A Dean nomination would be cause for National celebration!!!

He makes a point I've been making: Dean's true importance would be a peeling away of some parts of the West (Ariz., Colo. to Dems, strengthening Dem positions in close 2000 states like OR, NM, etc.) from the GOP into the Dem column. It could be fundamental realignment, and, if he could hold the Midwest of Ill, Mich., Wisc., and PA (let alone extend to MO and/or OH), Electoral politics would never be the same, Florida or no Florida.

It's better for the RNC to use their best ammo on Dean now. When the general election rolls around, they would have exhausted their resourcs.

The post above was "doctored" by the forum administrators. I wrote it. It had originally said:

"A Dean nomination would be a cause for Republican celebration"

It’s sad that the administrators would change my post. They will probably delete this post as well for exposing them.

Howard Dean would probably get crushed in the South if he's the nominee. He probably wouldn't win Arkansas, Virginia, and Florida, which are the 3 most Democratic states on the Pres level in the region. But assuming that Dean wasn't getting crsushed anyway (whether he was or not would depend solely on Bush, not on what Dean does), he doesn't need a single Southern state - nor does any other Democrat.

If a Democrat wins ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, WV, MI, OH, WI, MN, IL, IA, NM, AZ, NV, CA, OR, WA, and HI, he would get 299 electoral votes, enough to win. That's giving Bush MO, KY, TN, FL, and CO - all states that could go Dem if the Dem is winning by a wide margin. If the Dem is winning, he will being winning by a wide margin. In that case, every above state, plus LA, MT, VA, AR, and MAYBE SD could go Dem. The only Clinton state I'd concede to Bush is Georgia. That's 390 potential electoral votes. If Bush is going to win, this stuff obviously wouldn't happen, but that's a different topic.

Dems getting Ohio? Not unless they do a much better job than Gore did in 2000. If the Dems win Ohio, they win the election by just winning the Gore states from 2000.

Ohio is my native state. My entire family is hardcore Democratic but they are sick of wimpy Dems. Gore lost Ohio by 4 points without hardly campaigning there. It was his BIGGEST mistake. Everything that went into Florida SHOULD have went into Ohio and Gore would be President today

Im thinking....

President Howard Dean
Vice President Bob Graham
Secretary of State Al Gore
Secretary of Defense Wes Clark
National Sec Advisor Gary Hart

I know that I would feel SAFE

GaDem - agreed, now there's a dream team. Four words - strength, scrappiness, confidence and commitment.

D of C - Why are you surprised? Mydd actually stands for My Darling Dean. But it's not anyone else's website and the owner can post Dean's name ad nauseum.

If Howard Dean wants to win the Presidency in November 2004. Dean must win all the Gore states CA,CT,DE,HI,IL,IA,ME,MD,MA,MI,MN,NJ,NM,
NY,OR,PA,RI,VT,WA,and WI= 20 states =260 ev. Plus West Virginia( Democratic stronghold in the Southern region. West Virginia voted for Dukakis in 1988,Clinton in 1992 and 1996) Gore lost West Virginia because his record on Guns. Deans support for Universal Health Care,opposition to gun control and the war in Iraq will help Dean win in West Virginia. Dean will end up recieving 265 ev. States like
AR,KY,LA,MO,NV,NH,OH,and TN are tossups

CLinton carried AR in 1992 and 1996 with more than 50% of the popular vote. and Bush carried AR in 2000 with more than 50% of the popular vote. Arkansas can go either way.

Clinton narrowly won Kentucky in 1992 and 1996 with less than 50% of the popular vote. Bush won Kentucky in 2000 by a landslide with more than 50% of the popular vote. Kentucky is a Bush state.

Clinton won Louisiana in 1992 with less than 50% of the popular vote and in 1996 with more than 50% of the popular vote. Bush won Louisiana in 2000 with more than 50% of the popular vote. Louisian is a Bush state.

Clinton won Missouri in 1992 and 1996 with less than 50% of the popular vote. Bush won Missouri in 2000 with more than 50% of the popular vote. Bush will win Missouri in 2004.

Clinton narrowly won Nevada in 1992 and 1996 with less than 50% of the popular vote. Bush narrowly won Nevada in 2000 with less than 50% of the popular vote. Nevada was rated a Bush state in 2000. I have to say that Bush will win Nevada in 2004.

Clinton won New Hampshire in 1992 and 1996 with more than 50% of the popular votes. Bush narrowly won New Hampshire in 2000 with less than 50% of the popular votes. New Hampshire can go either way.

Clinton won Ohio in 1992 and 1996 with less than 50% of the popluar votes. Bush narrowly won Ohio in 2000 with 50% of the popular votes. Ohio was rated a Bush state in 2000. Bush will win Ohio in 2004.

