Dean vs Bush = 4 more years of Bush.

[CoffeePlease1947]

I fail to understand why Dean backers support Dean if they know that Dean cannot beat Bush if he gets the nomination.

Poll after poll after poll show Bush slaughters Dean in a head to head match. From the time Dean first campaigned to now, he only gets 38% of the vote against Bush.

Do Dean supporters not realize that giving Dean the nomination means 4 more years of Bush? Do they think that some how Dean can cover a 14 lead over Bush? It is not going to happen. Even when Bush's numbers plummet Dean's do not go up against Bush. Dean still stays at 38%.

I appreciate Dean supporters enthusiasm for Dean. But backing him means another four years of Bush.

At what point to they say to themselves, "Dean cannot beat Bush" and except that fact? When Dean is at 30% against Bush, at 20%, how about 5%? Will they every except this hard fact? I mean hey, I would love to have Charles Rangal for President. But I am smart enough to realize he CANNOT win.

I am not saying that Dean cannot win the nomination, I think he can. But if we nominate Dean who cannot beat Bush instead of a candidate that can, are Dean supporters not killing the chances of removing Bush from the White House? I think they are. Sorry, but at some point we need to back a candidate that can beat Bush if we want to win in 04'. Polls show, Dean cannot beat Bush.

Mike

[Dookus]

1. Without a crystal ball...

there's no way to know that's true.

The election is almost 14 months away. NO democratic candidate is polling higher than Bush RIGHT NOW.

But the Presidential campaign hasn't begun yet. I know Bill Clinton wasn't polling ahead of George HW Bush 14 months before the election.

The fact is, Dean can certainly beat Bush. Will it happen? I have no idea, and neither do you.

And I'm a Clark supporter.

[CoffeePlease1947]

7. Yes but there is a huge difference.

Clinton just entered the race in October. Also, Clinton went up in the numbers as time went on. Dean has stayed the same against Bush since he entered in June. I would tend to think as he become visable he would move up in numbers, yet he hasn't moved up.

Mike

[gully]

23. He was polling at 2% among dems..he's now at 30%

Who do you support Coffee?

[CoffeePlease1947]

45. Anyone that can beat Bush

I am backing Clark, but I would switch to Kerry all the same. I just think Clark is a little bit better and new fresh voice. But I will vote for someone that will mean doom in 04' against Bush.

Mike

[gully]

50. I agree, and I think that person is Dean.

Clark is popular because he's the new guy and a general. Generals are a popular thing now because of the so called 'war on terror.' Kerry is also popular because he's more well known.

Clark's never governed, and 'was' a Republican. And the Bush machine has not gone after him, YET.

Give it a couple months, I think you'll see a reverse in the polls.

It's still early.

[liberalnurse]

57. I could of guessed that you were a Clark

supporter. Why would you support a republican-lite? He voted for Reagan and *bush.....

[CoffeePlease1947]

117. Dean was Republican too, so was Clinton, Dean is Pro-gun and Pro-Death

penalty. He is also lifted environmential regulations in Vermont and cut welfare in the state.

Clark is anti-death penalty, pro-choice, and not pro-gun.

Perhaps you should change your name from Liberalnurse to conservativenurse.

I would tend to think a liberal would back a lifetime liberal, or at least the most liberal candidate.

Dean was a Republican in New York, his family was friends with the Bushs back when they were working with Nazis. Dean attended the National Republican Conventions and alienated most of the liberals in Vermont.

I think Dean is Bush lite, that is unless you believe the spin of Faux news that Dean is some type of ultra-liberal.

Mike

[gully]

127. Actually...

Clark holds the same position on Gun Control that Dean does... "State Level" regs. He also mirrors Dean on many if not most of the issues.

You say Dean is Bush lite, and I say Clark is a war pig.

I'm sticking with my guy for now, the one with a proven record of governing...thanks!

[Art_from_Ark]

138. Clinton never was a Republican

Ever since his political debut in 1974, when he ran for Congress in my district, Clinton has ALWAYS been a DEMOCRAT. Methinks someone is blowing hot air.

[diplomats]

8. But the gap is bigger with Dean

It's possible that could close if it appears he'll get the nomination.

[stickdog]

131. Because the media has painted him as a far left extremist ...

which he most certainly is not.

[searchingforlight]

9. You said it.

Who knows what will happen at this point in the game. I am getting tired of the crystal ball postings too. Let's wait and see how things shake out.

[Kahuna]

38. There is a way to know. During a time of war...

Americans do not throw aside a wartime president with experience for one with zero experience. It just isn't done.

The reality of whether we're at war or not has nothing to do with the perception that we're at war which most Americans believe we are.

[bowens43]

65. Clark has no more experience than any of the other

candidates, in fact he has LESS experience then any of the candidates except Sharpton. Being a general in no way qualifies one to be president, in fact being a general is detrimental being president. Clark, would have beena republican but they hurt his feelings by not calling him, voted for reagan, was for the war, was opposed to the war. Clark has no idea what he thinks.

[CoffeePlease1947]

76. Yeah, Clark is a loser, but he is still kicking the scrap out all the

other 9 candidates, what gives?

We all know that Clark is an idiot he only got 1st in his class a West Point and was a Rhodes Scholar where he only has 3 Masters degrees.

He is also a war hero and a national security advisor. Of course he cannot make up his mind, as a General in combat you don't need the skills of clear direction.

It is also important that a candidate be elected 27 times before running for President. Look at how great Nixon, Bush, Bush Sr., Reagan, all elected many times before serving did. We also know what a bad Senator Hillary is considering that she never was elected before either.

And clearly a General is not electable, we only had 11 Generals as president out of 43. That is like only 25% of presidents. And if you count actual elections, well it is only about 33% of all elections won.

Mike

[dsc]

93. maybe we took different history classes

but I recall that both Lincoln and FDR were in danger of losing their races but the war turned around for both. The whole reason the South did Gettysburg was that the polling for Lincoln was so bad the felt a win there would force him to settle. They lost there and the rest is history. FDR had his closest race (by far in 44) and may well have lost it had D Day gone poorly.

[diplomats]

2. Those poll numbers hve me wondering, too

Other candidates (and noncandidates like Gore and Hillary) are within single digits of Bush but Dean is still in the teens. And since these same polls show Bush's ratings dropping like we want they can't be dismissed. (I will say, though, that the Zogby poll had Dean within 10 points, so perhaps he does better among likely voters.)

[LynneSin]

22. 14 months until the election, think about it

We have 14 months until the general election in November 2004.

See, the DU is not the public, we are a small niche of people who just so happen to be able to name all 10 democratic nominees.

But you ask the general population out there that has no interest in thinking about the president election, they probably only recognize a few names. Names like Al Gore and Joe Lieberman since they ran in 2000 plus Hillary Clinton who was the First Lady.

