MyDD - I asked this in the open thread, but since this is a topic dedicated to Howard Dean, I figured I'd put it here too. What do you think of Dean's electability? Like I said, I like his stands on the issues, but we don't want a repeat of 1984 or 1988.

My real opinion is that Bush is going to lose, and very badly; so it's not really a matter I've given much detailed thought-- the EV count. Whoever wins the Dem nomination is going to be the next President.

That said, dandem I believe said all of Gore's and OH, NV, NH, WV, which I would agree with, especially Ohio.

Let's see how Bush pans out in Florida, he's trying to get away from education and make gays a wedge issue-- I bet he goes down in flames.

Well, GHW Bush wasn't supposed to win in '88, if I remember right. But we had to go and nominate Dukakis...

I can see your electoral vote scenario playing out. Dean has an A from the NRA, which could help in some more marginal states... But I wonder if the civil unions issue will hurt him at all?

The civil unions really damage Dean's electability in a general. And a perception of defeat in the general will hamper him in the primaries. He is getting some positive pub because he is the only candidate willing to say he is running. Once Kerrey and crowd get in all of the oxygen will be taken up and Dean's candle will burn out.

I think civil unions is a non-issue. In the LG race in Virginia last year, Democrat Tim Kaine had made statements not unfavorable to civil unions while Mayor of Richmond, for which Republican Jay Katzen attacked him mercilessly, even at one point running an ad admonishing Kaine that "Virginia is not Vermont"-yet Kaine still won, and most voters were more worried about congested roads, education, the Bilkmore budget mess and the like than the CU issue. If civil unions was a non-issue in Virginia, home of Robertson and Fallwell, it won't be an issue nationwide.

Republicans dont want to base Bushes re-election on gay-bashing. 30 percent of the gay vote went to Bush if he hadnt gotten that he wouldnt be in the White House. Rove knows that to

"30 percent of the gay vote went to Bush if he hadnt gotten that he wouldnt be in the White House."

One can interpret that stat differently...that a minority of the gay vote, usually about 25%, will vote Republican barring extreme attacks which are unlikely to ever take place in a presidential race. In the primaries, Bush said that he probably wouldn't hire any gay staffers. Log Cabiners recognized that he had to throw some red meat like that out there to win the primary and they still voted for him after McCain was out of the picture.

If Dean becomes the nominee, Bush will use civil unions against him, but without rough language. All he needs to do is bring up the issue to hurt Dean. And Bush will *still* get that 25% of the gay vote.

Don't underestimate Dean's ability to jujitsu the civil unions issue. I saw Russert try to hogtail him with it, and he responded beautifully -- "Too much of government is only allocation of resources; it was edifying to be able to improve some people's lives...but I wouldn't advocate it on a national scale: why should the voters of Vermont dictate on a divisive issue to the people of Wyoming?". It was Clintonian in the very best sense; Russert was reduced to grumbling, dispirited at not having produced a silver bullet.

If that web site is active already, Repblicans must be alot more scared of Dean than they let on (a true footnote candidate they'd simply ignore). Hunting of the President 2, anyone? I don't see voters falling for the crapola this time.

Here in WV, which used to be strongly Dem, the issue of gay civil unions isn't a non issue but a lively one. Anyone who supports gay marriage and who wants this states 5 electoral votes will lose. Gore knew that which is why he stopped just short of advocating gay marriage in the 2000 election is part of the reason why he lost some of the gay vote to Nader, Bush and some of the others. On a more positive side for Gore - he has a deal set to be interviewed (with Tipper) by Barbara Walters on Nov. 15th, 3 days after the book he and Tipper have written called "Joined at the Heart" is published. In this book he is expected to talk up Gay adoption and Gay parrenting but still stop short of Gay marriage. I'm not sure. I haven't gotten the ARC I won on Ebay yet. The 'Baba Wawa' interview is but the first of many high profile interviews he will be doing in the weeks after the Nov elections, designed to help rebuilt his national profile. So if you ask me - 'He is running in 2004.'

John Jimenez

"Here in WV, which used to be strongly Dem, the issue of gay civil unions isn't a non issue but a lively one. Anyone who supports gay marriage and who wants this states 5 electoral votes will lose."

It's possible the Dean might have to construct some sort of crazy, backwards electoral strategy that involves winning without WV's 5 votes. I dunno how he'll do it. As WV goes, so goes the nation, is what they say.

