I don't think Dean can win the election

[CoffeePlease1947]

This is not a slam, just what I think. Almost all of the favorites to win in the nomination in the early days of the election, aside from sitting presidents, for the Democratic Party have been knocked down in the primaries or lost the general election.

Stevenson--1952 and 1956 won the nomination but lost the election
Johnson--1960 was expected to win the nomination but lost to JFK
E. McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy-1968 were expected to win the nomination, lost to Herbert Humphery.
McGovern--1972, lets not rehash this
Ted Kennedy--1976, lost to Carter
Gary Hart--1984, expected to win, lost
Mario Cuomo-1988, decided not to run
Mario Cuomo-1992, decided not to run.
Bill Bradly-2000, well ahead of Gore in the NH Primary, lost to Gore

I don't think Dean can hold onto his high popularity until January. It is too far off. Surely the media will grow tired of him. He is now the target of eight other candidates. I think they will gang up on him, along with the media, and he will be out after NH.

Mike

[JohnKleeb]

1. RFK ummm DIED

so that makes no sense.

[Booberdawg]

7. just can't get ANYTHING past you, can we?

;)

[JohnKleeb]

8. well everyone knows Bobby would have won

and besides its early, just dont doubt DK, I think he will do fine.

[liberalnurse]

59. He sure is terrific!

I'm very impressed:) You make a good Democratic Congressman or Senator some day.

:bounce:

[VermontDem2004]

2. Dean can win and will win

:toast:

[sfecap]

3. He's peaking too soon...LOL!

[virtualobserver]

56. great cartoon

did he just pick a random face for Dean?

[LosinIt]

4. "Surely the media will grow tired of him." But I won't.

And neither will the 300,000 plus others who are involved in his grass roots campaign. Never before have so many ordinary people been involved in a presidential candidacy, especially this early on. I predict that this is one unstoppable force. Power to the People, as they used to say.

[CoffeePlease1947]

9. I never crossed my mind

that Dean can't die. Good point. J/K :)

Mike

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CoffeePlease1947]

23. It was posted in the wrong reply

It was the answer to JKleeb. In an earily post.

Mike

[DemBones DemBones]

53. No, actually,

Dean *can* die but he'll return on the third day. O8)

[caledesi]

50. I am one of those ordinary people who have NEVER been

involved in any campaign, never donated etc.

I attend Dean Meetups and it's unbelievbable. We have gone from 8 people to over 100.

You can't compare any other campaign to Dean's; it's brilliant. People are coming to him and feel that they have power in the political process.

It's called "grassroots" as its finest.

[Nicholas_J]

80. Sorry

The media will not grow tired of Dean. They are about to turn on them.
an ex girlfriend of mine who works on the New York Times staff(her father was also an elected democratic official in New York City in the 70's) has told me that the Dean Defense Forces have pissed them off bigtime ,and that there is a great big bulls eye painted on Deans head by the major media.

[Booberdawg]

5. Just one thing ..

"This is not a slam, just what I think. Almost all of the favorites to win in the nomination in the early days of the election, aside from sitting presidents ... "

LOL! WTF? Look at what you just said??

I don't know if he can or will win or not. He has the most momentum right now, that's all I know. I will support whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is. But your reason for pessimism in this case is specious for the reason I have pointed out

[CoffeePlease1947]

13. What?

My point was that early frontrunners for the nomination almost never win the nomination, with the exception of sitting Presidents. Clinton was the front runner in 1996, LBJ in 1964, Carter in 1980. For obvious reasons they won. But all others, Hart, Cuomo, Tsougus, McCarthy, Kennedy, all lost despite their earily high rating. What is so hard to understand about that?

Mike

[JohnKleeb]

14. I understand where you are getting at

Historically actually you are right on target. Frontrunners typically dont win.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. IOW:

"He can't win. Unless he wins." Now do you see what the previous poster meant?

[Booberdawg]

6. CoffeePlease1947 who do you support?

Do you have any thoughts on who should be the Democratic nominee or any pet issues you'd care to share?

[CoffeePlease1947]

11. I am undecided but I am leaning to three candidates

One is Edwards. He is Southerner and can bring in those votes.

The Second is Clark. But I don't know if he is going to run or not.

The third is Kerry. He has experience and seems moderate enough to beat Bush in 2004.

My pet issues are Iraq and the economy. We somebody who can fix those.

