Don't count Dean out

[Inmate Trump]

It seems like a lot of people - Republican and Democrats - think Dean canNOT win against George Bush in the general election next year.

I say, beware of Dean.  You remember Ronald Reagan?  Bill Clinton?  Jimmy Carter thought running against Reagan would be easy.  Likewise, Bush 41 thought Clinton could never capture the hearts of Americans and beat him - especially since his foreign policy genius got him an approval rating of 91%.

Bush, while popular now against Dean, can still lose against Dean.  Give Dean time to get his arguments out, shape up a campaign against the president, and it could very well be a competitive race.

I think Dean actually could win.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

It seems like a lot of people - Republican and Democrats - think Dean canNOT win against George Bush in the general election next year.

I say, beware of Dean.  You remember Ronald Reagan?  Bill Clinton?  Jimmy Carter thought running against Reagan would be easy.  Likewise, Bush 41 thought Clinton could never capture the hearts of Americans and beat him - especially since his foreign policy genius got him an approval rating of 91%.

Bush, while popular now against Dean, can still lose against Dean.  Give Dean time to get his arguments out, shape up a campaign against the president, and it could very well be a competitive race.

I think Dean actually could win.

He's too far to the left to get the nomination. He's out of touch with 'MAINSTREAM' America. He denounced all the progress [in moving toward the Center] made by President Clinton. I see Clark/Dean or Clark/Edwards or even a Clark/Graham ticket.

[English]

It's a shame really. Dean seems like he'd make a great president. The only thing I disagree with Dean about is gun-law.

[jravnsbo]

deana nd "great president" don't belong in the same sentence unless you are comparing himt o Bush

[Gustaf]

It seems like a lot of people - Republican and Democrats - think Dean canNOT win against George Bush in the general election next year.

I say, beware of Dean.  You remember Ronald Reagan?  Bill Clinton?  Jimmy Carter thought running against Reagan would be easy.  Likewise, Bush 41 thought Clinton could never capture the hearts of Americans and beat him - especially since his foreign policy genius got him an approval rating of 91%.

Bush, while popular now against Dean, can still lose against Dean.  Give Dean time to get his arguments out, shape up a campaign against the president, and it could very well be a competitive race.

I think Dean actually could win.

I think you're wrong. It took an unpopular, unelected incumbent from the minority party who pardoned Nixon and did nothing sucessful for Carter too narrowly carry the day. Then it took Ross Perot to get Clinton in, and then Clinton got reelected with less than 50% of the votes. Not much of an achievement. Regan is a good example, but he was a republican.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree with GWBfan(damn these sensible republicans wrecking those carefully constructed stereotypes!), Dean could win.

I remember how shocked people over here were when some unwashed Bubba from Arkansas toppled Bush 41 in 1992.
People literally could not belive it(and there were jokes along the lines of "but can President-Elect Clinton find his way out of Arkansas?")

The American electorate is probably the most fickle in world and can be a pain to predict.

[jravnsbo]

Clinton did a good job of saying the economy was down, but it was inf act already recovering unde Bush 41.

This time around the economy is already picking up and the Dems know it and so does everyone else.

[JNB]

  Clinton won in 92, by running towrds the center, and he did not have a leftist history as Gov of AR, and in fact his record if anything was right of center. That combined with he fact that the Democratic congress all during the Bush presidency(The congress' elected bteween 86 to 92 was the peak of the liberals dominence of congress) did everything they could to damage the Bush presidency and combined with the fact Bush ran a very inept re election campaign that was quite clueless is what produced Clinton.

  As for Reagan, he might have been viewed as far to the right, but he was the Gov of the most populated state of the nation, and that automatically gave him a base to work with.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think Dean actually could win.

He's going to!

Unless he does something REALLY stupid like support school uniforms, or if the media makes a full-on effort to destroy him like they did with Dukakis.

If he sticks to his present ways, he's gonna toss Bush around like a rag doll.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The only thing I disagree with Dean about is gun-law.

I think he's against gun control. I know the Republicans are going to smear him on that in an attempt to frighten gun owners.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Clinton did a good job of saying the economy was down, but it was inf act already recovering unde Bush 41.

