Dean's guaranteed unelectability

More than a few of Dean's most ardent supporters were Nader voters in 2000 (see Appendix 1), and Dean himself says that he represents 'the Democratic wing of the Democratic party', a base of Nader support in 2000 (see Appendix 2).  But this leads to a question about Dean's electablity in key states in 2004.

 An analysis of the Electoral College results from 2000 reveals that the nomination of Dean as the Democrat's candidate for 2004 may actually be very good news for George W. Bush.  

The Democratic Party is strong in some parts of the country, and it is likely that any Democratic candidate would win the following states: Washington D.C., Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, California, Illinois, Vermont, Washington, Maine, and Michigan (200 electoral college votes) [1,2,3].  Because Bush is an incumbent, a few states, such as Illinois, Maine and Michigan may be more competitive in 2004 than they were in 2000.

Bush will win, with almost certainty, the following states: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, Virginia, Louisiana, Arizona, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee (211 electoral college votes) [4].

Thus, the 2004 Presidential election will be decided in the remaining eleven states: Pennsylvania (21), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), Iowa (7), Wisconsin (10), New Mexico (5), Florida (27), New Hampshire (4), Missouri (11), Ohio (20) and Nevada (5) (electoral votes for each state are in parentheses, with 127 total Electoral College votes).

Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin will lean towards the Democratic candidate (55 Electoral College votes, bringing the Democratic total to 255).  But even winning all these states, the Democratic candidate would still have to win one of the following: 1) Florida, 2) Ohio, 3) Missouri and Nevada, or 4) Missouri and Arkansas.

Since Dean appeals to Nader voters, it is important to analyze Nader's performance in 2000 in the battleground states.  Nader did best in states like Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Massachusetts, Hawaii and Rhode Island.  In these states, Gore beat Nader by less than a 10 to 1 margin [5, 6].

Conversely, Gore beat Nader by much larger margins in the following states:

Florida - 29.9 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Missouri - 28.8 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Michigan - 25.8 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Illinois - 25.0 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Pennsylvania - 24.0 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Iowa - 21.7 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Nevada - 18.7 times more votes for Gore than Nader
Ohio - 18.5 times more votes for Gore than Nader
(for the data from all states, see Table 1)

The conclusion is that these are battleground states because they lean only slightly towards the Democrats (if at all), and the voters in these states are moderates.

Dean may be competitive with George Bush in the popular vote, but the Electoral College vote would strongly favor Bush against Dean.  A vote for Howard Dean in 2004 will have the same effect as a vote for Nader in 2000 - four more years of George W. Bush.

Sources and methodology:
1)  Number of Electoral College votes 2001-2010: http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm
2)    Election results from the 2000 Presidential election:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
3)    Methodology - States where Gore beat Bush by more than 10%.
4)    Methodology - States where Bush beat Gore by more than 10%, plus Tennessee (Al Gore's home state).
5)    Nader did comparatively well in some states that were easily won by Bush, such as Alaska and Colorado.  This analysis only includes states that the Democratic candidate can reasonably win.
6)    Nader was not on the ballot in all states.  He was not on the ballot in Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.  http://www.ballot-access.org/2000/status.html

Appendix 1
Quotes from seven out of the eleven Dean switchers on http://switch2dean.com:

Phil - ...I believe that we have to live as though we were on spaceship Earth and we have to be considerate of all life and all people as one single entity...  

Jeff - I've just switched back to being a member of the Democratic Party. I was in the Green Party and voted Green in the last two Presidential elections.

Mary - I've been registered Green Party and I'm not voting Green Party in the national election because I believe that Howard Dean can really make a difference for everyday Americans

Tony - I defected, became Independent because it seemed to me, increasingly, that both the Republicans and the Democrats were wings on a bird which was made all about money.

Michael - Ok, well, I'm actually registered with the Green Party and in the last elections, I voted Green all the way.

Robert - I'm turning 18 in 2004 and this will be my first presidential election, and I support Dean because I'm just sick of waking up every day and reading about what Bush & Co. have inflicted upon this world and this country.

Max - My party affiliation and my voting history· I have always been - let me put it this way - I was a Democrat for a while, because everyone in Chicago was a Democrat. Then I moved out to California and I decided after seeing what went on in the Democratic party that being an Independent was a lot better, so right now, I'm an Independent... Well, first of all, I got involved with the campaign because I was involved with the No War on Iraq campaign. I was out there marching, I was carrying signs and I have to tell you - I am a child of the 60s and I was going to college during the Vietnam war and I marched for that ... (No mention of Nader, but switched from Democrat to Independent).

Appendix 2
From: "It's All Nader's Fault And Other Fairy Tales", by Deck Deckert, September 1, 2003, http://www.swans.com/library/art9/rdeck044.html
"...The Democrats forfeited the right to the automatic vote of progressives, liberals, and what Paul Wellstone used to call 'the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' a long time ago, and there is no sign that they intend to earn it back soon. They have sold their soul to the same fat cats as the Republicans have and totally ignored their base."

