poll numbers going down because Dean's rise to the top of the field among activist Dems forced all Dem candidates to start attacking Bush aggressively?

My point is that Bush's dropping numbers coincided with the opposition party finally getting the balls to criticize him -- thanks primarily to Dr. Dean. If you think there's not a clear argument for causality in that relationship, perhaps you should take an applied logic class.


So did Eugene McCarthy. So dd Ross Perot. So did several others I could name (none of whom were elected, I might add).


No, they didn't. Perot had a huge wad of his own money. McCarthy had few thousand freaks. None ever had anywhere near the money, active supporters, volunteers or organic, iterative, expanding, empowering grassroots organization that Dean is currently amassing.

I know these are just "campaign literature" words to you, but a mind is a terrible thing to close.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. To be perfectly honest, at this point I'm undecided.

If Dean manages to impress me more than he's done thus far, I'll support him in the primary. At the moment I lean towards Kerry, but onlhy because he seems to be the only candidate in the field who's actually articulated a clear plan of action on a broad range of issues. My mind isn't closed, but I do need a good, substantiative reason to decide to support a candidate..not just rhetoric and popularity.

There are months to go before the primaries, and it's already looking like Dean, Kerry, and Clark are the only serious contenders in the race...and any one of them, should he get the nomination, will get my vote in the general election.

None of the candidates is perfect, they all have their flaws...hell, they're human and fallible, like all the rest of us...but any one of them is better than George W. Bush. And that even goes for Lieberman, much as I dislike him.

And I suppose we can at least agree that, no matter who gets the nomination, we ("we" being the Democrats in general, not supporters of any particular candidate) have the momentum. Right now, the election is ours to win or lose. I expect the former. It's going to be a better day. Surely we can ALL agree to that, whether we support Dean or someone else.

[stickdog]

59. Damn straight.

I think one of Gephardt, Edwards or Lieberman might get into the final mix.

And I think that as long as it's a fair fight without too much scorched earth, the Dems will rally around the nominee.

My overriding point is that -- among the top candidates -- there are good "electability" arguments for all of them and not just all except Dean. ;-)

[Mairead]

49. "The smarter you are ... the more you're for Dr. Dean"

The smarter you are, the more informed you are and the more you vote, the more you're for Dr. Dean. And the closer you get to the general election, the more people get informed.

This is absurd appeal-to-emotion bullshit.

I thought that was precious too, since my GRE and Miller scores put me at the 99.9%ile, I've voted for 40 years, and I could hardly be less for Dean('s policies).

Perhaps Stickdog's scale only goes to the first or second sigma? :evilgrin:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. "Smartness"

is overrated.... JFK had an I Q of 117.... Bright but not Einstein material....

Also, I like what they said about FDR... "He had a first class temperament and a second class mind...."

As far as "smart" people voting for Dean. Where's he going to find the other 30% he needs to get a majority....

I read an article about the 88 election... Dukakis spoke on a level a eighth grader could understand and Papa Bush spoke on a level a fifth grader could understand...

I'd be interested to see how much it has changed...

[stickdog]

57. I was using smarter as shorthand for "more educated."

In retrospect, I wish I had made my point precisely.

[stickdog]

55. Folks, believe me.

You don't want to know my board scores.

"The smarter you are, the more informed you are and the more you vote, the more you're for Dr. Dean."

What I'm saying is that Dean does better with more educated folks than he himself does with less educated folks. And that Dean does better with voters who say they ALWAYS vote than he himself does with voters who say they USUALLY or SOMETIMES vote. And that Dean does better with the voters who have the earliest primaries (and thus are better informed) than he himself does with national voters.

This doesn't rule out large numbers of highly intelligent, well-informed and consistent voters with other preferences.

[gully]

40. I hope your right, I'm signing up to volunteer for Dean soon.

He is a proven leader.

[JohnKleeb]

56. I must be asleep lol

because I aint buying it. I respect and admire what he has done but I think they all are electable. By he I mean Dean. Look I dont have a problem with Dean, I do however have a problem with being told Kucinich cant win because he isnt "attractive" or because of his ethnic last name. Now if you excuse me I am going to run on the name that my great grandfather received at Ellis Island. Wish me luck :).
I dont give a damn if Kucinich is small in fact hes only an inch smaller than Dean, nor do I care about his last name in fact I like it I think it would be great if we could have an Eastern European American be president, about his looks is this a fucking beauty pagant. Sorry for my way but I think the supposed reasons why Kucinich is "unelectable" are just wrong and stupid and absurd, it should be about the person not his looks, or his size, or his name. Kucinich may or may not win this primary but he will be here to stay. He didnt win his first election as city councilman either.

[ibegurpard]

58. I agree with you but a lot here don't

You'd probably fare better if you stated "I think Dean is the most electable candidate." That wouldn't get some people's hackles up, although there are a few usual suspects who see the name Dean and start foaming at the mouth.