I think it usually misses the point to talk about whether a candidate is, simply, "electable", in some binary sense.

It's much more useful to talk about HOW electable a candidate is -- that is, what the likelihood is that he could be elected, or what is the likelihood that events will play out in such a way that people will choose to elect him.

Clearly there are scenarios under which Dean would be elected -- if Iraq becomes a unprecedented disaster, if Bush is caught out in numerous lies that even his handlers have no effective way to dispute, if some other scandal engulfs the Bush administration, or if the economy takes such a horrible downturn that the American people will want to hear about nothing else, and Bush, as usual, has no answers.

Now, what's NOT clear is whether Dean has a serious prospect of being elected if less extreme scenarios play out instead, and Bush is not so much weakened by events.

The issue of real interest should be, who among the candidates is MOST electable, that is, in the greatest number of circumstances can be elected.

One reason I much favor Kerry over Dean is that Kerry is, in this sense, more electable. Here's the question to ask yourself: in what circumstances would Kerry be electable, while Dean would not? I think that in the situations in which Bush is less damaged by events, Kerry is almost certainly more electable than Dean. If Iraq turns out not so badly, and/or if no further major exposure of Bush's lying comes about, and/or the economy somewhat stabilizes, then Kerry is far better positioned to win than is Dean. If the more extreme conditions arise, then Bush is likely to be so weakened that EITHER Dean or Kerry will be elected.

And if Kerry IS the more electable of the two, I wonder why any Democrat would choose to support Dean instead of Kerry? If anyone could explain a good reason to do so, please offer it up.

I forgot to mention the reverse question of the one I had posed.

This other question is: under what scenarios would Dean likely be elected, but Kerry would not? I pretty much gave my own answer to this question, namely that I really couldn't think of a scenario in which people would elect Dean, but would not elect Kerry.

If anyone else can come up with a counterexample, I'd like to hear it.

Kerry is not very exciting. He looks long, drawn out, gray and tired. I don't think people will perceive that he has it in him to take on Rove Cheney Bush much less our national security questions.

I have to agree with John. When discussing the presidential candidates for the last few months with a friend of mine, the number one concern my friend had was simple: "Can he beat Bush?"

While temporaily enamored with Senator Kerry's impressive resume, he made two realizations after watching him for a while. The first is important: John Kerry seems content to ride his own coattails to the nomination. No new, bold ideas, simply rhetoric about bold ideas. I don't care if you fought in Vietnam John. What are you going to do for me now?

The second point that dawned upon my friend was that John Kerry looks like he's about to fall over dead. It's unfortunate, but true. Contrast this to Howard Dean, filled with an energetic vitality and true charisma. He looks the part he's playing, that of a fresh face set out to change things for the better.

I think Dean is MORE not less electable than John Kerry just for the reason that I haven't seen anything from Kerry that tells me he is a match for Karl Rove. Heck he's not even a match for Howard Dean!

I love Howard Dean's "guerrila campaign tactics" because he is playing to win. His speeches make me laugh and cheer and rise to my feet! Just face it, Howard Dean makes people swoon (I have the Newsweek cover propped up by my computer at work. The man's intelligence and looks are sooo darned sexy!!).

If it came to Kerry or Gephardt or Edwards or Graham (anyone but Lieberman) vs. Bush, I would of course vote against Bush, but I ain't doing no where near as much to get these guys elected because I can't get into it.

On the other hand, I tell everyone who will listen about Howard Dean. I put 2 bumper stickers on my car (one in front so they can see me coming and one in back so they can see me going). I gave him all the $ my employer would let me give (a measly $250). I've told my family that the best birthday present I could get is if they donate $ to Howard Dean.

I'm also part of a group that is planning how to help Howard Dean win our state caucus. Before this election, I didn't even know we were a caucus state.

I'm putting my all into helping Howard Dean because I want someone to vote for instead of voting against George W. Bush.

So yes, John Kerry is the safe candidate as is John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, etc. But as in sports, sometimes playing it safe and being darned predictable is a great way to lose.

p.s. Just curious. How much are you doing for your candidate John Kerry?

I caught Kerry on CSpan today (well yesterday by now...) Road to the WH series. In NH, one of those smallish meetings in a restaurant. I thought the audience was polite, and that ws it. His answers were rhetorical spin and, frankly, pretty flat.
He looks unwell, missing that super infusion of energy that running for the WH, IF YOU REALLY WANT IT and are not just assuming it is your due, comes naturally. Really, for me, that is the big divide with Dean. True fire.
Too much star turn atmosphere with Kerry. In his mind - and not in reality.

frankly0:

Scenario 1:
Assume Kerry runs against Bush. The percentage of votes that Kerry gets is probably pretty similar to the percentage of votes that Dean would get (plus or minus a small amount if you like) assuming the same set of voters.

Scenario 2:
Assume Dean runs against Bush. The key difference is the set of voters. Dean would get a higher percentage of the vote in this scenario than he would get in #1 above, as would Kerry.

The key difference is that in Scenario #2 it is Dean running with his grassroots support, his excited support, his ability to raise money, his ability to change the media coverage, his ability to get the message out, and his ability to attract positive attention that makes a difference in the turnout.

It is this ability to affect who votes and how many people vote that can make a difference. Is it risky? Possibly. But I think it is less risky than a 'I am like Bush except more to the center' approach.

frankly0 - since you didn't answer the question I posed last week and the conclusions you have drawn here, it would seem that you're still having trouble with the analysis part.

This time you have it completely wrong. There are no scenarios in which Kerry wins and Dean doesn't and many the other way round. However, there would be more winning scenarios for Kerry than Joe. Take the three major factors again, defense, economy, character. Straight A's for GWB and nobody beats him. Straight C's and he beats Joe, Kerry and Dick have a chance and Dean beats GWB because mediocre incumbents are vulnerable against a strong opponent. That would be for the national popular vote.

Add the electoral map and the outcome might be a bit different. In that context, Dick has a better chance at beating GWB because if GWB gets Cs, MO will go with Dick but not necessarily with Kerry.

IMHO, Dean's strength is his ability to get young people involved in the political process. I finally saw him on Larry King the other night. He did a decent job. Then came the panel discussion from the press. He will have a lot to overcome in this area. The press has him pegged as the new George McGovern/Eugene McGovern. They seem to consider him a long shot but who may make a change in the political discussion.

Doesn’t it make you feel uncomfortable when you find out your best bud’s been lying to you, killing your sons and daughters and stealing your money? Apparently that’s what a lot of people think – they’re the ones who used to watch the news. While the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/business/media/11EYES.html?th credits this decline in viewing only to “burnout” or “break-taking” it’s well known that people like to tune in to news that supports their world view (by the way, Fox News bucks the trend. Its audience is up). While most readers here appreciate truth in broadcasting, most Americans have been content to suck up the candy-coated lies of their best bud.

My bet is that awareness of the lies and incompetence of the Bush administration has finally made its way to the masses and is causing enough discomfort to make that particular candy taste bad. Another factor the article didn’t mention is that blog and foreign news readership is way up as people search for new and more balanced news. This trend against swallowing government/big media lies can only grow in the next year and augers well for the Democrats.

Finally, of the major Democratic candidates, only Dean refused to endorse the administration’s lies about the war. Iraq never posed an immanent threat to America and its possible, eventual threat to the Middle East could have been handled much differently. So, too, tax cuts, the SEC, unemployment, global warming and so on. We have what may be evidence now that more and more Americans are becoming uncomfortable with Bush’s deceptions and I see Dean as the one to win big in the general election because of that.

Seems to me that Dean supporters are intent on making their prophecy of Dean winning come true by the sheer volume of support they give him; in publicity, financially, in [wo]manpower, new signups, etc. Say it enough times and it'll come true. There's some merit to this. The point at which I realised the magnitude and degree of mobilisation in Dean's support network was when I read about the Tokyo Meetups. Damn. Tokyo. He's Big in Japan, at least.

This is not to detract from their efforts. I've got nothing but praise for people who encourage others to participate in the democratic process, and I've got plenty of respect for those who stand up and go into bat for what they believe.

But there's the rub: it's belief that Dean supporters have in spades. Well, money, numbers, local/vocal organisation, and belief. But without the belief the rest are useless. In the Dean cammpaign, especially as evidenced on DeanBlogs and some threads at Kos, I see the same sort of belief for which so many people have condemned the Bush Administration over WMD. I'm sure this will offend plenty of folks.

What worries me about the way Dean supporters argue is that they tend not to argue from demonstrable issues or points. They argue from the heart, from faith in Their Man. When asked why Dean is better than Candidate X, the answer tends to be "He's got fire in his belly" or "Did you see how he did in such and such an interview?" or just "I really think Dean can do it!" It's all-or-nothing, there's no sense in which he's simply the best candidate of many, rather, to his supporters he's the perfect Democrat. This sort of rose-tinted idealism is, I suppose, a requisite frame of mind for someone committing to something so wholeheartedly, but it worries me nonetheless. I see it more often on the Right.

So, I wonder if it's a sound base upon which to set a campaign. This campaign is absolutely without precedent, and what that means is that there's no history behind it to back it up. You can throw me all the gallantries you like about history mattering less than The Future, but they're very much tied together. How can Dean's supporters demonstrate to the suspicious voting population at large that their man is the best shot against Bush?

Disclaimer: I'm not American and I don't, as they say, have a cock in this fight. No snide partisan remarks, please. If anything, I support the Dean community, because if they can win they will have inaugurated a powerful new tool in the service of democracy. But if they fail, and there's any likelihood the tried and true method could have succeeded... well, I think it's fair to say I'd never forgive the person who made the blunder that sent George W. Bush into a second term.

L

Dean has several hurdles to overcome, but he is not unelectable. He has flipflopped several times on big issues, so he's going to get reamed on those because he's seen as a 'straight talker'. He's also got bad numbers among women, which is a huge problem for a Democrat.

That said, he can get elected as President. But there's no way that he can help us take back congress. And winning means winning Congress and the Presidency.

I believe it was Steve who said 'put a fork in Bush', he's done. Well if that's true (and I believe it is), then the answer is who has the biggest coattails. Dean's support is in Blue States and urban areas and his unfavorables elsewhere are high. So he has negative coattails.

good post MattS.
I have to agree that Dean is very weak among the 'soccer mom' voters. I also see him very weak among minority voters. He also is the weakest candidate as far as the south goes. I know that none of the candidates may carry the south, however, I tend to think that a candidate who is that weak in the south will have more problems in states in the midwest (which is where the battle for votes will be)

"How can Dean's supporters demonstrate to the suspicious voting population at large that their man is the best shot against Bush?"

There is no way to demonstrate that shot. The empirical data you're looking for can only come from a real election.

