For those who claim "electability"

[Brian_Expat]

I have a simple question for those candidates who are trailing in the primaries but claim superior "electability" to other candidates in the polls who are ahead of them.

If you're so "electable" against Bush, how come you're so far behind in the primary in your own party?

After all, you'd figure the most electable Democratic candidate would be a shoo-in within his own party. If you cannot energize your base within the party and attract independents to vote in the primary for you to claim the nomination, how the heck are you going to get the same groups to rally behind you as the Democratic candidate in the general election?

Am I missing something, or have I more likely hit the nail on the head?

[Eric J in MN]

1. if someone is electable in the general because he would get

if someone is electable in the general because he would get independent votes, that wouldn't be reflected in the primary.

[mouse7]

4. Independents vote in NH

That not true. There's lots of primaries open to independent voters. The "electable" candidates aren't even polling well among independent voters.

[Brian_Expat]

5. I disagree

if someone is electable in the general because he would get independent votes, that wouldn't be reflected in the primary

The most direct refutation of that theory would be Dean's campaign, which has drawn heavily from the independent voter community. Dean had a lead that "came out of nowhere" based primarily upon his base outside of the "old school Democrat" camp. He didn't start building support amongst old-school Dems until he raised all that money and stayed solidly ahead in the polls. The Gore endorsement didn't hurt either.

If you cannot excite independents enough with your platform to get lots of them to register as Democrats and work for your campaign, how are you going to do that after getting the nomination?

[SahaleArm]

8. Democratic activist and insiders far outweigh Independents

in the primaries. How do you know Dean is drawing more from independents than the liberal base? In fact it should come as no surprise why the liberal base likes Dean and his anti-DLC rhetoric.

[mouse7]

14. That's what the polling says

The polling says Dean is doing equally well among independents and party loyalists.

[SahaleArm]

16. Polling of likely primary voters or general electorate?

[ochazuke]

23. Republicans for Dean

Three percent? You have to admire the brand loyalty of those goose-stepping bush Nazis.

[SahaleArm]

27. How about the 20% that are Zell-Miller Dems? n/t

[Brian_Expat]

37. I would guess 20% is high. n/t

n/t

[eileen from OH]

48. How about them?

Are we to cave to them in the vain hope that we will win because we aren't "really" Democrats?

Look, I wanna win as much as the next Dem and if I had any confidence that being "bush-lite" (and, yeah I don't like that phrase AT ALL - but sometimes it fits) would do the trick, I might be tempted. EXCEPT that it hasn't worked - not for Max Cleland, not for Mary Landrieu, not for anyone who has espoused "bipartisanship" with this administration.

I'm not angry, I'm not pissed (well, maybe a li'l) but I am DETERMINED.

For every "'Zell Miller Democrat" I'd betcha there's 20 Dems that are sick and bloody tired of trying to find an accommodation, only to find that the rightwsing agenda ain't interested in accommodation - they want it ALL, and they want it NOW.

"Zell Miller Dems" is an oxymoron, with an emphasis on "moron".

eileen from Ohio

[Brian_Expat]

62. Ah HA!

Against Zell Miller Democrats?!? You are obviously one of those evil liberal northern yankee elitists who hate the taste of country ham and want to come down and tell southern white men what to do!!! :crazy:

[lurk_no_more]

72. If dean gets the nod

maybe he should pic Zell as his VP. The best of both worlds, with the CF southern voter and moderate southern Jesus voter, what's not to like?



Food for thought from….“JAFO”

[mouse7]

35. Nice try... posting that same skewed CBS poll again, huh?

This is the seventh thread that skewed CBS poll has been stuck and the 7th thread it will be destryoed on. CBS had fewer than 250 respondents on the Dem preference portion of that survey. It states in the release text of the poll itself that the poll has a much greater +/-.