Uh, nope!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Clinton won in 92, by running towrds the center,

Clinton won in '92 because Bush was so hated.

[Inmate Trump]

Yes, Dean has been labeled "McGovern II" by the media, and that could hurt him, but it doesn't mean a "McGovern" type can't win.

The way I see it, Dean is just right for the Democratic nomination.  He's positioned himself to the left, but not so far that he can't move back to to the center after he gets the nomination.  As far as where the candidates stand on the political spectrum, Dean isn't much different than Clark or Kerry.  Dean has literally moved this entire field to the left--even Lieberman, but to a small extent.

What my point is, is that everything depends on how low Bush can go, in terms of his approval ratings.  Sure, they're up now, b/c of Saddam's capture.  But that can and will fade.

Say soldiers keep dying in Iraq.  Say we find no WMD's, Osama, and fail to establish peace in Iraq.  That could really hurt Bush, and may even cost him the election.

Don't get me wrong, Bush has got my vote, and I hope he wins in '04.  But you can't count the Democrats - even Dean - out at all.

[Gustaf]

Yes, Dean has been labeled "McGovern II" by the media, and that could hurt him, but it doesn't mean a "McGovern" type can't win.

The way I see it, Dean is just right for the Democratic nomination.  He's positioned himself to the left, but not so far that he can't move back to to the center after he gets the nomination.  As far as where the candidates stand on the political spectrum, Dean isn't much different than Clark or Kerry.  Dean has literally moved this entire field to the left--even Lieberman, but to a small extent.

What my point is, is that everything depends on how low Bush can go, in terms of his approval ratings.  Sure, they're up now, b/c of Saddam's capture.  But that can and will fade.

Say soldiers keep dying in Iraq.  Say we find no WMD's, Osama, and fail to establish peace in Iraq.  That could really hurt Bush, and may even cost him the election.

Don't get me wrong, Bush has got my vote, and I hope he wins in '04.  But you can't count the Democrats - even Dean - out at all.

I agree.

[StevenNick]

It seems like a lot of people - Republican and Democrats - think Dean canNOT win against George Bush in the general election next year.

I say, beware of Dean.  You remember Ronald Reagan?  Bill Clinton?  Jimmy Carter thought running against Reagan would be easy.  Likewise, Bush 41 thought Clinton could never capture the hearts of Americans and beat him - especially since his foreign policy genius got him an approval rating of 91%.

Bush, while popular now against Dean, can still lose against Dean.  Give Dean time to get his arguments out, shape up a campaign against the president, and it could very well be a competitive race.

I think Dean actually could win.

I think you're wrong. It took an unpopular, unelected incumbent from the minority party who pardoned Nixon and did nothing sucessful for Carter too narrowly carry the day. Then it took Ross Perot to get Clinton in, and then Clinton got reelected with less than 50% of the votes. Not much of an achievement. Regan is a good example, but he was a republican.

I agree with Gustaf.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both moderates running against politically inept republican incumbents.  Dean is a liberal running against a politically astute president.

And don't overestimate the democrats' political power.  Since 1964 Republicans have had the real advantage in presidential politics.  The three democratic victories since 1964 can all be attributed to forces outside the candidate's appeal.  In 1976 it was anti-Watergate backlash that got Jimmy Carter elected.  In 1992 it was Ross Perot that got Bill Clinton elected.  In 1996 it was a weak republican and Ross Perot again that got Bill Clinton reelected.

Considering that Bush will not be a weak incumbent (unless something happens to considerable hurt him politically between now and 11/2/04) and he will be running against a liberal rather than a moderate and there won't be a third party spoiler to give the race to Dean, I just don't see that Dean has a good shot at winning.

[jravnsbo]

hey bandit, I don't know if I can compete with such indepth responses!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

  Clinton won in 92, by running towrds the center, and he did not have a leftist history as Gov of AR, and in fact his record if anything was right of center. That combined with he fact that the Democratic congress all during the Bush presidency(The congress' elected bteween 86 to 92 was the peak of the liberals dominence of congress) did everything they could to damage the Bush presidency and combined with the fact Bush ran a very inept re election campaign that was quite clueless is what produced Clinton.

