Howard Dean warns Sarah Palin could beat Obama in 2012

[ProSense]

Howard Dean warns Sarah Palin could beat Obama in 2012

By Alexander Bolton

Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who helped Democrats capture the White House in 2008, warns that Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in 2012.

Dean says his fellow Democrats should beware of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that Obama would crush Palin in a general-election contest next year.

“I think she could win,” Dean told The Hill in an interview Friday. “She wouldn’t be my first choice if I were a Republican but I think she could win.”

Dean warns the sluggish economy could have more of a political impact than many Washington strategists and pundits assume.

more

Maybe Dean and McCain could go on a tour.

[JoePhilly]

1. He's got to be having some fun with this.

Its like when the Obama administration talks up Romney's Health Care plan.

[anntique]

48. Rallying the base

Dean is getting Democrats warmed up to vote in 2012.

[Ian David]

2. With the right October Surprise, *any* Republican can win.

Which is why we have to be careful about hoping they put the Sarah Palin bullet in the chamber.

[Avant Guardian]

26. There will be a November surprise

Massive cheating in states controlled by GOP governors.

[csziggy]

41. They are already well on the way to supressing the vote

BY making it harder to register to vote, harder to change your address, harder to prove you are eligible to vote once you are registered, and any other strategy they can come up with. And they are passing these laws with little opposition and little public notice.

[bvar22]

56. The Democratic Party had the opportunity to "change" that, 2008 - 2010.

Transparent, Verifiable Elections is an issue supported by 92% of ALL Americans,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445
and easy WIN/WIN for the Democrats in 2008.
.
.
.
Instead, all we got was SILENCE from the Democratic Party Leadership.
You would think that after 2000 and 2004, the Party would want to ensure that it NEVER happened again.
The elections in 3rd World Countries are more transparent and verifiable than in the USA.
WHY?

[Empowerer]

33. Exactly!

Any candidate can beat any other candidate under the right (or wrong) circumstances.

[PearliePoo2]

3. Yeah......THAT'S RIGHT! Listen up ReThugs!

Nominate her...just DO IT!
She can BEAT old Mr. Smarty-Pants!! You betcha!!

[pnwmom]

4. People should take Howard Dean, the man who developed the 50 state strategy

that propelled Obama into the White House, very seriously indeed. The bottom line, as he says, is this:

"'My view is if you get the nomination of a major party, you can win the presidency, I don’t care what people write about you inside the Beltway."

I find his warning scarily compelling.

[aaaaaa5a]

17. If that philosophy about winning the nomination is so true...

then…...

What happened to Mondale?

What happened to McGovern?

What happened to McCain?




Just because you win a major party nomination, that does not mean you have a legit chance to win the Presidency. In fact often times the person who wins the nomination isn't close to being the best person to win a general election. Dean couldn't be more wrong with that statement.


In 1988, we nominated Michael Dukakis. But does anyone now (or in 1988) seriously think Dukakis was a better general election candidate than Al Gore or Richard Gephardt, just because he beat them in the primaries?





This year the nomination process will work to the Democrats favor.

Huntsman is very electable. Its too bad he will never win a GOP primary anywhere.

Palin is 100% unelectable. But there are GOP primaries all over the map that she could win.

[karynnj]

59. I think that Dukakis was a better 1998 candidate that Al Gore

To see this you need to forget about the Gore we saw leading the action against climate change in 2005 and afterward. Gore was the first DLC endorsed candidate in 1998 and he ran a very negative primary campaign. His campaign was completely uninspired. He won a very small percent of the vote.

Dukakis himself admits that he ran a poor general election campaign. However, part of the problem is that the media did not hold the Republicans accountable for lies. (sound familiar?) His numbers did sore when he had his convention and laid out his vision of the future. He was a very good man, who had been a good governor.

As to Gephardt, I think that he would had the same difficulties running against the pathological Bush 1 campaign that Dukakis did. (I think that Gephardt might have been a better 2004 VP.)

[Arkana]

39. Why? It's correct by default.

If you get the Republican or Democratic nomination, then BY DEFINITION you have a chance to win the Presidency because you are one of the candidates.

But Palin in 2012 would have less of a chance than Mondale in '84 or McGovern in '72. Just because something is possible doesn't make it remotely probable.