So most of the public HAS NO FREAKING CLUE WHO SOME OF THESE NOMINEES ARE!!!!! Which means when the media makes polls about who would you vote for President and they include Bush and the list of the 10 candidates. Well, it looks kinda strange. It makes us think that Joe Lieberman will probably be the nominee or why shouldn't we be out there insisting that Gore or Hillary runs.

But the most important poll; the best indicator of our chances in 2004, is the Bush vs. "Unnamed Democratic" These polls ask the general population who would you vote for? George Bush or the Democratic Candidate and everyone one of those polls has the Democratic Nominee ahead.

So let's not get ourselves in a tizzy because of the polls that show Gore, Lieberman or Hillary the only ones in competition with Bush. Instead we should be pressing the issues of why Bush is incompetent to serve as a President. We need to be writing to our Newspapers and calling into our local talk show radio shows. We need to be discussing this with our friends, family and neighbors. We need to get folks in agreeance that Bush should not be re-elected. I mean, folks aren't worried about who the dem nominee is, they're worried about whether they'll have a job to go to and how they are going to pay our bills.

When the people turn against Bush, like they're starting to do so now, we could toss my dead hamster Beatrice in as the democratic nomination and even she'll beat Bush.

[Kahuna]

43. I will support whatever candidate has the closest range..

to unseating bush. If it's Gep or even Lieberman, they're my man.

I have always taken this approach to presidential politics. Whoever has the best chance of beating the republican is who I root for. Right now, just as we Clark supporters predicated, Clark is that man.

[LynneSin]

3. Geez, seriously, this is General Discussion material

This is why I avoid the General Discussion forums like the plague because I expect crap like this!!! I mean, isn't that where we post all this crap about "SO-n-SO" democratic nominee can't (choose your option):

• Beat Bush
  
• Be any different Bush
  
• Is really a DINO/Bush-lite
  
• Is a reincarnation of the devil
  
• (Fill in the blank with your old badmouthin)
  

I think ANY of the candidates out there can beat Bush because the person who is Bush's biggest liability is himself. The biggest liability to the democratic party is any of us who would rather spew negative crap like this than to go out there work their tailbones off to get the best candidate nominated.

Personally, I prefer knowing I'm out there working my ass off.

And as an added note there are a variety of polls out there. The most important has the unamed democratic candidate beating Bush. That's because the public in general is fed up with Bush but the nomination process has just started and the candidates are only getting to be known by the public. This is why folks like Gore, Hillary and Lieberman gets high ratings because the public already knows who they are. But the fact that the "Unnamed Candidate gets about 5-6 higher points than Bush means at this point the public will accept anyone democrat who is nominated!!!

[kstewart33]

28. Crap?

Other Dems get higher numbers because the public knows who they are? How in the heck then does Clark lead the pack when almost half of the public has never heard of him?

Geez, I wish you would stop the denial. These are FACTS, not crap. Dean was butchered this weekend in a head-to-head poll with Bush. A top poll, great sampling procedure (as a research Ph.D., I know something about research methodology). The findings CANNOT BE DENIED.

It's the question of the hour, the week, the month, the year. Why do the Deaners not address the issue of electability? I feel like I am reliving history, at least 2000, when the Greens actually felt Nader would win. And where did that get us?

[LynneSin]

33. SIGH

Keep up with the delusion and negativity.

When the polls show that Bush would lose to an "Unnamed Democrat" it tells me that the public in general is disgusted with Bush. I could go to my mother and give her that poll and she wouldn't have a clue who any of these democrats are. And yet her and her husband are seriously considering not voting for Bush.

We all need to think outside the Box. No one knew who Clinton was back in 1991 and yet he managed to win. Half of his victory can be attributed to the fact that the support for Bush Sr. pretty much disappeared the year leading up to the election.

[CoffeePlease1947]

40. Well, if Dean changes his name to "Unnamed Democrat" than I guess he

would have a bump in his chances to beat Bush. But IMHO that is pretty bad when people would rather have any other Democrat than Dean.

Mike

[LynneSin]

49. Buddy, we have 14 months

As I've stated in my other post, if you go back to September of 1991 we'd find that Bill Clinton probably wasn't polling well against Bush Sr.

In 14 months we have 2 things to do. First is to find the best candidate for the democratic nomination and the second is to make Bush Jr even more unelectable. We've got 'unsinkable' Bush's poll sinking because he's hit a major iceberg called 'The Economy'. That economy will make the eventual candidate for the democratic party a winner. And I'm not just talking Dean but ANY of the nominees!!!

WE can win, but we aren't going to win unless we work our asses off and make the democrats a winner. At least once a month I have a letter published in my local paper and I'm involved in my local Dean group and democratic party. I'm out there making my candidate electable and I know that there are many of you out there doing the same for yours.

WE need to keep Bush desparate because when a Bush smells of desparation, democrats win!!!

[Kahuna]

46. I know exactly how you feel...

about reliving history. And I'm sick of it. Dems are always their own worse enemies/ If they weren't Al Gore would be president right now.

[Samuraimad]

4. Same was said about Clinton

2 terms later, I think they were wrong.
Try this analogy again when the primaries are in gear and the public are tuned in.

[Kahuna]

47. Apples and oranges. America wasn't at war when he replaced..

bush. Whether you know it or not, being in a state of war makes a big difference in American politics.

[ModerateMiddle]

128. "being in a state of war makes a big difference"

I think this is where the denial seeps in. Folks who really really believe that Dean with "take it to Bush" in a general election are some of the very angry partisans who DO make up the leftish side of the Democratic Party. They do NOT represent Democrats in general and certainly not the general public who will be deciding and voting for President in 2004.

The absolute BIGGEST factor among the general populace is NOT going to be the economy - well, it will be if the national security issue is perceived as equal between the two major candidates. But if a case can be made, using that $200 million dollars and the bully pulpit, that one of the candidates might be reluctant to keep our country safe (see Cleland for example, made out to be unpatriotic and soft on terrorism for not supporting (the R-version) of Homeland Security - WORDS matter!), the economy will NOT be the prime issue in 2004. National Security creds is going to be the price of admission to a credible candidacy in 2004. Every single word that Dean uttered where he recognized that SH might be a danger, might have WMD, etc., will be used to show that Dean recognized the danger and REFUSED to use military force.

Dean people deny this at our country's peril.

I have always been impressed by Wes Clark. I remember back in 2001 when he was a military consultant for CNN on Afghanistan - he made me feel safe. THAT is what we are going to need in 2004. We are going to need to make the general public BELIEVE that the Dem candidate will keep them safe in what has been made to seem, if it is not in reality, a very dangerous world.

I like Clark alot. I have some doubts about whether or not he can win the nomination, and exactly what would happen with the Repuke smear machine against him in a general election. I also think that right now, Kerry has the best overall message/policies/etc to convince the American people that not only will he keep America safe, but he will not get us into any unilateral wars. Regardless of how the folks here at DU see the Iraq vote - that is NOT how the American people in general see it. An "ambiguous" or "nuanced" position on the war mirrors exactly most people's position.

[stickdog]

132. Except the idea that we are in a state of war is a PNAC construction.

Are you PNAC as well?