[SahaleArm]

42. Is there a poll where he isn't getting crushed?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

[mouse7]

45. Is there a poll where Dean isn't crushing the field? No. n/t

[Brian_Expat]

46. Absolutely

Newsweek's poll from November showed Dean and Clark neck in neck -- both losing to Bush by about 7%, and well ahead of the other candidates. It also showed Dubya polling at 49%.

But if we went by polls alone, before Clark's entry, we should have supported Lieberman -- after all, he polled neck in neck with Bush! Using that logic, Clark and Dean are costing Democrats the election by running against Lieberman. ;)

The reality is, it's far, far too early to rely on polls to determine who a "winner" is (the generals haven't started), and the polls are so wildly different between pollsters and between months that they're not quite useful. Most people answering these polls know far more about Bush than about any of the Dem contenders.

[SahaleArm]

55. It's December and soon the primaries will be over...

As of right now Dean leads the field and at the same time is getting walloped by more than the other candidates. I don't believe polling is the end all be all of presidential nominees but it is a factor. As you know it is one of many reasons liberals support Dean so it can't be dismissed out of hand. I'll wait for the final tally and should Dean win I will support his candidacy; but the game is still a foot.

[Brian_Expat]

57. Too early to tell

As of right now Dean leads the field and at the same time is getting walloped by more than the other candidates

That's not entirely accurate IMO. The CBS poll is way out of line with what other polls have reported in the past, which suggests it's inaccurate. If it's accurate, it would mean a sudden huge turnaround in Dean and Bush's fortunes, down and up respectively, in a tiny fraction of time, making the election a total wild card. Either way, I don't think it's a reliable tool to suggest that one candidate can beat another.

In addition, I have to wonder how many of the "new Dean voters" are getting ignored by these polls, too. Dean polled at under 5% when he raised all that money earlier this year and shocked the media. They had to revise their polling techniques to capture all those new primary voters who contributed but never got interviewed. I'd not be surprised if a similar thing was happening now.

And finally, when Dean was running for gov in 2000 during the CU election, he was at 25% to 60% for the Republican conservative challenger, with the Progressive (Green) candidate weighing in at about 6%. Dean won that election decisively through a miniature version of the campaign he's running today.

I certainly wouldn't count him out or fret about "electability" if you agree with his ideas and want to support him. If you agree with someone else's ideas/platform more in the primary, you should support that person. The primary is when you get to "vote your heart." :)

[SahaleArm]

61. New voters...

It's not just CBS, the ABC/WP poll is also showing similar results with Dean doing worse than unnamed Democrat (56-38). New voters are taken into account with random polling, hence his numbers are on the rise within the party. Whether polling translates into a nomination or the presidency remains to be seen. He's certainly not out of anything including a chance at beating Bush.

[Brian_Expat]

It's the numbers

How do you know Dean is drawing more from independents than the liberal base?

The liberal base, until very recently, was split between Kerry (the intellectuals) and Gephardt (the union folks). The party's liberal base didn't move towards Dean until well after he established himself.

He did it quite simply. Back when he was at 2% in the polls, he brought in a campaign staff who targeted independents and non-primary-voters. He continued polling "lower" yet suddenly raised $7.5 million "out of nowhere." The reality is that the polls weren't polling everyone who was going to vote in this upcoming primary -- lots of Dean independents and new voters.

The numbers for Dean only roared ahead once his strength was known and hundreds of thousands of new party members signed on to push his campaign. If you look at efforts like this, you can see what I mean. Virtually all the 10,000 or so people who joined Dean's campaign through that web site in the last few weeks are new to the Democratic Party, and most are probably new voters, too.

[SahaleArm]

22. Where's your numbers coming from? The liberal base that is anti-war...

is most definitely with Dean. Kerry has some support from the liberals who will forgive his IWR vote and middle of the road Democrats. Gephardt has middle america and union support. BTW your link doesn't work.

[Brian_Expat]

28. I think those are generalizations

If you're a traditional liberal Democrat anti-war person, you're likely with Kucinich, not Dean. As a matter of fact, I would bet that those traditional liberals backing Dean are doing so out of (irony of ironies) "electability." :)

I will fix the link, sorry for the problem.

