Electability issue: Compare Gore '00 with Dean '03

[CMT]

Howard Dean's opponents often say that Dean cannot win the 2004 election against GW Bush, but at times like this it is probably good to look back at how the winner of the popular vote in 2000, Al Gore was doing vs. Bush.

August 11,2000 the Gallup poll on the eve of the Democratic convention gives Bush a 14-point lead (53-39) over Gore.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/cnn.poll/index.html

This poll also states that Bush had a 60% favorability rating while Gore's was under 50%.

On 10/27/00 Gallup released a poll just ten days before the election giving Bush a 49-43 lead with a CNN/USA Today tracking poll giving Bush a 13-point (52-39) lead:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/27/cnntime.poll/index.html

As early as 3/5/99 Bush held a 13-point lead over Gore 52-41
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/05/president.2000/poll/index.html

Now here is how Gore did in some key Democratic states in 1999, and how Dean is doing in them right now in 2003 (based on Quinnipiac Surveys)

New Jersey (11/03) Bush leads Dean 48-45 percent (only dem who beats Bush currently is Lieberman and by only 1-point).

New Jersey (9/99) Bush leads Gore 48-40 percent.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x3291.xml#NJPRES00
We all know that Gore won NJ handily in 11/00.

New York (11/03) Dean leads Bush 48-44.
New York (11/99) Gore leads Bush 47-43.
Gore won NY by 2 million votes in 11/00.

Connecticut (10/03) Bush edges Dean 47-45 percent
Connecticut (10/99) Bush leads Gore 52-36 percent.
Gore easily won Connecticut in 11/00
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x3290.xml#CTPRES00

My point is these early horse race polls pitting any of our candidates against Bush don't mean diddly. Heck, even late polls just days before the election don't always mean that is how the outcome will be (look at the tracking poll from Oct 27 2000 which had Gore behind Bush by 13-points only to have Gore beat Bush by over 500,000 votes on election day). Also, Gore was a much better known person than Howard Dean is today.

In the end it will come down to who runs a strong campaign and articulates his vision to the American people and who can motivate their base to turnout in strong numbers (Gore did well because he got a strong turnout among the Democratic base such as union members and African-Americans).

[mot78]

1. Three words: Elephant Echo Chamber

[Dr Fate]

2. Dean will not back down from smears like Gore did, for one thing...

...Dean is not my #1 choice, but I sure do like the guy...

Gore made the mistake of not calling Bush/media on their lies/smears against him- he made the huge mistake of thinking he could ignore the lies of the Bush/media machine...

It's looking like candidates like Clark and Dean are going to stand up to Bush/media lies. Kerry has that potential too- I hope his advisors are wise to this...

I'm not sure the Confederate flag flap will gain much momentum- most people know Dean is no racist- besides, that was a "mistake" on Deans part, not a lie made up by Bush/media


Dean's internet savy team, and Dean himself know better. Clark seems to be savy in this respect too- he has done a decent job at nipping potential Bush/media manufactured scandals in the bud...

NOT standing up to Bush/media lies is the one thing that always takes down DEMS. Just ask Gore and Cleland, who assumed folks would see through Bush/media lies.

Gore apparently is SO aware of it now that he is buying a network!!!!

[CMT]

4. I agree

Dean isn't always smooth on television, but I know many people who like his debate appearances, while I--a strong supporter am usually feeling he could have done better. But I know people who like Dean because he isn't like Gore in a debate trying to prove he is the smartest guy in the class--but is down to earth, keeps to his message, and doesn't talk down to people. I think this is where Dean will really do well opposite Bush because Dean is intelligent without being smug about it.

[DeaconBlues]

3. Yes, Dean looks a lot like Gore in '00

and Gore is not in the White House. I don't want another race that is close enough for the Republicans to steal. That's why I hope Clark will win the nomination.

[CMT]

5. look at all of those polls

Clark is not doing much better than Gore in New York, Connecticut, or New Jersey or even nationally in some polls.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. The Argument That Gore Closed The Gap

Therefore Dean can close the gap is a decent argument but it ignores the fact that Gore was the incumbent vice president presiding over the greatest economy in the history of the republic....

The great unknown was how much Gore was hurt by the Monica brouhaha.....

Given the closeness of the campaign it's hard to think Gore would have lost without the Monica imbroglio....

[CMT]

7. it isn't only the case of Dean closing the gap

despite Clark and maybe Kerry presently doing slightly better than Dean in match-ups vs. Bush--they all in recent polls still lose to Bush.

The two big democratic arguments in 2004 will be Iraq and the instability there and the economy--which may derail all of our candidates if it steadily improves. I would add a third issue and that is Bush's credibility.

I tend to agree with you that Clinton, despite his high job approval, did hurt Gore with independent voters--Dean, or whoever the democratic nominee is will not have this issue in 2004.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Liked Clinton....

You could look it at three ways.....

Without Gore Clinton might not have won in 92....

Without Clinton Gore might not have gotten a shot in 00...

Without Monica Gore walks in 00....

The election was so close......Even a small segment of the populations's disgust with Clinton's behavior could have made the difference....

It really was a piss poor judgement on the part of Clinton but that's history now.....