I for one would much, much rather engage a real grassroots campaign like Dean's, give it a shot and see what happens that endorse the traditional "smart" lazy ass mentality (which precisely generated the heinous war vote by Kerry, which is the only reason the [expletive] is not the total front runner right now).

Many times in life you just hafta Do It And See. The line is a favorite of mine from a great author, Herman Wouk in City Boy. In a way all this mental jockeying about who can win really, really bugs me. The Republicans have all three branches of governemtn and the press, yet Democrats still poke around all the old ways with the old faces. I undertsand, but jesus with odds like that why the hell wouldn't anyone try something new?

Do it and see.

great post Louis.
You have some very good points and questions.
As a Dean supporter (2nd) and Democrat (1st) I will have to think hard about what you point out, as well as what MattS says.

I guess right now I see "the others" (Kerry, Gep, Edwards and Joe) all as weaker, albeit in different ways than Howard Dean and each other.
We need someone to take Bush and the Republicans on and quit apologizing for being Democrats, Progressive and Liberal. In my book, those are all good qualities.

Walsh is just another media maven who is trying to push the "flavor of the month" in the campaign, and that's Howard Dean.

No rational observer gives this man a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, much less the presidency. When a candidate goes out of his way to piss off the donors and the party loyalists in a cynical attempt to galvanize the far left (despite being further to the rigth of any candidate save Bush), he's pretty well sealed his fate. And lying about his record, which we know he did with regard to his statements on Social Security at last week's forum, to say nothing about lying about the other candidates, doesn't help his dismal chances. I know the man will NEVER get my vote if he were to get the nomination, and this is somebody who would vote for any of the other candidates. I'll write in Gore's name instead. I think there are many other loyal Democrats who feel the same way.

Honestly, who would run on the ticket with him if he were to get the nomination? Nobody wants to ruin his career by doing so. Yet I read all kinds of nonsense about how this candidate or that candidate would make a good "running mate" for the Unelectable One.

The only use Dean has in the race is to help Karl Rove in the latter's effort to tarnish the eventual Democratic nominee. Just as in 1972 the Committee for the Re-election of the President helped along the McGovern campaign by using dirty tricks to oust the more electable candidates during the primaries.

Remember: Don't feed the trolls!

So what I'm hearing here, to summarize a bit simplistically, is that Dean is more electable than Kerry because he has a much better campaigning personality than Kerry. Is that really it? Do his supporters truly believe that personality simply trumps policies? Or do they believe that the policies Dean backs will be equally or more palatable to most Americans than Kerry's?

I'll be the first to agree that on issues of personality, Dean wins over Kerry big time (although Dean's purported disagreeableness may turn into a real liability too) and I'll grant that Kerry's public persona is his weakest point. Yet I ask, was it because he lacked personality that McGovern lost so massively? Or was it his policy positions? Was it because Bush was an exciting speaker that he won in 2000?

A couple of further responses:

Marie says,

frankly0 - since you didn't answer the question I posed last week.

As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Diane asks,

p.s. Just curious. How much are you doing for your candidate John Kerry?

Not much yet.

Democrats really need to plan for the worst possible scenario (because, frankly, it's quite possible):

- Iraq simmers down, and order is established
- Saddam is captured/killed
- Eloquent Iraqis start publicly thanking the US
- The economy levels out (no surge required)
- North Korea begins to be dealt with effectively, through diplomacy
- Iran heats up, and we have troops nearby to apply pressure

Under these circumstances, Bush will be a very, very difficult man to beat. By nature, Americans are not going to want to change things up just as we've started effectively fighting terror. Let's keep these assumptions intact for the remainder of this message.

Does anyone really, truly believe that America will elect a former Governor and Doctor from Vermont to continue effectively waging the war on terror? No matter how great, smart, and cool Dean is, I'm just not seeing how the NASCAR DADs and SECURITY MOMs all over the nation are going to decide to *risk* changing things midstream unless things continue to go horribly.

There are some other aspects of a Dean ticket that, unfortunately, will be issues that will be played up:

- The First Lady would go by Dr. Judith Steinberg. And she would continue her private practice from within the White House. Ummm, and you thought Hillary was polarizing?

- Dean is not just for homosexual rights, but he has legislation to back it. Goodbye South and Heartland. Check the latest Gallup polls, there is a brewing backlash against all the Gay progress reported in the news these days.

- Quite the opposite of the article quoted in your message, Dean does not look comfortable in his skin to many, many people I know. This turns off women like my fiancée, a devoted Democrat. She thinks he's arrogant, stiff, and disturbing to look at for long periods of time.

- Dean represents partisan anger. This certainly has its pros (more Dems will vote if they're angry), but he may turn off the moderates/independents.

The current belief is that if the Democratic party is to oust a President-At-War, they're going to need the bulk of the moderate/independent vote to overcome the newly-conservative Democrats (esp. the influential Jewish Democrats, who are behind the Bush policies on Israel).

There's no doubt that I'd pay to see Dean debate Bush. It'd be a lot of fun, and I think it would get a lot of Democrats excited. But we've seen how America reacts to Bush -- we give him a free pass on everything because he looks like he needs our sympathy to get him through, the poor guy. Just because it'll be fun doesn't mean it's what Democrats need to do to win.

The Democrats have not proven that they have a real frontrunner yet. The Democrats are happy that Bush's numbers are down 20% from wartime. Big Deal. His approval ratings are still hovering at 60% and everything is going horribly, everywhere. How is this good news??

Something needs to SPARK the Democratic Party -- to grow the party beyond partisan feel-good rhetoric. Rhetoric won't win the election, but a new, positive message to capture the nation will.

Will the Democratic Party get that SPARK?

Only time will tell.

Jon

You're absolutely right, Louis, about the power and limitations of belief in regards to Dean's supporters. I'd go further and say that belief is the key determiner in presidential politics. Does this guy have what it takes to be President? Do the voters think he looks Presidential? In the voting booth, it's a personal question of one's belief. In the public arena, belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: when enough people believe that a candidate has what it takes, or that he's electable, or that he will win, then he will. As you say, no amount of money, or campaigning, or popular stands on issues can make a difference without belief. On the other hand, President Bush provides daily evidence of the dangers of belief unsupported by reality--he's "all hat, no cattle" on WMDs, dividend tax cuts creating jobs, etc.

I'm happy to admit to bias--I'm a big Dean fan--but I'm also a teacher of writing, and I know a well-constructed argument when I see one. I've read many posts from Dean supporters expressing belief that he will win and that he's the best choice, and yes, many of them cite personal faith in that belief, but I more regularly see critiques of Dean based on what I consider contrary beliefs and/or faulty arguments. In the Daily Kos cattle calls, for instance, Dean supporters regularly give substantive reasons for their claims, often in an effort to refute drive-by criticisms by folks like Susan Nunes, who I see has joined the discussion here. She offers a lot of vitriolic opinions and only one fact--that Dean misrepresented his stance on the retirement age for Social Security (By the way, he offered a public correction the next day. If he's a liar, Susan, he's showing a distressing pattern of coming clean.) Her other claims follow a discernible pattern. "No rational observer," she declares, "gives this man a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, much less the presidency." A quick Google search will provide hundreds of examples of people, often considered rational, giving him somewhat better than a snowball's chance, so on its face, Susan's statement demonstrates either willful ignorance or belief overwhelming reason.

In answer to Frankly0's question, I can think of many reasons why Dean is a superior candidate to Kerry, even as I acknowledge that Kerry's Vietnam record and his national security experience greatly trump anything Dean can offer in that arena: Dean has executive experience as a governor, which routinely trumps legislative experience in presidential hustings. Kerry has had to vote thousands of times, and we all know the Right would find ways of twisting his record (vote against some procedural bill and suddenly you're against all tax reform). As a governor, Dean gets direct credit for his leadership with Vermont's budget, its health care, its support for labor issues, its early-childhood health and education initiatives, its stewardship of the environment, etc. I'm not willfully ignorant of Kerry's record, but I know of no laws for which he deserves primary credit (though I'm happy to learn of any). He's a senator, one of a hundred, and before 2002, I believe he was widely considered the second-favorite senator from Massachusetts. As a doctor, Dean's health care bonafides are further strengthened. Dean's stance on gun control inoculates him from the sorts of attacks that hurt Gore throughout the South and could hurt Kerry. And Dean's anti-war stance on Iraq is a big plus for me, although I believe that it is still trumped by Kerry's military and national security experience.

So, Frankly0, while I would love for Dean to have Kerry's military background, I think Dean will score better than Kerry with Democratic and Independent Southerners on such issues as gun control, balancing budgets, and health care. His willingness to speak out on Bush is another plus, I believe.

Dean's biggest advantage over Kerry, though, is I believe his ability to excite the base while attracting independents, Republicans, disaffected voters, and new voters. If Kerry is the nominee, I believe there will still be considerable activism on the Left, because too many people recognize the dangers of a second Bush term for there not to be. But if Dean is the nominee, the level of grassroots activism is going to be simply amazing. Much of it would be due to the power of belief, but for me, and for the Dean supporters I know, that belief is based upon a solid knowledge of his stands on the issues and a recognition of his effects on audiences. Dean's detractors seem too often to disregard what a lot of neutral reporters (like Joan Walsh) are writing about: Dean routinely goes into someone else's backyard, like Gephardt's unions, and receives a more enthusiastic response.

I recognize that I have repeatedly written the words "I believe" in my answer. That's because I have no way of knowing for sure. But I base that belief on my understanding of the issues, the candidates, and the electorate and upon a recognition of how Dean is so far being received.

- Iraq simmers down, and order is established
Not likely, especially once the US nationalizes Iraqi assets without an Iraqui vote on the matter.

- Saddam is captured/killed
Bin Laden too? The Anthrax Killer?

- Eloquent Iraqis start publicly thanking the US
Chalabi’s already tried that. Pulled down a statue, remember?

- The economy levels out (no surge required)
God, I hope so! I’m in serious trouble now. I also have a long memory, Mr Bush.

- North Korea begins to be dealt with effectively, through diplomacy
By this crew? Fat chance.

- Iran heats up, and we have troops nearby to apply pressure
Iran and NK are both militarizing as fast as possible to defend from American aggression, not to attack anyone else. And we don’t have the troops, international support or, this time, domestic support for adventuring.

My guess is there will be a domestic terrorist ‘event’ to galvanize the people. But that could backfire easily. What’s a poor administration gonna do as it watches the poll numbers slip?

This is going to be an Anybody But Bush election and whatever candidate opposes him will win. Dean is best qualified because he never endorsed Bush’s rush to war.

Sorry, - Iraq simmers down, and order is established
Not likely, especially once the US nationalizes Iraqi assets without an Iraqui vote on the matter

should have said privatizes of course.

