Dean Vs. Clark: Someone do a poll on the two.

Obviously, only one person is going to win the Democratic nomination.

Clark and Dean are most likely going to win of the current candidates at this time.
I think Clark sucks up a great of the support from the other 8 candidates if he enters. The first question is, where would the delegates go if both Dean and Clark only get 30-40% each?

If Dean gets 40% and Clark gets 35%, and the other 8 split the remaining 25%, we are deadlocked unless Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Edwards, Bruan, Sharpton, Graham and Gephardt give up enough delegats to get one over the 50% mark.

Who do you think would win? And why?

The Second question is: Who is more likely to win the General election between the two (Dean and Clark)?

Dean would carry the traditional Democratic States by a larger margin than Clark, but have a more difficult time picking up swing states.

Dean would have to visit Missouri,New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Florida a great of the time with no certainty of gaining any of them.

Clark would have a better chance winning the swing states but would have a harder time keeping traditional Democratic States.

Clark would pick up Arkansas, and could pick up Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Colorado easier then Dean. But he would have to spend more time in Wisconsin, Oregon, and Iowa then Dean would to secure those states.

What do you think?

:kick:
J4Clark

I mean Dean might get accused of being soft on defense but with Clark as VP Dean (or any candidate) can kick Shrub's arse in that arena.

CLARK IS NOT A VP!!!!

This is what the RePUNKS want us to think.

But Dean as Clark's VP, now that is just crazy. That would not help at all. People vote for the President, few care about the VP slot. Neither one has any Hill experience and would not likely want the job.

:kick:
J4Clark

:-)

I mean really, obviously he will be. He has even pretty much said so in 2-3 weeks. So I fail to see why anyone would say that.

Even in an interview he slipped up and said he was going to run.

He was asked if he was going to run as a Republican, He said, "I'm running as a patriot." The words, "I'm running" is a big clue he is going to run.

:kick:
J4Clark

And you've got the campaign all figured out.

BTW, you do know thw difference between and "argument" and a "statement", don't you?

I wonder how you come to this: "Clark would have a better chance winning the swing states."

Seem like the Gov. is a bit popular here judging by the turnout in Santa Fe a couple of months ago...

And he'll be back for three days in September...

Arkansas is a swing state. Clark would win that one.

Missouri is just to the North of Arkansas. And has a large number of moderate voters. Clark does well in moderateville.

Colorado is heavily military in the north and heavily Hispanic in the south. Both would do well in the south, but Clark would pull in the Northern military votes better than Dean would.

Florida. The Northern part is military and considered lower Alabama. The south is Jewish and Hispanic. Clark is a southern military man, and of Jewish decent, and speaks Spanish, and is Roman Catholic. Dean is not Jewish, is not Spanish, not Roman Catholic, and was not in military, and is not a Southerner. Clark will do better in the North and South, winning the state.

Neveda: Dean dumped nuclear waste there. I would say Clark is the plus in this area.

:kick:
J4Clark

asked about.

I am not surprised.

I assume you are basing your analysis on Clark's past election records? Oh, wait! He's NEVER been elected to anything. Sorry.

I mean after all Clark is just strictly military and that means that he wants to take over the world. Even though it's obvious that he believes in cannabalism, and would probably get the canabals' vote, I find myself in a conundrum. Should I vote for that lefty liberal Dean or vote for canabal Clark?

Choices...choices

Put it up: In the event the nomination came down to Dean Vs. Clark, who would vote for?

Dean
Clark

You tickle me VoteClark...HAHAHAHAHA

Love the ignore button :)

The "ignore" button shouldn't be used except for stalkers, etc. If we use it on those who argue persuasively against our point of view - we end up reading only the rest of the choir.

However, while I don't support Clark, I despise the kind of silly post like the one you were referring to.

Everything in your initial post looks like something you arbitrarily pulled outta your ass.

On what factual information are you basing your talking points??

They only cloud the issue.

I hope his (non) candidate fares better.

The use of facts would not support his "agenda".:eyes:

Then you can make yer own poll.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ever think of that?

I have been unemployed for 8 months and I'm a full time student, I've donated 2x in 3 months...Minimum donation is $1!

It doesn't come down to a 50% issue - it's who can win 2,170 delegates. That's the number needed to nominate.

It's a matter of who can piece together delegates from the voter-rich states in the primaries and caucuses. Some are winner-take-all, most are proportional representation based on vote percentage that goes to the convention from that particular state. So, it's NOT 50%. It's actually much more difficult when you have multiple candidates with each having a particular regional appeal. That's why the national polls don't mean a thing. The state-by-state polls are what to watch -- and they are very interesting.

I also disagree that Clark would become a frontrunner when he gets in the race. He would have a lot of work to do. He may eventually become a frontrunner - but not soon.