Yeah let those WV citizens keep on marrying their first cousins,but don't let gay marry.

"As WV goes, so goes the nation? Since when?! That wasn't even true in 2000, when Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college on a technicality and without West Virginia. Besides, West Virginia's support of Bush was much more about guns than gays and on that score, Howard Dean has an answer consistent with his civil union stance--gun control is a local issue.

The 2004 election will not be about civil unions and Dean CAN win both the democratic nomination and the white house. First, no nominee is going to get much support from the party if they really challenge Dean on the civil unions bill in Vermont. Second, anyone who doesn't support civil unions (hence equal rights) for gay people is already lost to the democrats and not worth worrying about. Meanwhile, his position on civil unions will help a lot of fair minded republican suburban women and professionals realize exactly who they are voting for and against. Howard Dean can and WILL win in 2004.

" As WV goes, so goes the nation? Since when?! "

Boy, you guys REALLY need to figure out when I'm doing that sarcasm thing.

"Second, anyone who doesn't support civil unions (hence equal rights) for gay people is already lost to the democrats and not worth worrying about."

DOMA propositions always pass statewide referenda by large margins. The referenda don't often coincide with general elections, but even if they did, I doubt the result would be different. The sixty-odd percent who supported the Knight Initiative in California included a large number of Democrats, at least some of whom are going to be sensitive on the issue if it comes up. How many would actually make it a deal breaker? Probably not many. I think it's enough of a problem to have it added to the noise that a certain candidate is just too liberal to support.

Maybe I'm too cynical. I just hate it when gay issues get taken to referendum; only one side in the debate does that, and it's because they're so confident in the outcome. Only recently has the strategy begun to backfire, and never on gay marriage issues.

As Utah goes, so does the nation.

On the 88 race, HW Bush was always going to win. The Willie Horton ads, the tank ad, Dukakis' liberalism, etc. were all footnotes, that while interesting, did not decide the election. The most they did was cause Dukakis to fall behind more quickly and possibly cost him a point or to. Maybe South Dakota would have gone Dem, but not the race. HW Bush would have beaten any Democratic candidate; Gore, Gephardt, Cuomo, Bill Clinton, even Jesse Jackson.

The economy in 1988 was in good if not great shape. Dukakis's opposition to death penalty cost him. Regarding the Senior Bush, he did some good things for the country, such as the Kennedy-Rodino Immigration Bill which raised the ceiling for skilled immigrants and created a category, "Folks of outstanding ability," which was partly responsible for the spurt in innovation and economic growth during the Clinton years. However, not every GOP member supported the bill. Most of them actually opposed it..."it would bring in too many Asians" complained Senator Alan Simpson and Rep. Lamar Smith, as there are "disproportionate number of bright Asians of outstanding ability." Tancredo has been trying to roll this back, so far without much success.

Does no one remember that in July 1988, after the conventions, Dukakis was polling 17 points ahead? Atwater (surely the Rove of Bush I), after observing through focus groups that not one single issue but a cluster of issues could make Dukakis seem way too liberal, put together what is still known as the most vicious Presidential ad campaign in modern history. Then, Dukakis didn't help in the debates when he played right into Atwater's hands. The tank thing was also idiotic.

But the election was certainly Duke's to lose.

Sorry, Joey Dee, but I think you put too much emphasis on in-the-minute polls as revealers of absolute election truth. Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency predicted the '88 outcome well ahead. I remember the day the 17-point-lead poll came out, I had lunch witha friend, and we agreed it was horse-pucky -- the conditions in the countr were simply too positive for an anti-incumbent blowout. Way too many people view presidential races as jump balls. I take Lichtman's view: that they're primarily referenda on the incumbent's performance (even when the 22nd Amendment makes the incumbent party pick a fresh candidate). Carter could have walked on the moon in 1980, he still wouldn't have been re-elected no matter the opposition (in fact, Reagan was probably the WEAKEST available GOP candidate) -- conditions were terrible. Conversely, Dole or Gingrich or even Colin Powell couldn't have bested Clinton in '96, with things going so well. The press can't own up to this possibility, since their coverage is based on "you can't tune out for one second", so they purvey the myth that a Lawrence Walsh indictment "stopped the Bush surge" in '92, or that a decades-old DUI prevented Bush Jr. from winning a landslide. Nonsense -- either of those alleged-but-halted outcomes would have been inconsistent with historical expectation. Don't believe polls; stick with history. (Though occasionally you'll get an outcome in pilferable enough range that history can be -- barely -- finessed)

Well, demtom, in that case we can just study the keys and save people the trouble of voting.