[SahaleArm]

33. Many traditional liberal Democrats against the Iraq-war are with Dean...

That's what drew lots of voters into his fold. Like it or not Dean played off this perception and has slowly moved his campaign rhetoric to the left including the anti-DLC stuff. You are correct about liberals and electability (see Molly Ivins/Ted Rall).

[Brian_Expat]

41. But that alone wouldn't put him in the winning camp

Lots of anti-war Democrats are also with Clark. Most Clark supporters I know are more passionate about the war than most Dean people I know, so I cannot say I agree that Dean is strong on the anti-war thing alone.

Dean got a big boost from the GLBT community early on out of profound respect for how he fought the forces of GOP hate when he could have just abandoned us. That helped him greatly in the early months, but I think his campaign, much like Clark's, is a broad cross-section that includes lots of people who are not traditional Democratic primary voters.

[SahaleArm]

47. Not nearly to the extent of Dean who has been pounding the...

anti-war gavel for over a year. Dean is most definitely the anti-war/anti-establishment candidate from a media standpoint and that has helped his numbers tremendously. Whether he can garner independent support in the general election will depend on how he moves to the center. The touting of his Christianity is the first step.

[Brian_Expat]

53. I don't agree

Dean is most definitely the anti-war/anti-establishment candidate from a media standpoint

That's just the media trying to explain Dean's popularity. First it was the Internet. Then it was the war.

They didn't understand Dean, and he didn't get on their radar screen until well after he'd assumed front-runner status and reported $7+ million in receipts, much to their amazement. People were going to Dean far more over his stance on a broad range of issues, and the way he ran (and runs) his campaign openly than over the war.

If this was a "pure war" thing, Kucinich would be the front runner. He was the loudest critic of this war policy from the beginning.

I think Dean was right on the war, but it's not primary reason for supporting him. I cam to his camp over civil unions.

My conservative Republican dad is with him over his fiscal conservatism.

If you attend a Dean event, the diversity in supporters' demographics and reasons for voting for Dean is striking. As usual, the media is missing the point and trying to simplify something they don't quite understand.

[SahaleArm]

56. Of course it's more than one thing...

To me the major factors are anti Iraq-war (not anti-war), anti-establishment (DLC), and electability. He gets the a good chunk of the would-be Kucinich support because of electability. Now you may choose to disagree but how many policy discussions have we had here?

[Brian_Expat]

59. Major factors

To me the major factors are anti Iraq-war (not anti-war), anti-establishment (DLC), and electability

The thing that amuses me is the media claimed initially when Dean raised the first $7 million that it was all "pink money," and that Dean was the choice of the "gay mafia." That one cheered me up -- it is so good to be powerful! :evilgrin:

To summarize, I think you're right and you're wrong. The major factors include all those, but that list is far from complete. And I think a lot of support for Clark grows out of the war and electability too. The Clark and Dean camps agree on a whole, whole lot, and I suspect they'll have to work together closely regardless of how the nomination turns out.

how many policy discussions have we had here?

I don't know, I am new in these here parts! :)

[SahaleArm]

64. On DU policy discussions rarely happen ;) n/t

[Brian_Expat]

30. Link fixed

Sorry for the confusion.

[polpilot]

73. The 'Can't be elected' Dean destroys his opponents & yet the mindless

mantra continues. To say that Rove 'wants' Dean is to say that the Kerry camp 'wants' Dean. Do anyone think that Kerry 'wants' Dean. That Gep 'wants' Dean. That Lieb 'wants' Dean.

Dean is THE candidate for '04 & will destroy Bush as he's destroyed all comers. Crystal clear.

Dean '04....

[Melinda]

2. Nail, meet head.

Makes sense to me - go figure. :shrug:

[SahaleArm]

9. Democratic nominee history would refute that assertion n/t

[Melinda]

18. Got link?

[SahaleArm]

24. My link is McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis...

Democrats don't always produce a winner.