Mike

[w13rd0]

15. Ok, not to disparage...

...but 1) polling single digits, not faring well

2) undeclared, as a candidate or a democrat

3) has followers all over this board claiming that (and perhaps they are right) he is to the LEFT of Dean...

Yeah, ok, whatever...

[CoffeePlease1947]

17. Everybody has to start somewhere

It sounds like to me you are supporting a candidate only based on how they are doing in September of 2003. Will you dump Dean if he drops to single digits? Sounds like it to me.

I think you are incorrect about Clark. He has been campaigning for Democratic candidates and no Republican ones. That sounds like a Democrat to me.

Mike

[VermontDem2004]

16. Southerners won't vote for a southerner

just because he is a southerner. If that was the case Gore would of had no problem beating George Bush, but the only Southern state he picked up was Florida.

[JohnKleeb]

18. I think honestly if Dean is the nominee and they listen hard to him

I think the rural south will like him with his views on guns.

[CoffeePlease1947]

26. That doesn't matter

OK, take it from a Southerners point of view. Candidate A agrees with you on taxes, guns, and gay rights. Candidate B agrees with you on guns. Which one are you going to vote for? Obviously candidate A which is Bush.

Mike

[JohnKleeb]

27. Youre right about that honestly

Actually I do agree with you that frontrunners dont win typically in Democratic party politics. I think you have a point.

[arcos]

31. And Lieberman is the best example of that...

he was the early frontrunner. Dean is not.

[JohnKleeb]

32. well youre right about that

but a lot of these names mentioned were the front runners in the middle of the campaign as well. If you say that, then dont dismiss Kucinich so soon.

[caledesi]

51. Good point arcos.

[VermontDem2004]

34. Why did Clinton do so well then?

He was against for all of those things(gun control, increased taxes, and gay rights) and managed to pick up a large portion of the southern vote. Dean will do well in the Southern vote.

[CoffeePlease1947]

37. Clinton was in 1992

America has moved a little more to the left since 1992. Clinton was not against gay rights, he just could not get anything done with a public and Senate that was.

Yes, I do think that the south is more Republican than most the rest of the nation. Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, David Duke, Dick Army, Tom Delay, are all from the South. Only the Rocky Mountain states would maybe considered more conservative.

Mike

[VermontDem2004]

40. He was for gay rights

he urged congress to pass the hate crimes bill in which he signed. I meant he is against the republican's view of gay rights as well as guns and taxes. I know Clinton was in 1992, I believe America has moved more to the left since 1992, but from your statement, you basically said Howard Dean has no chance because he is for gay rights, increased taxes, and is against gun control. But Clinton did pick up a majority of the votes from the South and he was somewhat for gun control, increased taxes, and gay rights.

[JohnKleeb]

39. Clinton was for gay rights and for reasonable gun control

A southerner is likely to republican, I think thats the point made.

[VermontDem2004]

43. I know

your are the second one to interpret my post deferently.

[JohnKleeb]

45. Its ok though I am all for liberals look at my bloody avatar

That said, Clinton was for gay rights but not civil unions btw I think that was Dean's finest hour and I think helping lead the anti Iraq war coalition in Congress and what he did as mayor of Cleveland were his.

[CoffeePlease1947]

20. Or just that Southerners won't vote for Al Gore

All other historical evidence points to the opposite. Bill Clinton won Southern states, Carter did as well. Also LBJ. No Democrat has won the election that was not from the South since 1960, and that was by only 100,000 votes with a big southern Democrat on the ticket. The only Democratic President that was not from the South since 1920 was FDR.

Mike

[VermontDem2004]

25. Historically your right

but the south dumped Carter in 1980, Clinton was a great President, had great personality, and was great on the issues Southerners cared about which is why they voted for him, not because he was from Arkansas. I think Edwards can do well in the south but not because he is a Senator of a Southern State, no because he is an altertanitive to George Bush and he speaks about the issues the South Cares about.

[caledesi]

52. Hello? What about JFK?

[CoffeePlease1947]

54. Did youu read the post?

I said, only one Democrat has won the election since FDR. That was JFK. He is the ONE.

Mike

[ModerateMiddle]

65. Did we forget Kennedy? (nt)

[genius]

78. I think your picks can win

Kerry and Edwards seem to have a lot of integrity. I don't know much about Clark but a lot of people like him. I'm supporting someone else who I also think can win.

[Julien Sorel]

29. In other words...

I can't cope with your arguments, so I want to find a way to attack you!