Clinton narrowly won Tennessee in 1992 and 1996 with less than 50% of the popular vote.Bush narrowly won Tennesee in 2000 with more than 50% of the popular vote. BUsh will win Tennesee in 2004.

Dean will receive 265 ev
Bush will recieve 263 ev
Arkansas and New Hampshire will go either way.

Dean will most likely win New Hampshire- Dean's neighboring state in the New England region. giving him 269 ev.

Arkansas will decide who wins the Presidency in 2004. IF Dean wins Arkansas. Dean becomes president

Arkansas is a Democratic leaning state in the South. GOre lost arkansas in 2000 because of his record on Gun Control. Dean opposes Gun Control. and supports universal Health Care. Arkansas voted for Democrat Mark Pryor over Republican incumbent Tim Hutchinson in the 2002 US SEnate Race despite Bush's popluarity in 2000.

Dean should nominate Illinios Senator Richard Durbin. Liberal Democrat form Downstate Illinios. Durbin will bring experiece to the Dean adminstration
and energize the Democratic base and improve the Democratic strengths in rural areas.

President Howard Dean D-VT
Vice President Richard Durbin D-IL

GaDem, I too lived in Ohio for many years, and completely agree with you with what happened. All that time and money into FL when Ohio is the state the Dems needed to go after. Cincinnati is, and will always be Repubs.. but not the rest of the state. Hopefully Dean or Kerry will do a better job of recognizing that. All the Dems need is Ohio anyway!

Exactly forget FLORIDA! The Dems need to reinvigorate the base in Ohio, Northeast Ohio is a Democratic bastion. Clinton won Ohio twice with a popular GOP governor in office (Voinovich), Gore lost by FOUR points and his last Ohio campaign stop was October 5th! A MONTH before the election! Gore won every Midwestern state that the campaign zeroed in on. Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan,Wisconsin, Iowa...Ohio not Florida was the key. No Republican has EVER won the White House without Ohio. Ed Rendell also said it was a FATAL mistake. Howard Dean could win Ohio

Is the post above by GaDem really from SADDAM??

GaDem post from 12:39 I should have said.

GaDem:

You are very good in prediction. I agree. But I think:

-Bradley could be at EPA
-Biden (in place of Gore) could be a SecState
-Hart (instead at NSA) could be at HomelandSec
-George Mitchell could be at NSA (instead of Hart).
-Gore (instead of SecStat) could be US Amb. to UN

I think Dean/Graham ticket sounds more strong then Kerry/Lewis ticket this week. I think both tickets can cause a heartburn to Rove/Bush/Cheney et al.

AliKarimBey

AZ,Nevada,Missouri, and W.Va can easily go Dem. because of the guns issue. S.Dakota with good Indian turnout can go Dem too. There are also demographic changes in Nev and AZ.

A smart Democratic president post-election would have William Jefferson Clinton as Sec. Of State.Ofcourse they would have to be very self confident and not feel that WJC would overshadow them. Why smart? Because it takes Hillary out of competition for running for both terms.

There is a problem with some of the options. First, if Kerry wins the nomination, he should resign in time for a speical election in 2004 for his Senate seat. MA has a republican Gov. Same with Graham as a VP. Durbin is a great choice b/c IL has a Democratic Governor... just mentioning this because I am not sure of how many Senate seats the Dems can pick in '04, it looks like Fitzgerald in IL is beatable, but who else? Dems really lost their chance in 2002.

I was told WJC could not get senate confirmation. I had originally thought of him as US Amb to UN or (UK or Ire Amb.)

I do not think he will accept anything. Hillary is running in 2008 or 2012. She got some how in the armed services (I am not sure if this is correct name) committee this week. Basically she is padding her resume for a run. Notice she sat behind the Joint Chiefs at SOTU. Her aides made sure they got there ahead of time to reserve a spot. Lieberman's aides thought the same. Interesting that he wanted to appear hawkish as well. It is so easy to sometimes see-through pols.

AliKarimBey

TSE:

You raise good points.

1. If Dean wins it will be hard for him to pick Graham (w/o losing his seat). But, Graham is running for relection in 2004. So, if Dean is getting strong by Dec.02, Graham should forgo his re-election and back Reno. What do you think?

2. If Kerry wins the nomination, he can pick Lewis (who is a strong minority community) and so he can find a replacement to be a democrat easily.
Besides, if Kerry got into a WH, then it is worth losing a seat in MA. What do you think?

AliKarimBey

Actually Bob Graham is running for president himself and will announce within two weeks.

Neal:

Wow, you're scenario (Dean adding WV & NH to the Gore column creates a 269-269 tie. Dean would be the loser in this scenario for sure, unless House control flipped, which is highly unlikely.

