BuzzFlash has three articles about Dean on their website and a couple of them are saying "put your money on Dean."

Right now it looks like Dean is the only one who might be able to beat Bush. The rest appear to be the Status Quo. I hope they let him in the debates!

Hell yea they will, that's a given.

I posted much of the same substance here on Daily Kos last night, so forgive me if anyone is reading it twice.

A few words on the budding Dean campaign (I try desperately not to shove it in everyone's face, but I would be remiss if I didn't plug him once in a while, since I'm going to work for the guy):

(a) He just polled poorly in Iowa. To which I say, EH. A few days ago, he finally signed on an Iowa field operative (and as most of us know, in Iowa, it's all about the ground campaign). The Iowa point person? Was the chairman for the Iowa Democratic Party. It was made official this week, and she's a really big fish in Iowa politics. It gives me lots of hope that she's pledged to work for Dean this early in the game.

(b) Dean doesn't have to win Iowa. It would be really something if he did (and I know that even a few days ago, I was saying that he must), but Gephardt is expected to win Iowa by Everyone Who's In The Media. Translation: Gephardt CAN'T win anything in Iowa. The best he can do is "as expected." The race will be for who wins a strong second. If Dean wins Iowa, great; it will just make him that much stronger of a candidate. But #2 is almost as good.

(c) Without Gore in the race, he's the only serious candidate (aside from Clark) who doesn't have commitments in Washington; he can spend all his time campaigning. This is not to be underestimated, espeically in retail states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

(d) Dean's not the frontrunner right now, but if I was him, I wouldn't want to be. The frontrunner is a sitting duck for media criticism, from both the right and the left. Let Kerry take the frontrunner mantle all the way up to the debates, where he can only disappoint. Let Dean carry the underdog mantle all the way to the debates, where he can only triumph (if he does well, which, based on his Russert interview and others that I've seen, he has every likelihood of doing).

Here's the path I see for Dean to win the nomination. He places a strong second in Iowa (shocking EVERYONE in the media, and paving the way for New Hampshire), and then he goes on to win in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is high noon for Dean; he must win, or he's finished. He can do it, especially if he works overtime in the way that the other candidates can't. He's not the only one who needs to win New Hampshire, though; if Kerry doesn't win, he's also finished. NH will be a Dean-Kerry battle. If Kerry wins, the story will be how his nomination is inevitable, and with Super Tuesday happening the week after the NH primary, he'll almost certainly come out on top. HOWEVER. If Dean wins (and there was just a story I read in which Shaheen was hinting toward supporting him, which would give him a huge lift), he'll be the giant-killer. Kerry as the nominee? He couldn't even win New Hampshire against a lesser-known candidate. The media will tell the story all week about how Kerry's campaign went wrong, and how Dean's campaign is the little engine that could (which is irresistable to the American voter), especially if Kerry didn't do well in Iowa (which I don't think he will, based on the type of candidate he is and the other candidates who are in there). Kerry win the nomination? He came in third (or worse) in Iowa. He came in second in NH. The frontrunner is now a certain Howard Dean. The media will go ga-ga about Howard Dean's underestimated candidacy that is proving to be an unstoppable force, and what's more, after a strong showing in Iowa, he'll start getting money out the wazoo (and probably some endorsements from the other candidates who fell by the wayside, which will probably include THEIR money).

Also, with the front-loaded primary schedule, whoever has come out on top in IA and NH will be getting all the media attention for a grand total of one week before Super Tuesday. Whoever peaks at this moment is going to win, since the losers won't have time to regroup and hit back in the Super Tuesday states (unless it's someone they've presumably been attacking all along, like Kerry), and the media won't have time to start attacking the new king they've just crowned.

So, to sum up, Dean needs to beat John Kerry in Iowa and New Hampshire, the latter of which he has to win. These are by no means certainties; he has to work overtime to prove that he's viable and electable. But his "longshot" status isn't so long if these possibilities are accomplished.

But what about the South, you might say? Well, the South is up for grabs. Gore's out of the race, which means that the strongest Southern candidate is Edwards. Again, in places like SC, Edwards is EXPECTED to win. The other guys don't have to beat him; they just have to place a strong second. Dean can do that on Super Tuesday if he emphasises his plainspoken shoot-from-the-hip style and his support for gun rights. BUT. Even if he doesn't, if he's the frontrunner after IA and NH, the morthern states will almost certainly vote in his favor (again, because of the media treatment of his giant-killer status and his John McCain-type straight talk). And if Donna Brazile runs her "favorite son" campaign, so much the better. The nominee will end up being a northerner.

