Dean & McGovern

[MAS117]

What do you think?

[StevenNick]

I don't know that there will ever be another McGovern.  Every election and every candidate is different.  The reasons Mondale lost are not the same as the reasons McGovern lost and different from all the possible reasons that Dean may lose.

That being said, I do think there are some similarities shaping up between 2004 and 1972.  It's interesting that Dean is getting his support from the same slice of the democratic party that McGovern got his.  Both candidates won the nomination with the support from college students, white yuppie liberals, and gays.  

I don't think Howard Dean is primed for the same kind of loss as McGovern, though.  I think he will lose, but it will be a loss more like Bob Dole's in 1996--solid, but not embarrassing.

There's only one way to see if Dean is a McGovern:  wait and see.

[© tweed]

No....
The country has changed alot, I can't see someone fairing as badly as McGovern again.  Even being the weakest of candidates, Dean still has Massachusetts, RI, VT, NY, DC, CT, and HI in the bag, which gives him a solid 64 Ev's.

[StevenNick]

No....
The country has changed alot, I can't see someone fairing as badly as McGovern again.  Even being the weakest of candidates, Dean still has Massachusetts, RI, VT, NY, DC, CT, and HI in the bag, which gives him a solid 64 Ev's.

I think you're right.  The only way Dean would lose those states is if he ran an absolutely awful campaign and had Ralph Nader and Al Sharpton running as third party spoilers and we caught Osama the week before the election.  Even then Massachusetts and D.C. would still go Dean.

[7,052,770]

DC would probably go Sharpton if he ran as a 3rd party candidate.
In fact, he could go down in the record books as the first 3rd party candidate since 1968 to get some ev's.

[© tweed]

DC would probably go Sharpton if he ran as a 3rd party candidate.
In fact, he could go down in the record books as the first 3rd party candidate since 1968 to get some ev's.

No he wouldn't.  Most of black america HATES Sharpton.  But if he was the Dem he might win it narrowly.

[jravnsbo]

FYI-- DC is the only place with EV not to vote for both parties at least once.  It has always voted Democrat, even int he landslide losses of Dean and Mondale, oh I meant McGovern and Mondale

Dean will lose big, and sweep in 3-5 more GOP southern senators and 7-10 more house members.

As Sen Zell Miller (D-GA) said Dean is taking the worst part of the McGovern campaign ( Anti-war) and the worst part of the Mondale campaign (MASSIVE TAX INCREASES) and combingin them as the centerpieces of his campaign.

[MAS117]

jravnsbo are u a democratic or republican?
 
 
 
 

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

No....
The country has changed alot, I can't see someone fairing as badly as McGovern again.  Even being the weakest of candidates, Dean still has Massachusetts, RI, VT, NY, DC, CT, and HI in the bag, which gives him a solid 64 Ev's.

I think you're right.  The only way Dean would lose those states is if he ran an absolutely awful campaign and had Ralph Nader and Al Sharpton running as third party spoilers and we caught Osama the week before the election.  Even then Massachusetts and D.C. would still go Dean.

I don't see Sharpton on the train ride til' the end.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

jravnsbo are u a democratic or republican?
 
 
 
 

He's a Republican, read his quote by Ronald Reagan.

[Gustaf]

Isn't it interesting how when a party gets the White House in a close election they often get re-elected resoundingly, so that a close one is often follwed by a landslide, which is followed by a close one, etc. This was true from 1956-1980. The Democratic party is stronger now than they were in 1972 and it wont be as bad as it was then. I think...

And jravnsbo is, well, one could say, leaning slightly towards the republican side...:-)

[© tweed]

FYI-- DC is the only place with EV not to vote for both parties at least once.  It has always voted Democrat, even int he landslide losses of Dean and Mondale, oh I meant McGovern and Mondale

Dean will lose big, and sweep in 3-5 more GOP southern senators and 7-10 more house members.

As Sen Zell Miller (D-GA) said Dean is taking the worst part of the McGovern campaign ( Anti-war) and the worst part of the Mondale campaign (MASSIVE TAX INCREASES) and combingin them as the centerpieces of his campaign.

McGovern and Mondale were bad candidates who lost decisively, but they weren't complete clowns like Sharpton is.  Comparing them to Sharpton is unfair and inaccurate.