Seriously, though, I was 11 years old in 1988 and I'm relying on books, which is the only place I can get my history. What I've read supports my argument, but like I said, you were obviously paying a lot more attention to what was going on outside the polls. I'll take your word on this one.

I certainly didn't mean to come down hard on you. It just strikes me that way too many people who are being paid to analyze elections know damn little about them, and pass on info (like what you've read about '88) as gospel, whether substantiated or not. They follow each tick of presidential polling as if an election were held that day, then another the following day -- each poll presented as totally predictive of its day. Thus we have people who believe Hubert Humphrey would have won if the '68 election had been held two days later; or people who think first Bush, then Clinton, then Perot, then Clinton by a ton, then Clinton by a little were the assorted "winners" of 1992. I think the Keys, while hardly perfection, are more rational, less linked to the passions of a given day, and can tell us more about an election's outcome. It was obvious, to even the casual observer, and certainly to Lichtman's system, that Reagan was unbeatable in '84. Yet polling right after the Democratic convention showed Mondale in a dead heat with him. Was that poll of any value? Did Reagan "come back"? And weren't pundits who promoted those polls as accurate in effect misleading their audience, trying to keep them interested in a yawner?

Polling can obviously tell us certain things, and in the aggregate can be correct if used properly, but the election outcome is never likely to stray far outside established parameters. If a poll is telling you it will (as polls did in early '88, and early 2000, as well), you ought not to think of them as correct but merely an oddity.

No offence taken, demtom. I'm familiar with Lichtman's keys theory, and it's interesting, although I'd like to see it tested more; wasn't it written in '96? I would say that it's fairly easy to come up with models that predict history retroactively, and I found myself wondering if Lichtman wasn't in fact crafting different keys to make his theory work. I also think that to say that the efforts of one candidate's team vs. another candidate's team are irrelevant to the final outcome is a hard argument to support.

I was 12 in '88, and that was the first election that I watched closely, at least from the Democratic convention on forward. I have vague memories of the Reagan/Mondale blowout; I was the ONLY kid in my third grade class to vote for Mondale in our "mock election," which turned out to be amazingly predictive of the real one. Up until the "what would you do if your wife were raped and murdered" debate, I thought Dukakis would win because the Republicans had been in power for 8 years, and from what I'd read of recent history, the electorate usually tossed out the incumbent party after that length of time. I still think the "eight years and out" factor is overlooked when people evaluate 2000. Keep in mind, Bush had virtually the same polling lead after his convention that Dukakis had after his, and up until the debates, the election played out in a remarkably similar manner. What Rove and co. did that was brilliant, with help from the media, was setting up the expectations for the debates so low that Bush's mediocre performances were perceived as "wins." Plus the Republican electoral base coming into 2000, while dwindling, was still far larger than the base the Democrats were working from in '88, which essentially consisted of Minnesota and D.C.

Also, you can take heart in the fact that I'm merely an amateur analyst.

That post was mine.

Hey, we're all amateurs at this (and I include most of the people who talk about it on TV).

Lichtman (and some other guy, who never gets credit, including from memory-lapsed me) actually wrote the Keys prior to the '88 election, and predicted an easy Bush win early in that year, so he has more credibility than you'd think. I agree, though, inevitably he's working with a small sample-size, and may be mistaken some day in a close race.

He WAS correct about 2000, since what his system predicts is finishing ahead in the popular vote (plus Gore, of course, without the assorted screw-ups of FL, won the electoral vote). This was a somewhat courageous prediction to be making in Spring 2000, when Gallup et al were showing substantial Bush leads.

I agree the '88 and 2000 campaigns were eerily similar in poll-tracking until the final weeks, and you have a perfect right to think the debates and the media treatment of Gore made the difference (many agree with you). I have another, less widely-held opinion. The only other election that diverges strongly from the Lichtman model -- where what should have been an easy victory becomes a squeaker -- is 1960, where JFK's Catholicism surely played a role. I think having an Orthodox Jewish running mate -- a far more audacious move, given the extent of anti-Semitism relative to anti-Catholicism even 40 year ago -- may have cost Gore a few points, turning a solid victory into something stealable. I of course have no more proof for this than anyone else does for their pet theories, apart from my knowledge of certain states -- incl. usually reliably Dem West Virginia, my home state, where my Catholic parents' entire circle of friends was Jewish, because both groups were equally socially ostracized. Gore had the worst disparity of any Dem since FDR between his national margin and his W.Va. margin. Sadly, I can easily imagine Lieberman's ethnicity turning just enough generally-Dem voters to cost Gore the state.

