Dean "electability" problem - Can they just avoid the question?

[floridaguy]

(A portion of this was posted under another subject line, but it was locked as not being reflective of the content. This issue is so important, I felt it deserved another shot)

At least some of our leaders are seriously looking at the "electability" issue. In an AP article out of Detroit, Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., has been holding meetings with Democrats around the state about which candidate would be the best nominee while wondering whether it's more important that the candidate have the national security credentials to take on Bush. When asked whether he is comfortable with Dean, Levin responded, "I've not concluded who the strongest candidate is".

On CNN's Crossfire yesterday, Virginia congressman Jim Moran didn't want to answer the question about Dean's electability and really didn't seem interested in who can win the general election. Apparently, somehow he and lots of others have lost sight of the grand prize. Are Dean supporters that focused on winning the primary that they are forgetting that beating George Bush is the real goal?

Excerpt from article:

BEGALA: A moment ago, your colleague, fellow Democrat, Congressman Anthony Weiner, supporting Wesley Clark, said one of the big issues for him is electability. He says his guy can beat President Bush and your guy can't.

BEGALA: Well, President Bush is pounding him in New Hampshire, 57 to 30. Bush crushes Dean. This is a state that was basically a tossup against Al Gore. Bush carried by 7,000 votes. What gives?


MORAN: Well, I think it's early to be focusing on the general election. And we're talking about different issues right now.

When do you think they will start considering whether Dean can actually win in November? This is just plain shortsightedness, and we can't afford nominating a candidate without full consideration of his electability. I believe if they're asking the question on CNN, electability is now an official issue and Democrats need to follow the lead of Senator Levin of Michigan by truly determining who is the best candidate.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/02/cf.00.html

[HFishbine]

1. "When do you think they will start considering..."

Who is "they." It seems as if a lot of they have already decided Dean is electable.

[Scott Lee]

2. I guess Begala hasn't noticed the latest CNN poll

"BEGALA: Well, President Bush is pounding him in New Hampshire, 57 to 30. Bush crushes Dean. This is a state that was basically a tossup against Al Gore. Bush carried by 7,000 votes. What gives?"

Dean is now running only 5 points behind Junior.

Bush "crushes" Dean, Paul? By five measly points?

Paul, what are you drinking these days, and can I have some?

[poskonig]

4. The establishment is running out of ammo.

Like I'm going to switch my vote to a Bush praiser from the pentagon because Dean is down by five points a year before the election. Get real.

[dsc]

3. If we are going to use the polls now standard

then we may as well run no one. Clark and Dean are within the MOE of each other on virtually all of these polls. Dean will, unlike Clark, be able to actually campaign from April to July. That is easily worth a couple of points.

[Green4Dean]

5. deceptive

Here you go again, with this nonsense...You cut Moran off in the middle of his response, you misrepresent the question which was why Are you down so many points in a month old "NewHampshire only poll" I saw the show and Begala put words in weiners mouth.

Weiner never said Dean couldn't win, and infact said dean was qualified to be commander in chief.

Well here is the exchange between Begala and moran....much diferent than your presentation...

BEGALA: A moment ago, your colleague, fellow Democrat, Congressman Anthony Weiner, supporting Wesley Clark, said one of the big issues for him is electability. He says his guy can beat President Bush and your guy can't. (Begala lied about what weiner said)

And, indeed, let's take a look at a poll that was conducted recently in New Hampshire, the state where, of course, Governor Dean is winning.

MORAN: Is leading.

BEGALA: Overwhelmingly.

MORAN: Right.

BEGALA: And his campaign's strong and, frankly, has campaigned brilliantly.

MORAN: Right.

BEGALA: Despite all that exposure, look at this poll.

MORAN: I was just in New Hampshire last week.

BEGALA: Well, President Bush is pounding him in New Hampshire, 57 to 30. Bush crushes Dean. This is a state that was basically a tossup against Al Gore. Bush carried by 7,000 votes. What gives?

MORAN: Well, I think it's early to be focusing on the general election. And we're talking about different issues right now.

Howard Dean is going to take every issue to George Bush. That's why he's running. I do think that the problem with his opponents is, they're not taking the issues to George Bush. They're trying to undermine Howard Dean.

And they'd be far better served, both in the Democratic primary and as candidates, individually and collectively, if they would do what Howard Dean is doing, which is raising the issue that this Medicare bill is a horrible bill for our sickest and oldest seniors. These tax cuts have put our -- the next generation into $12 trillion of debt they'll never get out of, and that the going to war was done under false pretenses.

That's what the Democrats need to be focusing on, not trying to find distinctions between themselves and Howard Dean. The distinction ought to be between themselves and George Bush.

[pasadenaboy]

6. these are the same guys who said

"vote for the iraq war resolution, so we can focus on the economy in 2002" -result was disaster.

these are the same people who knew nothing about Dean and thought Kerry or Lieberman were shoo ins for the nomination.

These guys know nothing. They are in the beltway and don't understand what average americans think or care about.

[madfloridian]

7. Begala lied. He cited an older poll. He ignored the new one by CNN.

That is called a lie by omission.

Floridaguy, Dean does not have an electability problem except in the eyes of supporters of other candidates.

This is a bunch of hogwash and baloney, and it is tiresome when your one goal is to go after Dean.

Shame on you.

[Leilani]

8. I really think it's silly to depend on polls

It's still way to early; only activists are aware of candidates, their positions, etc.

Some people will vote based on electability factors, some will vote on personality, some will vote on issues, & some will vote based on a combination of all these factors.

I wish the primaries were not so front loaded, because it does not allow voters to become fully informed.

I truly believe Clark is most electable, however I will vote for any nominee against Bush.

[joefree1]

9. Clinton lesson for those who think Dean is unelectable

Ominous Polls:
A look at the Gallup polls over the past few moths show why Democrats are becoming increasingly nervous about putting Clinton at the head of their ticket.
In a head-to-head match up on March 20, Bush led by only 52-43 percent and Clinton was indeed within striking range. But as the weekly disclosures took their toll during the ensuing primaries, Clinton's margin fell to 54-38 percent on March 29 and then fell further to 54-34 by the beginning of April.
Edit ...
Quayle campaign committee, "We're following the Napoleonic maxim: Never interfere with the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves."
http://www.worldandi.com/public/1992/june/cr6.cfm

Are we in the process of "destroying themselves?"

Images from Dean Rocks the House of Blues, Hollywood
From wtmusic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=919849
From Joefree1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921300