[DannyRed]

12. Uhhhhh,

Well, if we were to go waaaaaay back to the early summer, we would find that Dean was NOT the "early favorite" -- he was not even in the "top tier"!

Dean was well back in the pack, in the single digits both nationally and in most states. Little or no name recognition. Nuttin...

And that all changed.

How? Why? Who did it?

IF that all changed because of a fluke, or because of a single individual, or a particular article...well then maybe the "flash in the pan" argument holds water...

BUT if that all changed for other reasons (like massive, decentralized, grassroots support involved in an innovative, modern, engaged, effective campaign raising money like gangbusters and running ads on TV in what five? states now.....) Then the "flash in the pan" you are talking about is actually "just the beginning"...

If Dean and his campaign can keep the energy going, then there is no reason to think that the campaign will wither on the vine unless it runs out of people to reach out to.

Each one teach one - a phrase from the civil rights movement...is operative.

There are 280 million people in the nation. There are 350 K signed up on the campaign website. 10 K have given money for the first time, average donation 50 or so dollars...total raised in 4 days was better than 1 million...

That in and of itself attracts attention, garners more support, and grows the available pool of organizational, grassroots, campaign-ready talent.

There is nothing like success to gain support...everyone wants to be on a winning team...and the rest of the tired old cliches...they are cliches for a reason...and they general hold a grain (or more) of truth...

[arcos]

22. I agree...

I have always been surprised how some say that Dean is the early frontrunner... the early frontrunners were Lieberman and Kerry, NOT Dean. Dean was the darkhorse, who everyone was wondering when was he going to drop out.

Well... now he is the frontrunner. A few years ago, he would have been the early frontrunner, but since this campaign started very early, he is not.

[arcos]

19. Four years ago this time, Gore was ahead of Bradley...

He was only narrowly ahead, though. I couldn't find a poll from August, but by early Sept., Gore was still ahead. Bradley pulled ahead for the next poll, in late September.

September 13, 1999
Web posted at: 5:53 p.m. EDT (2153 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Al Gore leads former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley by just five points among New Hampshire voters who say they will participate in the state's first-in-the-nation Democratic primary next year, according to a CNN/WMUR polls.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/13/president.2000/poll/


September 24, 1999
Web posted at: 6:04 p.m. EDT (2204 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new CNN/Time poll taken in New Hampshire shows former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley winning support from 44 percent of potential Democratic primary voters, three points ahead of Vice President Al Gore.


So I think this is another case where the comparison is not valid to Dean.

on edit: link to this last story: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/24/president.2000/poll.gore.bradley/

[CoffeePlease1947]

21. See, same pattern

So we are off by about 3 weeks.


Mike

[arcos]

24. No...

We are off by much more than that.

Kerry and Dean were tied by early May:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-05-06-nh-poll_x.htm

We are off by... 4 months. Dean now has a huge lead in New Hampshire.

[CoffeePlease1947]

28. Yes, but so did Bradley at this time

[arcos]

30. No he didn't!

Bradley was not even ahead at this time. I already posted some polls regarding this. Where do you get he was?

[LosinIt]

33. That info came in his, "How to be a Paid Disruptor" packet.

they should hire people who can actually spell, or type, whichever is the problem.

[CoffeePlease1947]

35. Well, from you.

"September 24, 1999
Web posted at: 6:04 p.m. EDT (2204 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new CNN/Time poll taken in New Hampshire shows former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley winning support from 44 percent of potential Democratic primary voters, three points ahead of Vice President Al Gore."

Bradley was ahead of the front runner in September of 1999. Dean could be very well ahead of the frontrunner in September of 2004.

Mike

[VermontDem2004]

36. Wait a minute

September 2004 is 2 months before the election, September 1999 was 14 months before the 2000 election. Dean would have the nomination in September 2004 if he is the front runner.

[CoffeePlease1947]

38. your right, I meant 2003

[VermontDem2004]

42. I agree he is the frontrunner when it comes to support

but like always, Lieberman is going to be #1 in the national polls.

[arcos]

44. Right...

the early frontrunner was Lieberman, not Dean. So all the above examples of "early frontrunners" who eventually lose don't apply to him.

[arcos]

41. We are closer to Sept 13 than to Sept 24.

And since it was until Sept 24 that Bradley pulled ahead, we can safely judge that by Sept 1st, 1999 (exactly 4 years ago), Gore was slightly ahead of Bradley.