How about if Dean were to finish very close second in NH and in the hunt in a tightly-packed Iowa, couldn't he then start winning in the midwest and west?

(somebody please post an updated primary schedule and we can really play this game)

If Kerry wins NH and SC but very closely, will his momentum be so unstoppable?

And for sure, Dean would absolutely need a foreign-policy heavyweight vp choice; if he's anything better than average on TV (I can't recall seeing him....)Clark would be perfect as a vp choice.

Clark has a vast swath of TV experience, and he's totally relaxed and comfortable, seeing that he's the military analyst for CNN. Turn on CNN during just about any Iraq ballyhoo and he'll likely come on within the hour, so you can judge for yourself.

And the scenario you posted seems possible, but far more difficult. The only way I could see it working out is if all the other defeated candidates endorsed Dean, because Kerry had to attack them so relentlessly in IA and NH. The problem is, it's pretty much all going to be decided on Super Tuesday, and nobody knows how many states are going to be a part of it this time, but it's sure to be a bundle, because they all want a say in picking The Guy To Beat The Guy. Also, it will depend on who the media decides to favor.

Hey guys, I have a problem, and I need some advice. The Kerry campaign just sent me an E-Mail, asking me to join the campaign as a volunteer. They want me to fill out a volunteer form and send it to them. What should I do? I don't want to commit this early, yet I don't want to lose the possibility of working for Kerry. Again, what should I do?

In other news, Roll Call reported that Congress Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) has ruled out a bid for US Senate in 2004 against Senator Fritz Hollings (D). That's good news for Democrats, as Wilson would have been a tough opponent. Now, Congressman Bill De Mint (R) is likely to enter against Hollings, but he's a very bad fundraiser (he has just $9,000 in his bank account, and raised just $250,000 this cycle). If Hollings runs for reelection, he would have a good chance of winning again (but certainly not a safe bet).

Also, Congressman Richard Burr (R-North Carolina)is being recruited by the White House to run against Senator John Edwards (D)in 2004. Edwards led Burr 45-30 in a Mason-Dixon Poll taken in September. This race would be very competitive.

Finally, the frontrunner to succeed Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) is his daughter, State Rep Lisa Murkowksi. Murkowski the Younger is a moderate like her father, and is unpopular with the conservative activists in Alaska's Republican party (she barely survived a primary in 2002).

Former DNC Chairman Joe Andrew is likely to run for Indiana Governor in 2004, according to CNN's Inside Politics yesterday. Does anyone know something about him?

"Former DNC Chairman Joe Andrew is likely to run for Indiana Governor in 2004, according to CNN's Inside Politics yesterday. Does anyone know something about him?"

I know he works at my law firm, in the DC office.

I'd heard he was organizing the 2004 convention, but maybe that's not true, if he runs for governor in Indiana.

"Now, Congressman Bill De Mint (R) is likely to enter against Hollings, but he's a very bad fundraiser (he has just $9,000 in his bank account, and raised just $250,000 this cycle). If Hollings runs for reelection, he would have a good chance of winning again (but certainly not a safe bet). "

Isn't DeMint the Congressman quoted in the WaPo article about the need to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes?

That's Jim DeMint.

"But to some conservatives, the shift is long overdue. Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has argued for two years that the nation is entering a dangerous period in which the burden of financing government is falling on too few people. In such an environment, the masses will always vote for politicians promising ever-more-generous social programs, knowing they will not have to pay for such programs, DeMint warned."

He's the only DeMint in Congress, though, so maybe he's the same guy.

Jim DeMint is another Bob Ingliss. Besides SC never likes to give up seniority.

I don't know much about SC politics, but I'd like to think that if DeMint (be he Jim or Bill) ran statewide with that kind of tax policy he would be DeToast.

That made my night, FHC.

Sorry. The above was me.

FHC-You're right on that one. SC, I think, has a median income of around $30,000, so he would be raising taxes on the majority of South Carolinians.

New Poll Out in New York!

Registered Voters:

Bush and Gore tie
Bush has a three point lead over Senator Clinton

Ladies and Gentlemen-the violins are tuning.

When a Democrat is tied in New York and New Jersey, it means he is losing California. The three have to be in the bag for a Democrat to have a fighting chance (near 100 electoral votes), and if the economy improves, they will be the toss-ups!

I'm confused about why Dean is a threat to Bush. Recent polls show Bush would handily defeat Dean in Vermont.

My advice to Democrats is try to hold as many seats in the Senate as possible.

In 2008, try one of these three top-tier candidates, assuming all are still in public office:
1. Evan Bayh of Indiana
2. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
3. Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania

Hard to imagine GOP getting away with
raising taxes on the lower and middle classes. That could erase the party's
populist image.