Table 1: Results of the 2000 election.  States highlighted with (*) were not won or lost by greater than a 10% margin.  Data is sorted by the ratio of Bush votes to Gore votes.  Source of voting data: Federal Elections Commission http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.html

State      Ratio of        Ratio of
        Bush votes to   Gore votes to
        Gore votes    Nader votes

DC     0.105123    16.25596
RI     0.52325     9.959604
MA     0.543464    9.313492
NY     0.58509     16.83275
HI     0.671478    9.493872
CT     0.687603    12.66082
MD     0.710255    21.30974
NJ     0.717876    18.91882
DE     0.762423    21.67666
CA     0.779265    13.99834
IL     0.779993    24.9523
VT     0.80374     7.314322
WA     0.888761    12.11289
ME     0.895812    8.617744
MI     0.899891    25.78766
*PA     0.917601    24.04409
*MN     0.949834    9.221017
*OR     0.990609    9.311917
*IA     0.99351     21.73749
*WI     0.995408    13.21343
*NM     0.998724    13.49504
*FL     1.000184    29.87294
*NH     1.027074    11.99874
*MO     1.070906    28.84949
*OH     1.075482    18.54951
*NV     1.077138    18.65525
TN     1.081723    49.62944
AR     1.118675    31.50048
WV     1.138675    27.66826
AZ     1.14053     15.01459
LA     1.171046    38.7019
VA     1.180894    20.49379
CO     1.197122    8.073878
GA     1.271888    83.10229
NC     1.296949    -
AL     1.358877    37.80009
KY     1.36562     27.54821
IN     1.381224    48.67411
SC     1.389659    27.99807
MS     1.415779    49.81704
KS     1.558651    11.06457
TX     1.561231    17.63661
OK     1.569417    -
SD     1.605165    -
MT     1.751513    5.611409
ND     1.835062    10.0447
NE     1.87187     9.444988
AK     2.118855    2.748252
ID     2.430354    11.27864
WY     2.446173    13.07697
UT     2.536756    5.663961

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  Your thesis is pretty good, except for the fact that it is Kucinich who appeals to Nader voters, not Dean.  I'm not sure that your argument makes sense when this fact is corrected.  Also, your division of solid Bush and solid Democratic states is wrong.  That might also be a hit on the solidity of your argument.  Oh, well.  Interesting, though.

  by Aaron Gillies on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:29:58 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    it is Kucinich who appeals to Nader voters, not Dean

    Do you have anything to back this up? I agree that some Nader voters are supporting Kucinich. Yet I bet a great many are supporting Dean. After all, one of the characteristics of the Dean campaign (touted often and loudly) is his approach to campaign finance, and this was the very issue that Nader used to peel away support from the Dems in 2000, with his claims that the Dems were just as corrupted by large, soft-money donations as the Republicans are.

    by crayons on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:47:16 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  Ladies and gentlemen. Meet the newest troll addition to dKos. He has never commented or posted a diary before. Interesting how another troll is the first to comment on this.

  Let the games begin.

  by Mike S on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:32:11 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    And the whole thing was displayed on the main page.  So, we were trolled in spite of ourselves.  

    by katiebird on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:40:54 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    I thought the definition of a troll was someone who posted disrespectful, content-free rants meant only to disregard others thoughts and feelings. If this is the definition of a troll, I'd say this post of yours would fit.

    by crayons on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:52:00 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      Ok.  Troll was an exageration.  There was content.  No meaning or value, but content.  Lots of content.

      by katiebird on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:55:37 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      This was a hit and run post. The diary entry is the only thing ever posted by this person. No comments or any other history. Expect to see more of the same. The trolls are getting thicker here, and it is best if we can spot them imediately.

      WM speeks for himself. Before he was hidden, he was the first comment.

      by Mike S on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:05:07 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      The whole point of trolling is to start flame wars,...
      by kos on Thu Nov 27th, 2003 at 18:05:27 PST

      The fact that a flame war was averted is a testament to Sat morning easyness. I was only trying to identify this person early, something that may have helped with popcorn. If people want to rate me down for that, so be it. But having watched the evolution of many trolls here, I still think it is best to identify them early.

      by Mike S on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:44:25 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      One more way to shown this guy is a troll. This is a comment from him on another thread. It regards his rating practice.

      Re: Tired and trite (0.33 / 3)

      The rating is not based on content, but is based on how much you support Dean.  You are all a bunch of losers.  Enjoy playing with yourselves.  Ciao.

      by lordkelvin on Sat Nov 29th, 2003 at 15:25:01 PST
      [ Parent | Reply to This |  none0: Super Troll1: Troll2: Marginal3: Good4: Excellent
      

      by Mike S on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 09:13:09 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  You act as if Dean appeals ONLY to Nader voters.  The Nader voters (and others) like him because he's a populist.  Other people like him because he's a centrist, e.g. a fiscal conservative.  And that combination is the key.