Wesley Clarke as VP would probably deliver AR (and the presidency in your example) in a close election.

WV & AR have a history of voting Democratic, and could be brought back into the fold w/ Dean's pro-gun rights stance. NH might be a tougher nut to crack for Dean because of his proposed repeal of the tax cuts (that's why his opposition to the unfunded education bill & its upward effect on property taxes is so crucial).

NV would probably swing to Dean in a tight election (the NIMBY effect and Dean's social libertarianism/fiscal conservatism would be strong undercurrents).

D of C, you've been posting unsigned crap on these threads for three days now, making all sorts of stupid allegations and name-calling in the "Borrow & Spend Republican" thread, while I've banned three different IP's you've used. Get the frigging clue.

Nebraska, it has nothing to do with Dean.

Fantasies are fun but the Democratic Party and the Senatorial candidates for POTUS are behaving just as they did before November 2002. Biden says that he expects to support an invasion of Iraq. Kerry's position on Iraq is so muddled that he is can only be labeled as either 1) wooly headed 2) politically sly, not character traits Americans vote for. Newsflash to the Democratic Party: the war hawks will vote for GWB. Of course they are all expecting that Iraq will be over by 2004 and the economy will be bad and therefore the Dems will win. Gee, wonder if Rove has learned a thing or two since 1992?

It could happen that the economy is so bad in 2004 that GOP machine hands the election to the Dem. But I the odds that BushCo will forfeit are not in the Dems favor.

Have the Dems even asked why they lost in 2002? Yeah, they didn't lose by much, but then GWB only one by one vote and look at how much power that one vote gave him.

They are all beginning to look like a bunch of losers except for Gov.Dean, MD.

Yes, I would trade a Senate seat in MA for two years for the Presidency. I would trade one in FL too. Instead of Reno, I would like to see Bill McBride run if Graham decides not to run again.. that is he isn't going to run for Governor again.

I was mostly raising the question because it does not look that there will be many Senate seats for the Dems to pick up (they are defending a lot I may add) unless Bush loses a lot of support at the time.

Ohio could be a winner, but the Dem candidate would have to overcome the disarray in the State Democratic party. One could argue that Gore could have showed how to do that if he'd cared. I'm really don't understand this Graham for VP business. I think the Dems should go with a non-sunbelt ticket and mobilize their base. The Southern guys are too pro-buisiness and skittish about the range of progressive issues. Edwards is too green and already seems to be fading. Since much of the Dem base has family in Florida, mobilizing them may be more effective than adding someone to the Right of the party to the ticket and keep a safe Senate seat. Jebbie will fight tooth and nail for Florida on Shrub's defense---I suspect that it's better to consider Florida apotential writ-off and go looking for electoral votes elsewhere.

TSE,

McBride, the classic good-ole-boy, was a very weak candidate, and had NO pull with black voters. Selecting another good-ole-white-boy {Rossin} for his running mate was a terrible mistake, a sign he doesn't understand the landscape well enough to win. Any Dem in Fla MUST excite a large minority turnout in order to pull off a victory for a senate seat or the governorship.

Graham is more of a question mark now than ever, Cheney's heart notwithstanding. He's lost an awful lot of fundraising time, and genuine recovery time from heart surgery is usually quite a bit longer than the suggested four weeks- you may function OK but you feel drained for a long while. I've said before I think he'd be a great VP candidate, though what someone said earlier about Ohio is also of interest. Time for some really crass political calcs...

Obligatory Dean comment since this is a Dean thread: I'm now a Floridian but was for 41 years a resident of Colorado, and I can't see that Dean would have any special attraction to the west I know, which seems inherently suspicious of Northeasterners. Being OK on the gun thing wouldn't help him much, because Bush is OK on that too. It just wouldn't hurt him.

The non-coastal West is a puzzle. Bushonomics really hurts them very badly, since there is so much growth in that region, but they sure do love their Republicans...

I think Dean with Clark as VP rocks. Just imagine saying
Dean & Clark
(as in Lewis & Clark!)

I really don't see what the debate is about with regards to adding Bob Graham to the ticket if Dean gets the nomination. What does Graham add? Southern? Wesley Clark adds that. Some foreign policy? Wesley Clark has him beat? Experience in the executive branch? Dean's got it covered. Dean/Clark is the strongest ticket out of the bunch and would win by landslides. They could probably win some southern states through their federalist/strong national defense/2nd amendment positions and hold some of the west, as well as hold traditional Democratic strongholds. In other words, they would have nothing to do but kick Republican ass and chew bubble gum...and they wouldn't waste their time chewing bubble gum.

Dean/Clark 2004. The smart choice.

