I said it over at kos, but I'll say it here too:

This was the most reasonable thing I've read all day. Thanks.

Well put. Like you, I believe in the power of the Dean organization. I just don't know if it'll be enough to pull it off.

And although I've been with HD for quite a while, I still think he needs major work in a number of areas- media appearances, being more precise in his message, staying on script, etc.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm

At the end of the day, it all comes down to votes. You really have to sit down in front of a map of the U.S. and figure out where the electoral votes are likely to come from. If you look at the 2000 map, one stark fact becomes readily apparent: Gore was unable to muster even one win in a huge swath of the U.S., outside of the traditional Democratic strongholds. From the South to the Midwest to the Southwest and most of the Pacific Northwest, it was a sea of Bush states. Truly stunning.

The question of course, is, what will change in 2004? Not much, imho. If the economy picks up steam, the viability of that issue will wither. The Iraq debacle will linger, but is that enough to cause folks to toss out a president they believe is one of them, an unpretentious, decisive fellow taking on terrorists with all the passion of a Wild West gunslinger? I think not. Education, the environment, prescription drugs: these are all vulnerable points for Bush. You can rest assured his $200 million war chest will be spent on the best ads money can buy to convince the gullible populace that he has been the most effective leader on these issues that America ever had.

I've already spoken about Dean's personality, so I will not add much more about it. I don't think it's an asset. He plays well to supporters, but not to conservative swing voters or independents.

"From the South to the Midwest to the Southwest and most of the Pacific Northwest, it was a sea of Bush states. Truly stunning."

Not really. Almost all of those states are reliably Republican. And Gore won New Mexico, which is in the southwest. And we all know about Florida. If Dean is the nominee, he will have to follow the sam map. Right off the south, except for Florida, and concentrate on states like New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, Arizona and Nevada.

As for Nathan's point, while campaign organization is great, people vote for a candidate, not an organization. My concerns about Dean revolve around his rather unconvincing debate performances and his tax repeal plan. Until he addresses those issues, concern about his electability is more than valid.

For all the talk about electoral strategy, I think people are missing a crucial part of Dean's appeal: his libertarian-ness. From guns to civil unions to early anti-Ashcroft speeches, Dean has established himself as the libertarian candidate. While this might not win him any votes in the South (where no Dem -- not even Clark -- can win), it will definitely win him votes in NH and also in AZ, CO and NV. Note that these are all states that Gore lost and that Dean can win.

I know it's apparently hard for some non-Dean supporters to believe this, but the man is not only electable, he actually is the most electable.

Well said, Paleo.

All we need to win is to hold the Gore states and win one more state. Arizona seems the most likely pickup. This should be doable if rigged voting machines don't steal the election for Bush (Support H.2239!) The notion that we have to hold our own in the South to win is a fallacy.

The Dean Campaign has been the best run campaign I've seen since at least 1988, possibly ever, but I do wonder why he matches up so much worse vs. Bush than do many of his opponents in poll after poll.

I'm not saying Dean can't win, but I'd like to see one of his supporters explain his current low standing in a matchup vs. Bush, and how he would move forward more than the other candidates with $200m+ of Republican sleaze money thrown at him.

"I know it's apparently hard for some non-Dean supporters to believe this, but the man is not only electable, he actually is the most electable."

Where's the empirical evidence for that? Any objective analysis would reveal that Clark is the most electable. I'm not saying that I'm in favor of him, or that he should be the nominee, but Clark clearly has the potential to carry states that Dean has no shot at, such as Missouri and Arkansas, while having a shot to win every state that Dean is competitive in. Although not as clear, an argument can also be made that Edwards and Gephardt are more electable.

Where's the empirical evidence for that? Any objective analysis would reveal that Clark is the most electable.

Respectfully, Paleo, I would ask you the same thing. The problem with a lot of political analysis, I believe, is that it proceeds from the assumption that the populace is arrayed along a spectrum of "left" to "right." Recently, some bloggers have pointed out the fallacy of this, that there is also a "y" axis that should be considered in gauging where people are on policy matters. Clark is probably closer to the "center" than Dean is perceived to be (although I don't know for sure because I have no idea what Clark stands for).