In fact, you can look at it this way. Using the 2000 primary as the basis for the prediction, we can take a look and realize that in early Sept Gore was ahead by 5%, and he ended up winning the primary by +/- 4%.

Since Dean has a 21% lead in New Hampshire, this means he will win the primary by 20%.


Of course, this doesn't make any sense. Neither does your reasoning.

[CoffeePlease1947]

46. Sorry, but 2/3 of Democrats cannot name even one Dem. candidate

According to CNN. Take it for what it is worth. But with 66% of Democrats not even knowing who Dean is, that leaves a wide door open for anyone to come into the lead. I think in this election we are actually closer in September 24th because the lack of candidates and expectation of Gore to win the nomination made people less interested in the race and the attention on the candidates much less than it is this election.

Mike

[JohnKleeb]

47. makes it anyone's game

[molly]

58. That's a GREAT picture of Dennis!

[w13rd0]

48. Keep trying...

...eventually something will happen I'm sure...

[arcos]

49. I never said it isn't..

It is not a fact that Dean will win the nomination, anything can happen in 4 or 5 months. However, he is clearly the frontrunner now, but not the "early frontrunner". Lieberman and Kerry were the early frontrunners for the nomination, and most of the analogies of your original post do not apply to Dean.

Dean clearly has the momentum, and he has had it for several months now.

[unfrigginreal]

55. You'd have to go even further back to find a congressperson...

defeating a sitting incumbent.

Dean is running a campaign like no other before. It's unheard of to draw crowds in excess of 40,000 during a 9 stop tour this early in the campaign season.

This is definitely a movement and not just a campaign. Even the elitist pressmonkeys are starting to pick up on that which is why you saw elitist Russert give elitist Kerry a full hour today. They're scared and they should be.

[xchrom]

57. well put

these are very different times -- and there is huge interest in dean{as well a lot of interest in kucinich} because they are not ''mainstream''. i've seen a lot of elections -- and i've not seen anything like the dean campaign. he plays and continues to play to the folk in the street and it's paying off. he acts like a winner -- and frankly people love a winner.

[Nazgul35]

60. What exactly does...

"Almost all of the favorites to win in the nomination in the early days of the election," mean....

The primary system wasn't introduced as it is now until 1972, after the debacal of the Humphry nomination....prior to '72, party nominees were selected by smoke filled rooms....

So the system to be critized cant be applied until after 1972...and there were other factors to be considered that mattered more...like the person was a former governor or from the south...

Joe Trippi, the Dean campaign manager had a good take on the nomination system as it exists today on CSPAN...he was talking to reporters about how quickly the primary system is now as compared to 1984...

after the Iowa primary, the top three candidates will get about $50 million of free advertisement....after NH, there will be another $50 million for the top two...and than it's Feb. 3rd.....in 1984, 24% of the delegates had been selected by the end of February, in 2004, 89% will have been selected by the end of February.....

So please tell me why you encourage someone to hold to a schedule for the primaries that is no obsolete? Any candidate that decides to give Iowa and NH a pass are dead in the water...all those uninformed democrats out there will have $100 million of free advertisement for two candidates and any candidate attempting to spend their $8 million are toast....so when exactly should someone surge?

This is a different election, under different circumstances and your use of history must be viewed with these considerations....in order to test a hypothesis...you must consider ALL important variables....

[CoffeePlease1947]

68. You fail to take into account

that all elections are different in one way or another. I also fail to understand were you make some of your assumptions. Such as I think that Iowa and NH should be skipped? I understand NH is important. I also think you fail to understand that the majority have not made up their mind on a candidate yet. This means that any candidate can win the nomination. I think out of 9 candidates it is way to earily to say candidate "A" is going to be the one that wins. 4 1/2 months is a long time in politics. I think the establishment candidate will win the nomination as usual unless the Democrats feel they can't win anyway, then they don't care who wins the nomination. I don't know who the establishment candidate is going to be, but I do know that it is not Dean. When 40 governors, 45 US Senators, and 120 members of Congress endorse one candidate, I think that candidate will surge past Dean.


Mike

[Nazgul35]

71. funny...

I would have thought that this sentence...

all those uninformed democrats out there will have $100 million of free advertisement for two candidates and any candidate attempting to spend their $8 million are toast....so when exactly should someone surge?

would imply that I do not not fail to understand there are alot of dems who have not made up their minds...

I didn't suggest that you said Iowa and NH should be skipped...I was talking about what Trippi said to reporters about the new primary season...

