Chris Dodd D Conn...joins the Group of Hopefuls??? Did I hear it right?

[opihimoimoi]

Is he really running? For President?

26 years of EXPERIENCE

Whats his Odds?

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. To answer your first question, yes. He announced it several weeks ago

His odds? :shrug:

[Parche]

2. Dodd

I actually like Chris Dodd, I know he would never win, but he is a good Senator

[madinmaryland]

3. His odds are very slim.

He has very little name recognition outside of CT and New England. When I lived in CT, I always found him to be a very good and reliable democratic senator.

[momophile]

4. and he was in the Peace Corps too

okay, I'm a little biased in favor of Returned Peace Corps Volunteers...

[TwilightGardener]

5. Nothing against Dodd, but there would have to be a catastrophe

striking the capitol on a day he's out sick to stand a chance.

[Czolgosz]

6. He's a very good senator, and I like his values much better than Hillary's, Richardson's, or Biden's

but it is hard to imagine a scenario where he can catch up with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Why is this man NOT a FRONT RUNNER?

[Czolgosz]

9. He's a bit of a Volvo

(he's boxy but he good)

[Mass]

20. Not media-approved candidate - This is all.

The media have decided who is important or not, and Richardson, Dodd, Biden, ... are not fun enough for the "American Idol" context the election has become.

[opihimoimoi]

44. Not POPULAR ENOUGH ..I Guess

Not n the radar screen....could be, should be, but.....perplexed as to HOW....

The Confusion Factor??

[frankenforpres]

8. he's not pretty or bill's wife

so his chances are slim. im in favor of richardson, but the press will probably not cover him too much either.

[opihimoimoi]

12. It appears he is not an orator...which is a reat help if ya got only a few buck$

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Wrong. Dodd is an excellent speaker

He can deliver his meat and potato Democratic ideals in booming tones that make you take notice.
The man will surprise. Also, thanks to his banking committee ties to Wall St., he is the 2nd best funded candidate after Hillary- over 5 million in his war chest.
Again, the man will surprise.

[opihimoimoi]

24. Well then, he had better get out there and start beating the Bushes

Pardon the pun...

This Nation can use a few good suprises..

Maybe what is lacking are/plausible ideas/concepts/ for this Nation/Planet to prosper....?

[IA_Seth]

33. what's up with the annoyingly long white space? n/t

[opihimoimoi]

35. I don know.....a glitch....I certainly did not intend it...sorry

[IA_Seth]

43. Lol, no apologies necessary..

I thought I was missing the secret decoder ring.

[MGKrebs]

10. I like Dodd.

I hope he can get some traction. I might help.
Candidates have to be able to raise money and be compelling to the electorate. We'll see if he can do that.

[skipos]

11. Some people find it hard to get pumped about senators from New England

and I am one of them. We know how well senators have performed in Presidential races (horribly) and we know how Dem non-southerners do compared to Dem southerners (not as well). I expect him to get ignored like Biden.

For the record, I do like him, I just like others better.

[opihimoimoi]

13. Well, we did have a JFK a few years back....

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Senator Dodd is no Jack Kennedy

He is far more expereinced that Kennedy was when he ran, but he lacks JFK's charisma.

[Alexander]

14. This regional bias against New England is just silly.

The Democratic non-southerners you speak of lost because of flaws in their campaigning, not because they were from Massachusetts or Minnesota.

The southern Democratic nominees didn't win because they were southern, although that probably didn't hurt. They won because they were able to successfully control the message and used some charm to thaw the ice. Johnson was a fluke - he won because there was still a wave of sympathy for JFK, who had died not a year before the election.

[cleveramerican]

15. He needs a theme

he as well as a few others need 0ne good theme to repeat over and over. Right now he looks rather rudderless, which I am sure he is not.

[Mass]

19. Dodd has a theme: experience matters. What he does not have is access to the media.

It seems that the media decide who is important or not and they have decided that Clinton and Obama are the ones who matters, with, once in a while, Edwards, as soon as the far right attacks him.

The media will chose our next nominee, and we will think that we have decided.

[Mass]

18. Or because a third party candidate hurt the Republican (Anderson, Perot)...

Actually, the New England Democrats (Dukakis, Kerry) that lost fare better than Clinton in the polls. (Minnesota is not exactly New England).

[skipos]

22. Just so you know, Clinton didn't win because of Perot.

However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10610FF3C5C0C7B8CDDA00894DA494D81

[Mass]

23. we disagree on that\nt

[skipos]

28. No, you disagree with the people who actually did research on it

Which is your right.

[Mass]

29. No, you do not present any research on that.

Nobody will ever know what would have happened if Perot had not run. The exit polls are biased by the simple fact that Perot has run and campaigned. What we need to know to validate your hypothesis is how would this people have voted if Perot had never run, which is something impossible to know.

[skipos]

31. Analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy isn't "research"

OK. :eyes:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Mass, it's very simple- the incumbent was not favored

by anyone. The 2 challengers got more votes because the people wanted someone else.
Clinton would have won no matter what by virtue of being "not Bush".

[karynnj]

32. Exit polling doesn't pick up the impact of Perot in spring/summer 1992

In the Spring of 1992, Perot polled higher than Bill Clinton - an amazing feat for a third party candidate. He spent a huge amount of money and effort bashing GHWB. Then during the summer, he pulled out of the race claiming that GHWB has harrassing him and his family.

This is when Clinton took the lead, right before his convention and never gave it back. It is impossible to estimate the impact of the people Perot pulled from GHWB who in te summer went to Clinton and never returned to Perot.