Interesting thinking, by raising taxes on the majority of wage earners and reducing taxes on the wealthy, you could control goverment spending. Does anyone out there think will wash with the American people?

Is this twisted logic or what?

Andrews was on the site committee, choosing Boston, he's done with that now.

I missed this article before, a good one on Dean:
http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/1124/coverstory.htm

Joey Dee, I am with you on Clark as the VP, good thing to see we both see this as a win-win.

I'm not sure of Gephardt's strength in Iowa, or anywhere else for that matter. Between his war vote and the campaign her ran in the congressional elections, I think he's dead in the water. Daschle may be a bigger threat in Iowa.

A win by either Daschle or Gephardt in Iowa would be discounted because it's their "backyard." If only Gephardt is in the race, then Dean's goal should be to beat out Kerry for second place. If both Daschle and Gephardt are in, then Dean's goal should be to beat out Kerry for third place.

New Hampshire is the key. They tend to like underdogs who do well in Iowa. In my view, for Dean to survive, he must either win or come within five points of Kerry.

I just saw Clark speak the other night. He was pretty damn good. And, clearly running. Even though he said "I'm not even a declared Democrat."

HA.

He went on and on about how proud he was of his Commander in Chief, Bill Clinton. And how proud he was that so much good got done under a Democratic administration, militarily. And he had nothing but scorn for the military policies of this and previous Republican administrations.

It's really doubtful that he'll do much of anything in the primaries, but yeah, he'd easily be my first choice as a running mate, if my name started with "H" and ended with "oward Dean."

BushRep: You're really counting on polls taken TWO YEARS ahead of the election? Give me a break...

New 2004 Poll: CNN/Time

Kerry, Lieberman-16
Gephardt-10
All others are in single digits.

With Hillary:
Hillary-30
JFK and "Joey"-13
Gephardt-9
Others-less than 9

Bush vs. Opponents
Bush-54
Lieberman-40

Bush-55
Kerry-40

It looks like Democrats are not quite abandoning Lieberman, are they? That is, I don't see a large "other" vote.

Actually, 40% is quite good for a Jew, considering that it's the first credible run for President by one of them. If Bush is stuck in the middle 50's right now, who knows what could happen if Iraq doesn't work out.

The link didn't say how Dean was doing.

hey bushrep how is governor fisher doing in PA?

Nice troll by BushRep there.

I'm pretty sure that Bush is not going to win California, despite what BushRep weakly attempted to imply, no matter who the Democrats put up. I'm also pretty sure Bush is pretty sure of that too.

I think it's way too early to put stock in poll numbers. What Dean has done so far is pretty encouraging -- I hope the net buzz turns into real buzz.

Tall guys with shorter, more "American-sounding" names are the most electable Presidential candidates, right? Dean has a Presidential-enough name -- but how tall is he? And, more importantly, what does his voice sound like? Does the guy have charisma? I don't know, because I've only read articles online. [I'm only half-joking here....]

I saw Dr. Dean on ABC's This Week this morning. This was my first view of him - I live on the West Coast. I was mightily impressed. A lot of TV coverage will be helpful for him.

When you here 50 good-sounding things from one side and 1 thing from the other, obviously the 50 good-sounding things sounds better. BushRep, one person has the megaphone now, but in 2004, there will be two people with the megaphone. That way, we can kick President Facist, because when both sides are presented, facism looses.
Go Dean Go

Also, its important to note that Limosine Libs, who generally oppose the war ON iraq, will give to the only candidate against the war, Dean.

Man I hate when Republicans think they can tell us who we should nominate. They think since they won a couple seats that they are somehow more in tune with most of America. Yeah right.

I believe Dean has probably the best chance of all the candidates believe it or not. Dean has John McCain's straight talk is a trait that Americans love as well as being an underdog. I also remember someone on MSNBC, maybe Chris Matthews, saying that those that have the least amount of conflict about running for president have the most success. The only two that were going to run before Gore dropped out were Kerry and Dean. I feel personally that Dean has the upper hand because of some key backings (Former DNC chair Steve Grossman from Massachusetts, Kerry's home state) and Dean was opposed to Bush's handling of Iraq. I really believe that there is large part of the electorate that are rather uncomfortable with the Iraq resolution. Since Kerry voted for it, I think Dean has another edge. Dean however still doesn't have the money that Kerry has which is a distinct advantage. I think that money will be less of a factor than normal because, as Gore wanted, the election will be based on ideas this time.

Finally, Dean does have some buzz amongst the youth. I know many of my college peers who don't know much about Dean but are intrigued when I tell them some of his policies.