Humor alert:
Give me some of what you are smoking if you think "any candidate can win the election..."
Humor has ended...

I didn't say that any particular candidate would win...I said that Joe Trippi said the candidates who finsihed in the top three in Iowa and the top two in NH would have a tremendous advantage over everyone else...

You say however that "I think out of 9 candidates it is way to earily to say candidate "A" is going to be the one that wins. 4 1/2 months is a long time in politics."....I agree...and I also think it is way too early to say that a particular candidate can't win....but I suppose you havent taken time to see that you are contradicting yourself with a few sentences in the same post...."I don't know who the establishment candidate is going to be, but I do know that it is not Dean."

"When 40 governors, 45 US Senators, and 120 members of Congress endorse one candidate, I think that candidate will surge past Dean."
Do you have someone in mind? How do you know it will not be Dean? Dean's organizational base is becoming an attractive resource to many dem politicos who are running for office....I know that at our last meetup, several dem county and state organizers showed up...asked...and received the services of the Dean volunteers...so I don't know how you can be so quick to assume that Dean won't get establishment support....several important Congresspersons have come out in support of the Gov. already...and many remain uncommittal...waiting until the primaries....

I don't know why you flights of fancy are any better than mine....but at least I don't contradict myself in my logic...Perhaps if you took some time and slow down to actually read what people post...then you wouldn't misinterpret what they said...just a suggestion....

[ISUGRADIA]

61. Some of these follow no pattern

If your point is the pre-primary season leader doesn't go on to win most of the time, several of your examples do not make sense. At different times during the primary season "the frontrunner" will change.

McGovern--1972, lets not rehash this

Not a major contender or frontrunner until after NH, Muskie was (and he lost)

Ted Kennedy--1976, lost to Carter

did not lose to Carter in 76, but in 1980. Other events (hostage crisis) changed the race dynamic dramatically.

Gary Hart--1984, expected to win, lost

Mondale the frontrunner until NH, with Glenn as the major threat. Hart not a factor until after IA and NH

Bill Bradly-2000, well ahead of Gore in the NH Primary, lost to Gore

May have been "well ahead of Gore in the NH Primary" at some point (when I'd have to be shown) but nationwide he was not the frontrunner for the race, Gore was from the beginning.

If you have a standard point to start from I could see this point (lets say Labor Day the year before the election), but otherwise picking and choosing "the frontrunner" some after the primary season has begun and some a year before does not.

[PAMod]

62. You said it perfectly, both the history lesson and...

the observation that you need a point in time for reference, to accurately compare presidential election cycles.

But even if you do, the only year that is somewhat similar to this year might have been 1976 - when an "outsider", little known governor from a rural state began campaigning hard, long before the rest of the field.

Personally, I think it will pay off for Dean - in the primaries and in the general.

The rest may have missed a grand opportunity, and will suffer because of it -- especially with the recall in CA - the polling numbers may be frozen until October because everyone will be watching CA. We'll see.

I think we a better idea when we see Kerry's "bump" from his official announcement.

[CMT]

63. your history is a little out of wack

Adlai Stevenson was not the favorite going into the 1952 convention. He gave an excellent speech on the opening day of the convention and was drafted by the Democratic Party which had been scrambling for a nominee since Truman dropped out.

In 1960, JFK was always the front-runner.

In 1968, Johnson controlled the convention and it was doubtful even with his victory in California that Bobby Kennedy would have been the nominee--in fact HHH always had more delegates under his control.

1976--Ted Kennedy never ran in '76.

1984--Walter Mondale was always the early favorite only his loss in NH made Hart a momentary front runner.

In 2000, Gore was ahead in the pre-primary polls in NH and Bradley was never considered the favorite for the nomination.

as far as Mario Cuomo is concerned since he never became an official candidate I don't see how he could be considered the early favorite. In 1988, Dukakis an official candidate had put together a good organization and was the early favorite and held that position. Had Cuomo actually got into the race, maybe it would have been a little different. In 1992, now that is more comparable since there really was a large field and no real early favorite. Clinton, maybe, when he got in, due to his magnatism, but then he had the Gennifer Flowers affair disruption and people began to write him off but he turned out to be "the comeback kid" so if your a comeback kid, that must mean he was the early favorite only to lose ground and then comeback.

[poskonig]

64. The primaries are structured very close together in 2004.

If a person has momentum, especially if they win Iowa and/or New Hampshire, they'll run away from it. There are a bujillion states crammed together in a period of something like two weeks.