[liberalhistorian]

5. Well, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself.

At this point in the game, even most Dems can't name all of the candidates, let alone tell you any of their positions. Most Americans aren't yet familiar with Dean, his positions and what he stands for. And if things continue getting worse and worse, people are going to be paying a lot more attention to whoever the Dem nominee is. Shrub's ratings are already falling fast, and I think that's likely to contine. And, frankly, repuke lites like Lieberman have even less of a chance than what you say Dean does.

No one gave a second thought to Dean in the beginning, thinking he was just a fringe candidate who wouldn't make any kind of headway. And yet, look how he's surprised everyone by how fast he's risen and the continuing and growing support he's getting. I think that will continue, especially since people, with the exception of political junkies like those of us on DU, aren't paying any attention to the candidates or the race right now and they won't until at least next summer.

[hippiechick]

6. ... and you believe the pollsters, right ?

did you ever hear the old saying;
"there are lies, damed lies, and then there are statistics" ?

political polls are the same shit.
lookit the ones that have il shrubino polling at 60% job approval.
please. dean's got kkkarl and the PNAC shakin' in their gucci's, which is why their bs polls have him lagging behind hillary - who isn't even RUNNING !

and even if he didn't, you can't fault people for believing in who they believe in. if we all blindly followed who we 'thought' (by media assumtion) could win instead of standing behind someone who represents us, bush would have legitimately won 80% to 20% in 2000.

please. have some respect for everyone else's abiity to choose the candidate that fits for them.


:hippie:

[diplomats]

13. At this point, no one has Bush's ratings at 60 percent

Thank goodness. The majority of polls have him between 51 and 53 percent. And dropping!

[CoffeePlease1947]

15. Yes, I do believe polls. Especially ones done over and over again by

different companies. I don't think Bush and rove are controlling every pollster company out there.

Mike

[liberalnurse]

29. So, who do you think should garner the nomination?

.

[CoffeePlease1947]

54. You got it backwards

First, you cannot pick and choose which polls you want to believe and not based on the results instead of the methods.

I see people get all excited about their candidate getting 42% of the vote in an online poll that only they know about. Yet, when it comes to a real poll they laugh at the numbers that put their candidate 20% behind Bush and say, "Oh that is a fixed poll! It is controlled by Rove". But when the same methods and polls are used to show Bush drops 10% in approval ratings they believe that poll. It is pure selective belief.

In terms of your idea that everyone should stand behind the candidate that they believe in then their would very little support for any candidate considering that most people only back a candidate because they think they can beat the one they dislike. That is the way it works. Nobody appeals to 50%+ of the population, you got to make compromises to get as much as you can.

Backing Dean means we get Bush for another 4 years. I would rather settle for the next best thing to get rid of Bush. Even Lieberman would be a small step in the democratic direction over Bush.

Mike

[gristy]

10. I agree with Dukus

It is far too early to call the race. The best Dem candidate WILL win the nomination. We just don't know who that is yet.

[CoffeePlease1947]

36. Were McGovern, Mondale and Dukakas the best man to win the nomination?

Sorry, facts don't point that way. The best Democrat wins the nomination, that doesn't mean they are the ones to be able to win the general election.

Mike

[virtualobserver]

59. if you aren't competent enough to win the nomination

you are not competent enough to either win the general election or run the country.

[Fovea]

11. I am a Kucinich supporter

And here is my take on 2004.

If we have a legal election, Mel Carnahan would beat Bush.
I think that Charlie Rangel could beat Bush.
I think Dennis could mop the floor with him.
I think any of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Lieberman could win.

For me, it is that simple. Bush's numbers are dropping like a stone. By the time next spring rolls around, he will be fighting candidates in his own party, and the convention being held in NY is perhaps the single stupidest political play that Rove ever came up with.

Stick a fork in Bush, he's done.

[CoffeePlease1947]

34. You contridict yourself

If you believe that Bush is falling in the polls, than you MUST believe the polls also that say Dean and Kucinich cannot win.

Mike

[opstachuck]

126. not a contradiction...

if he believes that Dean or Kucinich would continue to gain in the polls as Bush continues to drop. there's an entire year for things to change.

this is not the best way to get people to appreciate your perspective. there may be some validity in your argument but it needs to be tempered with some humility, otherwise it makes your detractors focus on the tinge of arrogance in your prediction rather than the possibility that you might be right. i'm not saying you are, because there's too much time to make such a bold prediction, but it's something we should consider.

i'd bet though that clark, dean or kerry would have a good chance of winning the election. after weighing the pros and cons of each candidate, i'm very comfortable in supporting dean as an electable candidate. it seems as though many people think this dean phenomenon is a band-wagon thing. it's not.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I fail to understand...

...where you got this idea that we "know" that Dean cannot beat Bush if he gets the nomination.

Why do you hate America?

[diplomats]

16. No one here hates America

What do you mean???

[LoZoccolo]

18. It was sarcasm.

He was questioning something based on a faulty premise. I gave another example of doing that.

[KC21304]

21. I hope you are not serious about your last sentence. n/t

[w4rma]

14. Gore polled similarly this early (n/t)

[LoZoccolo]

17. PS...

...I don't think any of these candidates would have a chance without Dean. I think the strength of the Dean campaign around the time he announced revealed that there's a big contingent of people not afraid to criticize Bush*, and the media started going after him as well as the other candidates.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[liberalnurse]

35. Yes, Yes, Yes,

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce::yourock:

[sandnsea]

78. Only 67% say he can

80% of Kerry supporters think he can beat Bush. So there is reason for some to be concerned about Dean's ability to truly beat Bush, even in Dean's own camp.

[phegger]

105. Do you think...

that the pool of voters who vote in primaries is different from the pool of voters who vote in the general election? This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know. BUT if there is a difference we need to take that into account--because as far as I'm concerned my job is not to support the candidate who "fits me best", but the one who can _win the election_. Any of these candidates are better than four more years of Bush, IMO.

Also this idea that some people around here have, that people who are "low posters" are somehow less entitled to express their opinions, really irks me. It smacks of elitism. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who wants to can come on here and say WHATEVER THE FUCK they want, and I'll take it for what it's worth, just like I do with anyone else.

(rant mode off)



-ph :smoke:

[gully]

20. Mike, I respectfully disagree...

Do you have links to your polls?

It's early and I dont think it matters a great deal at this point.

[CoffeePlease1947]

27. Look at any poll.

The bottom line is we have candidates that are just a few points behind Bush in polls. I think it is a bad idea to choose one that is being plastered by Bush in the polls. Especially one that is the best known and still gets hammered. Pushing out the candidates that can win the general election is STUPID.

Mike

[HPLeft]

24. I'm not convinced that Dean can't win.

I think that, under the right circumstances, he can. But, in the absence of a complete meltdown by Dubya (which is possible between now and the fall of 2004), he's going to have a much tougher time than might a candidate like John Kerry.