  Anyway, don't forget that lots of people in swing states voted Gore only reluctantly, really wanting to vote Nader but knowing that in their state a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

  BTW, Dean can put West Virginia and Arizona in play.  North Carolina and Idaho might even be possible.

  by rfunk on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:32:15 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  I'm sorry, I couldn't follow this.  Your headline claims Dean's guaranteed unelectability.  But your article seems to be a rehash of the Bush/Gore/Nader battle.

  Is your thesis actually that Dean=Nader?  

  If so, you've given no reason for me to believe it.  Is it because you have found that a dozen or so Nader supporter are now supporting Dean?

  The above questions are actually questions.  I'd love to comment on your diary.  But, I would need to understand your point first.

  by katiebird on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:36:06 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  How does your theory square with the recent poll that showed Dean leading Bush in Iowa and Clark trailing Bush in Iowa?

  by Wayne in Missouri on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:36:07 PM PDT

•  The Correct Dean Analogy

  The Correct Dean analogy may be Ross Perot, nominated by a major party. Of course, Dean is not nutty like Perot.  But Dean taps into an anti-incumbent and to some extent, anti-major party anger very similar to Perot.

  Therefore, on Dean's electability, ask yourself if Perot would have won with either party's nomination.  

  by Upper West on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:36:20 PM PDT

  •  Re: The Correct Dean Analogy

    Hmmm... let's see... Dean appeals to liberals, he appeals to Nader voters, and now you are saying he appeals to voters who supported Perot in the past.

    Sounds like the start of a darn fine coalition, to me.

    Also, I wouldn't poo-poo Dean because he can re-deliver the 3 1/2 million or so Nader voters.  Your piece argues that Nader took the election from Gore, so continuing that logic, winning those Nader voters back is paramount in beating Bush.

    Anyway, your Professor Frinck analysis is kinda interesting, but your suppositions are flawed.

    by McDonald on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:45:13 PM PDT

    •  Re: The Correct Dean Analogy

      I didn't say only Perot voters.  But I think it's an interested exercise to analyze how Perot would have done with a major party endorsement.  He got the most votes as third party candidate, I believe, than anyone since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.  If anything, people are angrier now than in 1992.  The CA recall is a good example of that.

      by Upper West on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:55:49 PM PDT

      •  Re: The Correct Dean Analogy

        (of course I meant "interesting exercise")

        by Upper West on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:21:05 PM PDT

    •  Re: The Correct Dean Analogy

      I know for a fact in my county, which had a lot of Perot support, that some Perot people are supporting Dean.

      by carlton858 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:07:19 PM PDT

•  Pigeonhole.

  Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole.
  Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole. Pigeonhole.

  Sorry, that's about all I got out of this diary posting.

  by PSoTD on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

  •  Re: Pigeonhole.

    Well coming late this menagerie of semi thoughts, hits, etc. rolled into a post, I'd add:

    Pigeon ass hole.  Very tiny, rather insignificant but it is the portal thru which passes a liquidy goop.

    More of this to come ....and for months to come.

    by Marisacat on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:46:07 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  I too agree that you put a lot into this diary, but the information used to proove your thesis did nothing in that respect.  You seem to want to say that only Nader voters will vote for Dean, but you have not proven that.

  BTW, please use a paragraph or two to introduce your diary, and then put the meat of the information in the "there's more" section.

  by pauldean on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:47:00 PM PDT

•  This is pure sophistry....

  You miss the point that most Dean supporters were Gore voters in 2000. Sure Dean appeals more to Nader voters than Gore did or then say Lieberman would, but you can't deduce from that simple fact that he somehow will fall short in a battleground state like Michigan just because Gore got 26 times as many votes as Nader there.

  First, because Michigan residents knew 2000 was going to be very close in Michigan so even many would-be Nader voters went for Gore (they didn't have the luxury of voting there conscience without consequence like Nader voters in "safe states" like Alaska {R}or Massachusetts {D}). Secondly, Union voters went mostly for union-endorsed Gore. Those same unions will endorse Dean.

  The statistics you include are interesting in their own right, but they say almost nothing about Dean's electability one way or the other.

  by Keith Brekhus on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:47:40 PM PDT

  •  Re: This is pure sophistry....

    Not to mention the large Arab-American vote in Michigan which went strongly with Bush last time but certainly won't in 2004.

    by Vet 4 Dean on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 04:56:44 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

     There are a lot of political commentators who need to stop living in the past. Dean is not McGovern or Perot. He's Dean. Exactly what that will amount to, seen in historical perspective, is unknown and unknowable at this time. Anything is possible for Dean, from triumph to debacle.
     As a side note, here's the list of the Presidents Dean most admires: 1) Washington 2) Lincoln 3) FDR 4) tie among Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and LBJ. LBJ is the most interesting name here--he was a real pol, and I mean that as a compliment.

  by gxschier on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 02:58:27 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  
  Well I for one am a hardcore Dem, and moderate on a lot of issues.  I supported Gore wholeheartedly and didn't get the Nader thing in 2000.  Now I support Dean as the voice of the Democratic majority.  Where does that put me?  