In previous primaries, one could take NH or Iowa and still end up losing. This looks unlikely this time around.

[w4rma]

66. Sen Lieberman and Sen Kerry used to be the frontrunners in this race (n/t)

[genius]

67. Currently, Kucinich is where Clinton was in 1991

The nice thing about Kuciniich is that his following sticks around.

[Ediacara]

72. LOL

Sharpton has a better chance of beating Bush than Kucinich...

[diamondsoul]

74. Oh, we're wounded by your wit.

:eyes:

The race is anybody's at this point so you're doomspeak means nothing. And as usual the most pointless post carries no sign of support for anyone.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Agreed

At the moment I think Kerry is the true front runner because I believe Dean will wear out. Plus Kerry not only gets a lot of contributions but he's also worth $100 million so he's not going to run out of money, something Gephardt and Edwards are going to have problems with. Clark's decission to run or not will really make the difference.

[DJcairo]

70. Agreed but...

I woudl point out that Bobby Kennedy didn't lose he was assasinated before the nominating convention.

[burr]

73. If all you want is someone who says anything to win...

Dean ain't your kinda guy.

Try going with a demagogue like shrub or Lieberman. The Democratic Party is open to everyone, but maybe it just isn't your party. A true Democrat knows that we win some and we lose some, but winning really isn't possible without a mandate from the people.

A successful candidate cannot run a campaign based on how well the media treats him, but with the awareness that the media doesn't pick winners or losers...the voters do. The best candidate knows when the media may turn on him, and then gives them something better to cover.

[CWebster]

75. I do

and it seems to be getting to be more and more a sure thing. It is more than Dean the candidate---although he is definitely viable and likeable, it is what the campaign has become for all of us.

[indigo32]

76. I do, here's why....

first of all regarding the running out of steam arguement:
I think this man really wants it... far more than Cuomo or Bradley did (not that I blame anyone thinking long and hard about it). My older brother used to watch me play tennis on the school team. He often pointed out to me the mental aspects of the game. This is no different. Now we all know that shrub wants it badly too... so we better have someone who has that desire to win.

Second, beyond positions... Dean brings another issue into play that is a major factor in a race like this. Leadership, or at least the perception of it, is a big part of the game. I think this is why, with the exception of Daddy Shrub, we've seen Governors elected since 1976. I also think, and it will piss people off to have me say it, the agreement we've seen out of some of our Senatorial candidates with major policy issues coming out of this administration is going to give the impression of leadership, only following the man with the plan. It's not about whether it was wrong or right... it was * came up with the idea.

[Nicholas_J]

79. You are correct

WHat is more likely is that though Dean had his record dsealed, mot of the little embarassing things that weredone in proviate are probably known by Vermont Republicans. All of the Group that Dean was afffilaited with

"Repubicans for Dean" SUpporterd George W.Bush for the Presidency in 2000 while they supported Dean as Governor.

One of those issues was Act 60, a law that many Republicans have opposed. Several times during the news conference, the Republicans said they disagreed with some of Dean's policies but reiterated their support for his fiscal conservatism.

Even Dean acknowledged that his fiscal policy was the common ground he shared with the nine men and two women at the table, most of whom admitted to voting for Dean in the last election.

The group, known as "Republicans for Dean" represents the first organized GOP endorsement for Dean in any of his five campaigns

http://www.rutlandherald.com/election2000/repbackdean.html

On the other hand, regarding liberal democrats:

Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.

"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.

http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.asp

Which means that While Dean can attack his fellow democrats and keep much of his dirt a secret, George Bush probably has a substantial laundry list of dirt on Dean from Vermont Republicans, who have revcently demanded that Dean open his sealed records, OR that they would reconstruct it among themselves.

VT GOP Chair Calls on Dean to Open Record To Public” – Headline from DRUDGE REPORT. An excerpt: “Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jim Barnett today called on former Governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean to open his gubernatorial record to public scrutiny. Dean has sealed his papers for a decade. ‘If Howard Dean plans to run on his record in Vermont, he needs to share that record with the public’ said Barnett. ‘The American people should not just have to take his word for it. By refusing to subject his record to public scrutiny, Howard Dean is telling the American people to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.’ He added: "If Howard Dean is serious about straight talk, he can start by being upfront with the American people about his tenure as Governor of Vermont. If he doesn't open his record, it obviously means there's something he wants to hide from us.’”(8/1/2003)



http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/wannabes/Dean/deanAug2003.htm