Once Kerry is able to introduce himself to the American people, in my opinion, he blows away Dubya across the board. I think Kerry is capable of winning a couple of Southern states in November 2004, and doing much better than Dean with White Males (who are breaking 2-1 Republican according to pollsters) - especially with Clark or John Edwards or Bob Graham as V.P.. John Kerry is the Republican Party's worst nightmare, and a candiate any mainstream Democrat should be thrilled to support.

If he won the nomination, I'd enthusiastically support Dean. I think he's a good man, and he'd be a reasonable leader - and obviously a much better leader than the fool in the White House at present. But, I sincerely think that Kerry would be a better President, and a much easier sale to the American people.

[ModerateMiddle]

129. "Kerry would be a better President"

This is my basis for supporting him. I believe he has very well thought out positions on the vast majority of issues I care about. I believe he has the temperment to truly re-earn America's respect in the world. I believe he has the capacity to work with Congress to turn around this ship of state.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. What the fuck was I thinking? You're absolutely right!

[liberalnurse]

26. It's okay folks......

Some people would rather come to a fly-by-night assessment without really doing serious research on a candidate. I my self support Dean. I have donated over $1,000 of my hard earned money too. I did my research though....I attended 3 rallys and a private luncheon with Howard Dean. Additionally, I did a literature search, called Burlington and attended Meet-Ups.

What really gripes my ass are these people with superficial, dishwater opinions that scream failure of another at the top of their lungs without going the distance themselves.

Dean is our leader......Hail to President Dean 2004

The Bat's are UP.....Lets donate and winthis thing!

[kstewart33]

32. Dean is Nader

I've finally realized it. Now, let's all convince ourselves that Dean is our savior, as the Greens believed Nader was. And then watch the debacle unfold.

One thing for certain. We can't say we weren't warned. Virtually every poll out there is telling us which direction we're going in if we rally behind Dean.

But then again, polls that don't tell us what we want to hear, are ignored of course. Until it's too late.

[liberalnurse]

37. Not even close.....

Dean said if he does not get the nomination, he will fully back the nominee. Nader was a divider, diluted the Presidential Election.

Right now, this is the field of democratic candidates which is competitive, in search of our Democratic Presidential Candidate.

Great, Big, Difference.

[CoffeePlease1947]

41. Reread his post, I think you missed it all. n/t

[liberalnurse]

52. Poll's are only a mini-drop sample in an

ocean of votes to be cast in 2004. At this point, they are essential worthless. Easy to assess this is by looking at where Lieberman is in the polls.

You seem very narrow in your argument. The polls are restrictive, limited data which you boldly utilize to initiate a flame post.

[Skwmom]

42. Oh my God! Someone who actually gets it!

I was thinking the exact same thing the other day. Too bad we are in the minority. But then again, I'm use to it. I'm one of the very few who did not jump on the Bush bandwagon after 9/11 and started questioning the very next day whether they LIHOP.

The "Dean Debacle" is right out of the Repub 2000 playbook. Remember, how they even gave money to Nader's campaign. I'm sure they are doing the same thing for Dean. It's chump change compared to what they'll steal from the US treasury.

[Jim Sagle]

30. This thread ain't nuthin' but shit and neither are national polls.. .

at least, not now. It's way too early.

[Skwmom]

31. Dumb-Ass Democrats

That's what they should rename the party if they put up a candidate who gives us four more years of Bush.

I could maybe be more sympathetic if Dean wasn't just your typical "manufactured politician." He uses borrowed campaign slogans (I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democrat party and "Bushlite") and tries to paint an image that is not supported by his actual record.

Hmm. Who does that sound like? Maybe Bush in 2000.. Bush did steal the line "leave no children behind" and the image his spinners created sure didn't match his record.

[tsipple]

39. It's Sunday. Go Say Something Nice.

Click here for the positive thread.

[coralrf]

44. Dean can win if we vote for him....

dont you think????

[CoffeePlease1947]

48. Nope I don't

Because you cannot get 51% of Americans to go along. He is not going to beat Bush. That is fact. I am not dissing Dean, just making a point of fact.

Mike

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

51. LOL that's arrogant and just silly

Big difference, oh psychic one, between FACT and PREDICTING.

[CoffeePlease1947]

62. So we only believe the polls when it shows Bush bad in ratings not one of

of our own? That is arrogant and will cost us this election.

Mike

[gully]

53. Mike, do you have any tips on the lottery for me?

;)

[CoffeePlease1947]

55. Yes I do, and here it is

Don't play, you will lose your money. I got facts to back that too.

Mike

[seamarq]

56. I completely agree!

Dean just doesn't have the numbers. I like him, but unfortunately i don't think he is electable. I also don't see this as dissing Dean or a negative thread. This has been a recurring problem with the Party in the past and it is just plain irresponsible not to address it.

[sfecap]

60. Well, Mike...here's the thing...

Your amazing ability to see into the future notwithstanding, it won't take 51% of Amurkans to decide.

It will only take 26%, because only half of Amurkans vote...

[clar]

67. Nothing wrong with opinion

unless you label it as fact. What you're submitting is indeed opinion. You do realize that don't you?

[sandnsea]

100. And yet ANOTHER clairvoyant!!!

It is not FACT. It is your suspicion. It is my suspicion. My very strong suspicion. But it is not FACT.

[stickdog]

133. What you are stating is your personal opinion

And it's a particularly uninformed opinion.

[gully]

58. EGADS, none of the Dems can win against BUSH*!

according to your logic coffee. Perhaps we should throw in the towel now?

http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

[LynneSin]

61. gully, I almost had a heart attack reading the subject of your post

But you're abso-fucking-lutely right. And I can assure you this democrat is no where near throwing in the towel. I am determined to do everything feasible to get Bush out of the White House.

I'm ready to fight!!!

[virtualobserver]

64. this thread is such nonsense

Bush was crushing all Democrats in 1999 and 2000 polling.

......and WHO won the popular vote?

[CoffeePlease1947]

66. "I am determined to do everything feasible to get Bush out of the White

House"

Good, you can start by voting to nominate a Democrat that can beat Bush in 2004.

Mike

[LynneSin]

69. They all can

Well, I still have issues with Al Sharpten, but the rest of them - Absolutely!!!

Oh and on edit note - the rate that Bush is going, I think even Sharpton can beat him!

[LightTheMatch]

63. Let's see how the polls are in the middle of next month.

... After Clark has time to be more thoroughly introduced to the public, and after Dean's stellar fundraising numbers come out.

I'd really like to see where the polling numbers go when that happens. If Clark's numbers stay up there, then you may be onto something. If Dean's numbers go up and Clark's go down, then your guess was probably wrong.

[CoffeePlease1947]

71. Has nothing to do with Clark--He has to do with Bush and Dean

Clark can go down and Bush can go down while Dean stays where he is at 38% like he has for the last 3 or 4 months. Although Clark is my first choice, I am not stupid enough to back him if he goes down to 30% in a head to head race against Bush. I would back my second choice which is better than Bush by a long shot.

