Still not seeing Dean as electable...

Okay, Okay, so this will probably get me flamed big time, but I am really only trying to get an answer here.

The Texas primary has been moved back to March 9th instead of March 2nd, b/c of this whole redistricting crap, so, I dunno if Texas has much of a say, but I am still weighing my options. But here is Dean as I, and most everyone I know, sees him:

In order in win the presidency, one must go after the coveted swing voter. And, should the 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee get all the states Al Gore did, we will still have only 260 electoral college votes, needing 10 more to win. That leaves only Southern, Midwest, and Western states --with the exception of Alaska and New Hampshire-- in play.

Now, the average voter in the South and Midwest are going to be traditionally conservative. Now, let's compare Bush's stance on the hot topic issues that resonate in these regions:

Bush:

Abortion -- Against
Guns -- For
Gay Marriage -- Against
Tax Cuts -- For

Here is Dean:

Abortion -- For
Guns -- For
Gay Marriage -- For
Tax Cuts -- Against

Now, this is obviously a generalization and over simplification, but still accurate I think. Now, Bush isn't going to take away anyone's guns, and neither will Dean. Dean and Bush are both fiscal conservatives. These are the two defenses I've always heard about Dean -- fiscally conservative and good rating from the NRA. But, ya know what? So does Bush! Therefore, that leaves swing voters to look at abortion, gay marriage, and the tax cuts! These are things that Southerns and Midwesterns will probably just not go for.

Basically, how can Dean pull this off? I don't care if Dean motivates 100 million new voters in the US if they are all in New York, California, Mass., etc. and only wins over few voters in the South/Midwest. That will just have the Democrats win the popular vote again, yet lose the electoral.

So, does Dean have an honest shot at the White House? What red states from 2000 can he win with his stances on abortion, gay rights, and repealing the tax cuts?

Those who vote anti-choice and pro-homphobia are NEVER gonna vote for a Dem anyway.

The swing voters will be won over by the economy, as they always are. Dean is the only one I see really hammering Dumbo on his banana republic tactics.

The economy has not yet hit bottom--this will resonate next November.

However, there are many Democrats in the South and Midwest who are either against gay rights and abortion, or if they support it personally, must be silent about it politically. I know that's the case for my congressman and for all the candidates who run for state rep and state senator agaisnt the Republican incumbents. Those are the two issues you just don't talk about. Bad thing is, Dean has and the conservative nature of the swing voters in the South will not click with those views.

If Dean fights back--which I believe he should when Dumbo and his evil co-horts start their nasty campaign, he'll do ok. The real problem is not to back off a position--I believe people respect someone who believs strongly in what they believe, as opposed to people who support something lukewarmly, and seem flustered by any questions.

I posed this question to the lurking conservatives on this site. None of them was against gay rights or civil unions. Unfortunately, the thread got locked and everyone who admitted to being conservatives got banned so they can't comment on this. I'm sure some others here saw the discussion before it got locked. THe conservatives seemed much more upset about Bush's spending habits than the idea of civil unions. It's not going to be an issue that hurts Democrats, but it will end up hurting Bush because the religious right will put up a stink and turn off the majority of the country. It happened here that way during the Civil Unions backlash in Vermont when Dean signed the bill. This isn't something to be afraid of. Dean is brilliant talking about the issue, too.

that you are right. I've been reading a lot lately, however, the Republicans and the Religious Right will be using gay rights as a major theme in 2004.

Because until an issue is made of it, society won't get to see that there is a need to address gay rights. Blacks didn't get anywhere in the civil rights fight when no one was talking about the need to address the problem, either.

Here's what will happen...the religious right will try to instill hatred in people against gays. Damn near everyone in the country has a relative, friend or co-worker who they love or are very fond of who is gay. The ugliness that is sure to ensue from the religious right will turn off voters so bad it won't be funny. Bush will be forced to choose between patronizing the religious right to keep their votes or defend gay rights. If he sides with the religious right, he loses everyone else because they will be so disgusted by what they see. If he goes against the religious right, he loses those votes and loses the election. Making an issue about this doesn't help Bush, it just helps guarantee him losing.

national security. Therefore, I don't think the statement "the swing voters will be won over by the econom, as they always are" necessarily applies. History does not always repeat itself when the political landscape has changed.

national security will be a huge issue next year, if the republicans can see it in their best interest to do so. I don't believe that they can use it against Clark or Kerry, but they can certainly use it against Dean.

still having a ways to go downward. The signs are all showing that things are turning around.

