Dean WILL Win if Nominated -- but he may hurt us in the Senate

[liberalpragmatist]

I try to stay as neutral as possible. I support John Kerry for President, but will actively support ANY of the candidates and find good things about all of them.

One thing that I truly believe is that Howard Dean CAN win, as, I believe, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, and John Edwards can. Lieberman, no -- I personally would vote for him and I think he gets a bum rap, but I also find him grating, too centrist for this campaign, and too hawkish. More significantly, were he to be nominated, the Greens would win between 6% and 10% of the vote -- I firmly believe that.

As for Dean, though I am not certain, I find it plausible to believe that he may be the strongest candidate electorally.

Yes, Dean.

Why? Because he is the only candidate in the race, other than Wes Clark (to a much lesser extent) to generate widespread and genuine enthusiasm in voters. Though at least 40% of the country (probably 45%) would be firmly and violently against him -- which is only partly hyperbole -- the other 55-60% would be receptive enough to at least listen to him. Dean appeals to people b/c, regardless of whether he is or not (I'll leave that question up to others) people see him as genuine. He's not another Washington pol, but someone who truly strikes people as a maverick outsider who'll do what he wants to do. Impressions matter.

This impression has given his supporters tremendous enthusiasm, and he will motivate our base more strongly than any other candidate. Moreover, a large chunk of independents, certainly left-leaning independents will be extremely taken by Dean. Those independents like people who appear to be like them, and Dean doesn't seem like just another "party hack". Nor should Dean's appeal to youth be underestimated. It shouldn't be overestimated either, but it is true that surveys have found far larger proportions of youth intending to vote next year than in previous years, and Dean is very popular among them. It's very possible that there could be a singificant spike in youth voters -- nothing seismic, but a significant turnout nonetheless.

Dean is the quintessential blue-stater. In that, he'll help solidify our hold on most of the blue states. I say that, having thought through this, I can see no realistic chance that Dean will or that Dean even CAN lose ANY Gore states. Dean appeals perfectly to ALL the states Gore won, and he appeals doubly well to many of those states where Gore almost lost -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington, in particular. All those states had significant Green Party support and all those states have an affinity for mavericks and outsiders. Dean would solidify our hold over those states and allow us to move resources to more effectively compete in other states.

Dean would be especially well-placed to pick up Arizona and Nevada. Even Colorado, which went to Bush 51-43-6 (Bush: Gore: Nader) could be vulnerable. Dean's outsider appeal, feistiness, and perceived "rugged" streak really does make him the best placed of any candidate to successfully pursue a "Southwest" strategy.

It's true the South would be Dean's weakest locale. I realistically cannot see Arkansas, Louisiana, or Tennessee falling to us, although given enough resources, they may be competitive. The only Democrat who would really have a better-than-even chance in those states would be Gephardt -- but we're talking about Dean. Dean would be well-placed in Florida, b/c demographically, that's increasingly NOT a Southern state (save for the Panhandle -- "Lower Alabama"). His passion can realistically enthuse Florida's disenfranchised Democrats, hungry for vengeance after Al Gore's treatment at the hands of the machine.

Dean, any Democrat, really, also has a better-than-even chance in West Virginia, which will be very hard for Bush to carry again. Ohio and Missouri, key MidWest states, will be harder for Dean than for some of the others, but if job woes in those states continue, than as long as Dean makes sure to keep enough resources in those states, keeps strong union support, and fights hard, he has a strong chance there as well.

So there you have it -- the realistic analysis of how Dean can win. The main downside is in the South, downticket. Democratic congress members and congressional candidates will have to fight hard to dissociate themselves from Dean. They won't endorse Bush, but they'll have to run as local favorites. While Landrieu showed that's possible, it'll be difficult. They will be hounded all the way by the Republican establishment "smearing" them with ads with Howard Dean. In the Senate, where we have a chance at pickups, Dean could hurt us, b/c especially in Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, being associated with Dean could hurt us. North Carolina to some extent too, and, of course, the Repubs will use it in Fla. to rally their base, but it won't hurt as much there.