I should probably try to explain a little more what I had in mind when I said, originally, that I could not envision scenarios in which Kerry lost but Dean won.

I split the scenarios into two (obviously simplifying here). First scenario, things go very badly for Bush -- very bad Iraq and/or very bad economy, for example. In this case, I think that Dean's extreme anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war stand will serve him in very good stead, and will make people see him as exactly the best possible replacement. Yet the question remains, how would Kerry fare in this scenario? Well, it might indeed be true that the people will find even Kerry not to have been critical enough of Bush, and of the Iraq war. Yet whom would they choose in this circumstance, Kerry or Bush? Obviously, I should think, the one who is not the disaster which is Bush, namely Kerry.

On the other hand, if things turn out not so badly in Iraq and the economy, it's hard to see why people would view the more extreme positions of Dean as better expressing their sentiments. If Bush doesn't look so bad, then constant trashing of him, and of the Iraq war, is going to look out of control and strident to them. In that case, I think Kerry's more moderate content and style will serve him well, and make it far more likely that he would be elected than would be Dean.

Now I'll grant that this does not much factor into account the whole personality thing. Could people who think personality is a really big deal, even in a campaign as saturated with news as is the Presidential race, please come up with some convincing examples of personality triumphing over policy? I'm having a real problem thinking of such cases.

To answer the question above, which roughly asked, is candidate personality determinative?: not in a yes/no sense -- Ted Kennedy, for instance, wouldn't have beaten Nixon in '72, because the country's economic/foreign policy state was conducive to incumbent re-election. But, as Marie says, in an election where the incumbent's vulnerable, challenger charisma level is the single factor most likely to tip the scale. Best example: 1980. Reagan -- who was far more out of the mainstream at the time than Howard Dean is today -- ended up winning by a decisive margin, and there's much evidence it was based on personal appeal. We don't know that a Howard Baker/George H.W. Bush would have done as well, though, on paper, they were "closer to the center". Lily Tomlin has a character who says Reality is just a collective hunch"; "electability" is pretty much the same, and only an actual election can test our various theories.

Two things in the Walsh article stood out for me/reflected my experience. First, her contention that to understand Dean's appeal/charisma you have to see it close up. There are people, here and elsewhere, who persist in declaring Dean "mean", and even claim he comes off terrible in person. This runs wildly counter to my own impression, and that of the many who are enthusiastically signing up. I suggest some just haven't seen him in the right venue (my wife totally reversed her opinion based on his Iowa appearance last Thursday). It's worth noting that many people I know (solid Dems) had no idea of Clinton's charisma as late as April/May '92.

The second thing to which I responded was Walsh's "I still like Kerry, and maybe Edwards...but Dean's the one makes me giddy". For quite a while after encountering Dean, I expressed the same feelings, saying any of them would be fine with me. But I slowly began to realize that all my enthusiasm was for Dean, and finally I realized that anyone else (though I'd vote for them) would be a disappointment. I think this level of enthusiasm for a candidate is, contrary to what some her have expressed, VITAL for electoral success.

And lying about his record, which we know he did with regard to his statements on Social Security at last week's forum, to say nothing about lying about the other candidates, doesn't help his dismal chances.

Actually I think the whole issue of "lying" is not much going to hurt Dean or any other Democratic candidate. One of the most promising aspects of the upcoming election is that Bush, who ran on his trustworthiness, has permanently removed honesty from the category of winning issues for him. From here on out, it is a LOSING issue. The Democratic comeback -- that Bush has lied lies that have sent people off to their deaths -- is pretty much a knockdown argument.

I think that this fact is indeed another reason that Kerry is a VERY good matchup with Bush. One of the memes about Kerry that was making the rounds was that he was not forthright, for example that he dissembled about his heritage -- was he Irish or Jewish? I think that Rove is going to have one hell of a time getting any traction out of such a trivial matter when Bush was caught out lying in the State of the Union speech. On the question of honesty, it is now Bush who always loses, no matter who the Democratic candidate.

Best example: 1980. Reagan -- who was far more out of the mainstream at the time than Howard Dean is today -- ended up winning by a decisive margin, and there's much evidence it was based on personal appeal.

Remember, Reagan won against Carter, who, fairly or not, was held responsible for the Iran hostage disaster, and a terrible economy. What Republican would NOT have beaten him? Reagan's winning is, I think, roughly comparable to Dean's winning if both Iraq and the economy are in horrible shape -- yes Dean could win, but so could any other Democratic candidate. The important question is, what happens if things aren't so bad in 2004? Those are the interesting scenarios.

The problem with counting on charisma is that it is in the eye of the beholder. The candidate with the most charisma, IMHO, is Edwards. So, while many of you may think that Dean has charisma, there are probably just as many who think he doesn't. How tall is Dean? What would he look like standing next to Bush in a debate. Isn't it the meme that the tall one always wins? If he is short like Dukakis-he may have a lot of problems looking like a leader. I know this is stupid but height is something concrete that people can definitely see where charisma is subjective.

Lily Tomlin has a character who says Reality is just a collective hunch"; "electability" is pretty much the same, and only an actual election can test our various theories.

I agree that saying something about electability with any scientific certainty is pretty close to an impossibility. It is nigh impossible to replicate all the relevant conditions of a future election in elections past, especially when it is something as distinctive as a Presidential election, which has in any case so few examples, each in many ways unique. Yet that hardly means that such talk must be groundless and useless. Basic truths still obtain, and can be argued for. Developing a sense for what's relevant and what isn't is the mark of clear thinking.

>tend not to argue from demonstrable issues or points

I don't go to bed with visions of Dean in my head, but I gotta say this isn't accurate from my parsings of Kos discussions. In fact, I'm so terrified by Bush '04 that I need serious, well-thought out reassurance that Dean won't be a disaster, and I regularly find it.

The best point ever made by a Dean supporter (and there were many good ones), I wish I remembered who, was not "Security Moms" and "Office Park Dads" but "It's the Electoral College, Stupid."

And there doesn't seem to be any states that Kerry would win and Dean wouldn't. In places where Kerry's Vietnam honors and "sortof agree with killing brown people if done not too randomly" stance will help him, it will only be the difference between being creamed or losing honorably.

South Carolina falls into this mode. More reachable states like Tennesee, however have a Dean-didn't-support-the-war, but he's-ok-with-guns cancelling out effect.

And I think Dean is way ahead in where the amber waves of grain are located. I am suspicious that no-one in the whole damn blogosphere (maybe To The Barricades??) understands what Dean said in Iowa: "We have to deal with the problem of packer concentration." (paraphrased from memory).

If this .44 magnum of a sentence means nothing to you then you aren't as politically savvy as you think. And it's a line that Bush couldn't deliver credibly. It's a line that Kerry couldn't deliver credibly. Gephardt, to be fair, could.

But Dean of rural Vermont can, and therefore Bush can thump his bible at Iowa/Nebraska/etc. swing voters as much as he wants-- he's in trouble.

So what I'm hearing here, to summarize a bit simplistically, is that Dean is more electable than Kerry because he has a much better campaigning personality than Kerry. Is that really it? Do his supporters truly believe that personality simply trumps policies?

Basically, yes. We saw the proof in 2000. The voters agreed with Gore on the issues, but they voted for Bush because they liked him. Whether or not we think it is rational is besides the point. Bush had some ability (mysterious to me) to connect with voters. Gore didn't. Dean does connect with voters, I don't see any of the other Democrats doing so.

The other thing that Gore failed at was controlling the free media and the campaign. That's how, after the first debate, people were concerned about Gore's sighs and which FEMA official he went to Texas with while Bush was promising the same trillion dollars to deficit reduction and Social Security reform. Dean has shown the ability to control the campaign (as he is obviously doing with the primary).

"Electability" comes down to two strategies: the Gore strategy of nibbling at a few undecided voters in swing states, or the Dean strategy of kicking the electoral calculus out the window. The Dean strategy counts on expanding the electorate, appealing to young voters, the disaffected, McCain and Perot voters. In an otherwise close election, the Dean strategy will yield either decisive defeat (less than 200 E.V.) if it fails or decisive victory (over 350 E.V.) if it succeeds.

As far as the House and Senate go, I actually think that is one of the best arguments in favor of Dean. We are entrenched in a slight GOP majority, with little chance to improve the situation in 2004. The only way we could possibly get legislative majorities would be to disrupt the current political calculus and create a new Democratic governing coalition. Dean is the only candidate proposing to do that.

frankly0:

I consider the following scenario extremely likely for 2004, and I see Dean with a big edge over Kerry in it:

The economy is in Fall 2004 is about where it is today--actual economic growth, but a big net loss of jobs since 2000 and sluggish indicators.

Iraq is more stable than it was a year ago, but there's ongoing, intermittent guerilla action/violence directed at US troops. North Korea is simmering along, and we're still not playing nicely with our allies.

Bush's credibility is shaken with a large portion of the electorate, but his campaign warchest is being used to comfort people about his faults and scare the bejesus out of everybody about the Democratic nominee. Throughout 2004, Rove has seen to it that every policy, every statement, every proposed legislation is targeted at some voting constituency--enough red meat to keep the base happy, but always with window dressing to confuse the undecideds (i.e., education and health care "reform" with euphemistic names).

There have been no Supreme Court resignations, but word is there will be several as early as 2005.

A solid chunk of the electorate will be desperate to get Bush out and desperately seeking an inspiring Democratic nominee. Other chunks, roughly approximating Perot and Nader voters from previous cycles, will be equally dissatisfied with Bush but not necessarily ready to throw their support to "just any" Democrat.

And depending upon the Democratic nominee and the amount of success conservatives have had in slinging mud upon him, there MAY be a sizable chunk of voters who are disgusted by the whole thing and ready to opt out of voting.

With such a scenario, I think Dean is a vastly superior candidate to Kerry, for many of the reasons I listed above, and especially because, as he is already displaying, he attracts people of most political stripes both with his stands on the issues and with his candor and fighting spirit. Kerry's campaign team seems intent upon running a classic (i.e., safe) campaign, and in so doing, I don't think they're letting Kerry follow his instincts. He seems at his best when he speaks forcefully and forthrightly--even when he shows chutzpah (as when he called for regime change at home, then stood up to shrill attacks). But as we saw with Gore, a "safe" campaign is extremely dangerous, especially with the Rove smear machine ready and willing. And while Kerry's military past might help him in some battleground states, Dean's anti-war stance on Iraq may well convince the Greens not to run active campaigns in those states and/or keep the Green vote way down.