  Look, there is one thing people don't get about Dean's appeal to Green voters.  

  It doesn't mean Dean is like Nader.  Dean would compete as the Dem nominee, rather than against a major party; he's already said he'd never run against the Democrat.  He's with the majority of Democratic voters on most issues - true that most Republicans support Iraq, but look, we're Democrats aren't we?  Dean is at the center of our party.  And on issues like civil unions our party is split 50/50 - but what people don't understand is that those Democrats who support civil unions tend to see it as a much more important issue than the majority of blue-collar Democrats who may be against it but really don't care.  

  Remember that Republicans build their coalition by uniting very different groups - religious right and tax-cut conservatives care about different things and disagree on many issues.  It's still a winning coalition for R's.

  Having said that, Dean appeals to Nader voters because he's "real," whatever that means.  It's one of those words, you can't really define it, but you know it when you see it.

  Being "Real" is the same thing that gave McCain and Wellstone their popularity - not necessarily all of their positions.  

  Dean is not a Green on many issues, and the Nader voters know it.  Many still support the guy (I'll accept losing WM's vote).  And I'll take the gamble that Dean can bring in 1-2% more votes from Greens, 2-3% more votes from McCain/Perot/Wellstone independents, and 1-2% more votes from newly inspired voters.  You're saying that Dems won't vote Dem against Bush as a result?  I'll bet you unions and minorities and even DLC dems will be out in numbers in Nov. 2004 for Dean.  The difference will be, they'll be part of a larger coalition - one that wins national elections.

  by CTDem2 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    I live reading non-Nader voters interpretations of why Nader voters do/did what we do/did.  Yet, you hit it on the head at least in this respect: Dean is not a Green on many issues, and the Nader voters know it.

    So, while you may not "...get the Nader thing in 2000" (and I didn't get the Gore thing I guess) we can both see the advantages of Dean in 2004 which isn't such a bad thing.  Its coalitions that build elections and turning off the Nader voters is not going to help any Dem candidate.

    This much I can say for certain, however is that our diary writer hasn't a clue about what wins elections: Appealing to a broader aspect of the electorate.  Dean appeals to me, as a two-time Nader voter, for his populist campaign combined with his fiscal responsibility.  After 2000, I always felt that it was silly of Dems to blame Nader for the loss (win?) but one thing I did hope Dems would do is learn from the Nader campaign.  Dean's campaign seems to have done this and taken the grassroots components a step further.  Dean has tapped the strategies of the Nader campaign (restarting the grassroots) with the advantages of working within the Party (While its true that Kucinich is more on message for Greens, I'll leave that for another discussion).  Of course Nader never had this option - which I'll also leave for another discussion.  My point?  I could never understand why Dems failed to learn this lesson for 2002 when they refused to live and learn and lost the battle over Congress.

    by seamus on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:14:41 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      
      Your last point is a good one, seamus.  If these folks know so much about electibility, then why did they lose us all branches of government?  Time for a  new model of electibility, and my bet is with Dean.

      seamus, and I'd like to get your input on this - the  thing I really never got about Nader supporters is that they weren't as afraid of GW Bush as I was.  I saw him as such a threat to everything I believe in, to the country I love, to our land and our liberties and our common purpose, that defeating him was essential.  Towards that end, it mattered less to me how much I agreed with Gore - I did not see him as a novel, unprecedented threat to my country.  I did happen to agree with many of this positions, but that was irrelevant really.  This was a battle for my country, Gore was leading the biggest army, and it was not a time to express dissent.  

      My feeling is that many of the fears I had about Bush were more than fulfilled.  Some of the damage he's done is not reparable.  Is it possible that, due in part to Nader 2000, the Dem party will change for the better in 2004 while winning the election?  Yes.  I just feel that it was an irresponsible risk to take in 2000.  And I say this recognizing that many Nader supporters saw the system as broken and DID NOT support Gore's positions or identify with state of the Democratic party.  When the greater evil is the Devil himself, sometimes you must choose the lesser of two undesireables.  That's the part I don't get.  And please don't feel defensive in responding to this, I want to hear where your heart is about this one, not your brain.  

      Finally, one point: you say "I live reading non-Nader voters interpretations..."  

      I said I didn't support Nader.  I never said I didn't cast a vote for him ;)  - remember I'm from CT, a safe state, and I saw the election as so important that it justified unusual measures.  I just wish a few hundred more CT residents had made some calls to Green friends in Florida or New Hampshire... I know many were torn, and would've jumped at the opportunity to help defeat Bush while contributing to Nader's 5%... too many hard-core Dems were too thick to reach out to Greens.

      by CTDem2 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:50:38 PM PDT

      •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

        CTDem2,

        On why I voted for Nader I don't have a simple answer for you.  I just didn't have one reason for my support of Nader.