First of all, I really believe the case has been made we need to be competitive in the south and I make that argument aware of the argument that why would a Gore voter switch to Bush in 04.... If we concede the South we have to pull the Electoral College equivalent of a inside straight flush to win; hold all the blue states and pick up, say, NH, NV, and WV while Bush can start with an Electoral College base of 200+ Electoral Votes....

The election will turn on primarily three things which I'll list in order of importance

1) The perception on the direction of the economy

2) The perception on the direction of the "war on terrorism"

3) The attractiveness of our candidate

[Eloriel]

8. If you don't want the Repugs to steal another election

You'd better get busy on the computerized voting machine issue, IMMEDIATELY.

Eloriel

[IranianDemocrat]

9. Dean's candidacy is the GOP's dream come true!

Dean supporters don't see that the GOP propoganda machine is going to have such a great time smearing him and making him look like a far left wacko. Dean's candidacy would make McGovern's loss look like a total victory, UNLESS Dean selects Clark as VP.

Why? because Clark is untouchable. Think about how stupid AWOL would look trying to paint Clark as a far left loonie.

[Dr Fate]

10. Yes- Dean will need Clark, no doubt...

...We have to have a military guy in 2004...

I'm not sure "Mean Dean" wont put up a good fight against bush/media though- he seems like a guy who does not take any crap- and voters like that in a leader.

[IranianDemocrat]

11. Definitely.

I don't see Dean winning in 04 if he doesn't pick Clark as VP.

[sduncang]

13. President Dean?

Possible. Not likely. Although, I'll vote for him. I like him because he comes across well, articulates his points and has temper. Also, contrary to the popular right-wing inspired myth, he's no liberal wacko. His biggest plus - he's not a lawyer.

[CMT]

14. how is this the case?

case in point, North Carolina. Recent poll has Edwards, in his homestate, losing to Bush by ten-points (to be fair it is improvement over a few months ago when he was behind by 19-points). Clark loses to Bush by ten-points. Both are southerners. Dean, a yankee from Vermont, doesn't do much worse--loses to Bush by 14-points--and gets the same percentage of the vote that Clark does 40%.

Clark can win, Kerry can win, Gep can win, and yes, Dean can win. It is you who are falling for the GOP lies by buying into this crap that Dean is unelectable.

[OKNancy]

15. I'm not falling for GOP lies

Why would the GOP lie about Howard Dean not being able to win? Looks to me like they would love it.

It seems Dean supporters live in some sort of bubble where they pat each other on the back and only spend time with each other. George Bush will not be defeated by someone like Dean, especially now.

If Dean is the nominee and he wins, I'll be jumping up and down with glee and I'll have a grin that won't fade for months, BUT if he is the nominee, I am resigned to the fact that we will lose.

[CMT]

16. I do think that people are falling for the GOP lies

by claiming that Dean cannot win. Clark is not beating Bush either. The gap between the two are is not that wide. These polls are meaningless for anybody at this point and I used Gore as an example but I could also use Clinton in '92--in July, '92 he was running third behind Bush and Perot. He never overtook Bush in the polls until after the democratic convention.

I don't know how you can write "I am resigned to the fact that we will lose" if Dean is the nominee. How is that fact?

I think any of our leading candidates can beat Bush, including Dean. If Clark or Kerry or any of them are nominated I will work my ass off for them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Here's My Take

It has nothing to do with the substance of Dean and everything with the percption that's being created....

The perception is that Dean combines the worst of McGovern and Mondale;that he wants to raise your taxes ,is weak on defense, and opposed to traditional values.....

The substance of these charges is of subsidiary importance to the perception....

[OKNancy]

20. Response

You wrote:

I don't know how you can write "I am resigned to the fact that we will lose" if Dean is the nominee. How is that fact?
------------
It's not a fact..geeez..it's an opinion. No one can state for a fact something that is happening in the future.
-----
Look, as long as I'm writing more on this subject, can you at least understand how depressing it is that I feel this way? I see the Democrats heading in a disasterous direction (IMO) and it makes me worried.
To salve my worries, I'm working for Clark here in Oklahoma and going to try to bring as many of the 60 delegates to him as I can.

[CMT]

23. ok,

I know it is an opinion and you can be proud of your work for Clark in Oklahoma and in the end we will be on the same team.

[Scott Lee]

22. Your post makes NO sense, OKNancy....

"If Dean is the nominee and he wins, I'll be jumping up and down with glee and I'll have a grin that won't fade for months, BUT if he is the nominee, I am resigned to the fact that we will lose. "

I'm not Socrates or anything, but you just grandly negated yourself in one sentence. First you say that "if Dean is the nominee and wins", holding open the possiblity that he can not only win the nomination but the presidency; then you end with "I am resigned to the fact that he will lose" the presidency.

Can you reconcile having a possibility of winning when you accept a "fact" that he can never do so?

[Scott Lee]

21. Or that's what the GOP wants you to think

Don't fall to propaganda or information manipulation tricks. I think the GOP has an excellent poker face. They are great at looking confident when they hold a shitty hand, and get you to throw down at the wrong time.

If it's any consolation, I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be shizznit. But the way it stands, Clark facing Bush would be disastrous.

[retyred]

17. Gore and Dean?

My thoughts exactly! Both sides of the same coin!



Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[CMT]

19. what about Clinton?

he was running third in the early summer of 2002 behind Bush and Perot.