I think you will see Dean's numbers down in one month. He is out of the spotlight and has dropped 10 points in the last month in NH.

Mike

[poskonig]

68. Sept 1999: Bush has SEVENTEEN point lead on Gore.

I guess Gore was "unelectable" too.

Sept 15th 1999:
http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/15/president.2000/poll/

But Texas Gov. George W. Bush has a six-to-one advantage over his nearest rival, Elizabeth Dole, with all other GOP hopefuls in single digits. In a hypothetical two-way match-up, Bush maintains a comfortable advantage over Gore -- 56 percent to 39 percent -- and a 57 percent to 37 percent advantage over Bradley.

[LightTheMatch]

70. Thanks for that!

Greatly appreciated. We have until March or so for us all to collectively make up our minds on this, let's be more patient and see how these candidates actually end up running against each other.

[CoffeePlease1947]

72. What was Bill Bradley's ratings against Bush?

He was the only other choice. So it is kind of pointless.

Mike

[LightTheMatch]

73. Please explain.

If a Democrat can be as far, or farther behind, Bush and basically still "win", then why is this "kind of pointless" ??

I think you're being a bit fatalist.

[CoffeePlease1947]

79. OK, I will explain: Gore Lost. He was is not President n/t

[virtualobserver]

81. gore won the popular vote

and probably won Florida.

[CoffeePlease1947]

91. Not by enough

I am sure he won the save the whale vote too, but that didn't do him much good. How are Dean's numbers if Nader enters?

Mike

[virtualobserver]

94. only someone with psychic powers like yourself would know....

you have not presented an actual argument for your position.

[CoffeePlease1947]

116. Well than, vote for Dean, and lets get crushed than in the election

I mean really, you don't believe me, that is fine, crush the Democratic party. Let's just pack it up and leave.

If I saw 5 polls that said Clark could only get 35% against Bush when he on the cover of every magizine and know by 50% of the population after he has been in the running for 5 months, I would dump him as my candidate.
Not because I hate him, or don't want him to be President, or because I disagree with him on the issues. I would puch for him to be VP and hope he can run again at another time. But I would not cram him down the throats of Democrats and nominate him when we most likely would lose to Bush. Instead, I would back my next favorite until I found a candidate that could win.

Hopefully, Dean will not get the nomination so I can't say, "I told you so".

Mike

[virtualobserver]

118. people don't know Dean

If he wins the nomination, they will get to know him.

These polls, taken months before the nomination, don't measure anything real.

[Gingersnap]

123. I don't honestly think

Dean's supporters are from the Green camp. Sorry. I'm a Kucinich supporter and I've gotten kind of used to this hostile "you're candidate is unelectable (even though there are still 14 months to go, very few people are following this at this point, etc) so give up now or vote for my candidate" thing. It is sort of ironic that that logic has turned against the Dean supporters, but my very reasons for rejecting in it in the case of Kucinich apply to Dean as well.

Or apply more to Dean, since I'm damn sure that the Green's who are even considering voting Democratic at this moment (and therefore supporting any of our candidates) are going for Kucinich. Kucinich, not Dean, is the one who has to worry if Nader reruns.

edit: punctuation

[Rose Siding]

82. Gore isn't the president

but not because he lost. There was a judicial coup. That's why DU was created.

[LightTheMatch]

83. WRONG.

n/t

[virtualobserver]

74. no, but reliance on early polls is worthless n/t

[thinkahead]

75. Whats pointless

is speculating over an entire year away from the election.

[CoffeePlease1947]

89. It is not the polls, it is the trend of the polls, look at the big picture

Bush's numbers are going down. Dean's are not going up. That says something.

Mike

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

95. Got ANY proof?

Because every set of polls I have looked at have shown a trend of Dean improving each month, while most other candidates have stagnated or dropped. Any proof, other than your self-proclaimed 'facts', will suffice.

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/cat_polls.html

[CoffeePlease1947]

96. Proof doesn't seem to change minds but here is a link for you

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp?0cv=KB10

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

97. You charged with trends

and you give a link to ONE poll, when I provide a link with multiple polls? Try again.

[CoffeePlease1947]

101. How many do you want. Probably doesn't matter you still will not believe

http://www.heraldsun.com/nationworld/elections/16-374628.html

I suggest you do a looking around at other polls. I find it pointless to find all the polls I have looked at since June to show you. If you can find some real polls that show Dean has moved ahead in the polls since August than you may prove me wrong. Yesterday I was looking at results from Princeton that showed them all from June. Cannot find it. But somewhere, on line, if I can find it again, I will see. this are the lastest two. The results I looked at line I found by a link on a Clark yahoo group. Since that group has 500 emails a day, I am not going to go through them all for you unless you stated that it convience you.

Mike

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

103. Here's some links for ya

http://blog2.deanforamerica.com/archives/001484.html

http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/85014news09-14-03.htm

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-10220740.apds.m0374.bc-ct--iowasep10,0,1352025.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732

http://blog2.deanforamerica.com/archives/001281.html

http://blog2.deanforamerica.com/archives/001268.html

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/dem/

http://blog2.deanforamerica.com/archives/000740.html

http://blog2.deanforamerica.com/archives/000668.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/06/08/national1442EDT0487.DTL

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=711

http://blog2.deanforamerica.com/archives/000134.html

Work those numbers a bit. :)

[CoffeePlease1947]

113. None compare Bush to Dean. That is what we are looking at here

Yes, Dean can win the nomination which what those polls show. That is not the point, the point is he cannot beat Bush. I don't care if he can Dennis Kucinich or John Kerry. I care if he can beat Bush. He cannot, and all polls show he will not just lose, but be crushed.

Mike

[RevolutionStartsNow]

115. What you're missing is...

the fact that by the time the Dems have chosen their candidate (Dean, IMO), Bush will be deeper in his hole of public disapproval, and the majority of the Dems, as well as many disgusted swing voters, will leap behind the nominee and propel him (or her) to the White House.

The polls that show who can or can't beat Bush are speculation only. Dean still suffers a bit from the negative spin that he is too liberal to beat Bush. As he continues to gain ground and get out there more, this will change.

And in the end, who we "think" can beat Bush will be meaningless when there is one candidate for everyone to rally behind.

If Dean wins the nom, those who right now think Dean can't win can either continue to think that he will get trounced or they can get out there and work to make sure that doesn't happen. Seems pretty simple to me.

[stickdog]

134. What is pointless? You, this thread or just your opinion that Dean can't

beat the boy king?

[LynneSin]

77. Let's call this thread what it is - Dean Bashing

You know that right now none of the other major candidates have high poll ratings against Bush (see all my threads about the unnamed dem).

I mean, maybe I should start threads that Kucinich, Edwards, Kerry et al. are also all unelectable.

Heck let's just get real fucking negative and give up right now because none of them are going to win. We're the party of losers and obviously this thread is just a perfect example of what big losers we all are, especially Howard Dean

Seriously folks look in the mirror and say loser - we're democrats so that's what we are.

