Don't count Dean out

[Gustaf]

It seems like a lot of people - Republican and Democrats - think Dean canNOT win against George Bush in the general election next year.

I say, beware of Dean.  You remember Ronald Reagan?  Bill Clinton?  Jimmy Carter thought running against Reagan would be easy.  Likewise, Bush 41 thought Clinton could never capture the hearts of Americans and beat him - especially since his foreign policy genius got him an approval rating of 91%.

Bush, while popular now against Dean, can still lose against Dean.  Give Dean time to get his arguments out, shape up a campaign against the president, and it could very well be a competitive race.

I think Dean actually could win.

I think you're wrong. It took an unpopular, unelected incumbent from the minority party who pardoned Nixon and did nothing sucessful for Carter too narrowly carry the day. Then it took Ross Perot to get Clinton in, and then Clinton got reelected with less than 50% of the votes. Not much of an achievement. Regan is a good example, but he was a republican.

[Gustaf]

Yes, Dean has been labeled "McGovern II" by the media, and that could hurt him, but it doesn't mean a "McGovern" type can't win.

The way I see it, Dean is just right for the Democratic nomination.  He's positioned himself to the left, but not so far that he can't move back to to the center after he gets the nomination.  As far as where the candidates stand on the political spectrum, Dean isn't much different than Clark or Kerry.  Dean has literally moved this entire field to the left--even Lieberman, but to a small extent.

What my point is, is that everything depends on how low Bush can go, in terms of his approval ratings.  Sure, they're up now, b/c of Saddam's capture.  But that can and will fade.

Say soldiers keep dying in Iraq.  Say we find no WMD's, Osama, and fail to establish peace in Iraq.  That could really hurt Bush, and may even cost him the election.

Don't get me wrong, Bush has got my vote, and I hope he wins in '04.  But you can't count the Democrats - even Dean - out at all.

I agree.

[Gustaf]

Bill Clinton won for one reason only: Ross Perot.  Had Perot not run, Bush would have been reelected, probably with at least 50% (though that is debatable) - but he would have won.

The economy (as well as a failure to finish the Gulf War by getting rid of Saddam) hurt Bush a lot, but that wasn't going to cost him his reelection - Perot was (and did).  Bill Clinton was lucky, and there's no other way of getting around that little fact.

I am tempted to agree. Though someone in this forum claimed that Perot voters split 50-50 between the candidates, but I'm not sure if that's true.

[Gustaf]

I could be wrong but wasn't there a poll at the time which estimated that had Perot not run,

50% of Perot voters would have voted Bush
20% would not have voted
30% would have voted Clinton

I'm sure the #'s are at least a little off but I do recall hearing something like this.

Since, if I remember it correctly, Clinton beat Bush 43%-37%, with Perot at 20%, it would have meant Clinton beating Bush 49-47, but it would have been a lot closer. I might look into the states to see what the effects could have been.

[Gustaf]

I could be wrong but wasn't there a poll at the time which estimated that had Perot not run,

50% of Perot voters would have voted Bush
20% would not have voted
30% would have voted Clinton

I'm sure the #'s are at least a little off but I do recall hearing something like this.

Since, if I remember it correctly, Clinton beat Bush 43%-37%, with Perot at 20%, it would have meant Clinton beating Bush 49-47, but it would have been a lot closer. I might look into the states to see what the effects could have been.

I've made a quick investigation based on Wakie's numbers, and what I get is that the race would have been much closer, with Bush picking up Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Georgia and Wisconsin, but still falling 23 EVs short, losing 247-291.

[Gustaf]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

But if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, Dole would have won the Electoral College 270-268, picking up Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania. He would have won Oregon and Wisconsin as well, but I have chosen to include the Nader vote in Clintons numbers and that makes them Democratic again.

[Gustaf]

But every Perot vote would not have gone to Dole.

Yeah, I know. I was just saying.

[Gustaf]

Exit polls in 1992 showed that the Perot voters would have split about evenly between Clinton, Bush, and not voting. So all of you who say that Perot cost Bush the race are basically saying that you believe the voters lied in the exit polls, or that the exit polls were way wrong. But they were right on everything else, so that's a pretty tough argument to make.
And to say that Perot cost Dole victory in 1996 is even more patently false, since even if every Perot vote had gone to Dole, he still would have lost in the popular vote to Clinton.
It's a complete myth that Perot cost Bush victory in 1992, and in fact he may have hurt Clinton's legitimacy by costing him a majority of the popular vote which he would have gotten in both 1992 and 1996 if Perot had not run.

I tend to disagree with your analysis.  One fact about polls is that people biased their answers as to be on the side of the winner.  All post-election polls show more people voted for the winner than the winner actually got.  A poll right after 9/11 showed about 59% of Americans claiming they voted for Bush in 2000 when in fact only 48% did.  

In the 1992 election it was pretty clear that Clinton was going to win even given that last minute surge in support for Bush I.  So that concensus I feel influenced the Perot votes when it came to exit polls.

That's right. I read about a problem occurring with polls in Sweden, where they tried to balance the interviewed group. I'll give you an example. Let's say you poll a group of American voters. To make sure you're getting a representative group, you ask them questions, like who they voted for. Now let's say 60% claim they voted for Bush in 2000. Then the institute might make a down-ward adjustment of his poll result, to get a more accurate picture. However, when a party is on the rise people tend to be ashamed of not having voted for "their" party or candidate the last time and lie, thus making the polls udnerestimate the positive trend for a candidate or party. This happens in Sweden where we have multiple parties, but I figure you could have similar problems in the US.