Dean's powers of inspiration, while clearly not universally effective, have already been demonstrated to be incredibly powerful--certainly more powerful than Kerry's, at least thus far. Once someone is smitten with him, they're likely to be immune from most, if not all, attacks on him. And as we're showing, those of us who are smitten are going out and working on his behalf, raising money, contributing money, and proselytizing. Dean wants thousands of volunteers going door to door in the weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and I think it would be foolish to doubt he'll get them. How many volunteers will Kerry have? And in the general election, Dean would ask the same on a larger scale--tens of thousands of volunteers going door to door in their communities, encouraging people to vote for him.

Look, for those of you who don't like Dean, I'm sure posts like mine sound at least a little obnoxious: you find the guy unlikeable and I'm writing about how powerful his charisma is. Clinton and Bush had similar effects on people--some were mesmerized and others were slackjawed in disbelief that anyone could bear the bastard. The most successful politicians seem to have this effect.

The best scenario for Democrats in 2004 is that the economy falls firmly back into recession (with turmoil in Iraq as unfortunate icing on the cake). I wouldn't call it unlikely, but we can't bank on it.

In my opinion, the next best scenario is the one I outlined above, with Dean as the nominee, because I believe he'll bring out far more voters than Kerry would. And, Frankly0, coattails are determined mostly by the number of voters. If Kerry ran a safe, "Gore-state" plus Florida race, loads of Congressional districts wouldn't necessarily benefit. But if Dean and his grassroots supporters help increase the vote everywhere, many Republican seats could suddenly be in play.

Dean will not do well in the south-period. His gun stance will not help because these people are so entrenched with NRA/Bush. Right now the two Democrats leading in fund raising in GA are Edwards and Kerry. If Kerry could pull GA out then that would go a long way towards making him look 'electable'. Either Dean or Kerry winning in New Hampshire will do nothing to help with their 'electability'.

We saw the proof in 2000. The voters agreed with Gore on the issues, but they voted for Bush because they liked him.

Well, the election of 2000 actually just has to be counted as a tie, from the standpoint of our current discussion; whatever advantage Gore or Bush had over each other in the final tally is just in the noise here.

Now I'm not going to say that Gore did not lose any votes to Bush over personality, but it's helpful to remember how each positioned themselves on the issues of policy and character (which is NOT the same as personality). Bush, very deliberately, tried to pitch himself as a moderate -- remember our compassionate conservative? Gore was saddled with the legacy of Clinton, who was perceived to be dishonest, and that meme spread about regarding Gore as well. Bush capitalized on this tremendously, getting great hay out of his "restoring honesty and integrity to the Oval Office" line.

Gore of course had on his side the great economy under Clinton -- and that kept him as very competitive. Would another Democratic candidate with another personality have won? It's quite likely, since just about ANY favorable factor would have put the Democratic candidate over the top. Certainly his campaign flopped all over the place, and that too did him in. I can see no reason, on this account, to think that Dean is better than Kerry. Dean has fired up the activists -- that is what he does -- why anyone would think that that translates into a successful campaign in the general election is something I just don't get.

While I think that Dean beats Kerry on so-called personality, I DON'T see that he beats him on the issue of character, that is, for example, trustworthiness. And as I have said, on this crucial issue, I think ANY Democratic will beat the pants off of Bush this time around.

I do think that if you strip out the issue of Bush's perceived trustworthiness from his personal appeal to voters (which will be severely damaged come November 2004), then the remaining issues of "personality" probably add up to very little.

And here is a final point. It has been noted that there is a big, almost unprecedented, discrepancy between Bush's approval numbers, which are pretty high, and his re-elect numbers, which are pretty mediocre. One account of this is that the approval numbers reflect the voters liking of Bush personally, but that the re-elect numbers reflect whether they really would vote for him, given what he stands for. I think this is some pretty good evidence that personality has real limits in determining electability.

ga6thdem, do you consider West Virginia a part of the South? If so, I'd argue that Dean's stance on guns helps him there plenty, especially with an electorate that has in the past favored the Democratic nominee.

"It has been noted that there is a big, almost unprecedented, discrepancy between Bush's approval numbers, which are pretty high, and his re-elect numbers, which are pretty mediocre. One account of this is that the approval numbers reflect the voters liking of Bush personally, but that the re-elect numbers reflect whether they really would vote for him, given what he stands for. I think this is some pretty good evidence that personality has real limits in determining electability." Frankly0

There's always a gap between the approval numbers and the re-elect numbers. Bush's gap is so big, I would argue, because many of the people who consider him likeable don't like his extremist policies. His public persona doesn't gibe with his policies: he's a regular guy who favors the rich and huge corporations; he seems so good-natured and self-deprecating, but he's as arrogant and politically vindictive as Nixon; he talks in platitudes and deals in cynical politics. His message of independence and personal accountability bears no resemblance to his own life. Dean's personality is more obviously prickly, perhaps contributing to his polling among women voters. But his personality seems to gibe nicely with his political manner, which is matter-of-fact and frank. He's a fiscal conservative who's used to the burst balloons of pragmatic politics. On the other side, he regularly displays what we might call a doctor's dispassionate compassion: He cares deeply about improving the quality of life of people he doesn't know, although he might not be a touchy-feely kind of person. There are plenty of stories of him running to help someone in need of medical attention, just as there are plenty of accounts by his friends who say he's simply not a backslapper. He has a proven record of helping disadvantaged children, although he may not be the best with photo-ops of him reading to kindergartners.

Personality has its limits in determining electability, especially when that personality seems at odds with one's governance or stances. In Dean's case, I think the key point is that his personality seems transformative in spite of the fact that he's nobody's idea of the most congenial candidate. People are drawn to him in spite of, if not because of, the fact that he doesn't "feel our pain" or slap our backs. My wife agreed with 99% of Clinton's positions on the issues, but she despised him because she thought he was a phony and a chameleon. She's never really liked politics, but she's giddy over Dean, and of all things, it was the Meet the Press interview that convinced her. NO ONE would call him warm and fuzzy in that interview. Rather, she loved his answers--and him--for their substance and their candor. Dean starts speeches to teachers by saying, "Don't fall in love with me, because you're not going to like everything I say," and they love him all the more for it.

Perot was very much the same way. He was folksy, sure, but he was also often cranky and autocratic. But his message of sacrifice and hard truth resonated. How many voters hesitate to vote for Democrats because they think they're "soft"--on whatever (weak on defense, wishy-washy on values, too quick with handouts, etc.)? I think Dean's personality would win many of them over.

Well, the election of 2000 actually just has to be counted as a tie, from the standpoint of our current discussion; whatever advantage Gore or Bush had over each other in the final tally is just in the noise here.

People's agreement with Gore on the issues was not a tie, yet the election was. If it were about the issues, it would not have been a tie. I don't believe that character really matters. In 1992, Clinton was known to have great personality but lousy character. He won. In 1996, Dole was a man of character, but he lost. Gore is truly a man of great character, but he didn't win either. Kerry is truly a man of character, but that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

Dean has fired up the activists -- that is what he does -- why anyone would think that that translates into a successful campaign in the general election is something I just don't get.

Dean has fired up non-activists as well as activists. He is connecting with ordinary people. That is a very good thing.

If Bush keeps $#%#(ing up, then EVERYONE's electable. Who has the coattails?

MattS, to me someone who brings coattails is someone who wants to change the direction of the country and who creates a new governing coalition. That is what makes me think Dean would bring coattails that others would not. What do you think brings coattails?

"How many voters hesitate to vote for Democrats because they think they're "soft"--on whatever (weak on defense, wishy-washy on values, too quick with handouts, etc.)? " This is exactly where I see Dean's weaknesses as. Even GWB had to come up with 'moderate' policy pronouncements during the 2000 campaign even though the press continually called him "charming."

As far as WV goes-well, I don't consider it a traditional southern state. Whether or not Dean carries it will probably depend on how the civil unions issue plays there.

That was me above. Sorry.

ga6thdem: You left out any explanation of why you consider Dean weak in this "soft" area. Is it on the issue of defense?

This question is off topic from all of the substantive posts about Dean v. Kerry v. Bush, but what is up with Kerry's health? He does look & act like death warmed over. As Rove would tell you, image matters. If you can put a deserter in a flight suit with a gigantic sock & convince people they are seeing a genuine war hero, you can convince a substantial number of voters that you can be withstand the rigors of the presidency because you bounce around energetically. Conversely if you look like it pains you to sit up straight, people are going to think there isn't enough Geritol on the market to get you through the first 100 days.

I hope that he isn't ill. If he is, he ought to be realistic about it. It won't do him or the democrats any good if he is incapacitated after Labor Day 2004. If he isn't ill, he really ought to do something to pep up. It might gain him a few percentage points.

Dean's for public financing of congressional campaigns.

And he didn't support this stupid war.

Substance enough?

There are a lot of folks who seem to believe that Dean's position on guns is going to be the counter in the south to his stand on civil unions, which you can guarantee will be called "gay marriage" regardless of whether it is or it isn't.

IMO, guns are not something to vote for someone for, the gun issue is only an eliminator, as in "I would never vote for so and so, because he wants to take my guns." Even an A rating from the NRA isn't going to get someone to vote FOR a candidate.

I believe the same will be true of national security creds in 2004. 9/11 is still on our minds, and the Bush folks are going to be reminding us as well, with their convention in NYC. The best Bush ever did in his presidency was when he was seen as a decisive war president, so that's what they're going to sell. And you can guarantee that they'll be peddling fear right along with it.

Sometimes I think that folks that live on blogs lose touch with the real US citizenry. They assume that because THEY never believed Bush about the "imminent danger" in Iraq, that other people saw it too, or at least see it now. What most Americans see is a man who was determined to keep them safe.

Nobody is questioning Dean's electability among dems, particularly the anti-war activist types. What is being questioned is Dean's image as someone who is willing to do what it takes to keep Americans safe.

And the moves that Dean takes to make sure that regular Americans (as opposed to internet Americans) understand that he would will be interesting to watch - unless we are all watching him try to do that as the Dem nominee and failing miserably.

Hoosiercat,

Kerry did have prostate surgery early this year. He has admitted that has taken some toll on him physically in the past several number of months -- I've got to guess that the physical demands of campaigning must be pretty hard to handle if you're recovering from any kind of significant surgery.

I'd expect that in a few more months he might be back to normal.

Sometimes I think that folks that live on blogs lose touch with the real US citizenry. They assume that because THEY never believed Bush about the "imminent danger" in Iraq, that other people saw it too, or at least see it now. What most Americans see is a man who was determined to keep them safe.

If I had to identify the single most salient trait of most of Dean's die-hard supporters, it's that they can't step outside of their own enthusiasm and emotion and see Dean and Bush as other kinds of people might see them. Yes THEY feel Dean's charisma, THEY see Bush's dishonesty, THEY feel fired up, maybe they see an occasional moderate here and there who likes Dean, and they imagine they have comprehended all of America.