I know where I put my faith. I know that Krugman believes that the bond market is headed for disaster. Whereas Kudlow believes that everything is coming up roses.

Dean does not support Gay Marriage, he supports Civil Unions, which is the same position that Dick Cheney took during the last election.

George W. Bush believes in unsustainable debt and his spending is out of control.

Bush does not believe in healthcare for all U.S citizens and he does not seem to be trying to do anything about health care costs.

I know the difference, I am gay myself. However, in the eyes of everyone person I run across, they see it as the same thing. I intern in my congressman's office, a Democrat, and I can't tell you how many of our supporters support the the Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage / civil unions. It's all the same thing to them....Sheesh!

Since you're gay it's pretty natural for you to be concerned that people are going to take issue with this. The fact is, most people don't care if people are gay or not. Sure, people don't want to see public displays of affection between gay people because it's going to make them feel pretty uncomfortable, but that's really where it ends. You are who you are and have no reason to be ashamed of it. Just about everyone agrees we all should have the same legal rights and protections. Civil Unions is something people will get behind easy enough. Problems arise when you bring religion into the mix by calling it marriage. That's just not going to work because of the church and the need to let the church have autonomy. So, as long as the gay community doesn't insist on labelling legal partnerships as marriage, it's not going to be anywhere near as big a battle as you might think. And the "marriage" objection has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone opposing gay rights. It's about opposing infringement upon the rights of the church in order to grant rights to gays. It has to be handled without sacrifices being made by any other groups to their rights and autonomy. This is the only thing that makes it tricky to deal with. I honestly think that the best thing that could ever happen to the gay community would be to nominate Howard Dean. Civil Rights are only truly addressed as the result of a battle and debate over the issue. Now is the right time for that debate. It's long overdue.

I'm a swing voter, and Dean is the only one I really like and trust. Yes, Dean wants to get rid of the tax cuts, but he also has come out with a great plan to change the tax system so that it eases the burden off the middle class an awful lot. He can sell this very easily because of the way he talks to people. Look at the crowds he's pulling in. Look at his fundraising. And most importantly, understand that he has been successful in doing what Democrats have been trying to do for ages...bringing NEW voters into the party. Over half of Dean's supporters have NEVER been active or involved in politics before, and a good number of those have never even voted before. Dean will pull in the hundreds of thousands of gun owners who would vote Democratic if they weren't afraid of electing a "gun grabber". Dean's fiscal responsibility is very attractive to Libertarians, moderate republicans and swing voters. If the Democrats who voted for Gore get in line and vote for Dean combined with all the new voters and the voters Dean can pull from Bush that no other candidate can...there is NO WAY Bush can beat Dean. In fact, Dean is the MOST electable of everyone running, including Bush.

been active or involved in politics?" We keep hearing this mantra from the Dean camp but where's the support? I'm registering plenty of new clark voters so it seems like it's not only Dean who is getting out the new voters.

As far as the rest of your analysis goes, why isn't national defense and terrorism discussed? We'll never get to the other issues because with a candidate who does nothing but enforce the perception that Dems are weak on defense we'll never get past the debate on national security.

People aren't kidding or exaggerating about this. Most of the people who have contributed to Dean has never done so for anyone before. I'm one of those. I also was never active in politics. I had voted some, but I wasn't hungry to vote like I am now. The ONLY reason I feel that way is because of Dean. I have NEVER voted in a primary before, but I will be this time. My story is quite typical of the average Dean supporter.

Dean does talk about terrorism and national security. In fact, Dean is a lot stronger on national security than Bush is. He can't be called weak on the issue at all if you look at his positions on national security and defense. It really astounds me that anyone, especially on this site would say Dean is weak on these issues. DUers are usually well informed. Yet too often I see mimicing of RNC talking points posted on here.

And here is the same extremist mischaracterization of the other 8 Democrats:

Abortion -- For
Guns -- Against
Gay Marriage -- Against
Tax Cuts -- Against

Btw, Dean isn't pro-gay marriage. He's pro-civil unions, at the state level, of the type that Gov. Davis of California signed into law, for his state, about a month ago and that the new Republican governor of California supports. Also, Dick Cheney (although, much less outspoken) supports them, also.

and so do all the latest polls. Clark beats Bush in the latest polls, and so does, I believe but I could be wrong, Kerry. Dean does not.

And my "extremist mischaracterizations" were on purpose. That is how the average voter looks at things, they don't sit and analyze positions or read into what a candidate says. They generalize.