        I agree with you that Bush has been every but of evil that he could possibly have been.  Its disgusting and much of what he has been done has been irreparable without a doubt.  I think one major aspect of this has been September 11.  Bush couldn't have done 90% of what he has done without it.  His popularity would be zero.  September 11th isthe only thing that gives him a facade of support with the mainstream population.  Probably if I had known of 9/11 I might have voted differently because absent such an event I don't think Bush gets away with what he gets away with.  That said I wouldn't change my vote on that basis, because I didn't know and couldn't have.

        One of the major reasons for my support of Nader is that I am a Green and have been since the mid 1990s.  A lot of this is based in my disgust for the lack of political courage within the Democratic Party.  It also has to do with my desire to build Green Party success in Pennsylvania.  The Nader campaign was essential to much of our statewide and local success since.  His name recognition combined with the grassroots of the Party have made a difference. The Greens have run a number of losing campaigns in the state where the opportunity to raise issues has made a big difference.  Greens are making a difference in local politics and the Nader campaign helped open the door for that success.

        I want to keep this short but one more thing.  Gore really did run a terrible campaign. The fact remains that Bush and Gore did have a love fest of agreement at the debates over a wide array of issues.  While I think we can agree that this was due in part Bush disguising his real identity (I don't think he really has an identity which is the problem) we can't dismiss the reality that Bush and Gore had very similar positions on a wide array of major issues.  And watching Lieberman in the VP debate made me want to puke.

        I wonder where Gore would be had he won.  How would have 9/11 effected him or would he have launched that military strike they had planned.  What about the corporate malfeasance/Enron scandal?  Dems look the other way but the truth is that Nader was warning about this stuff as Clinton allowed a lot of corporate excess in the 1990s to develop.  Would Gore be popular?  Or very unpopular?  Would he have capitalized on 9/11 the way Bush did?  Or did he have too much of an honest conscience (isn't that sad)?  I don't know the answers to these questions but am curious what folks think....
        

        by seamus on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 05:26:16 PM PDT

        •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

          Thanks, seamus.

          Call it a premonition, but I knew Bush would have the opportunity to destroy a lot.  My friends asked me in 2000 why I was quite so upset.  I answered that only time will tell, but my gut feeling is that America had just embarked on a disasterous course.

          I happen to think Bush could've done much of his damage without 9/11.  Remember he had already banned  international parental counseling, backed out of Kyoto, signed on to a plan to destroy our environment, and signed the biggest tax cut in history.  

          I think Gore would've handled 9/11 beautifully, much better than people might expect.  I wonder if, given the August presidential daily briefing Bush ignored, Gore may have prevented it altogether.  He clearly supported the preemptive military strike in Afghanistan planned in 2000, which I think you're referring to.  In the end, I doubt he would've been popular, but the world (and particularly our country) would've been a much better place than the are after one term of Bush.

          Gore did run a weak campaign, although he still won the election and got more votes than any candidate in history.  In terms of personality, Dean is the antithesis of Gore and I think that attracts me to him as a candidate.  I don't want another candidate who can be branded a liar and not fight back - particularly when the person calling you a liar is GW Bush.  I'd love to see Dean's response to that one.  He'd go balistic.   His "explosive" response would make the front page of every paper.  People would say he was doomed after being so "unprofessional."  And his poll ratings would continue to rise :)

          I still have a dream that Bush will be remembered as the biggest gift to Democrats and progressive causes we've ever seen.  He'll be credited with the fall of the modern Republican party.  A new Democratic majority will take hold, and our party will once again have character and courage and a sharp fearless tongue.  We will once again be proud to be American.

          Whatever happens, I'm glad we're on the same team now, seamus.  Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.

          by CTDem2 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 06:31:58 PM PDT

          •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

            Here's to being on the same team.  I'll drink to that!

            by seamus on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 07:44:42 PM PDT

            •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

              CTDem2 & Seamus, This was a wonderful exchange.  Thank you so much for your thoughtful replies to each other.

              by katiebird on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 12:52:38 AM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  This is hilarious -- very detailed, time-consuming analysis based on the delusion that Dean=Nader. I've represented several schizophrenics so I know that delusions are very hard to treat.  If you challenge the delusion, the schizophrenic just incorporates you into the delusion.  I'm not saying that you're mentally ill but I'm guessing that it would be safe to apply that dynamic to this analysis.  So: you're right, Dean is Nader and Bush is going to whip his butt in '04.  We're all doomed to 4 more years.  Damn.        

  by kelly on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:05:42 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    Ad hominem.  Anyone who doesn't support Dean is crazy.

    by lordkelvin on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:45:07 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      
      No, not crazy, but depressed.  "I'm doomed if I allow myself to believe in what I believe.  Sure I question Iraq, but the other side is so strong.  Sure I support civil unions, but the other side will crush us.  Sure I'm angry, but I must be ashamed of my anger and suppress it.  Dean is angry too, and he believes what I believe, therefore, he's a loser."

      That's the logic I keep hearing.  Republicans don't think like this, and they win.