:eyes:

Really now - is that what we want for the next 14 months?

[CoffeePlease1947]

85. You are wrong on all accounts

I am NOT bashing Dean. I am stating what the facts are. Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun cannot win. But only Dean is close to winning the nomination.

If I was bashing Dean I would be saying bad things about him. I am just stating that Dean cannot win the General election.

Polls do show that Clark, Kerry, and Lieberman are close to Bush in the polls. Dean is way far away from Bush, 14 points, and he is better known than Clark and Kerry. So what gives with that?

Mike

[LynneSin]

110. Open your mind! Think outside the box

Obviously you're a product of what the media wants you to be. They tell you what to think and you post these horror stories of how certain candidates can't win FOURTEEN months from today.

I'm sorry to see that in you. I'd like to think that if we keep pushing the real truth out there - that Bush is horrible for this country, our economy and the world that it won't matter who runs.

Like I said - when they talk about the "Unnamed Democrat", Bush rates in the low 40's for his re-selection. No President, even selected ones has ever won when they are in the low 40's.

Please, negativity will not help us win. That's why I choose to post in positive manners. I post to encourage people to fight harder. I post to get folks to go out there and talk the issues - the Economy and this unjust war in Iraq. And the rest of the country, a large majority that can't name the 10 candidates who are the democratic nominees, are starting to catch on that Bush is bad for the Economy.

He is the enemy. I would hope you do better than starting threads that are Dean Bashing.

[CoffeePlease1947]

114. I am not Bashing Dean, I am pointing to the fact that he cannot win

Do you understand the difference? Dean will lead to a victory for Bush.
This is as aggrevating as explaining to people that I was not FOR Saddam because I opposed the war.

Try to keep more than two opposing thoughts in your head.

Ask yourself this question. Why would someone be 100% behind Dean and vote against him? If you can answer yourself that question than you can figure it out.

Than ask yourself this question. Why are Republicans sending money into the Dean campaign?

Mike

[LynneSin]

125. Without a doubt you're Dean Bashing

You're using polls where the general public is asked if they know who these folks are - they don't. Let's face it, the majority of the American population has greater concerns like their jobs and the economy. They'll worry about the presidental election NEXT year when it actually starts coming to their town.

You also mentioned several other candidates but did you put them in the title of your thread NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Because you knew by bashing Dean you'd have the thrill of people replying to you. Yet you can't open your eyes and see that the majority of the folks here agree with me. The fact that Bush has 40% rating when it comes to re-election and the "Unnamed Democrat" has a much higher one pretty much means we're going to be fine if Dean gets nominated.

But that's ok, I understand that you've made the post and now you realize you've backed yourself in the corner with this idiotic concept that Dean couldn't beat Bush. Turn on your TV and flip to the news channel of your choice and congratulation yourself for allowing them to brainwash you.

Bush is making himself unelectable. And as I've said about 2 dozen times we need to continue to make him unelectable by pushing the issues and getting the public aware of that fact. I worked a Dean booth about 3 weeks ago at a major African American festival in Wilmington. When we told folks that Dean was hoping to be the democratic nomination they were pretty much like "WHO?". But then someone in our group decided to just starting saying "Dean hopes to beat Bush in the presidental election" As soon as we starting mentioning that the guy is hopefully going to run against Bush, folks couldn't grab enough information. A few folks mentioned that they liked Braun or Sharpton, but were also interested in hearing about the other candidates.

Don't you see the message: PEOPLE ARE GETTING ANGRY WITH BUSH AND THEY ARE ANXIOUS TO GET HIM OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

Heck, my stepfather is a republican who is getting frustrated with Bush. He knows of 2 candidates - Lieberman (because he ran in 2000) and Gephardt because the Steelworker Union is endorsing him. But the thing is the guy is pissed at Bush for what he is doing to pensioners, laborers and the economy. So it was real easy to talk about the other candidates. That's why I love this big field - their is a candidate for everyone's taste running in the primaries. But if we work this campaign properly and keep going at Bush with all the problems he's created, it won't matter who the nomination is finally.

STOP BEING NEGATIVE - geez we have 14 months and personally I think we're doing fine!!!! We're dealing with an America that on a whole HATES the whole election process.

[babzilla]

80. hello to you fellow Democrat Mike

at what percentage point will you understand why Dean supporters back Dean?

In your opinion, what is the percentage point over 38% where it will be acceptable to support him in good conscience?

Is there any hope for Dean supporters at all?

I wait with bated breath for you to redeem our enthusiasm with your reply. Please help us, we know not what we back/support.

[BattyDem]

84. My two cents worth

"From the time Dean first campaigned to now, he only gets 38% of the vote against Bush."

Only??? Dean was virtually unknown up until June. He is now polling at 38% against an incumbent, wartime President who has had the highest approval ratings in US history (up until recently) and he has raised over $300,000 in the last 21 hours! No matter who you support, you have to admit that's pretty impressive. To top it off, the election is 14 months away. Considering the fact that as of a few weeks ago, 2/3 of the public couldn't even name a Democratic candidate, I think 38% is terrific!

I don't know who's going to get the nomination. I hope it's Dean, but it may not be. In any case, to suggest that a candidate cannot beat Bush in November 2004 because he's not polling higher than him in September 2003 is ridiculous! It's very early and Bush is not as "invincible" as he appeared to be a few months ago.

The Dems have 10 good candidates and each one has many strengths and some weaknesses. I think any one of them could potentially beat Bush. In any case, I'm certainly not going to write off a candidate 14 months before the election. It's anyone's ballgame, folks.

[CoffeePlease1947]

88. Whoa!

Well if you are impressed with Dean at 38% than you should be really impressed with Clark. He has been in the race for 4 days and is only 3 points behind Bush. Still, less people know Clark than Dean.

Mike

[BattyDem]

90. I am impressed with Clark's numbers

Just because I like Dean doesn't mean I'm against the other Dems ... well ok, maybe I am against Lieberman. ;-)

But like you said, more people know Dean than Clark. I'm not sure if that's good or bad yet. Clark's numbers may be high because he got a lot of press this week, he's a General and there's not a lot of info about his positions. Or his numbers could be high because people love him. I honestly don't know, but I believe it's early and anything can happen in the next few months. Kerry may end up polling higher than Bush in a few weeks. Who knows? I certainly don't and I'm certainly not hoping a particular Dem will fail at this point.

I really like Dean but it's early and as much as I want him to get the nomination, I know that anything's possible. So I'm keeping my mind open so I can learn about all the candidates. I don't understand the Dem bashing - "My candidate's better than yours, etc." - we all want the same thing: to get Bush out of the White House. I agree with Bill Clinton - fall in love, but when the time comes, support the Dem that's get the nomination. JMHO


on edit: I accidentally submitted my post before I was done with my comments. I wanted to hit Preview and I hit Submit instead. :silly:

[CoffeePlease1947]

92. I agree, but there is difference between being against a candidate and

realizing they cannot win. I just don't want to see the Democrats nominate a candidate that is unlikely to defeat Bush. We should nominate the candidate that has the best chance unless that candidate has no right to be running in the party, like McCain running for the Dem nomination.