I want as much as anyone, perhaps more seeing as how my state is entirely run by Republicans, and I have yet to vote for a winner -- with the exception of my congressman who just got his district redrawn -- for a Democrat to win. And I see certain candidates as more electable than Dean, Clark being one of them. But, I've always felt the race will come down to Dean, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards -- unless Gephardt pulls some surprising upsets.

I really just cannot decide who to support -- I like Edwards very much. But I am also interested in Clark. Kerry strikes me a presidential and has good policy. Dean is fresh and has invigorated many.

However, I just see Dean as too controversial and a risky candidate. But others see if differently than I, and I am trying to see things from their point of view, hence my post.

I provided similar extremist mischaracterisations to make the point that ALL of the candidates can be smeared as you are doing to Dean. It is impossible to protect any of them from smears, except by doing what I try to do and explain their positions accurately.

Also, if Dean were controversial his negatives would be at least as high as other candidates. They are the lowest.

if Dean isn't electable then no one is. You are incorrect. The latest polls have shown both Clark and Kerry beating Bush, while Dean trails Bush. Of course, polls change week to week and we are still a year away, but one cannot credibly say that if Dean can't noone can, when there are two candidates already beating Bush in the polls and Dean never has.

MCD1982,
Your story is telling. A gay, politically active individual in the South who works for a Democratic legislator. You say that many of that rep's supporters will simply not vote for Dean. On the other hand they will vote for Democrats. I think Edwards or Clark represent the best chance of taking states in the South. Hopefully, people will listen to your story.

I think you are referring to some nat'l polls that were released recently. I haven't heard of any state polls that show clark beating bush. I think that most of the candidates can be smeared with the same brush you see being weilded against dean.

That being said, I think you are correct in pointing out how rove and co will attack dean or whomever else the nominee ends up being.

taxes FAIRLY.

Bush has a history and a current record of inheriting wealth and squandering it and as the 2001 Nobel Prize winner in Economics would say -- looting public funds.

Bush's economic policies along with a chaotic situation in Iraq will be the albatrosses strangling Dubya's re-election chances in 2004. Civil Unions will be a footnote compared to these 2 major issues.

than most major U.S. cities?

Clark ran as mayor or any ELECTED official would be?


Do you ever post anything positive about Clark that doesn't relate to his supposed strength because of the military? Or are you just here to post anti-Dean, pro-PNAC/DLC crap?

Dean is not pro gay marriage. He is for civil unions, thinks that the idea of gay marriage is up to individual states.

Bush is fiscally conservative? <looking agape> Back this one up w/ facts, because this would be truly enlightening. Another red-ink Republican.

Dean is not anti-tax cuts. He just thinks that you ought to have a balanced budget before you start handing out $ you don't have or borrowing $ to hand out.

I can honestly say that any of the candidates including Dean will beat *. There is just too much ammo against * and now even military folks are turning on him. What does * run on? I am talking tangibles...

* will lose the popular vote AND the electoral college vote. You heard it here.

that I didn't mean gay marriage but civil unions and as I stated in another of my posts, I bet most Americans will look at the two "phrases" as the same thing.

I am not saying Bush is a fiscal conservative, but rather he is called one. And Dean has said he would repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. He says it over and over again because we cannot afford them.

...about how people perceive these issues. The technical distinction between marriage and unions is lost on most voters and you can be sure that rove and co are not going to make that distiction when they start running attack ads.

As crazy as it seems to us many people do perceive bush as a fiscal conservative. The pubs message will be very simple: Bush = anti tax, Dean = more tax. Unfortunately many people will believe that.

No, honestly, I'm not for flaming. Let me state this point:

Dean is not the type of guy who is going to skip over the South and Midwest. He will campaign just as hard or harder in the tougher states as he does in the easy states.

Gore skipped them over. Dean would not.

Dean has already been to North Dakota and he will be here again.

anyone who thinks Dean will improve on Gore's performance regarding the physical ground actually covered is seriously deluded.

Not every Democrat is a liberal but Dean has enough appeal to please everyone. He listens.

Check out his own words, including his "Meet the Press" interview.

than the rest of those folks.

was ready to override a veto. It wasn't like anything different would have happened if he had vetoed the bill. Look back at the facts. In addition to expressing opposition to acceptance of Canadian gay marriages, Dean also said he was to opposed a federal civil union bill. He said this on "Meet the Press." It is his feeling that states have the right to make their own decisions on gay unions, even if that means they are outlawed in certain states.

Move to state that tolerates gay marriage and be done with it!

Don't live among bigots.

Dean was pushed into signing that particular civil unions law, as has been stated. And to say that that is more than the rest of those folks? That's flat wrong.