[CMT]

1. not necessarily

in '84 when Mondale lost 49 states and did quite badly in the south, he didn't hurt Senate democrats. Most people are able to split their votes. For instance, in '84 a man named Al Gore was elected as a freshman Senator from Tennessee during the Reagan landslide. We have strong candidates in Tennenbaum in SC and Bowles in NC. We may also have a strong candidate in Castor in Florida.

Also, I'm not convinced with his moderate record on fiscal matters and support for states right regarding Guns that Dean will be a drag in the South.

Outside the south we also have potential for pick ups in Illinois, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Missouri.

[Sean Reynolds]

2. Remember, during both the Reagan landslides Democrats kept control

Of both the house and senate.

[liberalpragmatist]

4. I realize that...

...I'm not saying that he WILL hurt us -- I'm simply saying the potential is very much there. We will have to plan on it and work, b/c the pt. is that we need to be prepared for anything. Can we keep all our Southern seats if Dean is the nominee? Yes. Will we? Remains to be seen. Will it be easy? Probably not. Will it be a very tough fight? Probably yes. Still, we won't have a good idea of how it'll affect us until later next yr.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. You must have missed that NH poll last week

where Dean was getting summarily creamed by Bush.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. I largely discount polls at this point...

... and look at generic re-elect #'s and general voting trends. Once the general election campaign is up, the same trends that have increased Democratic vote share in each of the last elections will play a role again -- the trends are undeniable -- see "The Emerging Democratic Majority."

I'm with you with Kerry -- I'm hoping for him. But all hope isn't lost if he isn't the nominee. In fact, as long as you're on NH, I might as well add that Dean could be very well placed in NH in the GE campaign -- forgot to add that. Kerry would too. Both would be well-placed to pick up the 3% of Nader voters that kept Gore from winning NH.

Now, could Dean's tax platform hurt in NH? Sure -- the potential is definitely there. But we shall see -- there's still plenty of time in this.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. but they know him well there.

It doesn't bode well for Dean in a national race against Bush.

[MercutioATC]

8. The "Bush vs. Whomever" polls are nearly meaningless at this point...

...because the "whomever" has yet to be determined. Once we have a nominee, we can get a true picture, not before.

6. Perhaps this is true

--- At this stage of things though, I'll take my chances.

1) Would you rather have a Democratic Senate and a Republican President for the next 4 years? The way the Democratic Senators have been acting recently, what's the benefit?


2) I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing, in the interest of checks and balances, to have a Republican Senate and a Democratic President.

[AP]

9. Dean is simply not going to win. Listen to him talk. Listen to what he...

...says. If you don't think Bush is going to have an easy time beating him, I just have to wonder if you paid attention to politics before January 1, 2003.

Why do Americans have such problems with long term memory.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Chances are EXTREMELY slim...

That we are going to get any democrat with a senate majority. Even if we did it's not that significant if we can't win the house as well because the Republicans would fillibuster our judicial nominees like we did theirs.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. No, we have a better shot in the Senate than People Realize

Look, it's 51-49 right now -- that's it. If we hold all our open seats and pick up Alaska and Illinois, we'll reverse that.

Let's be realistic and assume that out of our 5 open southern seats, we lose 2 -- Georgia and one other one, take your pick: NC, SC, Fla., La. -- not that we WILL lose all, let's fight like hell to keep them, but I'm just assuming a relatively realistic scenario.

So that leaves us 53-47 Republican advantage. Throw in wins in Alaska, Illinois, and, let's say, Pennsylvania or, less likely, Oklahoma, or both, and we get a 50-50 senate or a 51-49 senate our advantage.

And it's the Senate that confirms judicial nominees -- not the House. So, yes, it's very important we take the Senate.