It's just a weird disconnect that allows them to do so. If you, as a left wing Democrat, don't fully grasp that you aren't exactly the typical American voter, you have some serious self-reflection to do. The things you like most, other people may detest; and if you can't re-calibarate your view of the world to accommodate this, you have nothing useful to say about electability.

If you, as a left wing Democrat, don't fully grasp that you aren't exactly the typical American voter, you have some serious self-reflection to do.

Once again, frankly0, you are not in a position to say who Dean's supporters are if you do not go to a Meetup and talk with them. Let me be absolutely clear: you are way off base. I personally am far from a "left-wing Democrat". There are a few cultist Dean supporters on the Internet, but most Dean's supporters on blogs are quite reasonable and realistic. Blog visitors are a small minority of those who use the Internet. At least half of the people at my last Meetup did not even get there through the Internet. We are ordinary Democrats just like you, frankly0, we just happen to disagree with you. That doesn't mean we are wrong.

Gore is truly a man of great character, but he didn't win either. Kerry is truly a man of character, but that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee.

I agree with you about the reality of Gore's character, and of Kerry's -- but it is the PERCEPTION that counts.

Here is the great irony of the 2000 election: it was GORE who was perceived as dishonest, as lacking character, NOT Bush. Remember the umpteen stories told about Gore "inventing the Internet", and "inspiring Love Story"? It was all BS -- but combined with the public distaste for Clinton's demonstrable lies about his private life, and it was GORE who was perceived to be weak in character instead of Bush. Perhaps in another election, this trumped up "honesty" issue could not be squeezed for so many votes, but it worked for Bush in 2000. Dole had character, but NO Republican had a chance in 1996; and Clinton in 1992 was up against the seriously failed administration of George H W Bush, and also had a VERY centrist record and positions.

(The irony of the 2000 election is, of course, that it is Bush who has proved himself to be a serial murderer of the truth while in office. You can thank our cretin media for this, who paid vast attention to Love Story and virtually none to Bush's lies about his tax proposals. Fucking idiots.)

Once again, frankly0, you are not in a position to say who Dean's supporters are if you do not go to a Meetup and talk with them.

Let's just say that if you go to Meetup, you are not exactly meeting a random sample of American voters, right? It little matters if a number of different types turn up at such a meeting -- the self selection process too much skews the sample to give you any sense for what his larger appeal might be.(I'd guess that much the same "variety" could have detected in a roomful of Perot supporters in years past. But what did that mean, after all? Did it translate into larger support?)

I'd be much more impressed if you managed to select a couple hundred American voters AT RANDOM, and they felt real enthusiasm for Dean. Of course, I don't even know how you'd bring together people from, say, rural Georgia, Colorado, urban New York, and the Central Valley in California into one room. Yet it's hard to see how you're going to get a NON skewed view in a room of people not selected more or less at random like this.

I agree with you about the reality of Gore's character, and of Kerry's -- but it is the PERCEPTION that counts.

So then we agree the actual possession of character is irrelevant. It is the ability to control the media and message which is essential. If you think that Kerry can control the media and the message then make that argument. Based on the primary campaign so far, Kerry's campaign has been quite unsuccessful at it.

Dean has coattails in base states. His unfavorables in red states are high, and he doesn't do well among women. He can win, but so could Al Sharpton if the economy keeps sucking.

The almost mythic tones of the Dean support are interesting but besides the point anywhere but the urban areas where they are centered.

The only person who has coattails in Red States is Wesley Clark. His unfavorables are low in South Caroina even though he is MUCH more liberal than Dean on every issue. If you're data driven, then Clark is the guy. However, I respect support for Dean because he is the second or third best, after Clark.

CA Pol Junkie and frankly0,

A 'random sampling of Americans' would show that few care about the election at this point. Dean's support is instructive, though. A lot of Dean supporters are normal nice people who like what he's saying. They like the toughness. That said, his tough aggressive stance turns off women in large numbers, and minorities aren't responding to this guy. Those are both VERY bad signs, as those groups are key Democratic constituencies, and tend to vote with much more foresight than the rest of us. Remember the 'there's no difference between the parties voter'? Yes, because that person is at a Dean meetup. Remember the 90% of blacks who voted for Gore on extremely high turnout because they knew that there was a difference between the parties? Well, they aren't turning out for Dean.

MattS, I agree the South will not be very Dean-friendly, but he is running stronger than his national average in the mountain West, according to the recent Zogby poll.

frankly0 - see the Kerry thread for the question I posed.

deminva, CA Pol Junkie good arguments with f0. Marisacat and Paradox great as usual. Diane - nice post and can we hear more from you?

LouisG - in every culture there are things that are obvious to the members and completely inexplicable to others. Yes, personality counts but nobody can define what will work when.

frankly0 where you make your mistake is first labeling Dean as extreme and extrapolating from that definition that he only wins if conditions next year are extreme. Really bad economy and Iraq a continuing and obvious expensive mess, anybody can beat GWB, even if he still scores and A on character. What you keep missing is that the closer the opponent is to GWB on these three factors the less reason there is to vote for that person over GWB. It's like having a job you don't particularly like and someone offers you another with nothing obviously better about it. You might take the new one but most would stick with the old one.

That said, his tough aggressive stance turns off women in large numbers, and minorities aren't responding to this guy.

I'm watching this closely, but at this point it appears to be at least in part be a function of how closely people are paying attention to the race. Polling data has shown that women and minorities have higher undecided and default Lieberman rates, which indicates to me that they probably aren't following the race closely yet. Since Dean was unknown prior to the race, his demographics will reflect who is paying attention. The latest CA Field Poll had interesting demographic data, indicating almost half of non-whites were undecided. Lieberman was leading with 12%, and Dean was in third with 9%. I think if Dean doesn't get significant minority support, he won't be the nominee and it will be a moot point.

Neglected to include what I really want to report.

A co-worker who hasn't talked about national affairs to me since last fall during the war build-up (he from the "have to trust our government and they can't tell us everything they know because they have to protect their intelligence sources" camp and me from the "trust the government that lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, etc, no way.") broached the topic with me. He said that the problem with the Dems that that none of the POTUS candidates are impressive except maybe Dean. I immediately commented on how qualified I think Kerry and Gephardt are and how Dean brings a refreshing toughness to the campaign. All good worthy candidates, I said. Even allowed that while I disagreed with Kerry on his Iraq vote and still think he is wrong, I can understand the position he took. Figured if maybe he was entertaining coming over from the dark side, I should at least be a Democrat first.

I can imagine a Gephardt support doing speaking well of Dean and Kerry.

Correct to the end of last post:

I can imagine a Gephardt supporter speaking well of Dean and Kerry as I did of Dick and Kerry. Not sure I can imagine supporters of others doing the same.

is that Dean is more electable than Kerry because he has a much better campaigning personality than Kerry. Is that really it? Do his supporters truly believe that personality simply trumps policies? Or do they believe that the policies Dean backs will be equally or more palatable to most Americans than Kerry's?

I'm unclear where Kerry trumps Dean on a policy level. For example, gay rights: Kerry has a very good record in favor of gay rights. The Bush machine will push this "wedge" issue and force the Democrat to take a side, if they think it's a winner for them. Kerry will have to declare his view, and I have trouble believing it will be any different than Dean's. On health care, Dr. Dean's program and personal experience (yep, I put the "Dr." in deliberately) makes him the ideal candidate for that issue. Fiscal responsibility: no contest, Dean's record in VT is simply untouchable (and I speak with the experience of a convert; I didn't agree with Dean's budget hawkishness until the current downturn. You have no idea what sound fiscal management does for a state until you've experienced it). National security: here is a legitimate issue of Kerry vs. Dean, but only because of one vote. From what I can see, their policy prescriptions are pretty similar, but, and here's a big reason why I think Dean is more electable, Dean's Iraq stance is consistent with his policy stance and Kerry's is not. The Iraq War will only be a determinative issue in a negative sense: i.e. it's going so bad that it's a millstone around Bush's neck. As someone above said, we've already had the triumph of the statue. The real issue is: how do you protect Americans? Dean has a very solid policy prescription, the strong personality and executive experience to make people believe he can implement it, and can use the diversion of resources of Iraq as a campaign issue. None of the others can.

However, most of the knocks I've seen on Dean involve very subjective analyses of personality--he's too prickly or doesn't come across well--or very shallow historical parallelism (btw, both sides of the argument are guilty of that. Dean=McGovern and Dean=Reagan are equally faulty analogies, imo). Some of the knocks (gay rights are a killer, he'll get smeared because he was against the Iraq War) are substantive, and I thought a lot about them and simply decided they were wrong. But, most of all, any view on Dean usually suffers from the mistaken assumption that Dean in August 2003 is the only Dean you're gonna get. Dean is a very, very skillful politician (something often overlooked by supporters and opponents). He is an honest guy, and nothing he is portraying about himself is inaccurate, but he knows how to use rhetoric to his advantage. He is letting his genuine anger out now (and, believe me, he despises out-of-control idealogues), but he will not sound the same next March. Count on it. He is very disciplined and in control of his own message (he writes his own speeches). Every move he has made so far has been right for that moment in the campaign. I have no reason to believe that won't continue to be true.

MattS "Remember the 90% of blacks... Well, they aren't turning out for Dean."

And exactly how to you know this? Statements like this, based on no facts and designed to further the agenda of the speaker, are what RushCo emits. You can do better than this.

BTW: I do the same as Marie. I defend all the Democrats (even Lieberman) in any conversation. I think Kerry has a fine record of service and would make a good President. I love Dick Gephardt, think John Edwards is a very talented politician, and love Graham's fire in attacking the President's many failures in protecting us from terrorist attack. I just think Dean is a better choice.

That said, his tough aggressive stance turns off women in large numbers, and minorities aren't responding to this guy.

I can't imagine that women would vote for Bush with his fake macho over a guy who is considered too tough. One of the arguments is that women are looking for someone who will make them feel safer in this nasty world. The Bush toughness is built on all the wrong things - violence and intimidation are the answers they have to solving problems. Dean seems to be tough enough to stand up to the bullies who populate the White House. I think that many women will find Dean's style more reassuring than Bush's style.

I actually think that the ability to stand up to the bullies is going to be a key piece to making a security conscious nation trust the Democrats enough to vote them in. Dave Johnson had a very good piece about this called Getting Rolled.

Clark is another candidate that seems to be capable of standing up to them as well. But Gephardt certainly gave in as fast as possible and Liebermann either seems to agree with them on diplomacy or is too way to readily rolled. Kerry is so-so on this front.