John Kerry-
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

Senator Kerry is widely agknowledged as a huge champion of Gay Rights; he's done far more for it than Dean has, and that's just a fact.

Peepers

Dean doesn't believe government can dictate to churches who they can and cannot marry. But that is neither here nor there because due to the hatred that Dean has generated here, he no longer has my vote in the primary.

what are you trying to say? We should run a candidate that agrees with bush on all the issues? I know Leibs is kind of pub lite, but other than him I don't see any traditional dixiecrat type of candidate running.

I don't think running an anti-choice, pro gun, homophobe is the way to unseat bush. Elections are won by drawing distinctions between you and your opponent.

This election is going to hinge on the war and the economy. If both are going badly Dean is going to look very good compared to bush in every geo-political region and abortion and gay marriage won't be issues that swing very many voters. If the war is resolved to the voters satisfaction or at least spun as a success and the economy rebounds it's gonna be four more years of chimpy.

Whatever his centrist policies, I think you cannot ignore the fact that Dean comes off as a radical. And even if he tones it down, the Bush people will play ad after ad of him acting like he's a complete lunatic.

Dean comes off as unstable, which is the kiss of death in a climate where people are desperately seeking security.

If you don't believe me, watch this video and catch a glimpse of the future.

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

It may seem ridiculous to you now, but $200 million buys a whole lot of repetition.

$200 million can buy a lot of ads doing that to Kerry.

Dean is a better fighter than Kerry against the Repuke machine because Dean is willing to fight it. Kerry wants to lope around it.

pictures of himself playing hockey and doing radical sports. :-)

I know repugs have footage of Dean losing his cool because it's been posted here before. I've never seen footage of Kerry losing his cool.

If image is a factor then I think Kerry has the edge over Dean.

tax cuts, jobs, security at home, war on terror overseas, peace in the ME. These are the issues next election. Guns, abortions and gay marriage may be used as diversions; but I don't think people will vote on them the same way they did in the past. If a candidate doesn't have the big stuff right, people aren't even going to care about the little stuff.

It's a win-win!

Swing voters will make a decision on vague ideas of the candidates. Sad but true.

You apologize for generalizing but that's what swing voters are going to do when choosing a candidate. That's why I also think Dean is not electable. I wish he was electable since he has such a great chanve of winning the nomination.

of whom you speak will not vote for any Dem in the near future. Jesus H. Christ himself could be our nominee, and we'd still lose those people.

The people for whom (being anti-)gay rights is an important issue are already firmly entrenched in the repub party, as are those who will vote for or against someone based solely on their pro-choice stance. We have tried pandering to that group in the past, and we were handed our asses in November of 2000. THEY DO NOT LEAVE THE REPUB PARTY, NO MATTER HOW CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS BECOME.

Most moderates and swing voters are actually PRO-CHOICE, could care less either way about gay rights, and swing with the wind each election cycle depending on the kitchen table issues. If the economy continues its downward spiral and Iraq slides further into mayhem, the real swing voters will abandon Shrub.

And as several others pointed out, ALL of the Dem candidates have similar stands on those issues, with the exception of guns. This kind of flame fest could be directed at any of them. And btw, Clark is winning so far because people in general don't know anything about him. Once the Rove media points out that he is a *gasp* liberal, in favor of civil unions, pro-choice, etc., he'll lose the same people you think he has already won.

I find it funny that you think Kerry will do better in the South than Dean. Although Kerry is my second choice, that is one of my major concerns with his candidacy- that he can far too easily be portayed as the Taxachusetts liberal who talks down to Bubba. Maybe the Dems in Nacog are different than the Dems in Beaumont, but there is absolutely no support for him down here.

seems to be firmly behind Clark, but we also like Edwards. I personally like Kerry, but he's not at the top of my list, I think he has some of the same problems as Dean as far as electability goes. I was simply saying who I liked -- not who I thought would win in the South.

Some of these people say anti-gay will never vote Democrat. That is simply not true. I mean, heck, my congressman voted against gay adoption in DC, for example, and he has broad support. People in the South, or at least my part of it, will vote for Democrats, but the Democrats must be socially conservative. In the North, that maybe another story, but I don't live there, so I can't attest to that.

I know a Democrat will never carry Texas, I'm not that delusional, but a Southern, or Midwestern, state or two must be won to win the election and I just don't see what states Dean picks up.

Arizona, WV, FL will mean victory for any dem. The south may actually be completely irrelevant in a victory. No offense to my southern dems on DU.