[Brian_Expat]

31. But that doesn't disprove my point

The fact that Democrats don't always produce a winner doesn't refute my theory that Democrats who are primary losers by a large margin are probably also general election losers.

If a Democrat cannot excite his own party, how can he excite voters? I mean, I don't think that Kerry (whose campaign isn't doing too well) is a super-conservative who liberals cannot get behind. Most Kerry supporters (of which I am an ex-one) are pretty liberal or moderately liberal mainstream Democrats -- but they're getting crushed by Dean and Clark.

[SahaleArm]

34. That's something that can't be proven nor disproven.

No primary loser has ever run 1st on the ticket. At this point I'd be arguing conjecture.

[Brian_Expat]

43. Of course it cannot be conclusively proven or disproven

But neither can qualitative claims of "greater electability" by the various candidates. I am simply challenging the assumptions being made when these pronouncements are advanced.

[mouse7]

44. McGovern and Dukakis don't count

McGovern won nomination with less than 25% of the popular vote in primaries. There were far more caucuses and McGovern supporters packed the caucus sites.

Dukakis doesn't count becasue of the situation with his wife's downfall mention in the 1984 Hart thread.

You're left with Mondale, who got nomination because of being the previous VP, not becasue of campaigning as liberal. The party regulars and machinery got Mondale the nomination. Mondale had the entire party structure behind him, and still almost lost to Hart.

[SahaleArm]

52. Dukakis failed because of Willie Horton - Thank Al Gore...

As far as Mondale - He wasn't an incumbant so I included him. Whether Dean can be compared to any of them remains to be seen, his current national polling numbers aren't promising.

[TeacherCreature]

69. Dean isn't any of those guys

And history never repeats itself.

[mouse7]

3. You have to excite SOMEBODY to be electable

Kerry isn't leading in Massachusetts. Edwards is behind in SC. Lieberman is behind in his own Temple.

[Syrinx]

6. the Democratic base is more left than the public at large. nt

[Brian_Expat]

12. How much further left?

So far to the left that a Democrat who comes in third or fourth or fifth with 5% or 6% is "more electable" than the front-running Dem who wins 30% of the nomination votes?

Besides, how far to the left are the front runners in the present primary? Dean and Clark are #1 and #2, and neither are super-lefties. The most "left wing" candidates are Kucinich (who is resurgent at last count but still not polling super-well), Mosely Braun (who is not doing well) and Sharpton (who is also not doing too well).

[mouse7]

20. Agreed, but Dean is a fiscal moderate

Dean has lots to appeal to the center. Knowing how to balance a budget when Dumbya is a fiscal disaster is quite a fine ability to be able to draw from.

Dean's stand on the War in Iraq is not a liberal issue. The War in Iraq was argued by Dean as a common sense issue. It made no damn sense for us to invade Iraq. Iraq was a low-level threat compared to what needed to be done in Afghanistan against Al-Queda and the Taliban. That proved itself again the other day when they almost blew Musharrif into itty-bitty pieces.

[Brian_Expat]

36. As a Kerry guy who switched to Dean early on, I think this is right

I think Dean is more conservative than Kerry in a lot of areas -- the economy, guns, domestic policy.

I think his stance on civil unions is a bit more "liberal," but on paper it's the same as most of the other Democrats in the upper tiers. Though a lot of my decision to support Dean once it became clear he was a serious candidate was over his courage in fighting the Republicans over the CU bill. He took a lot of heat and hate over that.

Also, I thought Dean was more "electable." (Yes, I confess!) ;) He had a history of fighting the right wing haters over a controversial bill (civil unions) and still winning a majority of the vote despite having both a right-wing evildoer on his right and a popular independent on his left who took 10% of the vote!

I campaigned for Dean when I lived in New England during that ugly election. At times, I feared he was going to go down for doing the right thing, but not only did he defeat Karl Rove's minions who outspent him AND a Nader-type guy, but he also educated the people of Vermont and Civil Unions went from being 60/40 opposed to 60/40 in favour!