      Dean doesn't think like this, and it's refreshing.

      by CTDem2 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:56:16 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      Yes, my lord, as you wish.  Please note that it is my opinion that there are plenty (as in thousands & thousands)of nice, stable, wonderful, very intelligent folks who support Clark, Kerry, Gep, Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton, etc.  I'm sure they do for all kinds of valid reasons.  Lots of folks like that around here especially.  

      by kelly on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 04:41:24 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  ... Democratic candidate would win the following states: D.C., RI, MA, NY, HI, CT, MD, NJ, DE, CA, IL, VT, WA, MA, and MI (200 EV).  Because Bush is an incumbent, a few states, such as Illinois, Maine and Michigan ...

  Bush isn't even going to make the ballot in IL. I would also add OR(7) and IA(7). Bring the D count up to 214.

  Bush will win UT, WY, ID, AK, NE, ND, MT, SD, OK, TX, KS, MS, SC, IN, KY, AL, NC, GE, CO, VA, LA, AZ, WV, AR, and TN (211 electoral college votes)

  Here's (one of the places) where you're wrong. KY(8), CO(9), AZ(10), WV(5), and TN(11) can all be carried by Dean. Bring the D count up to 257, and the R count down to 168.

  the 2004 election will be decided in  PA (21), MN (10), OR(7), IA (7), WI (10), NM (5), FL (27), NH (4), MO (11), OH (20) and NV (5)

  Scratch OR and IA from this list. The red-ness of others, such as PA, MN, and WI, is in doubt. Take PA, MN, and WI and add them to the D column, and we get D/298 and R/168. Just for giggles, assume the Rs take NM, FL, NH (which is doubtful), MO, OH (which is also doubtful), and NV (which is bordering on absurd), and you get D/298 and R/240.

  PA, MN, OR, IA, WI will lean ... but the D would still have to win one of the following: 1) Florida, 2) Ohio, 3) Missouri and Nevada, or 4) Missouri and Arkansas.

  See above. Your assumtions are flawed, and your conclusion is erroneous. There's no need to even resort to painting any candidate's supporters with a brush that's less than clean ;)

  by justinb on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:11:14 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  This is how I see the Dean/Nader connection:

  The effect of third-party candidacies is to push the major parties further to the right or the left. Nader's candidacy pushed the Dems to the left, as seen by the success so far of Dean.

  Dean is touted as a moderate because of his fiscal conservatism, but I don't think fiscal conservatism is a bell weather for right-wing thinking anymore. Fiscal conservatism is so 1980s. Now the conservatives in the country care much more about morality and security--witness the appeal of the neo-Cons.

  Dean has been labeled the most-liberal Dem in the primaries, and I believe this label will stick because the press wants it to stick.

  Some who still remember the powerful appeal of Clinton think that this leftward pressure will lead us to defeat in 2004. If Dean wins the nomination, maybe this move to the left will prove timely, and we will win. And maybe not. No matter how skillful Dean's campaining is, it will not be successful if the country isn't in the mood or isn't ready for his ideas.

  by crayons on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:13:57 PM PDT

  •  Dean is not "left"

    He is a solid Democratic centrist.

    Almost every Dem candidate running for the nominee is to the left of him with the exception of (on social issues Edwards and (on foreign policy) Lieberman.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:16:07 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    It isn't just his "fiscal conservatism" that makes Dean a non-liberal.  Its really his entire record.  Actually, his fiscal conservatism is a lot more Nader-like than many of this other positions.

    by seamus on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:17:27 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      This begs the question what besides Dean's fiscal conservatism makes him less liberal than the other dem candidates? The only thing I can think of is that maybe he's "tougher on crime." Which is also so 1980s. We don't need to scapegoat criminals anymore since the advent of Three Strikes and Terrorism.

      by crayons on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:24:39 PM PDT

      •  Gun Control

        Gun Control for one.

        Capital punishment, though he is far from being a GOPer on this one, as he supported the IL moratorium, etc.

        I would also not be so dismissive of his fiscal responsibility mania. He is fanatical about making programs work within the budget, so is much more "conservative" in that respect than anyone on the Dem side of the aisle.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:29:46 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  The largest flaw with the analysis is the assumption that appeal to supporters one candidate (e.g. Nader) is exclusive, or even a negative indicator of appeal to supporters of another candidate (e.g. Gore, McCain, Bradley, etc).

  More than a few of Dean's most ardent supporters were McCain voters in 2000.  More than a few of Dean's most ardent supporters were Gore voters in 2000.  More than a few of Dean's most ardent supporters were Bradley voters in 2000.  

  Now, when you combine all the people who voted for Gore in the general election some because they really like Dean, and some because anyone is better than Bush, with those that voted for Nader, and throw those people who voted for Bush in the general election, but preferred McCain, and will now vote for Dean instead of Bush, you do have to worry about a landslide.

  It just isn't the landslide that lordkelvin is predicting.

  When you realize that Dean's support is very broadbased, you will see why some people are resorting to twisting words and facts to try and stop a powerful force in American politics.

  by aldon on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:25:21 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  I'm not sure if this has been stated...

  I really don't think numbers are the greatest predictor in elections, but for the sake of this arguement...