[southernnorthcarolina]

I suppose to be consistent with my map in the Predictions section, I should say "No -- Dean won't be the next McGovern."  I have Bush defeating a generic Democratic candidate by a 317-221 count, with the Democrat winning ME, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, MI, IL, WA, CA, and HI.  Or to put it another way, Bush holds all states he won in 2000, and tacks on WI, MN, IA, NM, and OR.

I'm a conservative Republican, and I've been cautioning my Republican friends against overconfidence.  There's far too much of that going around, particularly following Saddam's capture.  Still, if Dean is the nominee (no sure thing, in my opinion), I'd be tempted to move PA, and perhaps MI and WA to the Bush side of the ledger.  Of course it's early yet, and situations out of the control of the candidates will change.

One reason I don't see a McGovernesque blowout is continued GOP weakness in the suburbs of cities in the East, Midwest, and California.  Republicans still win in the burbs, for the most part, but often not by the margins required to overcome the big city vote.  A few decades ago, for instance, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties would overwhelm LA and the Bay Area.  GOP totals of 75% and more in those counties was commonplace, but no more.  Now, it's more like 55%.  Why the falloff in the burbs?  Soccer Moms; pro-choice voters; concerns about growth and sprawl -- and the fact that the burbs are no longer lily-white.  Orange County in particular has seen a huge surge in its Latino population.  In other areas, the black suburban vote is becoming significant.  Although middle-class suburban blacks aren't as certain to vote Democratic as those they've "left behind," they still lean strongly that way.

The story's the same in the "collar counties" surrounding Chicago.  They still vote GOP, but recently not by margins sufficient to offset Cook County.

Suburban weakness, in my opinion, takes NY, NJ, IL, and CA (despite Arnold) out of play for the GOP under most conditions.

[zorkpolitics]

No....
The country has changed alot, I can't see someone fairing as badly as McGovern again.  Even being the weakest of candidates, Dean still has Massachusetts, RI, VT, NY, DC, CT, and HI in the bag, which gives him a solid 64 Ev's.

I think a Bush win is very likely, but not a 49 state win.  I think Bush will get about a net gain of 10% over 2000.  Looking at the 2000 results, 12 states with 168 EV states voted for Gore by more than a 10% margin over Bush.  Even a net gain of 15% by Bush would still leave 8 states for Dean with 86 Evs.

                                   EV          Difference in 2000
D. C.                              3             81%
Rhode Island                 4             31
Massachusetts            12             30
New York                     31             26
Hawaii                         4             20
Connecticut                   7             19
Maryland                     10             17
New Jersey                 15             16
Delaware                      3             14
California                     55            12
Illinois                          21            12
Vermont                        3             11

[DarthKosh]

No....
The country has changed alot, I can't see someone fairing as badly as McGovern again.  Even being the weakest of candidates, Dean still has Massachusetts, RI, VT, NY, DC, CT, and HI in the bag, which gives him a solid 64 Ev's.

I think a Bush win is very likely, but not a 49 state win.  I think Bush will get about a net gain of 10% over 2000.  Looking at the 2000 results, 12 states with 168 EV states voted for Gore by more than a 10% margin over Bush.  Even a net gain of 15% by Bush would still leave 8 states for Dean with 86 Evs.

                                   EV          Difference in 2000
D. C.                              3             81%
Rhode Island                 4             31
Massachusetts            12             30
New York                     31             26
Hawaii                         4             20
Connecticut                   7             19
Maryland                     10             17
New Jersey                 15             16
Delaware                      3             14
California                     55            12
Illinois                          21            12
Vermont                        3             11

If Bush does get 15% more this time around it will destroy the Dems.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes... but it won't happen

[agcatter]

Bush won't carry 49 states even against a lousy candidate like Dean.  Dems even in a landslide loss are assured of carrying Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, and a few other states.

Actually, I look for something on the order of the Bush - Dukakis electoral split.

Winning 49 states as in 1972 and 1984 requires a Democratic nominee to be completely out of touch with the electorate on taxes ala Mondale or national security like McGovern.  Uh, wait a second....they may have in Dean BOTH an appeaser and one who promises to raise taxes on the middle class.  Throw in Dean's propensity to say stupid stuff on a regular basis and who knows how bad the beating will be.  Still, look for somethig like a sound Dukakis style thumping.

[DarthKosh]

Bush won't carry 49 states even against a lousy candidate like Dean.  Dems even in a landslide loss are assured of carrying Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maryland, and a few other states.

Actually, I look for something on the order of the Bush - Dukakis electoral split.