That's why I say electability is about ideas and history and campaign experience, more than quick "look overs" of candidates. I think the latter practice is dangerous, in fact, because you could use it to pigeonhole every single one of our candidates into some "unelectable" niche.

[Syrinx]

38. I agree with you. Dean is a moderate.

However the Republicans have made him out to be some wild-eyed New England radical, and they have been aided by the incurable lapdog media. This suggests to me that Dean might just be the candidate that the Republicans are most frightened of. But I'm conflicted, because part of me sees Clark as Bush's toughest potential opponent. If it were up to me, probably Dean and Clark would be running mates, order to be determined.

[BobbyJay]

7. Primary voters vs GE voters

Who would have been a better choice for '84: John Glenn or Walter Mondale?

What about '88? Gore, Gephardt or Dukkakis?

Primary voters are a different breed.

[Brian_Expat]

10. "A different breed"

Primaries that are "different breeds" from the general election are failures, in my opinion. If Democratic candidates don't attract support from independents and Democrats and even ex-Republicans in the primaries, they're not going to succeed in the general election.

As for the 1988 election, I don't find any of those choices to be particularly palatable or "winning." And I'm not so sure that Glenn could have pulled it off either.

Elections have to be about ideas, not "electability" and "polls." Bush didn't get to where he is by running on a platform run past pollsters -- he advanced an agenda. We need to do the same, and explain why our ideas are better than Bush's. For economics, we have the Clinton/Gore legacy of balanced budgets. For defence we have a number of remarkable people who can help. Ditto for foreign policy.

This election and "electability" has to be about our Party pulling together to work hard. We have, arguably, some of the best people we've ever had out there in the presidential campaigns, and we need to figure out how to use all their talents.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, we cannot afford to lose the Dean Revolution people or the Clark folks, or the Kucinich people. A big tiff over "electability" and triumphalism that says "ha ha, we won, you lost" will be a one-way ticket to defeat.

Personally, I believe that such a "ha ha" effect is a possible result of the nasty assaults against some candidates by a few others, most notably Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry.

[thinkahead]

11. And yet

primary voters also chose Clinton, Gore, Carter, Kennedy, FDR

I could go on.

You win some, you lose some. Primary voters are responsible for picking winners and losers - we only lose when we don't team up together - and fight the good fight in the GE.

[mouse7]

26. In 1984? Gary Hart

I knew Kerry's campaign seemed to be ringing a bell for some reason. You just reminded me why. John Glenn was another "obviously better" candidate who had a god-awful campaign. Hart was the one who put a good competitive message together.

1988 doesn't count. Mike Dukakis' wife was started to completely collapse shortly after the Convention. Mike was as much in love with his wife as a political candidate has ever been in our country's history. she couldn't handle the spotlight, and started tailspinning into the ground. Mike was too distracted to run an effective campaign (Kitty tried to kill herself by drinking rubbing alchohol shortly after campaign was over), and withdrew completely into private life as soon as possibly could after that campaign.

[ochazuke]

13. Your are missing something.

There is no logic to the proposition that the more electable candidates would be at or near the lead for the nomination of their own party.

The most electable Democratic candidate is usually not a shoo-in. In fact, the Democratic party has nominated an unelectable candidate in about half of the elections since (and including) 1972.

I was a fan of Dukakis, for example, but there was no way he could appeal to Middle America. I have lived among Middle America my whole life, and I have acquired a sense of how they think. They are quite different from the activists of the Democratic party. They are not angry about the war or most of Shrub's evil deeds, except possibly for some blue-collar issues like overtime pay, steel tariffs, and the like.

It's so unfair: the Rethugs can nominate the most extreme right-wing whack jobs and even put them in office. And if you call them on their extremism, they just say "there you go again" and the media declare them mainstream.

That's the kind of country we live in.

[BobbyJay]

15. Dean is alot like Dukkakis

It will be up to Dean to avoid Dukkakis' mistakes.