[TheDebbieDee]

5. Repuke -controlled state legislators are rolling back voters' rights

and voter registration requirements all over the country. There may not be enough potential Democrats allowed to vote to win President O a second term...........

[pnwmom]

6. Exactly. We should be driving people to get required I.D.'s and to register

NOW. We're going to need a lot of time to make up for the otherwise lost voters on the rolls.

[csziggy]

42. In Florida, they are making it prohibitive to HELP people to register

Organizations like the League of Women Voters have already said with the new requirements and penalties for submitting voter registrations they will no longer be able to have voter registration drives.

The only solution I can think of to get around the new requirement will be as you say - DRIVE people to the places where they can register. No more carrying forms around, take the people to the registration points. Much more work, much more expensive, but if that is what has to happen, we Democrats need to get it done.

[Little Star]

7. I believe that anyone who runs on ...

Changing NAFTA and creating decent paying jobs here at home stands a chance. Too many people are hurting and the first thing people think of is "throw the incumbents out".

Yep, it is pretty scary to think that Howard could be right about Palin or any other republican for that matter. They are all horrible.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. No Republican would ever run on changing NAFTA

and none of them have a clue on how to create decent paying jobs.

[Little Star]

22. I'm not so sure about Romney on those issues. n/t

[bvar22]

55. They don't actually have to "change" NAFTA.

They just have to Run on changing NAFTA.

See: Obama Campaign 2007

[Proud Liberal Dem]

60. Democrats can run on changing NAFTA without any political consequences

Republicans can't

Furthermore, any Republican who runs on let alone believes in:

1. GLBT equality
2. Abortion rights
3. Global warming
4. Gun control
5. Immigration Reform (real)
6. Raising Taxes


etc.........................

will NEVER be a "serious" candidate in the modern GOP (certainly not in 2012).

[Deep13]

8. I agree. nt

[Meeker Morgan]

9. If the economy doesn't pick up big time ...

... any glib fascist could win.

[RBInMaine]

32. Nah. There could be the Great Depression and people wouldn't vote for that nutjob.

[Mimosa]

61. It's always about the economy, first and last.

If the economy is perceived to be bad in 2012, any glib fascist will win. People's comfort level about their personal economic security is what mainly influences their votes.

[nosmokes]

10. It doesn't matter *who* votes. What matters is *who* counts the votes.

W served two terms and didn't get elected to either of them.

[Eagle Mall]

13. So, they just let Obama win in 2008? Not in a million years.

[mtnester]

44. Did not let him win - Ohio had Dems counting the vote in 2008

Now, they have a house full of repubs again who have just changed the voting requirements for everyone.

It will be 2004 all OVER again - trust me - as far as "vote counting" - when Ohio had a house full of Repubs ...you Do remember Ohio 2004 don't you? will be exactly like that, or worse. And the challenegges and issues wil be far easier to create with the new Photo ID requirements.

[Eagle Mall]

53. What about Florida? or Indiana? or North Carolina?

sorry, I don't trust your assessment.

[mtnester]

57. Since you did not testify to what happened on the ground in 2004 in Ohio

like I did....you would not know enough about it to make the same statement of fact I made. The recount (or whatever partial one that happened) included as I was heavily involved in that as well. Unless you were also leaving a poll at 2:30 in the morning as a poll watcher when the last person voted, or the police were called when you went to the bathroom because you went inside the voting hall, or a REPUBLICAN precint leader even came to your defense when the sheriff came to remove you although you were following the book, or your car was damaged in a way that left little doubt about why it was damaged and by what faction, or you were sitting in a large room with 3 other appointed recount monitors during the recount when the numbers were not adding up and Ken Blackwell's office called and said everyone out, and if you do not leave you will be arrested, one person will be allowed back in tomorrow, and then tomorrow came and the recount was ordered "over" and you were not even allowed in a public building under threat of arrest.

Will Ohio go blue this time? Not if the Republicans in charge can help it...starting with the new voter ID law that may or may not get into the courts before 2012 actually rolls around.

If not Ohio, then Michigan...or Minnesota, or New Jersey, or Pensylvania...pick the state(s) the Repubs will target this time because they are in charge there. It WILL happen, since they most certainly have been figuring out the foolproof way for an additional 4 years . . voter ID laws is one of those ways, so are the new registration laws including in Florida.

BANK on my assessment....assuming it won't happen again...well, that is like saying Sarah Palin knows her history.

