The survey says...Dean wont' get nominated. But if he does, Bush

[AP]

wins in a walk, according to a panel of political professionals at forum sponsored by John Locke Foundation.

This is from the Raleigh News & Observer.

Who will President Bush's opponent be next year? Not former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. At least that was the thinking of a panel on the 2004 elections that was sponsored Tuesday by the John Locke Foundation.

Democratic political consultant Gary Pearce of Raleigh and foundation President John Hood picked John Edwards as the most likely nominee. Picking U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri were national political writer and commentator Michael Barone and Republican political consultant Marc Rotterman of Raleigh. Picking retired Gen. Wesley Clark was Carter Wrenn, a Republican political consultant from Raleigh.

Most of the prognosticators thought Bush would be re-elected, although several saw a tough fight -- unless Dean is the nominee. Then, they predicted, Bush would waltz to re-election.

Pearce was the only panelist foreseeing a Democratic president. He predicted a victory for an Edwards-Clark ticket. But then again, Pearce is the guy who helped transform Edwards from a wealthy trial lawyer to a U.S. senator in 1998.

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/coverage/story/3018103p-2760931c.html

[CMT]

1. and in 1948

fifty of the top pollitical pundits in Newsweek predicted a Dewey presidency and not one was for Truman. I love the way we play their game. Why wouldn't Dean win? he was right on the war. He is a centrist in the Clinton tradition and he knows how to fight and raise money and motivate the party faithful.

My prediction is as good as any of those people quoted in this article.

[joeybee12]

4. You know, I've always said so-called experts are really morons

Thanks for the good laugh by posting this article and by proving my point!

[Bucky]

6. Still going back to '48 for an example of pundits & polls being wrong? Sad

All you have to do is go back to 2000 when they all said Bush would win election.

Still, I agree that Dean'll get stomped by Bush. He's just not gonna gel with a majority of voters outside the party.

[9119495]

17. Okay. Bush last in 2000 and Clinton won in 92

[helleborient]

21. You just have to go back to early this year, 2003

John Kerry as the unquestioned frontrunner and Howard Dean at 1-2% in polls.

None of these prognosticators would have predicted what has happened since.

[no name no slogan]

31. Well, Gary Hart was all the rage early on in 1984

And he fizzled before the convention.

These pundit-driven surveys are ridiculous. They're usually by political insiders, for political insiders and about political insiders.

These morans need to go and get real jobs that don't involve their heads talking on TV IMHO.

:eyes:

[AP]

8. Dean's to the right of Clinton. Clinton was more liberal on race, taxes,

and the budget.

Also, I suspect that Newsweek was probably trying to help Republicans by publishing that story about Truman.

This was a small gathering of people, not widely reported, with no indication that people weren't giving anything but their honest opinoins (with the exception of the guy who wants Edwards to win).

It's a small sample size, but I think their opinions are well-informed.

[Frodo]

15. Clinton was more liberal on taxes?

Clinton was well to the right of Dean. Clinton would not have signed a civil unions bill in AK. And Clinton campaigned on a "middle class tax cut", not an increase.

I'm not sure how to compare them on race since Dean is from a lily-white state and never had to deal with the issue.

[AP]

22. Clinton wanted a more progressive tax code and Republican congress

wouldn't give it to him. The tax code we got was a compromise which was to the right of what Clinton wanted. Dean thinks of it as the ideal.

Clinton ruled out giving the surplus back as a tax cut. Dean promises to give back any surplulses as tax cut.

There's enough out there on Clinton on race to show that Dean's ideas (eg, AA shouldn't be meausred by race, and that civil rights legislation has done all it can) are far to the right of Clinton.

[La_Serpiente]

2. If the Democratic party thinks

that I would support Gephardt or Edwards, they are totally clueless. Sure, I would consider them, but I am not going to support them just because they are the Democratic nominee. I will watch how they shape their policies on the environment and on foreign policy just to see exactly where they are going.

And if they think that they can pull that progressive multilateralism crap from the DLC on me, they are totally over their heads on that one.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. ...and who do you support right now?

.

[La_Serpiente]

7. I don't support anyone

But probably either Kerry, Kucinich,

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. I am supporting Clark but I will support whoever the nomminee...

is, though some of them do not appeal to me!

[AP]

10. These people don't represent the Dem party. A couple are Republicans.

There all people who are political professionals.

[JI7]

3. one thing about edwards

one thing that impresses me about edwards is that he won north carolina, a southern state which leans conservative and republican during a time when the right wing was at one of it's worst in attacking clinton. it was during the lewinsky impeachment thing and republicans were playing the morals crap, but edwards still ended up winning in a state which elected jesse helms in 1998. and included in this is that edwards is no democrat like ben nelston or john breaux or other democrats from conservative leaning states. he actually has a good record on going after corporations and on issues like abortion rights.

[AP]

12. Yeah. It's really interesting, isn't it.

He's not trying to make money for anyone except the middle and working class. He has no ethical skeletons in his closet. He can appeal to people all over the spectrum without having to betray core democratic principles. It's very interesting.

His only problem is that he comes from such ordinary roots, I think people have a problem thinking of him as someone who deserves to be president. He doesn't have the equivalent of Clark's ribbons on his chest and Rhodes Scholarship, or Dean's and Kerry's silver spoon (and the opportunites for self-mythologizing which money allows).

