Don't count Dean out

[StevenNick]

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.

I agree with Gustaf.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both moderates running against politically inept republican incumbents.  Dean is a liberal running against a politically astute president.

And don't overestimate the democrats' political power.  Since 1964 Republicans have had the real advantage in presidential politics.  The three democratic victories since 1964 can all be attributed to forces outside the candidate's appeal.  In 1976 it was anti-Watergate backlash that got Jimmy Carter elected.  In 1992 it was Ross Perot that got Bill Clinton elected.  In 1996 it was a weak republican and Ross Perot again that got Bill Clinton reelected.

Considering that Bush will not be a weak incumbent (unless something happens to considerable hurt him politically between now and 11/2/04) and he will be running against a liberal rather than a moderate and there won't be a third party spoiler to give the race to Dean, I just don't see that Dean has a good shot at winning.

[StevenNick]

Personality wins elections; ideology doesn't.  Some times, ideology can be used to frame a person's personality (eg, making Dukakis seem unamerican).    Given that we have an incumbent, the election is Bush's to lose.  But if we have a poor economy and continued problems in Iraq, anybody who has a good campaign can win.  This is a big if.

You're right about that.  It doesn't really matter what a candidate believes, it's what the voters think the candidates believe.  In 1992 whether Bill Clinton actually ran as a moderate or a liberal, he was viewed by the American people as a moderate.  Barry Goldwater wasn't any more conservative than Ronald Reagan, yet Goldwater lost in a landslide to LBJ and Reagan won two landslides against Carter and then Mondale.  The only reason for Goldwater's loss and Reagan's win was that one was viewed as a radical and the other as a reasonable, if conservative, politician.

In 2004 Dean will not be viewed by the American people as a moderate because of his lefty stances on social issues.  Unlike Clinton, Dean will not have a Southern twang to hide behind.  There's nothing remotely charming about Dean, unlike Clinton.  And Dean won't be facing a politically clueless incumbent like Bush 41.