People declaring candidates dead in the water now due to events in January 2003 is completely and totally nuts.

remember how people (espec. repubs) said the persian gulf war vote was going to decide the '92 elections?

"I am not sure of how many Senate seats the Dems can pick in '04, it looks like Fitzgerald in IL is beatable, but who else?"

Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Judd Gregg in New Hampshire, Don Nickles in Oklahoma, Chuck Grassley in Iowa, Zell Miller's seat in Georgia, and possible seats in Colorado if Ben Nighthorse Campbell retires or in Missouri if Kit Bond retires or in Ohio if George Voinovich retires.

The most vulnerable Democrats will be Fritz Hollings in South Carolina, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, and possibly Patty Murray in Washington state. And maybe Chuck Schumer, *if* Pataki runs against him.

John Kerry should pick Stephanie Tubbs-Jones as his running mate.

I like Biden as Secretary of State. Give EPA or Secretary of the Interior to Gore, and Attorney General to John Conyers.

John the Bald;

I'm from conservative Eastern WA state, I've lived and worked in Idaho, I've spent a lot of time in Montana, and my parents are McCain conservatives. Dean couldn't ever win Idaho, Utah or Wyoming, but I think his pro-gun position and his fiscal conservatism would make him a strong player in Montana, Colorado and Nevada, especially if the economy is still suffering. The resort and college towns of Western Montana, in particular, CRAVE a candidate like Dean. I have a feeling the more cosmopolitan areas of CO and NV would follow suit.

MyDD, you really have a problem. My posts have all been respectful to others. Much more respectful then many of the liberal’s posts you chose to leave alone. You chose to "change" my post because you did not like that I think Dean would be a blessing to the Republicans in 2004 because he is so far left out of the mainstream. You are proof that you liberals are today’s fascists who will silence anyone with an opposing view, rather than calm logical debate. Your sad excuse for oppressing my views, respectfully stated in an open forum, should be a good warning to everyone of what will happen if your type ever gains control of the government. You should remain a shrinking minority, permanently.

I find it truly hilarious how rightwingers like our friend D of C are constantly bellyaching about how the liberals are silencing them when they have folks like Rush Limbaugh--who screens his calls 100 percent and is on time delay so he can get rid of anybody who states the truth rather than twisted, deceitful propaganda. Then there is Ann Coulter whining all over the "liberal" media (HAH!) to hawk her silly book about how conservatives don't get heard on the liberal media. Then there is Fox News which is continuous right wing propaganda straight from the RNC and the Bush administration, with next to no liberal or progressive viewpoints. I could go on an on. Really, this rightwing complaining and this persecution complex is getting old, old, old. As Dieter of Sprockets on SNL would say: "Your story has become tiresome."

Oregonian, you’re saying the changing of my post is ok because you see me as conservative. That says a lot about you the "progressive". Even if those complaints about Limbaugh are true, your post reveals that you are no better than the ones you despise.

D of C has his points. It does seem that the far left liberals are very angry.

myDD bans D of C for "making all sorts of stupid allegations and name-calling", and then D of C protests by saying "you liberals are today?s fascists..." thus proving myDD's point. Get a clue, D of C... it's myDD's board.

A fascist is somebody who attempts to silence opposing viewpoints. By definition, MyDD is acting in a fascist way. I saw no name-calling or stupid allegations that were any more over the top than many leftists posts here. Because they are from the other side of the spectrum as that of CA Pol Junkie and MyDD, they label them as stupid. If they really are stupid, the point he was attempting to make should be taken at face value, and dismissed.

MyDD, by doctoring another person’s post, you have lost some of your credibility, especially when you are crying foul in this same thread because of CNN’s alleged doctoring. When a post is not overly offensive or profane, it should be judged on its own merit. Not filtered out because you do not agree. I have seen many allegations here that have no basis in fact. They should all be considered an opinion, right or wrong. I have read several posts recently directed to "Mike the Anal". Those personal attacks seem to be just fine in the eyes of MyDD. So the justification of name-calling looks like a double standard.

Fascism is never a correct response. You would be the first to complain if your opinions were deleted.

Boards on the right side of the spectrum do the same thing, so I don't think either tells us that that end of the political spectrum would be facist if they were in power.

It's a left wing board owned by MyDD. He gets to choose how he runs it. He has made it clear before that he will censor things that he deems offensive. If you don't like it, find a board that states clearly that they will not censor.

are these boneheads nuts? Dean could not carry a single Southern state.....the only democrat that has a chance is Edwards,and because of the idiots that run the DNC, he wont get the nod......it will be like 88'come to think of it ,Dukakis or Bensten has more class than ANYONE the Dems have run since, with the exeption of Tsongas........hey the Dems will be paying for SCUMBAG clinton for years