In a nutshell --- Why Dean is ahead in primary but will lose against *

[MIMStigator]

Second paragraph is why Dean can't win

<snip>

Some of Dean’s support may be due to his opposition to the war in Iraq, and more Democratic primary voters are looking for an anti-war rather than a pro-war candidate. 39% of Democratic primary voters say they would prefer a nominee who was opposed to the war, compared to 25% who prefer a nominee who supported it. But 33% say the Democratic nominee’s stance on the war in Iraq doesn’t matter to them.

However, among all voters that sentiment is reversed. 41% of registered voters would prefer a Democratic nominee who supported the war, while about half that number -- 22% -- are looking for an anti-war nominee.

<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/opinion/polls/main590018.shtml

ALMOST TWICE THE AMOUNT OF VOTERS FROM ALL PARTIES SAY THEY DONOT WANT AN ANTI WAR NOMINEE.

THIS answers all the Dean fans who say it doesn't make sense to say Dean can't win but our candidate can if our candidate isn't beating Dean in the DEMOCRATIC polls. dUH!

Clark has the best of both worlds, he CAN be anti war and talk against the war because of his military background....he won't be seen as draft dodging peacenik Dukakis in a tank like Dean.

[Jim Sagle]

1. You're being silly. Dean isn't anything like Dukakis.

[Bombtrack]

11. Liberal governor from a smaller, liberalER new england state

except Vermont is like 6 times smaller than Massachusetts and in no way as complex, and even more stereotypically left-wing than Massachusetts. And instead of the death penalty being the major social issue which the dem was known for allowing his opponent to write off the south and concentrate on the midwest and west, it would be civil unions with Dean.

I think that's SOMETHING

[Jim Sagle]

32. The difference is: Dean has guts, Dukakis didn't.

Dean fights back, Dukakis didn't.

Dean's numbers rise with every attack, Dukakis' tanked.

[virtualobserver]

2. Polling only shows what people currently believe

All of the pre 2000 polls showed George Bush with a 20 -25 point lead, but he didn't win the popular vote.

Polls like these measure nothing of importance.

[Myra]

3. Stop being "silly" MIMStigator

Polls only show what Dean supporters want to see.
No more, no less.

[nomaco-10]

4. If this isn't locked for a dupe.....

it ought to be. How many times a day is somebody gonna post this, day after day after day.... Dean is not electable, Dean is Dukakis, Dean is not moderate enough, Dean is too liberal, vote for my candidate because he is the only one that can beat bush* yada, yada yada
Not only can Dean win, Dean will win, and quite handily I might add.

[Democrats unite]

6. First time today this article has been posted.

So by your standard if it does not look good for Dean don't post it?

[liberalnurse]

20. Yes.

[Myra]

15. I don't think it's posted near as often as the strategic posts about

*Dean's VP choices*...
I'm very tired of those heavy handed, rather premature, posts.

[liberalnurse]

18. I am having a serious concerns

that such posters may not be sincere democrats. They just keep banging and banging away, on and on and on.......

Does the NFL quarterback tell his team-mates that the coach is incompetent and not to follow any of the game plays? Do the NFL players go on TV and bash their coach? No.......

They look at how they contributed to the game and how they can work together better in the future.


Gee's there are self-centered democrats here that just seem to find pleasure with evoking chaos and deflating any positive momentum. Hell, I think we get enough of that daily from the right.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[rumguy]

23. Bush used phony intel...that's the bottom line

the sixteen words, remember that? Democrats were concerned, but they never lied to the American people...

[eileen from OH]

5. Support for the war, when attached to the price tag

goes down sharply. Right after Bush came out and gave a real live number (87 billion) support dipped sharply in the polls, especially the question that asked if it was costing too much. (Big Mistake there, W, actually giving a dollar figure. You won't catch him doing that again.) It's cynical, but "support" for the war and the Dems who were for it, will, I think, go down in direct relation to the price tag going up.

eileen from OH

[jjmalonejr]

7. Michael Dukakis was not a draft dodger

He served two years in the Army.

[liberalnurse]

19. Your point?

I hope you are not suggesting Dean has dodged the draft.

[FubarFly]

8. In a nutshell?

Somebody better let him out.

:hi:

[oasis]

26. that was a dandy. :-)

:-)

[askew]

9. This is not a one issue race.

Your theory that Clark is more electable than Dean based on this poll simply makes no sense.

Basically this poll is saying that Democratic voters would prefer an anti-Iraq candidate and all voters would prefer a pro-Iraq war candidate. However, the poll doesn't state how important this issue is to either group of voter. There have been other polls that have shown that domestic issues are much more important to voters than Iraq. If that is the case, the candidates view on Iraq is not going to determine if they vote Democratic or Republican. Bush is going to try to run on Iraq, because his domestic agenda has been a miserable failure. This is where Dean's strength lies. Dean can attack Bush* on Bush*'s domestic failures (the deficit, medicare bill, education, environment), because Dean has experience governing and dealing successfully with these issues. I think Dean will attract economic conservatives (not social conservatives, they are a lost cause no matter who we run) due to Dean's record on balancing the budget. There are some independents/republicans who won't vote for Dean, because they wanted a pro-Iraq war candidate. And yes, Clark may have gotten some of those votes, because of his military experience. But, Clark was still anti-Iraq war, so I don't think he would get all of these voters. We would probably be better off running Kerry then, because Kerry is currently pro-Iraq war. However, Dean has much stronger support in the democratic base right now. And yes, that matters. Because if the base is not motivated to come out on election day, we will be in trouble. And I think Dean's strengths on domestic issues will attract more swing voters than Bush*. Also, Dean has a real chance to cut into Bush*'s base with economic-conservative republican voters who are furious with Bush*'s out of control spending.

