This is obviously an important step forward for Dean. With Gore’s endorsement, he’s the official avenger for 2000, but without the Sore/Loserman taint that Lieberman and Gore himself still carry. This should effectively end Lieberman’s bid. His 2000 canidancy was the only thing he had to appeal to primary voters.
I’m hoping this will allow Dean to be declared victor earlier in the game. The sooner he can concentrate on the center (rather than the liberal primary voters), the better.
Also interesting is Gore’s stepping up as a party leader. Good. The Democrats need a strong hand and an ideological leader who isn’t himself busy running or governing.
No argument here. Unless Dean finds a pretty spectacular pooch to screw in the next 2 months, it’s over. The fringe candidates are now gone, and the RW yammerers can no longer portray them as representative of the Dem mainstream (but they’ll keep trying, of course). This move will help conserve resources, which are more limited for the Dems, for the general election.
It’s interesting that Gore’s blessing is considered key here, not Clinton’s.
Yup I think it’s a big deal. Gore has timed it beautifully. Dean has had a good deal of momentum but large parts of the Democratic establishment were still skeptical. This will take the winds right out their sails for a while just in the crucial weeks before the early primaries.
It’s not a knock-out blow yet though. Many primary voters are still uncommited and Clark still looks very attractive and has been getting his act together to some extent. When the weaker candidates like Lieberman and Kerry drop out a lot of their support may go to Clark rather than Dean. Still it looks like Dean at the moment.
GOP types who have been egging on Dean are fools. Dean will be a formidable candidate. For one thing he will raise a huge amount of money. For another he has proved highly effective at getting his message out. He is a savvier politician than he looks. (eg. his successful lobbying for the service union endorsement). From the GOP pov the ideal opponent would probably have been Gephardt or Lieberman.
I disagree that it’s over. Latest Pew poll shows Dean tied with Clark among Democrats nationally, at 15%.
Dean will win Iowa and New Hampshire. So what? That is not historically a good predictor of the eventual nominee.
I still expect Clark to sweep the Southern primaries, with the possible exceptions of South Carolina (where Edwards has a big head start) and North Carolina (if Edwards is still in the race then). Will Clark win any northern primaries? Any Western primaries? I don’t know. But I do know it’s way too early to try to call this race for Dean.
In my view, Clark would be the stronger candidate in a general election against Bush. Foreign policy experience makes the difference, IMO.
He wasn’t my first pick. I still sort of favored Kerry, even though he was, to paraphrase Sister Molly, a masterpiece of taxidermy. And I remain interested in Max Clarke because the Big Dog does. Bill C. remains the shrewdest adept at political chicanery and cunning that the Dems have had for a long, long time. If he says “Clarke”, its something to look at real hard. The man knows his shit, and we ignore him at our peril.
But I concur its time to save the ammo for the real fight. The Tighty Righties are going to have at least a two to one advantage in money. And, of course, we can expect them to exploit Dean’s stance in support of a Constitutional amendment to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages.
As well, Karl Rove has forgotten more about the dark underbelly of electoral politics than Dean ever knew. But if money, cunning, and cynicism go down to defeat…pals and gals, what a glorious day that could be!
In any case the national polls aren't that important for the primaries. The state polls are a better indication and the latest show Dean winning easily in New Hampshire and with a small lead in Iowa. If he wins both he will have huge momentum **and** a big financial advantage over the other candidates. That will be hard to beat.
Like I said, I don’t think he is home yet. I think much will depend on whether the weaker candidates can be persuaded to fold early and support Clark. Especially Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards. If one or more of these three gives up before New Hampshire and if Gephardt beats Dean in Iowa then Clark has a solid chance.
I think this ends up being a final ultimatum to the other Democrats: either unite behind a single anti-Dean candidate, or give up.
Of course, such candidacies never happen- the anti-Clinton movement of '92 couldn’t decide between Brown and Tsongas; the anti-Dukakis movement of '88 couldn’t decide between Gore or Gephardt; the anti-Mondale movement of '84 couldn’t decide between Hart and Jackson; and the anti-Carter movement of '76 couldn’t decide between Udall, Jackson, Bayh, and Wallace.
So I expect Dean has it completely sewn up- he has the money, the attention, and everything else the elder Bush once referred to as “The Big Mo”.