The fact was that had Perot not run, it would have been an easy win for the Democrats, with GHWB below 40% and down to 33% by election day. Clinton benefited by the fact that stronger Democrats in 1991, when Bush was near 90% opted out and Clinton was there when Bush imploded.

The campaign was later turned into mythology. The fact is that if you assume that Clinton was an awesome politician (likely true), Bush was intensely unpopular (true for all 1992 polls -starting early in the year), The media disliked Bush by then and covered his throwing up on the Japanese froeign minister to the hilt (my memory, not objective), and he ran a flawless campaign, then Clinton would have won with Reagan type numbers. The element I thing was not accuarte is that the 1992 campaign was well run.

[skipos]

21. Don't blame me for the bias, blame the voters

Of the last six Dem candidates our three best first run electoral performances were Clinton (AR), Carter (GA), Gore (TN) and our three worst were Kerry (MA), Dukakis (MA) and Mondale (MN). If you want to think that is a fluke, it's fine by me.

Three senators have been elected president since Lincoln. If you want to think that is a fluke, that's fine too.

[Mass]

25. That, too is your opinion. In 92, Clinton did worse than Dukakis and barely better than Mondale

(the well known Senator from New England).

The point is that, in your list, we have a Senator that is NOT from New England (Mondale), one Governor from New England (Dukakis), and one Senator from New England (Kerry) who happens to be the person who got the most Democratic votes ever.

This is the mix you have to make to present your case.

[skipos]

26. Not in the electoral college, which is all the matters now

Bush got more individual votes than Clinton ever did, does that mean Bush is more popular? Hell no. In 1992 Ross Perot got almost as many votes as FRD in 1932. I doubt many Americans think of Perot as fondly as FDR.

[Mass]

27. Neither Dukakis nor Mondale were ever Senator from New England.

This limits a little bit your case, does it not?

The truth is that two New England Senators won the Democratic nomination for president since I was born:

Kennedy and Kerry:


Kennedy won.

[skipos]

30. No it doesn't.

I can talk about two different statistics at once, can't I?

Senators do not do as well for either party in the last century and a half.
Non-southerners do not do as well for Democrats in the 30 years.

Are those statisics the sole reason CLinton and Carter won? No.
Can a New England senator become president? Sure.

Jeeze, let me guess, you are supporting a senator and/or a non-southerner in 2008?
Hell, Obama might be my pick, but I have no problem admitting that he will have some historical challenges when he runs.

[sandnsea]

36. Some people find it hard to get pumped about senators from the south

considering the disaster this country has become ever since we let them take this country on a rightward lurch that we can't seem to get off of.

[skipos]

37. What southern Presidents from the senate have taken us on rightward lurches?

I don't know who you are talking about.

GWB- governor, TX
Clinton- governor, AR
GHWB- Vice Pres, TX
Reagan- governor, CA
Carter- governor, GA
Ford- congressman, MI
Nixon- VP, CA
LBJ- VP, TX
Kennedy- senator, MA

[sandnsea]

38. That doesn't even make any sense

It doesn't matter where Clinton and Carter came from, they both took us away from union protection and social progress. It's peculiar that anybody can post shit about New England Democrats, but post about the south and your post is deleted as "region bashing". That's why I actually can't say much more.

[skipos]

39. No, you didn't make any sense

I was talking about two facts:

southern Democratic candidates have performed better in the electoral college that non-southern candidates for the last couple of decades

non-senators have been more likely to be elected president than senators for the last century and a half

And then you mentioned something about southern Presidents from the senate, I had no clue who you were talking about. If you were trying to refer to Carter and Clinton, they were governors.

[sandnsea]

40. Their position doesn't matter

Senator. Governor. Don't care. Southern Democrats have helped destroy this country. It isn't worth having them in office. Simple enough for you?

[skipos]

41. I was just trying to understand your 1st post since it didn't make any sense.

All clear now. You are saying southern Democrats (Edwards, Clark, Gore, etc) = not good presidential material. I don't agree, and that really had nothing to do with what I was saying, but you are entitled to your opinion.

[sandnsea]

42. You're right

I must have been having a serious mentalpause moment when I put senators in that sentence. Sorry.

No, I'm not impressed with what southern Democrats have brought this country thus far.

[JI7]

45. Kerry did better than Carter in 1980, and Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 88

i know some want to act like Bush won 2004 in a landslide but he didn't. the election was very close and came down to one state. a liberal senator from massachusettes nearly defeated an incumbant President during wartime and after the worst attack in our nation's history.

and Kerry got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992. and Clinton never got majority of the votes.

Mondale is from the Midwest , Carter from the South, and Dukakis was never Senator.

[skipos]

47. Please read my posts

I already had a debate with someone who didn't read my posts closely.

1. I was talking about ELECTORAL votes, not the number of votes, or the percentage. As everyone knows, ELECTORAL votes are what usually land people in the Whitehouse.
2. SOUTHERN Dem nominees have perfomed better in the electoral college than NON-SOUTHERN Dem nominees for the last couple of decades. I never said anything about the midwest.
3. SENATORS have had a harder time becoming President than NON-SENATORS for the last 150 years.
4. Please note that I am talking about GENERAL HISTORIC TRENDS, and am not claiming that senators or non-southerners can't get elected.
5. IMO white, male, senators from New England are going to have a tough time getting interest for a Presidential run in 2008 for a number different reasons. It is my opinion, I am not saying it is fact.

[SCDem]

34. I met him a couple weeks ago

He came to our town in South Carolina. I was really impressed. I know he may seem like a long shot but I think he's smart in going local early - rather than packing stages.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

48. Will help him greatly in Iowa

He might even get the 4th spot behind Clinton, Obama, Edwards.