Mike

[BattyDem]

98. I understand what you're staying ...

but we have different opinions about what it takes to win. You obviously have different experiences than I do. I'm not trying to get in a flame war with you, I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I believe.

Here's what I've seen -
50% of the people who are eligible to vote don't. Most of my friends (Generation X) fall into this category. I asked them many times over the years why they don't vote and I got the same answer again and again: "They're all the same. It doesn't matter who gets elected because it won't make a difference in my life."

I know people who aren't even registered to vote, but they like Dean because he believes in the things they do and he's not afraid to say so. I know people who have never been involved in politics and they're donating money to the guy. I know Seniors who are angry and afraid - they're tired of not being heard and they believe Dean is listening.

My niece will be 18 next year, as will her friends. I've listened to them talk - they all hate Bush and they think Laura takes the obedient wife thing waaaay too far (they call her "the robot"). The terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean anything to them. All they know is what's important to them and what affects their lives. They're fed up with politicians who want to take away a woman's right to choose; they're fed up with hate and bigotry against minorities, homosexuals, etc. because their peer group is very diverse; they're fed up with the rising costs of college (a really big concern because they graduate next year); they're fed up with the war; and they're very worried about a possible draft. They're looking for someone who speaks in plain English and understands their concerns. I asked them if they knew who was running for President - the only one they could name was Dean ... and they will all be eligible to vote in Nov 2004. Dean is not the traditional, establishment candidate - and that's exactly why they noticed him. Is Dean electable among the people who always vote? Maybe not. But the 50% that don't normally vote are pissed off and afraid - and Dean has managed to tap into that.

I honestly believe that most "regular" voters are going to vote the way they usually do. It's going to be the "non-voters" who will decide the 2004 election by getting involved. JMHO

[RevolutionStartsNow]

104. This is exactly the point..

that most people are missing. Many if not a majority of the Dean supporters I meet are people who probably wouldn't be interested (or voting) if it weren't for Dean. Go to a Dean rally sometime, or a Meetup, or read the Blog; there are a multitude of examples of this, people saying that they have never donated before, never worked on a campaign before, or not in many many years. Dean is rallying the forgotten Dems, a whole new voting bloc.

Under normal circumstances, I might even agree that he's not electable, but not this time. Not with this many more people being drawn into the process. And it's not about anger, it's about HOPE.

[BattyDem]

106. Yes, it's about hope

I completely agree with you. Perhaps my comment should have been "The 50% that don't normally vote are pissed off and afraid - and Dean has managed to tap into that ... BY GIVING THEM HOPE!" :-)

[CoffeePlease1947]

111. Oh, you still don't get it.

it is a 1:1 ratio when you bring in more votes. What that means is that for every person you bring in on your side you inspire another to come in against. For every person that Dean brings in I can point to another that is against Dean for the same reason the other person was for Dean. It doesn't work. Non-voters are not all liberals or all conservatives. They are in proportion to non-voters. So yes, Dean will get another 1 million to vote for him for his stance against the war and civil unions. But he will get another to 1 million to vote against him for the same reasons.

Sorry, but Dean cannot win. It is not possible. It is nothing personal, but he cannot.

Mike

[BattyDem]

119. I know you're baiting us

but since others also think Dean is unelectable, this is as good a time as any to point out a few things. (These comments are strictly my opinion based upon my own observations. YMMV)

I believe you're 1:1 ratio logic is flawed. Think about the people who vote in this country. As near as I can tell, there are three distinctive groups that are made up of a mixture of liberals, conservatives and moderates.

1) There are "average" voters who vote because they feel it's their duty, or they want to have some control over the country's future, or maybe they vote out of habit. Who knows? Bottom line is that most voters probably fall into this category.

2)There are activists and/or extremists who are determined to change the course of this country and they vote in every election, strictly along ideological lines for candidates who support their views.

3)There are non-voters who aren't involved at all or who were involved at one time, but got discouraged by the system and gave up.

I'm sure there are other fringe categories, but those three groups seem to include almost everyone.

Let's start with the last two categories:

Extremists and/or activists are very involved. They always vote because they care, whether they're far-left or far-right.

The non-voters are people who don't care because they don't believe there's any difference in the candidates. If someone has not been inspired enough to vote in the past, do you honestly believe they're going to start now by voting for the guy that's made a mess of this country? The guy that caused them to lose their job? The guy that's sending their sons and daughters to fight a war that was never necessary? The guy who's turned our allies against us? Ok, MAYBE some of them will ... but at a 1:1 ratio? A year ago, it would have been 1:1 or possibly even 2:1 or 3:1 in Bush's favor. But now? I don't know where you live, but where I live the only non-voters who are interested in the election are those who want Bush out.

You're 1:1 ratio assumes that at least half of the non-voters will vote for Bush, but you're completely overlooking the fact that Bush's views are so extreme he's alienated many the "true" conservatives and the moderates. Sure, the Neo-Cons are with him, but they already vote.

So that leaves the average voters, who usually vote and who most likely participated in the 2000 election. DUers post links all the time to articles documenting Bush's eroding support among people who voted for him in 2000. He lost the popular vote, so even if he only loses a quarter of the people who voted for him in 2000, that's going to hurt him greatly. He's already starting with a deficit - unless you believe the Gore and Nader voters are going to switch to Bush in 2004.

As I said before - I truly believe the non-voters are going to decide this election, no matter who the Dem candidate is.

I know you're still going to insist that Dean is unelectable. So be it. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to show the "undecideds" that the situation isn't as black and white as it seems. The amount of support a candidate has is a factor, but where that support is coming from is also a factor - especially when it's coming from non-voters who are getting involved 14 months before an election.

Of course, rigged voting machines would completely change the situation ... but that's a whole different thread! ;-)

[CoffeePlease1947]

121. I agree the 1:1 would not be the case for others, but Dean it is.

Statistic after statistic show that it doesn't matter if 10%, 50% or 100% of the people vote, the results are almost always the same. It only makes a differnce if one class or group of people are prevented from voting like Blacks, women, men, or Gays. In that case it would effect results. But that is not the case, it is mostly equal with the ones that do vote. We know this, statiticans know this, political scientists know this. It is just so.

I know tons of Republicans that don't vote. I also know tons of Democrats that don't vote. I talk to people that don't vote and want to vote to for Dean, but I also hear the same from Republicans that want to vote to vote against him.

You have to realize that people that feel alienated by Bush still would vote for Bush if it meant Dean would be president.

Second, you assume the vote would make a difference. Only votes picked up in swing states make a difference. So many of them would not change anything. Only about ten states are swing states. So about 8 in 10 new voters are not going to help in the electoral college.

That is my point. Sure things could swing around for Dean. But I don't think so, Dean is fading away now.