[mouse7]

51. read #26 n/t

[Brian_Expat]

21. It comes down to what makes a candidate "electable"

The most electable Democratic candidate is usually not a shoo-in

Does a candidate get elected on the strength of his ideas, or the perception of his personality, or a combo of the two?

If you believe the presidential election is primarily a beauty contest, that colours your outlook. If you believe it's a contest of ideas, that colours your outlook. If you believe it's pulling together a coalition, that colours your ideas too.

However, if you look at the front runners in the primary to date, they have the broadest coalition of their competitors -- Dean and Clark. The other candidates are either regional or have appeal only to a certain segment of the Democratic base -- including most of the candidates making the "I'm more electable" argument.

If they only appeal to a small segment of the party, not enough to win nomination, how are they going to win the election?

[ochazuke]

40. Underarm spray, Fruit Loops, Commander in Cheif: What's the diff?

Strength of ideas v. perception of personality

Also known as Gore v. Bush! Gore has proven himself
a visionary in terms of policy, but was perceived as
aloof and stiff. Bush was lampooned as an idiot, but
Middle America just liked him better.

I don't see how, after the 2000 election, one could
think that ideas count for much in the USA.

Certainly candidates who only appeal to a small segment of the party are not going to get either the nomination or the White House, but with nine candidates in the race, it's hard to say how much appeal some of the candidates who have not been blessed with heavy media coverage really have. And, given the way the system is set up (media obsessions and front-loading, for example), we'll probably never know.

[Brian_Expat]

49. I disagree that Bush vs. Gore was about personality vs. ideas

I don't think Gore ran a very good campaign, his ideas changed all the time, and most of us who volunteered in Massachusetts got tired of his constant policy problems. He was unfairly tarred, but I don't think Bush's selection by the SCOTUS was evidence of Bush's "superior personality."

I think if Bush had gone up against a competent campaigner with consistent ideas that didn't change all the time, he'd have been solidly defeated.

[ochazuke]

58. Image is Everything

Gore would have trounced Bush if he weren't perceived as a robot with a funny lisp.

Ideas mean nothing. A theme, a slogan, and a few sound bytes are the sustitutes for them.

[Brian_Expat]

60. Well. . .

Ideas mean nothing.

I guess we've found the pragmatic cynic in the crowd! :D

Gore would have trounced Bush if he weren't perceived as a robot with a funny lisp

I'm not so sure. Gore was divisive on a number of levels, and I think a lot of Democrats were suffering from Clinton/Gore fatigue. Say what you will about the Big Dog, but he kept us busy an awful lot covering his butt after the whole Monica lie thing (yes, I know it was a GOP jihad, but still he didn't help matters by lying). I also had a hard time getting big-time support from GLBT folks for Gore, given that his government with Clinton supported the DOMA and DADT laws -- and Gore reiterated support for the DOMA law during the campaign.

To a lot of us, that felt like a slap in the face, and the evil nasty Log Cabin Republicans got a lot of gay people to say "see, Gore and Bush are the same on the issues that matter to you so you might as well vote for a tax cut." Silly, of course, but a lack of standing up for what's right DID hurt Gore in that respect -- i.e. "taking the electable position" by conventional wisdom's standard.

[ochazuke]

65. Ideas matter to me

...and to you and lots of other people, and we all vote accordingly I hope.

But the bulk of voters can't handle ideas. They may think they are dealing with ideas, but it's really a gut reaction being rationalized.

[diamondsoul]

70. Your premise doesn't work from the start.

You claim you have to "excite the base to be electable" yet the guy who "excites" the most voters is declared "unelectable" constantly. Apparently exciting voters or the base isn't the key to being electable at all or Dennis Kucinich would be the frontrunner.

[mouse7]

50. read #26 n/t

[virtualobserver]

66. dukakis received 45% of the vote and didn't respond to any attacks

If Dukakis had been assertive, he would easily have beaten Bush Sr.

If Gore had been as assertive as Dean, he would have won in a landslide.


Middle America isn't angry because they don't know what is going on.