Winning 49 states as in 1972 and 1984 requires a Democratic nominee to be completely out of touch with the electorate on taxes ala Mondale or national security like McGovern.  Uh, wait a second....they may have in Dean BOTH an appeaser and one who promises to raise taxes on the middle class.  Throw in Dean's propensity to say stupid stuff on a regular basis and who knows how bad the beating will be.  Still, look for somethig like a sound Dukakis style thumping.

If Bush gets a 10 point swing he could win Vermont.

[StevenNick]

I suppose to be consistent with my map in the Predictions section, I should say "No -- Dean won't be the next McGovern."  I have Bush defeating a generic Democratic candidate by a 317-221 count, with the Democrat winning ME, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, MI, IL, WA, CA, and HI.  Or to put it another way, Bush holds all states he won in 2000, and tacks on WI, MN, IA, NM, and OR.

Although the potential is definately there for a Bush blowout in 2004, I predicted in my map that Bush would win with 335 EVs to the Dean's 203 EVs.

[JNB]

 As I have said in a previous post, if it is Dean vs. Bush, the result I predict is similar to the 88 presidential election, 53-45-2, of course the states Bush would win will be a different set of states that his father won.

  Dean will be almost sure to get HI, CA, WA, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT and even ME and IL would almost be in the bag. Where Dean would be less  competitive than Dukakis is in the upper midwest. In a Dean vs. Bush election, I could forsee Bush gaining IA, MN, WI, NM and even PA.

   The Democrats could win 2004 on economics populism, somthing Dean has no history of, and they need the right messenger. Gephardt comes closest to that, but he seems to lack the ability to fire up voters.

[jravnsbo]

Gephardt also is running on fumes now for money and MUST win IA to stay alive.

However his TAX INCREASE plan is similiar to that of Dean's, so that won't sell either.

[MAS117]

I suppose to be consistent with my map in the Predictions section, I should say "No -- Dean won't be the next McGovern."  I have Bush defeating a generic Democratic candidate by a 317-221 count, with the Democrat winning ME, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC, MI, IL, WA, CA, and HI.  Or to put it another way, Bush holds all states he won in 2000, and tacks on WI, MN, IA, NM, and OR.

I'm a conservative Republican, and I've been cautioning my Republican friends against overconfidence.  There's far too much of that going around, particularly following Saddam's capture.  Still, if Dean is the nominee (no sure thing, in my opinion), I'd be tempted to move PA, and perhaps MI and WA to the Bush side of the ledger.  Of course it's early yet, and situations out of the control of the candidates will change.

One reason I don't see a McGovernesque blowout is continued GOP weakness in the suburbs of cities in the East, Midwest, and California.  Republicans still win in the burbs, for the most part, but often not by the margins required to overcome the big city vote.  A few decades ago, for instance, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties would overwhelm LA and the Bay Area.  GOP totals of 75% and more in those counties was commonplace, but no more.  Now, it's more like 55%.  Why the falloff in the burbs?  Soccer Moms; pro-choice voters; concerns about growth and sprawl -- and the fact that the burbs are no longer lily-white.  Orange County in particular has seen a huge surge in its Latino population.  In other areas, the black suburban vote is becoming significant.  Although middle-class suburban blacks aren't as certain to vote Democratic as those they've "left behind," they still lean strongly that way.

The story's the same in the "collar counties" surrounding Chicago.  They still vote GOP, but recently not by margins sufficient to offset Cook County.

Suburban weakness, in my opinion, takes NY, NJ, IL, and CA (despite Arnold) out of play for the GOP under most conditions.

Yeah will most likely take those states and maybe gain over 100 EV's but who knows.

[MAS117]

I would just like to point out to everyone a article I came across actually comparing Geroge McGovern to Howard Dean.  Check it out... http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/26/dean_supporters_reject_comparison_to_72_mcgovern/

[© tweed]

I would just like to point out to everyone a article I came across actually comparing Geroge McGovern to Howard Dean.  Check it out... http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/26/dean_supporters_reject_comparison_to_72_mcgovern/

Good article.  Thanks, MAS.

[Gustaf]

Yeah,  I agree, good article. Ironically, every thing that is said in favour of McGovern actually kinds of bounce back on Dean. When someone say that McGovern wasn't really THAT crazy a liberal, then I just think, well that is what you are saying of Dean as well and McGovern still got chrushed.