In any event, I don't see the 2000 outcome as determined by any genius from Karl Rove, though many -- including the press -- obviously see it otherwise. Winners, even fake ones, are always smart for a while.

Getting back to Dean and WV. Is Civil Union a bigger issue than Mine Safety? Would the Mountaineers rather see Miners buried instead of Gays married? hey, I just made that up.... Maybe I should be a political strategist.

Maybe you should just write for Jesse Jackson,, siliconretina.

Only 533 electoral votes to pull from if you don't count WV...how the heck is a fella supposed to get to 270 with those numbers?

Secret note: the above sentence involves sarcasm.

Clinton was for civil unions and laws to support that and he won WVs 5 electoral votes twice. Anyone who supports anything stronger then that like Gay marriage deffinitely wont get them. I'm not sure about other Dem states but here no way. Gore losing WV in 2000 wasn't just about Guns though. It was also about people thinking they were sticking up for coal out of loyalty even though its now only 4% of our states GOP. It was also about character assination. Gore is on Snopes2.com 5 to 6 times more then Bush and that is what played a pivital role in Gore losing our state. I've had Democrats tell me that they voted for Bush because of Gore claiming to have invented the Internet. I get mad and tell them he never said that. So if Gore had more closely defined his position on Guns and the Enviroment (ie coal and mountin top removal - clean burning coal, etc) he probably would have won here in WV. Not sure what he could have done about the Bush disinformation machine. It's still running strong against him and he has even declared yet.
Another thing has to do with Turnout. A lot of Dems thought that Gore would win even with out their vote so they didn't go to the polls because they saw how popular Bob Wise was in his challenge bid to Cecil underwood. Most WV dems couldn't picture our state voting so heavily for a Dem Governor but putting a repub president in the WH. Turnout this Nov. is going to be high here in wv much more so then most midterm elections.

John Jimenez

So John, you're saying that WV isn't out of the question for Dean?

Also, John, I'll willingly admit that Gore's scheduled Nov. 15 appearance on Barbara Walters doesn't do a lot for my "No Way Is Gore Running" theory. I'll gladly grant you that.

"Turnout this Nov. is going to be high here in wv much more so then most midterm elections."

What does that mean for Shelly Moore Capito?

Actually, demtom, I agree with you a 100%. Not to sound like GC, but the covert anti-semite vote has always been one of my pet theories too, and the only political analyst I've heard mention it was CNN's Bill Schneider at three or four o'clock in the morning on Election Night 2000, after the networks prematurely awarded Bush the presidency. Lots of factors have been cited in Gore's failure to carry any Southern or border states: gun control, the Monica backlash, his personal inability to "connect" with voters in the region the way Clinton did. But Clinton was just as pro-gun control as Gore, was hardly perceived as a saint in either '92 or '96, yet he carried West Virginia and Louisiana handily. Dukakis has to be considered a far worse candidate for either state than Gore, and even he carried WV and according to the Judis/Texiera book, did better than Gore in Louisiana Cajun country and roughly the same statewide. Lastly, there is, of course, Tennessee, which Clinton not only won twice, arguably only because he had Gore on the ticket, but where Gore not only lost, but got a slightly lower percentage than Clinton (47% to Clinton's 48%). I have to believe that Lieberman's religion was one of the marginal factors that tipped the scales in some of these states.

I also agree that Rove's "genius" - which is greatly exaggerated anyway -"won" the election for Bush, but when an election is close enough to begin with, a few bright tactical manuevers *can* have an effect. Towards the end of the campaign, I came to the conclusion that Gore had the advantage at "macro-politics" - the state of the country, the issues voters cared about, the demographic shifts frequently talked about here - while Bush had the advantage at "micro-politics" - more money, better message discipline, better handling of the press. In the end, nothing exemplifies this more than the popular vote/e.v. split or the pattern of big states for Gore and small ones for Bush.

Anyway, now that I've got that out of my system, I think I'll eventually get around to posting something about Howard Dean...