  LordKevlin's methodology forgets that in a few states that Gore lost to Bush in

  Nader+Gore > Bush

  Case in point: Florida and New Hampshire (there may be a few more, but I know these off the top of my head).  If the more liberal minded voters would have voted for Gore, he'd be president.  Don't flame me- I understand why alot of them didn't, and I'm not placing blame. :)  

  Anyway, states like Florida and NH had more votes for a president who'd be Center-Left than Right.  Dean appeals to liberals, even though he's actually very Centrist.  His economic policy and gun control stances will appeal to conservative democrats as well as independents and liberal republicans.  That is in major contrast to right-wing Bush, who can't say his policies really appeal to any Democrat.  Or independents, either (since polling shows the public supports Democratic positions on most issues).  So, as long as we're playing numbers, shouldn't Dean, who you claim is the beneficiary of the Nader vote, beat Bush because he'd win back Florida and NH (at least)?  This is a flawed assumption, indeed.  Any games where we predict future outcome on past numbers is.  

  In addition, alot of the states where Gore eeked out a win by the slimest of margins in 2000 were states where Nader performed well.  

  Case in point: Wisconsin and Oregon.

  So, LordKelvin, while you're methodology and theis are interesting, they just don't hold any water.  Additionally, you concede a few states to Bush that won't go to him in 2004 if the we pick the right candidate (like West Virginia- Dean will carry it if he's the nominee because Gore lost that state because of his slightly excessive environmental positions [excessive for West Virginian standards, at least] as well as his gun control positions.  Dean isn't hampered by either).  

  Furthermore, I think this whole idea that we can determine who will win an election based on past numbers is bullshit.  Sure, numbers can provide some kind of trend, but outside of DKos and the right/left blogs online, people really don't classify themselves with ideological labels.  They'll vote for who they think is best, and that really doesn't have anything to do with the party label for the 40% of people who are Independents.  

  Again, this isn't 2000.  The candidates are different.  Their positions are different. The country is in worse shape.  People's priorities have changed.  Dean isn't Al Gore, and Bush isn't the Bush he wasn in 2000.  I think alot of people hated Gore because he was a pompous, boring politicians.  Dean isn't.  There really is no comparison between the two.  

  In addition, your thesis is flawed because it only looks at one group of the electorate- the liberal green voters.  What about the Arabs who supported Bush in 2000, but will vote for the Dems in 2004 for obvious reasons?

  What about the Latino vote, who Bush did relatively well with in 2000 (for a Republican)?

  What about the soccer moms?  The African Americans?  What about the Southerners?

  I think it's to easy for us to write things off a certain way based on past trends.  If we rely on past trends to guide our path in 2004, it closes alot of doors.  I think that Democrats CAN do well in the south, if the message is framed the right way.  There isn't any reason why Democrats can't win in LA and AK and FL.  Why concede anything to the GOP because Al Gore couldn't win it?  Doesn't that philosophy imply that Gore is the best candidate we've ever had, and that if he couldn't win it, no one can?  Trust me, the GOP won't concede California or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Iowa or Washington or Oregon because Gore won them.  So why would we concede their states?  Do we want to be the party who is agressive or defensive?

  Hmm.  Well I went off on some tangents.

  Regardless, I rest my case.

  by AEDem04 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:34:01 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  lord kelvin is just a rabid clarkie semitroll...

  check out www.lordkelvin.forclark.com to see his slant...if you really think it is worth your time.

  by stillman on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:40:38 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    Oh, I knew the moniker was familiar.. no wonder.

    by Marisacat on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:51:30 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  Since Dean appeals to Nader voters, it is important to analyze Nader's performance in 2000 in the battleground states... The voters in these [battleground] states are moderates [thus the] Electoral College vote would strongly favor Bush against Dean.

  To paraphrase Gore Vidal, upon false syllogisms are made false politics.

  Every one of the ten trillion numbers used in your analysis is based upon this fase -- even tortured -- syllogism: Dean is drawing some former Nader voters, ergo he will not draw moderates.

  You make no attempt to analyze or even invoke state political winds, issues, campaigns, candidates, nothing. You don't provide evidence for your thesis. You just say Dean = Nader = Loser, then vomit up irrelevant numbers. It's all a little silly.

  by sakitume on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:41:22 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  This thread is actually very good- great discussion.

  Time for everyone to do some ratings :D.

  by AEDem04 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 03:43:14 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  While many of you want to rate this as a troll diary, I appeal to you to at least address the questions and show some respect for the effort that went into creating it.

  Frankly, although many of you here probably think I am anti-Dean, I don't totally agree with the analysis of Lord Kelvin.  I think that what we see in Dean now is an attempt to appeal to the left, which is the conventional wisdom way of winning in the primaries.  In the general I expect that he will move to the center and that, if against Bush, he can possibly pick off some close red states somewhere other than the deep South.  WV for one.  