And while Cyber whistles bravely, I do still believe he’s whistling in the dark. The economy is heating back up, Iraq is remaining bad but not getting worse, and Dean’s vocal despisal of Bush policies doesn’t attract the middle while it galvanizes the right. If Dean ends up the candidate, I can’t see Bush getting less than 54% of the national vote.
Hmmmph. He didn’t even bother to call Lieberman before he made his announcement. :mad: I thought he was very classy given his gracious acceptance of the Bush victory (after weeks of fighting like a dog, of course), and that helped me move on (.org) from my own disappointment. But I’m not happy with his throwing his support behind Howard without at least calling Joe.
In regard to the OP, though–yes, it’s important, and I think knocks Gephardt in particular, the former ‘estalishment’ candidate, out of the race.
“If Dean ends up the candidate, I can’t see Bush getting less than 54% of the national vote.”
Who is whistling in the dark? Bush hasn’t got more than 50% in the 2004 vote question for months despite recent good economic news and the Thansgiving visit. It’s been more than a year since he got 54%.
As for Dean it’s still too early to say how swing voters will react to him considering that most of them hardly know him yet. What is clear is that he will have a lot of money to get his message out and that he has thus far been an effective communicator.
I don’t know Gore’s endorsement will significantly shift opinion toward Dean, but I think it effectively blocks any big movement toward one of his opponents, which they must have to catch him.
Dean’s star has been rising, his opponents are either dead in the water or declining. It makes it increasing difficult to catch the leader if the lead is getting longer.
Of course, that begs the question of why the Democrats are running anti-Dean candidates. I mean, given the choice between (a) weakening Dean to make it easier for Bush to defeat him, or (b) standing behind Dean and make it harder for Bush to defeat him, it should be a no-brainer, n’est pas?
In a related vein, there seems to be a movement mounting for Dean to unseal his records from his time as governor of Vermont. Which leads me to ask,
Why were the records sealed to begin with?
Why does anyone care if the records are sealed or not? Aren’t Dean’s activities during his time in office already available to the public?
Bill probably won’t come out until Hillary’s ready to endorse someone (even if she doesn’t do so formally). He’ll probably wait until it’s more of a done deal (endorsing Dean over Bush instead of over other Democrats).
He could blow this thing to another candidate’s favor, but I doubt he will. It’s time to rally behind Dean.
Both of the Clintons have said they will not endorse any candidate during the primaries.
CyberPundit, the interesting thing to consider about the poll numbers you have linked is this:
Where will Lieberman’s, Kerry’s, Gephardt’s and Edwards’s supporters go after their candidates drop out? The positions of those candidates are closer to those of Clark than to those of Dean.
I have tossed my paper, so I don’t know about the dates on the Pew poll, but even using your numbers, the nomination is still very much up for grabs.
I share the opinion that Gore’s endorsement was pretty important, and I’m glad to see it. While it certainly won’t be the determining factor in the primaries, it does give Dean an even bigger boost in visibility, and the fact remains that none of his contenders have an endorsement to match it.
It’s not “sewn up,” but Dean definitely got a bonus from this one.
I’m pretty bummed myself…I was hoping Gore would come out for Lieberman to be honest. I think its a shot in the arm ole Joe could have used…had he gotten it. I also think its one he EXPECTED, as him and Gore ran together in 2000.
Also, JL was who I was leaning towards voting in the general election (I’m registered Independant and can’t vote in the primary)…and a lot of my friends of similar political leanings were as well. So thats the majority of my own disappointment.
Oh well…c’est la vie. Looks like it will be Dean from my perspective. Of course, I don’t think Dean appeals to the middle, so IMO the 'Crats are cutting their own throat with Dean…unless Dean appeals heavily to the Green Party and other disaffected Democrats in their left wing, which I don’t think he does. He’s somewhere in between the unaligned moderates and the left wing liberals…not the best place to be. Ole Joe now…HE has definite appeal (IMO) to the unaligned moderates that are not wanting another 4 years of Bush.
I’m guessing Gore was as disgusted as I have been by Lieberman’s negative campaigning. Note Gore’s pointed comments urging Democrats not to attack one another (a sentiment with which I agree wholeheartedly).