[Eagle Mall]

12. Dean thought he could win, too.

[Tesha]

16. And had he been nominated, he might have won.

But the Democratic smarties were sure they should
run Kerry.

Tesha

[DCBob]

14. It makes me ill to hear respectable people like Howard Dean giving this woman legitimacy..

His response should have been -- very unlikely but its possible only if the voters in this country goes completely nuts.

[Tesha]

18. It's not a question of "legitimacy"; it's a question of "could she win"?

And the answer in America today is: "Of course
she could win".

Citizens United, vote caging, voter ID laws,
media bias, all these factors will still be
present in 2012, jut as they were in 2010.

Tesha

[DCBob]

19. Then he should have included some quip like yes she could win but so could Mickey Mouse..

if nominated by the Republicans. She has zero business even being considered to lead this nation. Its an embarrassment for all of us.

[awoke_in_2003]

25. why should he quip?...

it should be a given that a country stupid enough to put W in office could do the same with Palin. He doesn't have to come right out and say the majority of this country are illiterate dumbasses.

[DCBob]

28. why miss an opportuity to educate the ignorant masses?

I know it may seem futile at times but we still have to keep trying.

[CatWoman]

15. two words for all of you ridiculing Gov. Dean:

George Bush

[DCBob]

21. Sarah Palin makes Bush look like Mensa material.

[aaaaaa5a]

34. Agreed.

Sarah Palin is so far gone from an IQ, intellectual level, to even compare her to Bush, is unfair to the former President.


I honestly have never seen anything like it in my life.

Even an air-head like Michelle Bachman can at least occasionally get through a legit (Non-Fox News interview. Palin lacks that ability completely.


She is truly in a league all by herself. Its scary.

[DCBob]

45. Its almost as if Palin thnks its cool to sound stupid.

Cannot imagine such a person dealing with crisis matters in the WH. It would be like a SNL skit.. except real.

[mkultra]

35. sorry, this statement is just stupid

His past credibility is slipping, not improving with this kind of tom foolery.

[Arkana]

38. A relatively unknown governor who rose to prominence

based on his father's name. He did it in a time before the Internet was used as a primary source of news and information and he ended up losing the popular vote by over half a million--that's more than John Kennedy WON the 1960 election by. Had it not been for the Felonious Five that little shit would have been a footnote in history.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the parallel, except that they're both idiots.

[Top Cat]

50. Agreed

[PassingFair]

49. Two more: Ronald Reagan.

People will vote for whomever they
HOPE will keep them in their jobs
and houses.

[Grey]

20. Governor Dean is right....

Remember Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, & Bush II. Every time I insisted that it was impossible, Look Who Won.
I said, each time, The American people aren't that stupid and Look Who Won.

[GoCubsGo]

24. Yep.

I lost what little faith I had left in the intelligence of the American people when they gave Dumbya a second term. I will never again underestimate the stupidity of a substantial portion of the people in this country.

[The Unawriter]

23. Good advice!

I'm 48 years old: I remember 1980.

[treestar]

27. His credibility has just gone to hell

This country is dumb. It elected Geo. Bush. but Palin? No.

[Top Cat]

51. I agree even the dumbest Americans would find someone else

Palin has little appeal with women other than the wingnuts not enough to get her to the big house.

[Blasphemer]

29. She can't but it's smart for Dems to push this angle..... nt

[AtomicKitten]

30. Sorry, Dr. Dean, but that's crazy talk. Palin is a cartoon.

[RBInMaine]

31. Wouldn't happen in a million fucking years. The Dr. needs a shrink on this one.

[Mass]

36. Being complacent is a risk. Take it at your own risk and peril.

Scott Brown would never beat Martha Coakley. he was a barely improved Palin and she is a competent attorney general.

But she got complacent and missed the signs that something was happening. If the economy became too bad for those with lower middle income, people could vote for Obama's opponent, whoever it is, even Palin. Make fun of Dean if you want, but he is only stating something common sense.

[Arkana]

37. Obama is not Coakley, and Scott Brown was an unknown quantity.

...something Sarah Palin is most assuredly not.

Just because we let Brown slip by us does not sound the Armageddon trumpets for MA Democrats. Did we not just send our entire Congressional delegation back to Washington by CRUSHING margins in 2010? Did we not reelect a Democratic governor for the first time since Dukakis?