But while such may be sufficient in the context of determining where people are on policy concerns, there is more involved in the making of a successful political campaign. There are also "z" factors, such as leadership, charisma, etc. I think Dean has these in spades and the others don't (or at least haven't shown them). And I think that to beat George W. Bush in 2004, the candidate will have to be bold and be a fighter.

Let me be clear, I don't know that Clark does not have these things. But I see his problems as the following: 1) he has zero political experience or campaign experience; 2) I don't know what is his campaign theme; 3) thus far, it is the c.w. that he's a Clinton-manufactured candidate. Until Clark is able to put these concerns to bed, he won't win. And I'm not just talking about the primary! He will do worse than Dean would in the general election if he does not come across as a bold leader.

No one is blind to the fact that Clark has a dazzling resume and has national-security credentials. And no one is blind to the fact that Karl, et al. will savage Dean as a pacifist, pot-smoking hippie. WE ALL SEE AND RECOGNIZE THESE THINGS!!! But neither of those things changes the fact that Dean has demonstrated to the public that he can be a bold leader and NONE of the other Democrats has done so, including Clark. Look, I have no doubt that Clark has real leadership qualities, but he better put them on display fast or he's a goner.

It's not a matter of left or right, it a matter of simply looking at the electoral map and seeing which candidate would have a better chance of winning more states. As a moderate, four-state General outsider, Clark would have a better chance of winning more states than Dean. Now, he could very well fail to do that, and the number of Clinton people around him is a concern, but on paper at least, Clark is better positioned electorally.

Clark and Dean both appeal to independents. Clark has his 4-star general appeal to independents. Dean has his libertaraian appeal to independents (plus he has shown himself to be a political fighter). IMHO, overall thats a slight advantage for Dean.

". As a moderate, four-state General outsider, Clark would have a better chance of winning more states than Dean. Now, he could very well fail to do that, and the number of Clinton people around him is a concern, but on paper at least, Clark is better positioned electorally."

Maybe so, but the fact is that you can't view qualifications/stances seperate from the ability to campaign and build an organization and actually win primary states. The point that Clark might be better is a couldashouldawoulda deal: he's gotta show he can win primaries, period.

KBS-

Newsweek's latest poll shows Bush beating Clark 48-45 and beating Dean 49-45. I haven't seen any head-to-head poll that shows Dean doing significantly better or worse vs. Bush than any of the other major candidates. Regardless, though, polls aren't exactly an accurate measure of much.

Nathan (in NYC)-

Thanks for this post. I'm getting so tired of all the hand-wringing about Dean, especially when the hand-wringers don't offer much in the way of why their candidate is preferable.

If the Dems are to win in 2004 they need a candidate who can energize and motivate the base AND appeal to independents (moderate, libertarian, greens what have you). We know that Bush's base will be motivated, and we already know he can appeal to independents (although not nearly as much as the CW would have you believe; he did lose the popular vote after all).

To suggest Dean is fundamentally incapable of doing both these things is silly at this point. To suggest that ONLY he can do these things is also silly. I know it's a novel concept, but how 'bout letting the voters decide these things.

Kumar, thanks. The last ones I'd seen showed Dean doing 6-10 points worse than Clark or Kerry, but those were a few weeks back. I agree that 1 point isn't a significant difference.

Let's hope Dean is doing better.

We'll see, but there definitely is a heck of a lot of starry eyed Dean believers who think the globe will fall in love with him just because they did.

Personality over organization? You need both, but in this TV world personality has to count for more. The confed flag answer at the debate was simply awful, and god, why can't Howie figure out that this superiority thing bothers people?

Unaffiliated is NOT a Karl Rove term, it's out there in operative speak for years, I think.

Actually, there's one personality characteristic that these presidents all have in common: stupendous egos. I think that all the current candidates have got that one covered already.

WHITE and MALE and ACCEPTED BY THE CORPORATE MEDIA

Unusual ideas can make enemies.