Women who believe that men are superior like GWB. The majority of women think he's a jerk. He's the boss' son they have to pick up after. The suck-up to the boss that covers up for him. That guy who lost any semblance of attractiveness after ten minutes on the first date that seemed to last an eternity.

Nice to see only a few people got indignant.

Paradox: There is no way to demonstrate that shot. The empirical data you're looking for can only come from a real election.

No, I didn't ask for empirical data - part of my point is that such is unavailable. But I do expect more than the usual "fire in his belly" commentary. I'll get onto this below.

with odds like that why the hell wouldn't anyone try something new?

This is a really good point, and it's the main reason why I look with more favour on Dean's supporters than I ordinarily would on a bunch of noisy borderline-fanatical partisans. I mean that in the nicest way :)

Susan Nunes: I'll write in Gore's name instead.

That's common sense, alright. Here, have a knife so you can cut off your nose.

Deminva: I recognize that I have repeatedly written the words "I believe" in my answer.

I was about to point it out :)

Your post, however, is solid. You're not waffling. There are arguments as to why Dean is more electable than Candidate X, and you make them. Excuse me for not addressing the specifics; I don't know enough about WVians and their guns, etc, to comment with any credibility. I also value the fact that others, notably MattS, ga6thdem and John B, seem unafraid to address the downsides.

frankly0: Your mental excercise about possible political climates is a good one. I think you're basically right: if both war and economy go to hell in a handbasket, anyone can win. If not, well then some hedging is required. If we accept the presumption that Kerry is stronger than Dean in a climate of at least moderate favourability for GWB, then we have the folowing:

1. Back Dean if you predict rack and ruin both in war and economy.
2. Back Kerry if you believe that one or both will recover sufficiently to keep GWB in the race.

If the presumption is true (and I know it's arguable whether Kerry is more credible than Dean in this circumstance) then the sensible option would be to back Kerry in the Primary. Why? The Dean lobby is bringing new voters into the fold, and they're passionate enough about replacing GWB that it seems they'll vote for anyone bar Lieberman. It doesn't necessarily work the other way. So, if Kerry wins the primary he picks up virttually all the Dean votes and there's a better shot at winning the actual election.

This, of course, completely ignores who would be a better President, but at this stage, ANY president would be better, don't you agree?

doesn't matter: I need serious, well-thought out reassurance that Dean won't be a disaster, and I regularly find it.

I wonder if we read the same Kos, then? I don't find it regularly, I only find it occasionally.

packer concentration

Non-knowledge of one cattle-market buzzword does not a political ignoramus make. You're overestimating the value of this statement somewhat. And besides, I read elsewhere that Dean's support is almost totally urban white middle class. What do these folks care about cow economies?

davebanjo: Dean's for public financing of congressional campaigns.
And he didn't support this stupid war.
Substance enough?

Nope, two unsubstantiated bullet points does not substance make. See, the clue is in the word "substance": you need to substantiate your claims and demonstrate how and why these points are important. This is absolutely case in point of my perception that many Dean supporters don't back their claims up.

Kathleen: Sometimes I think that folks that live on blogs lose touch with the real US citizenry.
and
frankly0: they can't step outside of their own enthusiasm and emotion and see Dean and Bush as other kinds of people might see them.

Agreed. This is part of my criticism of bloghounds in general and Dean supporters in particular: they feed off each other's rhetoric and I sometimes wonder if they read anything they might not agree with. Obviously, some do. But I'd also say that some don't, and that's not a good way to build a political viewpoint.

Nice thread, I'll read on with interest.

Cheers,
L

deminva
Yes, I was talking about his lack (or appearance thereof) for the military

MattS: You're going to need to provide some evidence of Dean's weakness with black voters before I'll believe you. This summer, Dean has been very well received at several speeches delivered to predominately black audiences. The Walsh article cited at the top of this thread quotes Donna Brazile gushing about him. A recent article on Dean's people skills noted that he has an instinct for connecting with people of varying education levels, incomes, and backgrounds. Also, I just joined African Americans for Dean (full disclosure: I'm lily-white), and I have so far read a lot of very positive comments from a lot of African Americans. Evidence, please?

As for his polling among women, several polls show the other candidates viewed more favorably by women. How would this gap among the Democrats translate into a gap in the general election? Who knows? All of the Roe v. Wade fearmongering of 2000 (which I believed and participated in) will be ratcheted up 20 times in 2004, because we now KNOW that, if Bush is re-elected, Rehnquist and O'Connor, at the least, will retire. We further know how eager Bush is to attack a woman's right to choose. You can almost hear Rove telling him, "Be patient. That's for the second term." I'm not saying that all women are single-issue voters, but if I'm a pro-choice woman who liked Gephardt more than Dean, what am I going to do, vote for Bush instead?

frankly0: Yes, Meetups are skewed. What about polls out of Iowa and New Hampshire, where majorities now know who Dean is, and he's winning or in statistical dead heats? His negatives are very low in both states, and he has strong support from all sorts of regular people. Look, if Dean didn't appeal to "regular people," he wouldn't be polling first or second in several national polls, and I, an Internet-savvy white male with (almost) a Ph.D., wouldn't make broad claims about his electability.

Germane to this discussion:

nearly 4,000 people showed up to hear Dean speak in Philly today. Wow. No matter what you think about the issues raised here, to see that many people that jazzed up about democracy is a wonderful thing.

Non-knowledge of one cattle-market buzzword does not a political ignoramus make

I agree with this point on the specifics, but I strongly agree with the overall conclusion that Dean has an advantage in rural areas over every other Democrat but Edwards. Vermont's national image is based on Burlington, essentially, except for a few hazy pictures of cows and fall foliage. The politics of this state, however, are intensely rural. Vermont's population is one of the most rural in the United States and issues like "packer concentration" resonate here (for the un-initiated that refers to the concentration of control of meat-packing volume by a few--basically 3 in the beef industry--very large companies. It's killing rural economies. While farming in VT is mostly dairy, the concentration of power in the food industry is an issue across the board). Dean has dealt with farmers one-on-one for years and is very comfortable in that setting. A general election event in a ranching community in CO would be an effective one for Dean. I have trouble seeing Kerry in that same setting. Lieberman? Um, no. Edwards probably yes. Gephardt maybe.

The major demographic split in this country is urban vs. rural. While there are polls showing Dean's support is urban right now, that's not determinative and is more of a matter of exposure. In the rural state of Iowa and in the rural areas of NH, Dean does very, very well (Kerry's support in NH is very concentrated in the comparatively heavily populated southern end of the state). Rural politics are second nature to Dean by now.

You're going to need to provide some evidence of Dean's weakness with black voters before I'll believe you

Admittedly, I don't have the data on me. I'm just relying on the CW which says 'Dean is weak among minorities', which may not be true anymore (though I suspect it is). I'll look for the data. I did show evidence on Dean's weakness among women versus the other candidates.

Note that I'm not saying Dean can't win; my argument is just targeted towards the fact that Dean doesn't have great coattails.

Kerry's laying low until the fall. It's a strategy. Don't judge his juice, his X factor until, say October.

Dean has run all out because he HAS to. Nobody knew who he was.

Saying that Kerry doesn't want it is totally preposterous. But we'll see. Dean is electable too, but a majority of Americans support the commencement of the war, if not its conduct. Advantage to Kerry on this issue with more Americans than Dean wins by being anti war. But that doesn't mean Dean can't win.

If you think that Kerry can control the media and the message then make that argument. Based on the primary campaign so far, Kerry's campaign has been quite unsuccessful at it.

I guess I don't know what you're getting at here. What is an example of how Kerry's campaign has failed to "control the media"? Is this any more true than, for example, how Dean failed to control the media after his Meet the Press appearance, when the media almost uniformly dumped on him? (I know that Dean's supporters and support reportedly increased at that point -- but despite the treatment he got from the media, not because of it).

BriVT,

Rural politics are second nature to Dean by now.

???

MattS,

I'm confused by what you're asking? I thought I led into that sentence with a pretty clear couple of sentences explaining the rural nature of the state of Vermont. Howard Dean was Governor of Vermont for 11 years. Therefore, Howard Dean has spent a whole helluva lotta time sitting in old Grange halls or in elementary school cafeterias at town meeting time talking to a bunch of farmers about their declining milk checks. And yeah, there's a lot of NASCAR fans in VT, too (the general store in my rural town runs a lottery every race, with the winner of the lottery based on the winner of the race). Howard Dean won over a bunch of rural voters a bunch of times. So, are you questioning whether Dean has what it takes, or are you questioning the idea of a "rural politics"?

"Rural politics" are different than urban politics. The issues are different, the sensibility is different, the style is different. It seems tough for urban Democrats (and especially the national media) to understand it, and it goes beyond sponsoring a car on the NASCAR circuit (although the two guys who've done that--Graham and Edwards--also look to me to have what it takes to "do rural." They also happen to be the two others besides Dean that I believe have a solid chance to beat Bush). I grew up urban, but I've lived in a rural area long enough to get a feel of it (almost half my life now). And I know Howard Dean has a feel for the rhythms of it because I've seen him do it for years.

Wow, this is an amazing thread... we need to use this thread as a tutorial to the overly-enthuastic newbies at blogforamerica (disclosure: Dean is my #1 choice, and I am an active bloghound and Meet-up member)

Matts: You are making an argument that if Dean is electable due to exogenous circumstances, at least two or three other Democrats are electable and that the others will have greater coattails in Red States and therefore support should be thrown behind Kerry, Edwards or Clark instead of Dean. I believe that this is a valid point, however I think that Dean is trying to forge a new realignment per Judis and Textera by cementing the Creative Class of metropolitan professionals to the Democratic Party. That is the value of Meetup and the other volunteer style workings of the Dean Campaign, they appeal to the creative nature of the professional class as it is self-satisfying and self-directed. If the Creative Class does go to Dean, then pretty much any Republican in an urban or suburban district in the Northeast, the West Coast and the Rust Belt is now in play. Therefore the questions are thus; Is the Creative Class coherent enough as an interest group for them to vote as a bloc 60/40 one way or another, and is Dean the guy or are the Dems force to wait until '08? I have no evidence on the first, and only an intuitive yes that Dean is the Man second question.

As to Rural politics, I think that Dean will not get creamed there in the general election as Gore did and as I see Kerry and Lieberman will. He can speak the language of the rural concerns, he has the gun record so he is not automatically disqualified by single screening issue and single issue gun voters and he has the experience of governing Vermont which has more cows then people. I have severe doubts that Dean will many rural counties outside of New England but I think that he could close the gap that Gore suffered in 2000 so that swing states such as New Hampshire, Missouri and West Virginia go blue. Edwards might be able to do this; Graham and Gephardt should be able to also do this reasonably well. Clark, I do not know enough to be able to comment, but MattS has indicated that he is doing extremely well in polling in the South, so I would assume that Clark would do well too.
Finally, the Democratic winning coalition will be domination in the cities, keep it close in the suburbs (win the richer ones, break even with the middle ones, and mildly lose the poorer ones) and mitigating the damage of the rural vote. So the question is who fulfills this combination the best.