Dean's a good liberal. But it'll be a cold day in hell (and probably Vermont too) before a Vermonter is elected President. Calvin Coolidge was a fluke.

Fiscally, Dean is not at all liberal. He's a deficit hawk - not inclined to either spend or cut taxes. He has had strong third party challenges from his left when running for governor. His success depends upon him being able to express the complexities of his beliefs - fiscally conservative (unlike Republicans) but socially libertarian.

I think he has a good shot. He has a nice mix of liberal and moderate credentials, more substance than Edwards and speaks better to most audiences than Kerry. Gephardt and especially Lieberman are too disliked to have any real chance at the nomination. (I wonder if the West Wing parallels will help Dean at all? I'm sort of kidding, but sort of not...)

Dean is most definitely a liberal on social issues, which I think leaves him way the hell open to attack. Regrettably, its hard to see a Democrat who signed into law the Civil Unions bill winning any states in the South or Midwest. I think we've got to face the current political reality, which is that homophobia will trounce every other issue if Dean gets the nomination.

There are also other factors to consider, like his lack of a national political organization and money, problems not currently faced by Edwards, Kerry or Gore.

Thank you, Shawn -- I've felt like a voice in the wilderness with this theory. I have the same reaction to "it was guns/it was sex/it was gays" -- Clinton was every bit as associated with those stands, and carried West Virginia -- as well as the other states you mentioned -- by comfortable margins. Clinton carried West Virginia by 6% more than his national margin in '96; Gore lost the state by 6+% even while carrying the national vote. That's way too big a discrepancy for standard explanations.

Judis and Teixeira make the solid point that, in 2000, the economy was so strong, voters had the option to vote "luxury" issues -- whether ethnic prejudices, guns, gays, etc. If the economy is sour in 2004 -- and signs sure point that way -- there's no way a campaign can be waged on such items. If Rove and gang try "Re-elect us, we'll keep gays in their places", they'll suffer resounding defeat.

As far as the "is Dean too liberal?" question: 1) he takes some less-than-liberal stances, but still manages to suggest an openness to the left -- this was the quality that helped make Clinton so succesful; 2) the country is more liberal (or, anyway, left of center) than it's been in a long time.

Dean would be a superb candidate-the question is whether he's tough enough to avoid being the next Mike Dukakis (who, by the way, is now stumping for Tim Carden in the Democratic areas of the district!). Example: Tom Harkin, when he ran for Prez, said he "wouldn't allow Bush to make me another Dukakis". Harkin's liberalism made him an easy target. However, his "toughness" prevented Bush from attacking him. If Dean can ward off attacks, in a "Give 'Em Hell Harkin" manner, the issue just might be defused.

I don't think being liberal is necessarily a liability. I think a smart liberal, without much baggage, could very well win. And I think Democrats (including Dean) have generally been much more conservative on economic issues than they have to be. But Dean isn't a great speaker, doesn't appear to be a great organizer, and has the enormous civil unions baggage. I frankly don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell.

demtom, my political apathetic (Jewish) relatives took it for granted that Gore lost West Virginia because of Lieberman.

But since such a thing is unprovable, and it's offensive to bring up the possibility which sounds too much like an accusation, there's not much room for discussion of this in the media. Which is for the best. People vote for candidates they can identify with on some level, and if your religion blocks one major axis of identification, well, what are you going to do. It's still a democracy.

"its hard to see a Democrat who signed into law the Civil Unions bill winning any states in the South or Midwest." - DC Democrat

I can't imagine a Dem losing Illinois because of a Civil Unions bill, and we ARE in the Midwest.

For that matter, I don't think that issue matters at all to most midwesterners. The country has gotten over the whole gay issue thing WAY faster than I would have thought - except in the South and Rocky mountains. If it were gay Marriage, sure, but not civil unions.

It probably wouldn't make a difference in IL,WI,MI,MN. Possibly a tiny one in MO,IA,IN.

I have also heard people say that Gore lost TN and AR because of Lieberman. Not withstanding the rants of Tom DeLay, Asa Hutchinson and Zach Vamp, most of their constituents are anti-semitic.

I agree with Parker that it would only make a different in MO, IA and IN.

In Mass, you're right, since the issue is unprovable, it would be out of line for the press to much discuss it. Of course, they have another reason for avoiding the issue: since they essentially goaded Gore into picking Lieberman ("He's got to distance himself from Clinton"), they'd never acknowledge the idea that that turned out a fatal mistake.