Coakley got complacent. Obama will not.

[pstokely]

40. Enough idiots out there for it to happen

Many thought the Chimp had a real ranch, but she'll probably cheat her way in if she does win, assuming she even runs.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. I don't see why any Democrat should be saying otherwise

It's arrogant to dismiss your opponents as having no chance and it can come back to bite you in the ass. Yes, I think Palin is a featherweight and would be easier to beat than other Republicans. But that doesn't mean we should take the 2012 campaign any less seriously if she is the nominee.

[Amimnoch]

46. She can win the primary, she will not win the general, it's a statistical impossibility.

Sarah Palin is a 1980's throwback, and has all of the appeal of a "valley girl"

Many replies use Bush as an example of how she could win. They may be from the same orchard, but they are 2 completely different kinds of fruit.

Sarah is an anti-establishment/anti-government looney. She's the type that would bring us back to the industrial age of corporatism. As such, she will not have the support of the beltway establishment for her own party. No candidate in the last 50 years has obtained the presidency without that support.

While she has high ratings in rural, and especially southern rural areas, she won't be able to swing the electorate when so many of the deciding moderate/swing vote considers her totally unqualified to be president. Those are the ones who actually decide the presidency, not liberals, not progressives, and not conservatives. She has alway had extremely low numbers with that voting bloc.

If she wins the primary for the pukes, she will polarize our own base like no other current candidate running could. Many who have the "I won't vote for Obama because _____ "mentality will swallow their pride, and issues of choice to support and vote against her.

She couldn't handle and quit the governorship of Alaska, one of the smallest populated states in the country. That alone will destroy her chances of winning a large chunk of the swing voting bloc.

She will never carry minorities, and her anti-immigrant position will polarize those voting bloc's against her, and bring in much larger voting numbers than that of those who will support her position on that issue.

It's possible she could win the primary for the pukes, but that's it. Even that is unlikely considering how the primary process works. New Hampshire is the opening, and she will perform horribly there in the polls. It is possible she'll carry Iowa, but even if she does, it's one of the discarded states due to low electoriate numbers, She'll likely never take Michigan, and Florida will also be a hard to win for her. If she doesn't take New Hampshire, Michigan, or Florida, she'll pretty much be out of the race based on Republican primary history. Florida's really her only wildcard chance.

[dsc]

47. any major party nominee can win

and we are foolish to think that isn't the case. Palin will get about 45% of the vote no matter what. Obama will get 45% of the vote no matter what. The other 10% are up for grabs. If the economy tanks, if a major terrorist attack happens, if a liberal third party candidate enters the race, we could see a Palin victory. I am old enough to remember people saying Reagan couldn't win. Then it was Bush couldn't win. Well how did that work out for us?

[southshore]

52. FOOLS!

If you think it can't happen here, you are fools!

Ignore this woman at your own peril. We are subjects of a Confederacy of dunces led by a Parliament of fools. It most assuredly CAN happen, and with the level of outright cheating that is used against us, we have to win by 15 points to have a one vote majority on election day.

[bvar22]

54. Harry Truman agrees with Howard Dean.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[karynnj]

58. AWK!! Dean needs to read this Daily Kos post that obliterates the RW talking point on losing above

7.2 percent employment. That claim is a complete misuse of statistics. In the first place, it chooses a range that goes back to FDR, but doesn't include him. Why? Including him destroys the point that they want to create as a "truism". This, in spite of the fact that the situation handed Obama was most like that handed FDR. In addition, though "over 50 years sounds like a long time, it includes very few data points - as there is an election only every 4 years and there is not always an incumbent President. (If I counted right, there are 10.)

I am not arguing that there is no relationship. Clearly it is far better to run with a good economy, but, Reagan, who won with the 7.2% won in a landslide - making it likely that he would still have won even if the rate had been a point or two higher. There was nothing magical about 7.2%.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/03/981672/-Unemployment-rate-does-not-necessarily-predict-re-election-chances?via=search

Democrats NEED to get this counter out, because what can hurt Obama is anything that sets the conventional wisdom that he will lose. This claim that any good statistician would see as contrived does just this. (Look at their plot of margin of victory and unemployment and mentally try to see what the regression line is - you can see the data really does not fit the idea that this is the make of break relationship that Candy Crowley, John King, Dick Gregory and others have spoken of with solemn faces.