  As for Reagan, he might have been viewed as far to the right, but he was the Gov of the most populated state of the nation, and that automatically gave him a base to work with.

Um... Clinton had a far more left wing record in AR than Dean has in VT(remember Howie's fetish about balanced budgets?)

[jravnsbo]

yeah but then add in Gay marriage, record on te environment, proposing national health care and tax increases makes Dean way to the left of Clinton.

Clinton was at least politically savy enought o run to the middle after 1994's crushing defeats in Congress to the GOP.

[JNB]

   Realpolitik, do you know anything about Clintons record in AR before the 92 election? He never took on any "hot" subject, AR still does not have a state civil rights law, and Clinton never attempted to get one passed when he was Gov there, he never discussed guns, and he tried to push a pro business enviroment.

[sny]

Clinton ran one of the most leftish campaigns of the recent past in 92.  Remember, he was going to have a jobs program, health care, more educational funding, gays in the military, increased taxes on the rich...the list goes on.  Newsweek had a good analysis of his campaign where they claimed it to be the 2nd most leftist campaign, tied with Mondale and behind McGovern.  If not for his sister souljah moments and regular capital punishment executions in AR, his campaign would have been left of Mondale's.  Yes his record was conservative, and people in the know knew he was a conservative, but most voters voted for what they heard during the campaign.

Of course the economy helped.  Perot also helped in deflecting any Bush criticisms.

Personality wins elections; ideology doesn't.  Some times, ideology can be used to frame a person's personality (eg, making Dukakis seem unamerican).    Given that we have an incumbent, the election is Bush's to lose.  But if we have a poor economy and continued problems in Iraq, anybody who has a good campaign can win.  This is a big if.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

   Realpolitik, do you know anything about Clintons record in AR before the 92 election? He never took on any "hot" subject, AR still does not have a state civil rights law, and Clinton never attempted to get one passed when he was Gov there, he never discussed guns, and he tried to push a pro business enviroment.

Speaking as an ignorant foreigner who obviously does not really understand the reality of U.S politics in the way a supporter of the Constitution Party does...

I seem to remember that Clinton modernised Arkansas a hell of a lot(and was too ambitious at his first try)
Whereas Dean had a fetish for balanced budgets, said some stuff about the enviroment in a state like Vermont and signed a civil unions bill.

[Inmate Trump]

Bill Clinton won for one reason only: Ross Perot.  Had Perot not run, Bush would have been reelected, probably with at least 50% (though that is debatable) - but he would have won.

The economy (as well as a failure to finish the Gulf War by getting rid of Saddam) hurt Bush a lot, but that wasn't going to cost him his reelection - Perot was (and did).  Bill Clinton was lucky, and there's no other way of getting around that little fact.

[Gustaf]

Bill Clinton won for one reason only: Ross Perot.  Had Perot not run, Bush would have been reelected, probably with at least 50% (though that is debatable) - but he would have won.

The economy (as well as a failure to finish the Gulf War by getting rid of Saddam) hurt Bush a lot, but that wasn't going to cost him his reelection - Perot was (and did).  Bill Clinton was lucky, and there's no other way of getting around that little fact.

I am tempted to agree. Though someone in this forum claimed that Perot voters split 50-50 between the candidates, but I'm not sure if that's true.

[Wakie]

I could be wrong but wasn't there a poll at the time which estimated that had Perot not run,

50% of Perot voters would have voted Bush
20% would not have voted
30% would have voted Clinton

I'm sure the #'s are at least a little off but I do recall hearing something like this.

[Gustaf]

I could be wrong but wasn't there a poll at the time which estimated that had Perot not run,

50% of Perot voters would have voted Bush
20% would not have voted
30% would have voted Clinton

I'm sure the #'s are at least a little off but I do recall hearing something like this.

Since, if I remember it correctly, Clinton beat Bush 43%-37%, with Perot at 20%, it would have meant Clinton beating Bush 49-47, but it would have been a lot closer. I might look into the states to see what the effects could have been.