I think everyone needs to draw a VERY bright line between civil unions and gay marriage. The latter is political hemlock, but the former has, as many have said, become relatively uncontroversial except in super-GOP enclaves. I also agree that the idea of this issue killing Dean throughout the midwest is hyperbole. Other than the closely contested states cited, it wouldn't make a difference.

And again I say, if the economy is in bad enough shape, it'll be practically impossible to get the subject talked about anywhere besides Fox.

Who says Dean is a terrible speaker? I think his ability to connect with audiences is one of his prime qualities.

"I think everyone needs to draw a VERY bright line between civil unions and gay marriage. The latter is political hemlock, but the former has, as many have said, become relatively uncontroversial except in super-GOP enclaves."

I hope so. Unfortunately, all we have to go on is the pioneering case, and there was a big backlash against the VT legislature. Not an overwhelming backlash, but pretty damn strong. Now that it's been around awhile, maybe people recognize the difference. It sure should be recognized for federal elections. But any politician who advocates for civil unions is heading into terra incognita at this point.

"I think everyone needs to draw a VERY bright line between civil unions and gay marriage. The latter is political hemlock, but the former has, as many have said, become relatively uncontroversial except in super-GOP enclaves."

I hope so. Unfortunately, all we have to go on is the pioneering case, and there was a big backlash against the VT legislature. Not an overwhelming backlash, but pretty damn strong. Now that it's been around awhile, maybe people recognize the difference. It sure should be recognized for federal elections. But any politician who advocates for civil unions is heading into terra incognita at this point.

Man, I feel like I've said these things fifty times in the last two days, but I'll say them again.

(1) Dean is making it very clear that what he did was for Vermont and Vermont only -- he doesn't believe in a federal mandate (and furthermore,no Congress would vote for it). He believes every state should figure it out for themselves. It's not something he WANTS to do, it's not something he's GOING to do, it's something he DID ALREADY, and it doesn't affect a single person's life except for the people who get civilly joined (is that a term? who knows? it is now.). They're not getting married in the Marine barracks.

(2) He had opposition when he passed it, but now a large majority of Vermonters support it (this is something he said in an interview on NPR, I don't have the polling data, but I have no reason to disbelieve him, since he could easily be proven wrong if he was lying).

(3) Apparently, nobody on the campaign trails has made a peep about civil unions, except for journalists. People really want to talk about health care and the economy, not a law that was passed in a tiny state.

Unfortunately, all we have to go on is the pioneering case, and there was a big backlash against the VT legislature. Not an overwhelming backlash, but pretty damn strong. Now that it's been around awhile, maybe people recognize the difference.

The bottom part of the post was a quote from an earlier post. Sorry about that.

"So John, you're saying that WV isn't out of the question for Dean?"

NOt completely Joey.But he wont have an easy time of it. There is no way. Wvers will be impressed by Vermonts high % of health care covererage. (92% I think I saw somewhere) That will impress them but on his other stands you have to remember we tend to be more economically liberal then socially liberal these days. Of course there is the GOP mud machine. If they throw enough at Dean the way they did at Gore and enough of it sticks he'll be in trouble if he doesn't defent himself properly. I just don't see it happening. Gore or Daschle or Eddwards and of course Kerry would do much better here then Dean.

John Jimenez

"But Dean isn't a great speaker, doesn't appear to be a great organizer, and has the enormous civil unions baggage."

(1) Have you heard him speak; (2) what could possibly lead you to believe that he can't organize and (3) why are liberals the ones who are most scared about the big, bad baggage, since there seems to be no evidence of it being an issue? Show me a poll where his chances are hurt, and we'll talk.

I heard him speak. As a matter of fact, I'm moving to Vermont to work for him in February (so I'm not exactly the voice of disinterest here). Here were my honest thoughts. His stump wasn't that good. I was pretty disappointed. He was wooden, unengaging, a bit angry, and he failed to present his ideas in any kind of interesting way.

And then. And then.

He started taking questions. And he was a different man. He was personable, he was funny, he brought people in, he got them on their feet, he worked the room. He fielded questions like a pro. No, not like a pro. Like a president.

He's got time to improve his stump. Some anecdotes, a little more insight into not what he believes but why he believes it, and he'll be truly dangerous. I wouldn't give up two years of my life if I thought he couldn't win, I can assure you.