Fester

The creative class already went to Gore. It's not a new constituency.

Really bad economy and Iraq a continuing and obvious expensive mess, anybody can beat GWB, even if he still scores and A on character. What you keep missing is that the closer the opponent is to GWB on these three factors the less reason there is to vote for that person over GWB.

This is tantamount to an argument that the more extremely opposed a candidate is to Bush on any of the relevant issues, the more likely he is to be chosen. That seems like pretty weird logic. I should think that even you must grant that this breaks down somewhere. Is a pacifist more likely to be favored by the American people than someone who merely opposed the Iraq war? A pacifist would surely be even further away from Bush than even Dean, right?

Even granting that it's possible for a Democratic candidate to be too closely identified with Bush -- and that IS possible, as the 2002 elections proved -- why imagine that it is the more extreme position of Dean, rather than Kerry, that is the winner against Bush? You really present no argument here.

What support does my view have, that Dean is too extreme? Well, the other day I posted a poll from Florida that was precisely on point. Graham has adopted almost precisely the same anti-Iraq war, anti-Bush stand as Dean. Because of this, he has taken a major hit in support in Florida, a key swing state. It's about as precise a test of the viability of Dean's approach and position as is likely to turn up, and its verdict is a decisive thumbs down on its prospects for success.

frankly0 - extrapolations from one poll are not a good idea, particularly when there can be so many confounding variables. Not saying you are wrong, only that I'm not interested in arguing anything based on one poll.

There is NOTHING extreme about Dean's position on Iraq. A majority in this country only supported an invasion with UN authorization before bombs over Baghdad! And that was after months and months of PR from the WH arguing that we had the right to do anything we want and feeding us garbage that Saddam was practically on the brink of nuking us or filling our airports with poison gases. There is NOTHING extreme about Dean's position on taxes -- there was not majority support for GWB's tax cuts. IMO Dean also has it right when he speak of shared sacrifice. At an emotional level the people in this country became psychologically damaged when told after 9/11 that the best thing they could do for this country is go to Disneyland. (Don't underestimate the Doctor, he seems like a failyl good clinician.)

What is "extreme" is GWB's position on women's choice because a majority support a woman's right to choose. What is "extreme" is GWB and his PNAC buddies desire to control the world. What is
"extreme" is GWB desire to dismantle all federal social programs and progressive taxation.

Since I didn't argue the Kucinich had the best chance against GWB if things went badly in Iraq, I thought it would be clear that differences must also be in the range of acceptability by a majority, or something close to it, but that appears to have been too subtle for you.

To repeat, there are three major factors that are likely to be preeeminent in the election next year. None are static, although the GWB character has been the most stable up to this point. All are also subject to perceptual change even in the absence of actual change. For example if a significant majority comes to see GWB for the lyiny, phony wimp that he is, a candidate who easily beats him on this factor would win. And that is why Rove is so desperate to attack the character of the DEM candidates; he knows his boy is vulnerable.

MattS: Do you have the numbers for the creative class going to Gore; using people with a graduate degree or better as a reasonable proxy, Gore won 52:44 compared to Bush. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html)

That is winning the creative class but not dominating the creative class. Gore lost to in the greater pool of college educated people, of which a proportion are members of the Creative Class as defined by Florida. Gore also did well with single, non-married childless people, who again are disproportionally likely to be members of the creative class. He did poorly with gays and lesbians, which is an area that Dean should be able to improve upon.
The members of the creative class are growing proportionally faster than the rest of the population so it could and I think should be a decisive voting block to target for a 55-45 to 60-40 vote split win for the Democratic nominee.

Fester

great thread Steve.
I've enjoyed this and there are a bunch of great contributors...

I, too, will support any of the Democrats, even Joe, although I think he is a loser. It is written in big letters all over his forehead.

The economy, character and the War (Iraq, and Terror.) Those are the issues, with subdivisions on the domestic front.

We can win this thing people. We have to get the vote out. It isn't really about us, because I assume that most of us will vote any way and probably usually do vote. It's about the rest of the people that don't vote, the other 50%.
Get them motivated, get them voting and the lying criminals in the White House are gone.
That is one reason that for now I am supporting Dean. He appears to be getting the vote out.

MattS:

Dean's blog has many firsthand accounts of yesterday's rally in Philadelphia that emphasize the huge crowd's mix of races, ages, and incomes. Also, Dean apparently got the warmest welcome from the crowd in the forum, as he did in Chicago with another union crowd.

At some point, folks who don't adore Dean are going to have to acknowledge that it's silly to claim that Dean attracts mostly wealthy white men with high-speed Internet connections.

BriVT,

I think you're overcomplicating things, and going much further in your analysis than most voters would ever go. I apologize for being cynical, but here is a simpler analysis:

Guns: Most voters don't own guns, and plenty of people want a candidate who is to Bush's left on gun control. Remeber how popular "Bowling for Columbine" was? If Dean goes to rural areas and brags too much about his NRA rating, it'll be that much harder for him to carry the urban areas that he so desperately needs in states like PA. Plus, gun control could drive off as many Greens as he gained with his Iraq stance.

Taxes: Dean has made a big deal about how we shouldn't just repeal parts of the Bush tax cut, we should repeal all of it. This leaves him open to attack from a populist angle from Bush ("Ordinary Americans worked hard for that money..."), as hypocritical as that may seem. Kerry is more nuanced on taxes, and is actually poised to attack Bush on which tax cuts he is NOT giving. IMO that's more of a winner, because fiscally responsible Independents/Republicans are a dying breed.

Iraq: Let's say Iraq turns into a complete mess, and Kerry is the nominee. I think the proportion of people who'd say, "Ugh, Iraq's a mess, but I blame Kerry as much as Bush" and stay home would be smaller than you think (about the size of the Greens). Kerry would NOT be trying to out-hawk Bush, except on a few opportunistic fronts ("If Iraq, why not [more imminent threat]?"), and I think Dean would do the same. If Dean is the nominee, an "I told you so" argument won't be especially resonant with all the people we're counting on to change their minds about the war. No matter how bad things get, voters will be constantly reminded that we DID get rid of Saddam...so having opposed the war won't be something to run on in itself. Multilateralism will be, but it'll seem overly rigid to say that you opposed the war just because it was unilateral.

Gays: Kerry and Dean have exactly the same position on gays, but Dean is easier to attack here ("Vermont is the only state in America that..."). His bragging about CU also puzzles me, since it might turn off people who are just beginning to accept gay rights, while seeming hypocritical to gays and leftists who don't like the way he distances himself from the idea of gay marriage.

As far as which states Kerry can win that Dean can't, I think Kerry's strategy is to make a big deal out of veteran's issues and his war hero status, and win Florida with all the retired military personnel there. In winning Florida, we should remember that we don't NEED to attract non-Dems; we just need to make sure every Dem turns out and gets counted. Dem registration in the state exceeds Repug registration by 300,000. Since Kerry is more of a traditional Democrat than Dean, he might be better-equipped to get those registered Dems to vote.

So I just wrote a long, asinine post defending Kerry and attacking Dean. You may be surprised to learn that my preferences actually go (1) Clark, (2) Dean, (3) Kerry.

I guess I don't know what you're getting at here. What is an example of how Kerry's campaign has failed to "control the media"?

Early in the year, Kerry was the presumptive front-runner. Since then, he has been stagnant or even slipping in polls, while the campaign has been about Dean. Notice it wasn't seen Kerry's mug on the cover of Time and Newsweek last week.

I think it's arguably a failure on Dean's part to prevent himself from being defined as "anti-war". The whole authorization from the UN aspect is a nuance, and no more advantageous than Kerry's fabled nuances. Nuances in general do not play; Dean needs to establish *perceived* FP credibility outside of "I told you so". He's behind in perception.

If Dean wins the nomination handily, then all questions about him are moot and he'll be strong in the general; if he squeaks by in a broken field and is tarred on defense/FP/WOT in the process, I think he's finished and we're all finished.

At some point, folks who don't adore Dean are going to have to acknowledge that it's silly to claim that Dean attracts mostly wealthy white men with high-speed Internet connections.

And at some point Deanites are going to have to start pointing at more than anecdotal evidence of Dean's adoring fans as a justification for every point they make.

Until a couple of weeks ago I'd been a Kerry supporter because I saw him as more electable. But the more I watch him, the more I think of Dukakis (a campaign I worked on as a low-level staff person); not because he's a "Massachussets liberal," but because he's a pussy. Dukakis could have beaten Bush in '88, but he ran away from his beliefs, and it was transparent and not respected by the voters. There are many, many people who don't vote on the issues, but on personality and "leadership," and I think Dean beats Kerry (and the rest of the Democrats) on both of these. I also feel - at this point - we have to have an honest debate in this country about where we are going.

MattS:

I have noted that you haven't called Dean unelectable. I hope you'll note that I'm beginning to consider my need to have the last word pathetic.

I did cite anecdotes above as rebuttals to your claims (which, as you point out, you haven't substantiated) that Dean's support comes mostly from blue states and urban areas. Meetups aren't much help here: meeting locations are almost all urban areas. For instance, Roanoke, Virginia, which has 110 Dean Meetupers, is a city of over 100,000 in a sea of rural Southwest Virginia. How many of those 110 live in the boonies? Here in Charlottesville, we're drawing on a very big radius, with many people from rural areas. But if one considers Dean's Meetup supporters as his core, at least on the screen they all seem to be urban voters.

But the point I'm making is based not only upon such anecdotal evidence as the first-hand reports of Dean supporters at large rallies or first-time Meetupers but also upon every Iowa, New Hampshire, and national poll of the past six weeks. In several polls, Dean did better with senior citizens than in the general population, giving the lie to any claim that he relies unduly upon the support of young, white adults. You're also wrong to generalize that his negatives are high outside of blue states and urban areas. Yes, Zogby's latest national poll showed him polling weakest in the South, but he was great in the Midwest and Mountain West. Hell, how much of New Hampshire qualifies as "urban"?

As BriVT pointed out, Dean's success in Vermont was heavily reliant upon his ability to connect with rural voters, and I'm surprised by your apparent confusion on this point. Long before he entered politics, Dean chose to leave the big city to be a small-town doctor; it's not like he sprang this rural bit on us. I think BriVT makes a great point--one that, as near as I can tell, has gone largely unappreciated: Dean will be better able to connect with rural voters than any of the other top-tier challengers (though Edwards, if he rises in the polls, might match him). That ability will pay huge dividends.