They will know what is going on by November 2004.

[mouse7]

68. Read #26

Dukakis didn't respond because of the distractions at home.

[incapsulated]

17. We are not "the world"

Sometimes we nominate candidates that America likes, sometimes we don't.

And very few (if any?) states have anyone leading in the fifty-percent-plus range, so it's still an open field. Especially when candidates start dropping out.

[Brian_Expat]

25. Depends on how you define "we"

If you're talking partisan Democrats, that's one view.

However, Dean has pulled in lots of people who don't identify as traditional Democrats. Ditto for Wes Clark. (Sorry to harp on these two so much, but they're my best examples!) ;)

McCain was argued to be "more electable" than Bush, and if you look at the early races, he was ahead -- by virtue of support of independents and non-Republicans as well as some support in the GOP. If he'd not been crushed by the Rove slander/money machine, he'd have won the GOP nomination and the general election pretty easily. As it stands, his claim to "superior electability" over Bush was confirmed by his lead amongst primary voters.

[incapsulated]

29. I would describe "we" as...

anyone who votes in the Democratic Primaries.

As for McCain, I wish I could play with time, space and probability to prove that if he had the balls to run as an independent, he may well have won that election. ;)

[Brian_Expat]

32. Well then

If "we" is whoever votes in the primary, that's a pretty shifty. . . ehrm, shiftING lot, eh? ;)

[incapsulated]

39. Well...

It all depends on what kind of "outsiders" are voting for a particular democratic candidate in a given primary year.

Dean seems to attract a good share of Greens, who don't exactly represent the average GE voter, as well as self-described "Independents", so I would call that a mixed bag.


If Clark really is pulling in some republicans, they are votes taken away from Bush, which is good, but they aren't necessarily "swing voters" if this is a first for them.

[Brian_Expat]

54. Greens, housewives, GLBT, programmers, punks, etc.

Dean seems to attract a good share of Greens, who don't exactly represent the average GE voter, as well as self-described "Independents", so I would call that a mixed bag

Dean has a lot of support amongst the Greens out there, but I don't think Green supporters splitting from that party and supporting him explains his strength alone. The remarkable thing about his campaign is that he's attracted people from Greens to punks to Silicon Valley professionals to housewives to GLBT activists to retired military and gotten them to pull in the same direction.

Only Clark has done something similar.

I would argue that an "electable" candidate is the one able to pull the most diverse group of Americans together with common interests and get them to pull in the same direction towards a common goal. From that perspective, the front runners in the primary are the likely front runners in the election.

[incapsulated]

63. It's still...

a Democratic Primary. It does not mirror the general election. If that were the case, we would always win.

Front runners in the Primary mean nothing in the General. By that logic, we might as well stay home on election day, because there is no other Republican running except Bush, you know. How's that for front runner status?

[Castilleja]

19. That is a very, very valid question.

Maybe THE most important one with respect to electability discussions.

[TeacherCreature]

67. nail on head

you hit the nail on the head.

[jsw_81]

71. Just because you win the nomination doesn't mean you're the most electable

Democrats nominated George McGovern in '72 instead of a more electable Hubert Humphrey or Ed Muskie, and went down in flames in the general. In '84, we foolishly chose old, tired Walter Mondale over the young, charismatic Gary Hart, and ended up getting crushed in a 49-state landslide. Ditto when we chose Michael Dukakis over Al Gore in '88. Republicans made similar mistakes when they nominated Barry Goldwater in '64 and Bob Dole in '96.

Some have compared Dean with McGovern and the others, but I really think that he is different. He has built what can only be described as one of the best grass-roots organizations in recent history, has raised more money than any Democrat in history, and practically wrapped up the nomination months before the first primary or caucus. You can't accomplish something like that without being an exceptionally talented politician. Not even Bill Clinton (widely considered to be the best politician of his generation) managed to do what Dean has done. It really is an amazing thing to see, and I'm confident that Dean will be the one taking the oath on January 20, 2005. Just watch.