His two greatest assets are: (1) his sincerety. Even when he was wooden and unengaging, he sure didn't sound dishonest. He sounded like the very opposite of dishonest. Some voters may disagree with a few things he has to say, but they'll never lose respect for him because they think he's pandering. (2) His charisma. It's not a Clintonian, light-up-the-room charisma; it's a tough-guy, straightforward fight-for-all-the-people charisma. And because he comes off as anything but a pansy liberal, it'll be hard to tag him with a gay-puppet-destroy-our-family-values label. It just doesn't match.

"Also, John, I'll willingly admit that Gore's scheduled Nov. 15 appearance on Barbara Walters doesn't do a lot for my "No Way Is Gore Running" theory. I'll gladly grant you that."

Its only one of serveal high profile interviews he will be doing Joey. Once the scedule becomes known it will be up an the algore04.com website. For the most part he'll be promoting his book but at the same time depending on what his book says about families socially (gay adoption and gay parental rights) and economically (programs to support poor familes, healtcare, prenatal care, schooling, etc) he could also use it to get his ideas and stands for a 2004 run out in the public. I haven't gotten my ARC yet. I'm goning to fax leadership002 and try to get him to sign at my bookstore here in Charleston, West Virginia. Ithink he would do great.

John Jimenez

Gotcha, John. He may have to concede WV. There are other southern states, though, that I think he's got a shot in; I'm thinking of the ones like NC and especially FL, where the urban, tolerant, moderate Democrat population is on the rise and might be able to tip the scale, especially if there's a weak economy.

Also, John, I think that any other candidate besides Al Gore would do better in Florida. There are a lot of Florida rank-and-files who felt pretty unappreciated after putting in a ton of hard work and getting not so much as a thank-you after the election was over.

"What does that mean for Shelly Moore Capito?"

I think it means trouble Avadem. Here in Wv people aren't as pleased with Shrub because of the Economy and we are feeling it here in Charleston, WV which is in Kanawha County the southernmost county of CD2 which Capito represents. And Bobbie Byrds speeches and stands against Iraq has gotten people focussed on the issue of how this administration has been twisting the constitution around to suit its needs. He is a great parliamentarian and is respected for that hear. A lot of Wvs republicans and most of our Democrats are not behind the Iraq war - at least not the way he is going about trying to get it started. I've had Republicans here who were upset with Shrubs handling of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I voted for Workman in the primaries and not Humphreys because I liked her stands better as far as business stimulation goes but some 65,000 people I think voted in the Dem. Primary. Thats comparable in its own way to the 1.3 mil Dems who voted in Florida choosing McBride over Reno. I think its a precursor to a large turnout. In 2000 Moor-Capito only beat Humphreys by some 6500 votes. Its true she is currently outspending him commercial wise but he is a millionare and my guess is in the upcoming weeks we'll see him get his stances across. As long as he doesn't go too negative I think he'll be fine this Nov.

John Jimenez

"Gotcha, John. He may have to concede WV. There are other southern states, though, that I think he's got a shot in; I'm thinking of the ones like NC and especially FL, where the urban, tolerant, moderate Democrat population is on the rise and might be able to tip the scale, especially if there's a weak economy."

I dont know Joey. Bear in mind that I don't know that much about Dean nor do I know as much as I should aboue WV's polical leanings past and present this is just how I see it now based upon where I live in the South central part of the state. He would probably do better in Florida and maybe NC than here in WV. It depends also on how he is economically. He can't be afraid to tax. If he has good reasons for increasing taxes we'd listen but he'd have to be good at creating jobs and enouraging a regrowth of busineses here in the Mt. State. If he could do that reasonably well he might have a chance in a WV primary but not against Gore or Kerry, Or Edards or even lieberman for that matter.

John Jimenez

Shadow-Eyes: I can only hope, if Humphreys does do an ad blitz, that his ads are better than in 2000. I actually saw plenty of ads for that race, since the eastern edge of the Panhandle is in the DC market, and I thought SMC's were much better.

Joey -

I'll admit that I haven't heard Dean unscripted. I've listened to several of his speaches, and, like you, was thoroughly unimpressed. For disclosure purposes, my candidate was Bob Kerry, and I'm now leaning towards Edwards, whose PAC I have personal ties with. I think sincerity is great, but it can only go so far. Nobody argued that Bradley wasn't sincere. Hell, even Gore came across to most of us as sincere. But presidential campaigning also requires money, access to and support from democratic orgs around the country, a superhuman work ethic, charisma up the wazoo, and Martha Stewart's organizational skills. I've seen no evidence that Dean has any of these.