Truthfully, I think we need to have a really motivated base this election. Republicans are not as fired up as they have been in the past. They don't have an issue to get their base out with and Bush* has managed to piss a lot of them off. And I truthfully believe for these reasons that Dean is the most electable candidate.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[liberalnurse]

21. Clark can't either......

[jjmalonejr]

14. Kerry is NOT pro-Iraq war...

...and you know it.

It makes the most sense to run Kerry.

His unique combination of deep domestic and foreign policy experience gives him an ENORMOUS advantage over Bush. He's a double-barrelled shotgun, capable of exploiting Bush's weaknesses in both areas whereas neither Dean nor Clark can.

I would support either Dean or Clark, but Kerry is my top choice.

[drfemoe]

28. This Poll DOES Indicate

precisely what you're saying .. if you look around on the page ..

CAMPAIGN ISSUES

The economy is still the top issue on the minds of voters during this presidential campaign, but the number who want the candidates to discuss the war in Iraq and foreign policy has risen slightly in the last week.

25% of registered voters say they would like to hear the presidential candidates talk about the economy, 16% say healthcare and Medicare, followed by 12% who say the war in Iraq and foreign policy.

Dean's got all the bases covered. The "war" was not his main motivation for running for president, as I suspect is the case for Clark.

[TorchTheWitch]

30. not gonna happen

Bush is going to try to run on Iraq, because his domestic agenda has been a miserable failure.

No, he's going to run on foreign policy issues - make no mistake about it, this election is all about post-9/11 War on Terra. We are at war with two countries and will continue to be at war with those countries at the time of the election. We've got potential war on the way with Syria and Iran. North Korea is a serious threat. Please point out any instance in our nation's history that an election during a time of war the platform was based on domestic policy. It's never happened. It will never happen as body bags always, always, ALWAYS trump wallets.

This is where Dean's strength lies. Dean can attack Bush* on Bush*'s domestic failures (the deficit, medicare bill, education, environment), because Dean has experience governing and dealing successfully with these issues.

This is where Dean has a big problem. His strengths are in domestic policy, he has basically no experience whatsoever in foreign policy, he is running on an anti-Iraq platform, and most of our biggest domestic policy problems (deficit, lost jobs, economy) are all a result of BushCo's disastrous foreign policy. Dean can't discuss domestic policy issues of greatest importance without running right smack back into the foreign policy issues. Clinton was able to run on the "it's the economy, stupid" platform because at that time, it WAS the economy that was the major issue. We were at war with no one. Other countries liked us. We had just won a short war with minimal casualties and were feeling strong in foreign policy. This election's major issue is WAR... war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, war on terror, upcoming war with Syria, Iran and North Korea. We simply cannot delude ourselves that this election is going to be based on anything else other then foreign policy, especially when virtually all of our domestic policy issues point right back to the mistakes made in foreign policy.

[dfong63]

10. clark has plenty of negatives too, which you conveniently overlook

[Bombtrack]

13. such as?

His negatives as a general election candidate are rediculously small compared to middle-class raising, loose-lipped, angry, civil unions signing(yet misrepresting of his "heroics" in doing so), governor of the most stereotypiclly left wing and second smallest state

[mourningdove92]

16. Let us all close our eyes and repeat softly

theenemyisgeorgewbush, theenemyisgeorgewbush, theenemyisgeorgewbush....oooooommmmmmm.....aaaaaahhhmmmm.

There, feel better? Brain cleared now? Remember who you are and what we need to do now?

:spank:

[Bombtrack]

24. As a fellow Edwards supporter, let me say it's more nuanced than that

Dean supporters and Bush supporters, with very little dissent, want the same thing to occur in the coming months. For Dean to get the democratic nomination.

Maybe I'm a minority among Dean-critics here in that I not only don't want to see him nominated, I want to see him go away period. I don't like him at all, and I beleive he has hurt the party.

Bush is the opposition, but as far as I'm concerned Dean is his indirect ally.

[jonnyblitz]

27. interesting comments.

I was never a huge fan of Dean's myself but I am also not a DEM and not a huge fan of any of them quite frankly. I am way to the left of all of them and of most people here at DU for that matter. I have decided that the most important thing is to vote for whomever the DEM candidate is this time, I usually do anyways. To me it looks like Dean is going to be the one chosen so I am preparing myself mentally to support him.

[Scott Lee]

34. Oh there's "nuance" again

Which is code for "will somebody please tell me what I'm supposed to mean here?"

[Hippo_Tron]

25. In a nutshell Bush is such a bad president that anybody can beat him...

And Dean is a person so therefore Dean can beat Bush. Therefore this thread is stupid.

[Bombtrack]

29. with a 60 percent approval rating

greater favorables than unfavorables on the economy, and 2 thirds supporting his most important decision on foriegn policy, the Iraq war.

It will take a strong candidate to beat him. And I only see Clark, Kerry, and Edwards as them

[Scott Lee]

35. Then you've knocked Clark, Kerry and Edwards out fo the game too

Clark is antiwar - Kerry tries to be (although this may change in a day or two depending on the political winds) and Edwards is prowar but languishing down in the single digits in most polls.

Dang, does it ever seem like one of them days that you just cannot get a break?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Scott Lee]

33. Well you just knocked yourt man Clark out of the game then.

Clark is "antiwar". Oooops. :)

[stickdog]

36. Wow! So most Repukes want a pro-war Dem!

However, among all voters that sentiment is reversed. 41% of registered voters would prefer a Democratic nominee who supported the war.

Since only 25% of Dems want a nominee who is for the war that means that 70% of the 41% who want a candidate who was for the war are Republican.

Of course most Republicans want a candidate who was for the war. That way Bush won't be exposed on one of his weakest points.