Howard Dean is a frickin' idiot!

[Dis]

I think Bush Sr. lost because he didn't go after Saddam Hussein. Even though he was doing the right thing, it still appeared weak to many.

between not doing that and raising taxes, he was viewed as a weak president.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


New dems have failed to differentiate themselves form the Bushies and their cohorts. There is a reason Dean is dooing so well compared to other candidates in that field.Kerry is good but bland, lieberman is Bush for those who want Bush to be more Jewish (I love the Daily Show), Edwards is an empty headed pretty boy, and the other ones have no chance whatsoever.

After defending Dean against smears, id have thought you above this. Lieberman is very different from Bush on a range of issues - from education to health care to taxes to the environment. I see no evidence Edwards is "empty-headed" although he lacks experience. I dont know if Gephardt has a chance, i havent been following the polls.

As far as I can tell Dean's advantage is the liberal Dem primary/caucus electorates in New Hampshire and Iowa, and the split field among the New Dems. If you really think Dean will do better against Dubya than Gore did, you're in for a rude shock.

[Static Universe]

I caught the interview and I don't think Dean stands a chance. He's trying the "high ground" route now, trying to be candid about past mistakes,etc. But seriously, when have these so-called "candid" presidential hopefuls ever won the nomination?

And obviously his now vague attacks on his rivals will only intensify as the race continues. I expect Dean to come out with the most negative campaigning as the primary race continues, and he gets more deperate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


First, I remember how Republicans were crowing that Bush I was going to be unbeatable in 1991. Zzzzzzzzz! Not only did he lose, he got the lowest percentage of the popular vote since Goldwater.

Second, I remember people saying the historical odds of Gore losing were also negligible. See what happens?

Historical precedent means little.

Bush lost cause of the economy. Aint gonna happen to Dubya, not if he has to go all Keynsian to stop it.

Gore was not the incumbent Pres - he was the incumbent Veep - historically they seldom win immediately following their Veep terms - Gore did underperform the economy, but that was either Monica gate or Gores own inability as a campaigner depending who you beleive. (plus of course the loss of votes to Nader - no such third party split likely to hurt Dubya)

Dubya seems to do reasonably well as a campaigner, so that shouldnt stop him. A scandal on the level of a Monica gate could, but I wouldnt count on that (those kinds of things typically happen in second terms, when folks get sloppy)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


First, I remember how Republicans were crowing that Bush I was going to be unbeatable in 1991. Zzzzzzzzz! Not only did he lose, he got the lowest percentage of the popular vote since Goldwater.

.

In a three candidate field, so its hardly comparable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


. There is a reason Dean is dooing so well compared to other candidates in that field.

Polls show him second to Kerry in New Hampshire, though well ahead of the New Dems.

In florida Graham leads. Then its Leiberman, Gephardt, Kerry. Dean doesnt even make the the top four. And thats in the Dem primary electorate, not in a matchup against Dubya in the general.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
After defending Dean against smears, id have thought you above this. Lieberman is very different from Bush on a range of issues - from education to health care to taxes to the environment. I see no evidence Edwards is "empty-headed" although he lacks experience. I dont know if Gephardt has a chance, i havent been following the polls.

In politics there i no above, only not so far down...

Edwards has yet to put out any sort of platform, which does not help. It is hard to see how a centrist like Liberman can separate himself from Bush, given how much security and the aftermaths of the wars will weigth on the coming elections. If his plans are not siniifcantly different from what the reps. could paint themselves as having, he does not stand a chance: the left left would abandon him like they did Gore in 2000 (which lost him the race) Kerry has the plus of being a vet. but he hasn;t shown much passion yet, which he needs to. Gephardt has piut his whole boat on healthcare, and that won;t win it.

As far as I can tell Dean's advantage is the liberal Dem primary/caucus electorates in New Hampshire and Iowa, and the split field among the New Dems. If you really think Dean will do better against Dubya than Gore did, you're in for a rude shock.

I won't forecast, but the fact is that Bush won due to personality more than platform. The only invincible people are those that you believe are invincible. I don;t think a dam could ever win Montana, but I don;t care. The question is can Dean carry large states, enough to get 270, and it does not need by by huge margins either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

@ Dean saying "I shouldn't have said it" wasn't an apology. That's one of the surreal debate points I've ever seen!

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Polls show him second to Kerry in New Hampshire, though well ahead of the New Dems.

In florida Graham leads. Then its Leiberman, Gephardt, Kerry. Dean doesnt even make the the top four. And thats in the Dem primary electorate, not in a matchup against Dubya in the general.

Dean has little name recognition outside of NH and Iowa, specially sicne he is way behind in resources. The Graham lead florida should not be a surprise.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In a three candidate field, so its hardly comparable.

And why else other than high dissatisfaction with an incumbent would a fringe party come out of nowhere and get a large portion of the vote?

Bush is going to have a real hard time playing the "there's a war on" card in November 2004.

[lord of the mark]

latest CNN poll (june 1st)

Lieberman 20%
Kerry 17 %
Gephardt 14%
Sharpton 7%
Edwards 6%
Dean 5%

so what exactly is the basis for
"There is a reason Dean is doing so well compared to other candidates in that field" ????

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Bush lost cause of the economy. Aint gonna happen to Dubya, not if he has to go all Keynsian to stop it.

There's no way in Hell the ideologues in charge of the GOP would go full Keynesian. They're too committed to destroying the Federal government.

[GePap]

Becuase we are more than one year from the elections, so polls right now are meaningless. Election victories are built on groundwork. (where was Bill Clinton in Dem. polls back in 1991?) Dean has a corp of highy motivated staffers and voluteers laying down the groundwork. The other guys?

Look at whre sharpton is and tell me this is not a poll based on name recognition?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
a centrist like Liberman

CENTRIST?!? The man is a conservative through and through. He defeated his Republican incumbant opponent by running to his right.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
CENTRIST?!? The man is a conservative through and through. He defeated his Republican incumbant opponent by running to his right.

Those are the times we live in Che. The job is to change the terms so Liberman can be called a conservative dem.