Well, peacy-outy,
Deminva

Re: Edwards and rural voters.

Has he stayed in touch with his small town roots for the past thirty years?

Based on which Democratic Candidate for President is electable. We must assume that either Dean,Edwards,Gephardt,Graham,Kerry,and Lieberman will win the states that Al Gore carried in 2000. Giving them 260 ev. Graham will be favored to win Florida his home state= giving him 287 ev. Dean and Kerry (YAle Liberals) will be favored to win New Hampshire- 264 ev. Edwards will be favored to win Arkansas,Tennesee and West Virginia- Pro Union and Pro Gun Rights Democratic State in Southern Region. 282 ev. Gephardt will be favored to win Missouri and West Virginia- 276 ev. The electoral college winners are Edwards,Gephardt and Graham. The Southern or Midwestern Democrats. IF the Democrats select a Edwards-Clark ticket- Dems will win the Gore states plus Arkansas,Florida,Louisiana,Tennesee and West Virginia- Democratic Leaning states in the South.318 ev Gephardt-Clark ticket will win the Gore States plus Arkansas,Missouri and West Virginia. 281 ev.
Graham/Clark will win the Gore states plus Arkansas and Florida. 293.

Dean is favored to win the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary knocking off Gephardt (Iowa's Favorite Son) and Kerry(NH favorite Son). Gephardt drops out and his supporters back Edwards(Son of a union worker) and Kerry drops out after losing NH primary and his supporters back Dean or Lieberman. Edwards needs to win South Carolina,Oklahoma,and Arizona primaries(knocking off Graham and Lieberman) making this race between Dean and Edwards(media darling candidates) Lieberman and Graham drop out of the race. Graham and Lieberman supporters back Edwards who is popular with Unions and Trial Lawyers(Gephardt and Edwards),NASCAR voters(Graham,and Edwards)ethnic minorities(Edwards and Lieberman) and DLC types Democrats who will back Edwards in their attempt to defeat Howard Dean. Edwards is the type of candidate Democrats need to have if they want to defeat Dean. Edwards is a Southern Democrat- Democrats need to win states in the Southern Region if they want to win the Presidency. Gore lost the presidency because he failed to carry a state in the Southern Region, Clinton,Carter and JOhnson were the last 3 Democratic Presidents that came from the South. Edwards have the strong personal charisma and background like Dean. Edwards grew up in a working class environment- son of a textile mill worker and a postal worker. First in Family to go to college. Became a successful trial lawyer who represents working class people in lawsuits against corrupted businesses. A race between BUsh and Dean will be a fight between Liberalism and Conservativism. In the race between Edwards and Bush will be about values( The people Edwards represents(Average Working People vs the People Bush represents(Weathy CEO's). Edwards is a moderate Democrat- For a Balanced Budget, Tax Cuts for Low Income and Middle Class People. He is pro Enviroment,Strong NAtional Defense,Universal Health Care,Universal College Education. Is Pro Death Penalty.

Cronies v. Qualifications, Howard Dean’s Dilemma

Dean’s desire to appoint unqualified cronies to high positions.

Twenty five years ago, in Northern Vermont, a lifelong friendship and political alliance was born. Young Howard Dean moved to Vermont and became the neighbor of passionate democrat, Esther Sorrell. Mrs. Sorrell’s living room had been described as the heart of the democratic party in Vermont and Howard Dean spent many a long hour in Mrs. Sorrell’s company. Mrs. Sorrell took the young political hopeful, Howard Dean, under her wing and became Dean’s mentor.

Mrs. Sorrell was so taken with Howard Dean’s political motivation and drive that she introduced him to her son, Billy. Both of the young men had strong political aspirations and shared goals of seeking high office. A life-long friendship and alliance was born between these two men under the guidance of Mrs. Sorrell. Howard Dean cherished Mrs. Sorrell’s motherly guidance and deeply valued the friendship and support of her son, Billy. To Vermonters, Billy is better known as Attorney General William Sorrell.

In 1992, now Governor Dean showed his appreciation to William Sorrell and his family by appointing Sorrell as Secretary of Administration. In 1997 it became time again for Governor Dean to thank William Sorrell and the Sorrell family by attempting to appoint Sorrell as the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Sorrell had absolutely no judicial experience. Dean’s zeal to appoint his long-time friend to the highest judicial office in the state hit a roadblock. Noting zero experience, the judicial nominating board refused to place Dean’s friend on the short list for the top judicial spot. Dean became furious. Dean rejected the first list from the judicial nominating board that failed to include Sorrell. Again citing a lack of Sorrell’s qualifications, the board forwarded to Dean a second list that did not include Sorrell. Press reports noted this "tiff" between Dean and the board.

An angry Dean admitted defeat on the Sorrell Chief Justice appointment, but, he had a plan! To take care of his friend and appease the judicial nominating board at the same time. He would appoint the current Attorney General to the Chief Justice spot creating a vacancy for Vermont Attorney General. Perfect. Dean promptly vacated the Attorney General spot and filed it with his friend Sorrell. Dean got the job done of appointing Sorrell to a high position. All was well with Vermont cronies.

Now this tale is continuing while Dean run’s for president and his unqualified cronies wait for their payback. Its no secret that Sorrell would be number one in line for United States Attorney General under Dean. Its also no secret that Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has engaged in criminal federal civil rights violations. Also in his tenure as Attorney General, Sorrell has used the cover-up of: obstruction of justice, extortion, acceptance of bribes by lower Vermont Prosecutors and illegal alcohol crimes to support his allies and friends. The Department of Justice knows about the Vermont corruption, but, why would that agency lodge criminal charges against Sorrell or other Vermont officials prior to the primaries?

In the fall of last year I ran for State’s Attorney in Bennington County Vermont against a 16-year incumbent who was the Democratic and Republican nominee for the office. I ran on an anti-corruption platform pledging to prosecute William Sorrell and other State prosecutors for corruption and acceptance of bribes. I spent $200 on my campaign. I was a complete political outsider. I am not even an attorney. Yet, I received 21% of the popular vote on a platform that would have put Dean’s # 1 appointee behind bars. The people of this Vermont County know something about Dean’s corrupt cronies that the people of this country need to know.

After living in Vermont for a decade under the Dean regime, I’ve seen how he works and whom he appoints. The oppressive anti-civil-rights environment created by Dean’s appointments was complemented by the corruption and cronyism that epitomizes Dean’s Vermont. With Dean surging in the polls, the ex-Governor is correct, it’s time to look at his record in Vermont. We must also look at the records of those in his Vermont inner circle and of his appointees.

-- scott huminski

"Dean’s Police State of Vermont"

http://bureaucrash.com/blogs/dispatches/000512.shtml

Editorial:

http://toughenough.org/huminski.html

"Dean's Constitutional Hang-up"

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08122003.html

Anti-War commentary...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

IS DEAN A CRIMINAL TOO?

Dean's appointment of Vermont Attorney General Sorrell and Sorrell's criminal violation of civil rights law and bribery cover-up.

Dean is quite impressed with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. He appointed him Attorney General in the late 1990’s to fill a vacancy and then Sorrell was his # 1 choice for CHIEF JUSTICE of the Vermont Supreme Court. Sorrell was removed from consideration because he had no judicial experience. Good try Dean. A google search on "Howard Dean William Sorrell" speaks volumes. A vote for Dean is a vote to appoint William Sorrell to a very high federal position as Dean will take this unusually close associate with him. US Attorney General maybe?

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/freyneint.html

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/68525.html

http://www.rutlandherald.com/News/Story/66910.html

http://www.state.vt.us/atg/vtag.htm

http://www.justiceforwoody.org/media/articles/html/casa1.htm

After Dean’s judges had been enjoined for 2 years from interfering in my access to Vermont Courthouses, Sorrell engineered a plan to re-banish me. The banishment lasted one month before the federal court woke up and re-placed an injunction on Dean’s judicial appointees once again. Google search on "Scott Huminski First Amendment". The story is all there from the Associated Press, the Freedom Forum, First Amendment Cyber Tribune and many others.

http://www.redressinc.org/Backin.html

Courthouse access is a first amendment right according to US Supreme Court Precedent. See Press-Enterprise cases. Sorrell’s conduct last year constitutes criminal violation of federal civil rights law. See federal law below. They say birds of a feather flock together. Is Dean a criminal too, or just a very poor judge of character. Either way there should be concern.

By the way, Sorrell is currently busy covering-up the acceptance of a bribes by two Vermont Prosecutors, William Wright and John Lavoie. This fact stands undisputed before the United State Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC, # 03-7036. Unfortunately it’s not online, but, I will email court pleadings to any interested parties.

Scott Huminski

UNITED STATES CODE Title 18

Sec. 241. - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years …

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both …

This goes out to Scott the Vermonter,

I think most of us on this forum do realize that Dean is not the perfect candidate and I'm sure as you say has many flaws in his poitical career, after all he is a politician and is surely out for his own interests as they all are. The difference in this election however is that the state of the nation, (due to Bush's policies and christian fundamentalism) is in complete disarray. We are on the brink of failure on every front, economically, domestically, internationally, security wise, socially etc. We need an opposition and Dean may have what it takes to win. At this point, we have reached such a desperate level and Bush is dragging the country down into the abyss that anyone, anything, any living organism, even your pet goldfish, would be a better alternative to what we have in office now. Therefore, it is in all of our best interest that you DO NOT badmouth Dean despite his less than perfect record. It would be in the best interest of the country if we promoted him and buoyed his support in time for 2004. At the risk of sounding too dramatic, I truly believe the fate of the world depends on it. Bush, at any expense, MUST GO!

Comments like, "if so and so runs with such and such, then they will take the states of blank, blank and blank"

and...

Comments terms like, "electability"

Really make my skin crawl.

The first comment assumes that people vote prejudicially and the second assumes that presidents are elected according to shallow values related to "look" or "packaging" or "connections".

Our country is in a shambles because there is some truth to these comments.

And that really pisses me off.

And, no, I'm not a Kucinich supporter. Rather I'm voting for the man who has the platform closest to what I believe and who's not afraid to say and clearly and succintly, Howard Dean.

And, the "politically savvy" are in for a big surprise when they find out that there are many, many out there who think like I do.

Dean cant beat Bush. Too liberal. Christ, half his backers were for Nader in 2000. Not a single moderate endorsement. The answer: Al Gore. He would be the instant frontrunner and unite the party. Payback time would be a bitch for Bush.

"This country is in shambles", yeah right.. What a bunch of left-wing idiots you all are.. You should all move to Cuba, and take your copies of Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, and Jane Fonda with you..