Of course, come November 2004, and he's on the ballot, I'm going to vote for him. But I think we can find someone better. I agree with Angry White Democrat that Dean could turn out to be another Dukakis. And I want to win in 2004.

"I think we've got to face the current political reality, which is that homophobia will trounce every other issue if Dean gets the nomination."

Democrats who vote in the primaries are not going to hold the civil unions issue against Dean. Neither are moderates or Independents. The only people who would hold it against Dean are the far right-wing conservative voters, but how many of them are going to actually bother to participate in a Democratic primary?

As far as the General Election goes, issues such as: Education, Health Care, and the Economy will be of much greater importance to voters in general than what a candidate's position is on civil unions. Most people simply don't care about "the gay issue" one way or the other. Sure, the conservative Republicans will throw a puppy tantrum about it, but most of them are going to vote for Bush in 2004 anyway.

So far this discussion has centered mostly on civil unions and whether they'll help or harm Dean in the general election (presumably the Democratic base that turns out for the primary isn't going to be turned off by support for gay rights). But Dean's got to get through the primary first and I think he has some major problems unrelated to civil unions on that front.

Dean's got a pretty big libertarian streak that makes him an appealing choice for the general election but may kill him in the primaries. After all, traditional liberals like Kerry or Gephardt will be quick to point out Dean's lack of support for gun control and his anti-deficit platform. Also he doesn't have the kind of money that Kerry already has in the bank or that Gore, Lieberman, Daschle, or Gephardt can easily raise. That's a major handicap especially considered the compressed primary schedule with this election. As much as I hate to say it, I'm afraid Dean will end up as the Democrats' answer to John McCain-- a popular independent alternative that gets shot down by the power of an established machine. Which is too bad because our established machine isn't running to well right now.

I'm not sure whether accusations of Dean's being too liberal would hurt him in the general elections as much as they did Dukakis. Dean's a pretty strong New Democrat and his only really potentially unpopular position is on civil unions-- an issue that he's already said he won't try to carry over to a national platform. What else is the GOP going to attack? His support for universal healthcare? They can try but that'll be a tough case to make. Bottom line, Dean's too fiscally conservative and socially libertarian to attack like Atwater did Dukakis.

Daschle and Gephardt are now crippled for the nomination. Fair or not, Kerry's home state will forever induce bad memories of Michael Dukakais. Edwards could barely carry his own home state, has the stigma of being a trial lawyer, and isn't the most experienced cat on the block. Gore has a loser aura and isn't polling too well right now; only 35% of Democrats want him to run again according to CNN/Gallup.

Dean's record as governor is excellent. He's ethically squeaky-clean. He's an MD. He's a wild card on the issues, making him hard to define. His communication skills have earned him comparisons to McCain; I can easily imagine him shredding Bush in a debate, especially if the expectations for Bush are raised next time.
He might be the man for the job.

Have we considered which states we're nearly guaranteed to win, states that we have a 90% chance of winning?

Here are my guesses: HI/CA/OR/WA/MI/IL/MN/PA/NY/VT/ME/NJ/MD/DE/DC/RI/CT/MA/WI

That's 248 electoral votes. We then have possibilities in: NM(5), NH(4), WV(5), NV(5), MO(11), IA(7), and AZ(10).

I think we might have to pick the running mate mostly in terms of our needs in the electoral college. A southerner or a popular rocky mountaineer, perhaps, for inroads into these regions? Or maybe someone popular from Missouri, which could spill-over into Iowa. We're only talking 22 electoral votes..

Your model is quite limited and leaves no room for error. I also think more states need to be targeted. The loses Tuesday were from lack of articulation. Most urban areas had low turn-out which gives me the hypothesis that traditional democratic voters were not enthused. Also You cant assume MI and PA will go dem I think we have about 180 sure evs and we have to fight for 90.

MYDD -- Just a quick response to your April Post regarding my comments in TAP -- I was not in anyway reflecting a "Last Man Standing" theory -- far from it -- I was talking "sling shot" -- the calendar will move so fast in 2004 that when the "other guy" emerges ala Hart (84) there will be no time for Gore to stop him. Of course this possible scenario only plays out if Gore makes the race.