Mike

[ModerateMiddle]

135. "Only votes picked up in swing states make a difference. "

This is a hugely important fact that many people are ignoring. Because of the electoral college, a landslide for the Dem candidate (say Dean, for example) in California wouldn't make any difference whatsoever in the final outcome.

How many of these Dean supporters are in states that are already very solidly in the blue category? California? New York? Mass? Washington?

[phegger]

107. But at what point...

do you "realize they cannot win"? Is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? I think it's a little early to be writing Dr. Dean off. He may or may not be "electable", and when it comes time to vote that will matter to me. But I'm not sure yet. Let's let the campaign play out for a while.


-ph :smoke:

[indigo32]

86. I'm from MN

and I've seen Pro-Wrestlers who dumb as rocks get elected. YOU CAN'T PREDICT this race this far out.

[madaboutharry]

87. Coffeeplease1947, I think is correct

I don't have anything against Dean, I even sent his campaign money a couple of months ago. I believe him when he claims he is a centrist and a moderate. But the voting public is not seeing it that way. Perhaps it is the internet groundswell, the college kids, and just plain media hype - but the perception out there is that he is pretty much on the way way left of things. It may be unfair, but this is how he has been labeled. And it may be, I am afraid, too late in the game for him to adjust that perception. The "something different" idea may have backfired. As I've said, I think Dean would make a fine president. But I can't back him anymore. I know people who voted for Bush in 2000 and want to see him out of office. They are not going to vote for this governor from a "granola" state. This is reality. I have listened carefully to the things that Clark has said spontaniously. Sticking up for Michael Moore right after the Oscars when everyone was jumping on the pile on. Sticking up for the demonstrators while we were still bombing Baghdad and saying that dissent was what America was all about. I am convinced that he has developed a progressive world view. His attitude about gays in the military says a lot about the way he thinks. I don't buy this "republican-lite" stuff. Clark will move the country back from the right, bring back the traditional democratic agenda, and follow a plan of fiscal responsibility to get us out of this mess. He can also get a lot of independent voters (like my husband - who still hasn't recovered from the smear job on John McCain) and even moderate republicans who have turned on Bush. Like it or not, the democrats can not win an election without these people. I didn't say it is right or fair, but I think this is the way it is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

99. Good.

We don't need or want your "granola" support.


:hi: /

[madaboutharry]

109. I will gladly vote for Dean

It isn't "my" support. It is support Dean will need to win that may not be there. Your tone is uncalled for.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. I apologize for my tone then.

<insert "Why Clark, Kucinich, Braun, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Sharpton, Graham and Gephardt are unelectable" here>

[babzilla]

102. oooh, I wanna hear about Clark sticking up for Michael Moore

it would be cool if you could give some real examples of this:

Sticking up for Michael Moore right after the Oscars when everyone was jumping on the pile on. Sticking up for the demonstrators while we were still bombing Baghdad and saying that dissent was what America was all about.

I would love to hear what he said about it.

[madaboutharry]

108. Read Moore's own letter

to Clark. He stood up for the demonstrators while on CNN with Aaron Brown.

[genius]

120. Dean wouldn't stand a chance against Bush.

Most people could nail Bush on Florida, his record and statements but Bush could go after Dean about his changing points of view and his campaign practices and with the news on Bush's side, Dean would lose. The rest of the candidates are more solid.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

122. I think your wrong

many people who are in the younger generation 18-25 are politically apathetic for various reasons. They aren't your "conventional" voting block. From my perspective Dean has been energizing the younger generation. http://www.generationdean.com/. People from conservative to liberal. Dean makes sense to them. I'm 17 and I'll be able to vote for Dean in the primary in Washington state and the general election. Everywhere in colleges and high school chapters devoted to Dean are popping up. So when people do polls they poll people who are likely voters and who are registered. Many of the younger generations never voted or registered. I think these are the people that will make a difference.

You also said Clark was virtually unknown to the public. If i remembered correctly Clark was the supreme commandor of the Nato forces in Bosnia? Also I if remembered correctly he received much exposure during this Iraq war when he was doing commentaries on a daily basis on CNN. You know one of those sit in generals.

Also don't you have any morals or convictions? You shouldn't flip flop so easily on a candidate. YOu shouldn't give up on them because they are "flagging" in the polls. My advice to you is "have political courage."

[CoffeePlease1947]

137. You really think rallying people makes a difference, it doesn't.

Regardless of how much you love Dean, your vote only counts as one vote. I also have news for you, your vote is not going to count or help Dean win the General Election.

Washington almost always votes for the Democratic nominee. You need votes in swing states like Missouri, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin,Oregon and Arkansas.

It always gets me that every election a candidate claims they can motivate "non-voters". They always claim, this candidate is "different". It doesn't matter when the election is, they said it about Nader in 2000, and I saw it. They said it about Gary Hart in 1988. They said it about Paul Tsoungus in 92'. They said that about Perot in 92 and 96. They said it about John Anderson in 1980. The 1960's were full of candidates that brought in new people.

Every candidate wins new voters and turns current voters off. I know lots of people that will not vote if the race is between Bush vs. Dean. I know lots of people that voted in 2000 and every election before and will never vote again after the 2000 election because they think the election is rigged.

This election is exactly the same as all the others I have seen, same tactics, same sentences, the only thing that changes is the names and faces of the people.

After about 10 elections you see what I am saying. The only way your vote counts is in the nomination. You can either use to vote for someone that can win the swing states or you can use it to vote for someone that cannot. That is the extent of your power. There are 285,000,000 people. You should use to help the Democrats chances. You will be very disappointed to nominate a candidate that is ten points behind Bush, $150 million less in dollars, and not a snowballs chance in hell of winning a Southern state.

Believe it or not, but Dean is getting a huge chunk of his money from Republicans. He is also going to a huge number of Republicans that will vote for him in the nomination because the Republicans have a great deal on him already and want him to win. The Republicans don't have a primary, so they will be voting in ours. Dean is who they will vote for.

Mike

[PAMod]

124. Geez, nobody has heard of Dean yet and he's at 38%...

against the incumbent President of the United States!

I've lived through a presidential election or two, and I'm telling you 38% the September before the election year is astounding.

All of the people that love Hillary or Gore or FDR or anyone else not running are simply saying that they aren't sold on a candidate in the current field.

[stickdog]

130. What did the polls say 14 months before the 1992 election about Clinton

vs. Bush?

[CoffeePlease1947]

136. Clinton had not entered the race yet. Dean has. n/t

[LynneSin]

139. He has a valid point

He's talking about Clinton's numbers against Bush Sr. back in 1991. I mean Clinton wasn't really a frontrunner back when dems started anouncing their intentions to run in 1991 for the 1992 elections.

My attitude is to focus on what is most important - getting that message out there that Bush is bad for America and that we can do better. Now we have both CNN and MSNBC reporting poll numbers under 50% for Bush's approval rating. All we need to do is keep them down.

!!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

140. Dean = too much reversal for American comfort n/t