  My biggest problem with Dean is that I think his anti-DLC reputation is wrong-headed, though I know many here feel strongly that you are part of a historical political campaign that will change things in America and take back the Democratic party, with the White House just being the icing on the cake.  Although I dislike Terry Mac and would love to see him go and I would like to see Dem leaders stand up to Bush more a la Byrd, I don't think the DLC's emphasis has been totally wrong.  Dean's rhetoric disturbs me because, to me, he seems to see only small part of the picture and doesn't have a vision that is appealing.  

  I am angry and rational.  The angry part of me likes Dean's fire even though his persona sets my teeth on edge.  The rational part has issues.

  by mikepridmore on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 05:09:04 PM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    My biggest problem with Dean is that I think his anti-DLC reputation is wrong-headed

    I think that had the DLC not started it--see their memo from, what was it, May? calling Dean and Gephardt supporters the "liberal elite" and so on--Dean would not be fighting them.  Rather, as he did as Governor, he would probably be embracing them.

    I've always felt that the DLC asks Democrats to follow two scripts.  The first is their policy script.  Aside from the Iraq war, Dean has followed the DLC policy script very well.

    The second script is the campaign script.  They want a candidate to act a certain way on the campaign trail--like not appearing too controversial, not piling too much on the popular incumbent president, etc.  Dean has not followed this second script, mostly because I think he's savvy enough to have picked up on the great sentiment of anger among the base, you and me included.  Face it--Lieberman does not and will not ever appeal to an angry electorate, even if his policies are in line with what that electorate wants.

    The anti-DLC bent you see among Dean supporters (much less so in Dean himself) stems mainly from that self-defense, though.  They attacked Dean (and us), and we responded.

    by folkbum on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 06:46:42 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      "They started it" sounds like a defense of something silly that was done during recess.  I don't think Dean's campaign is that silly though.  I just don't think it is as visionary and earth-shattering as you guys do.

      by mikepridmore on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:17:59 AM PDT

  •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

    Mike -- I wouldn't categorize lordkelvin as a troll, just not exactly mr. full disclosure. And I think that the folks who bothered to pick apart the odd assumption that Dean=Nader did a good job addressing his argument.  Re all the time he spent carefully constructing his diary entry, he didn't.  He clipped it from a post he did on his Clark Community website yesterday.  To be more precise, yesterday Thu Nov 27th, 2003 at 09:07:54 PM EST.  He left out the beginning though in the diary -- "The source of the strong support for Howard Dean is a mystery to many Democrats.  The answer to this mystery may be that many of Dean's supporters were Nader voters in 2000.  But this leads to a question about Dean's electablity in key states in 2004." A mystery huh?  Maybe the responses from the Deanites here helped clear some of that up.  

    A poster on the Clark boards responded -- "Wow! Nice analysis.  On thing though, I'm not sure that Dean's base really is Nader supporters.  Seems to me they'd gravitate toward Kucinich.  Also, I suspect Dean would appeal to more than just Nader fans."  She was not the lone Clarkie with that opinion.  Our dear lordkelvin replied:  "I agree that Dean has support that is broader than just Greens.  But I also believe that the heart of Dean's belongs to the (nationally unelectable) left flank of the Democratic party, plus Independents."  

    Lordkelvin also left out of this diary this sentiment from his comments on the boards -- "I think Clark crushes Bush in the Electoral College."  Ah, now we see....

    by kelly on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 06:52:02 PM PDT

    •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

      This diary entry shows some work was done sometime even if it was cut and pasted later to this blog.  Rating someone a troll without at least looking at what they have to say is not wise.  Not everyone here did that but some did.  I was talking to the latter.  I also said the entry was wrong, even though I support Clark, so don't lump all Clark supporters together either, which some here seem to be doing.

      And just for the record, I also think Clark can do well in the electoral college against Bush by keeping all the blue states and winning some close votes in the red ones.  I think he will come much closer to crushing Bush than Dean would because I don't think Dean's message will play well in many republican strongholds.

      by mikepridmore on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 02:12:13 AM PDT

      •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

        As opposed to Clark, who doesn't have a message?

        I'm not trying to be Trollish or rude, but Clark doesn't seem to have anything else than four stars, a long resume, and rumors of being hated by his fellow officers in the military.

        What exactly is Clark's message? What about it would play better than Dean's populist message to the poverty stricken whites in the South?

        by AEDem04 on Sun Nov 30, 2003 at 04:47:21 AM PDT

        •  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

          Clark's message is that he has the foreign policy experience we need at this moment in time and that the Democrats should not let the GOP steal the flag and patriotism.  He has offered the best plans with more detail on Iraq and the war on terror and how to get the international community involved.    He has plenty of domestic policies suggestions as well.

          http://www.clark04.com/issues
          http://www.clark04.com/speeches

          by mikepridmore on Mon Dec 01, 2003 at 04:04:54 PM PDT

•  Re: Dean's guaranteed unelectability

  I voted for Gore in 2000 and I'll be voting for Dean this February and again next November.  Also: I've never voted for Nader and I never will.

  by 007 on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 05:35:37 PM PDT