It makes you wonder, how the hell did Lincoln do it?

Perhaps, for Lincoln, it was the Great Debates -- once you get out there in front of people and they hear your ideas, they stop caring about whether you have a Yale degree or any of the other opportunities money allows.

[JI7]

16. well

kerry has a good record of going after powerful interests also. it's one of the reasons i support him. he also joined the military and protested after which shows he does think about others. it wasn't like bush who neither joined or opposed the war and got special access to avoid service while not caring for those who did serve. i know kerry had a far more priveledged life than edwards, but i also think it's important what he did with it.

[AP]

23. I agree that Kerry has done great things.

It's just that, you wonder what Kerry might have done with his life if he didn't have wealth and privilege as his safety net. Lots of vets came back from Vietnam and had to start earning money. They didn't have options like protesting. If they did, they might have jeopardized their futures. Kerry could take some risks knowing that he was always going to land on his feet.

[Lady President]

26. Disagree

I have to disagree. I think his ordinary roots is one of Edwards' biggest assets. He reminds me of your favorite neighbor who always plans the block party and will help you build your deck. Of all the candidates he is the only one I would not feel nervous to meet. I would be anxious, but I can't imagine him talking down to anyone. If I voted only on personality, he would be guy. Remember, Clinton didn't come from privilege.

I think his main problem is the media ignoring all the candidates when they want to discuss policy issues. My favorite, Kerry, has sent out a number of policy related press releases in the past few days, but all you hear is that his aides quit. Maybe Edwards should say something really stupid ("I don't like grandmothers" or "Puppies are ugly") to get some press. ;)

[AP]

27. My point is that the ordinariness is a double-edged sword.

It means you know how Americans experience life in Ameirca in the trenches. However, it doesn't give you enough specialness to make people feel you're entitled to be president.

When GHWB became president I was so pissed off because I looked at his biography and thought what did this guy ever do to deserve being president other than have a rich father and bail out of a plane leaving his crew to die, which made for a misleadingly heroic seeming super 8 film?

When Clinton won, I thought, now there's a guy who deserves to be president.

I was stunned to discover years later that one of Linda Tripp's biggest problems with Clinton was that she saw him as uncooth, socially unacceptable and not worthy of being president, like blue blood Bush. I realized then that I had a very different perception of what was considered the sort of apporpriate biography for a president.

However, I generally agree with you that it's all in how the media portrays reality. If I could control the media for week I could make America LOVE John Edwards. I think it would be exceptionally simple. (Same with Kerry, only slightly less easy.)

[genius]

25. He also appears to be pretty good on civil rights. He reminds me of

someone who is learning as he goes and, as he learns, his stances improve. A year ago, I didn't care much for him. Now I'm really getting to like him. However, I believe Kucinich would make a better President.

[AP]

28. He's the same person he was a year ago.

I suspect it's more that you're the one changing the way you think, rather than Edwards.

[denverbill]

11. The John Locke Foundation? A conservative think tank.

Gee whiz golly. Imagine that. They predict Democrats will lose.

I just read an article by the BillinDenver Foundation. Every one of their analysts predicted that if Dean faces Bush in the general election, Bush will suffer a crushing, Hoover-like defeat.

[AP]

13. It was a panel with 1 Dem, 2 Republicans and 2 others (probably Rep) and

unlike Limbaugh, NYT, Boston Globe, CNN, Fox, they didn't hand it to Dean (which I think is propagandizing, rather than speaking your honest feelings when the major media outlets do that).

By the way, is Barone a Dem? I can't remember.

There's no reason to think that these people weren't being honest (although the guy who likes Edwards is probably influenced most by his personal relationship with him).

In that this was a panel of mostly southerners, I think it's an interesting commentary about what people outside the Wash-NY power corridor think.

[dsc]

18. No he isn't

he, among other things, works on the Fox All Stars. To get an idea how bad they are read www.dailyhowler.com

[Duder]

14. A different poll...

Democratic Insiders Poll finds that 39 of 50 political professionals expect Dean to be their party's nominee.

http://nationaljournal.com/deminsiderpoll.htm

[Frodo]

19. Interesting note from that poll

The 50 "Democratic Insiders" ranked Kucinich as almost exactly as likely to be nominated as Sharpton or Braun.

Most not be many of them on DU, eh?

[Padraig18]

29. I think they nailed that one.

DK's support on DU and in the 'real' world are two different matters.

[helleborient]

20. Last January, I would expect 0 of these pundits would have predicted...

Dean as the current frontrunner.

Most would have predicted John Kerry as the nominee in a walk.

So which one's crystal ball was accurate enough to predict Howard Dean as the assumed frontrunner nearly 2 months before Iowa and New Hampshire?

[genius]

24. I think that Dennis has had a good impact on Edwards

Edwards, in two debates, expressed concern for people being held without charges. Edwards also voted against the $87 billion. While I haven't agreed with a number of his past votes, I think he is improving. He is certainly better at civil rights and the environment than Dean. He also seems to be a good person. If Edwards got the nomination, I'd have no problem supporting him.

[killbotfactory]

30. If Dean wins the nomination, doesn't that kind of invalidate...

their analysis?

Maybe they should statrt reading tea leaves.