Dean in for Bush-Whacking?

December 12, 2003 3:09 PM

Dean in for Bush-Whacking?A new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state. Bush gets 57 percent to Dean's 30 percent among registered voters in the American Research Group poll.
posted by dagny (77 comments total)

Wow! Way to waste the FPP dagny. Thanks a lot for basically rehashing one of today's big stories that we've all heard already.

Oh yeah, was there a point to your FPP? A question? No, simply a statement about polls. Maybe you should take John Kerry's advice.
posted by crazy finger at 3:11 PM on December 12, 2003

...and from the NY Post to boot. ... must hurl now.... purge the evil...
posted by psmealey at 3:13 PM on December 12, 2003

Well, New Hampshire is a traditionally conservative state in presidential elections, not to mention in general. Run the same poll in Massachusetts or Rhode Island and see how the numbers go.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:15 PM on December 12, 2003

Sounds like it's safe for me to vote for George by voting for Ralph.
posted by jfuller at 3:17 PM on December 12, 2003

Karl Rove wants Howard Dean

Or

Karl Rove fears Howard Dean
posted by homunculus at 3:22 PM on December 12, 2003

I don't think Karl Rove fears anyone--certainly not any of the democrats who are running this time around.
posted by jpoulos at 3:26 PM on December 12, 2003

I have a new pole I'd like to show everyone here - but you don't see ME posting it, do you?
posted by quadog at 3:32 PM on December 12, 2003

A Festivus Pole?
posted by psmealey at 3:35 PM on December 12, 2003

Tell me about it...
In fact, the Boston Globe wrote something similar:

The poll of 827 registered voters ... would give Bush just a "fair" or a "poor" overall job performance rating. But, Bush still would get 50 percent of the vote, according to the poll results, which were published early last week.

Head-to-head with the president, the strongest candidate among the Democrats ... got 33 percent of the vote compared to 50 percent for Bush, the poll said.

Of course, the article was written in December of 1991, and the Bush that the author was refering to was George H. W. Bush.

Bush is in a great position in NH if the election were tomorrow. Similarly, Kerry would have been in a great position in NH if the NH primary were held in May, 2003.
posted by deanc at 3:41 PM on December 12, 2003

What SweetJesus said. The state of Maine sees fit to put three or four roadside signs reminding you of things you can no longer do legally when you cross the border out of NH. They take their "Live Free or Die" pretty serious here, and Dean ain't their man.
posted by yerfatma at 3:58 PM on December 12, 2003

Way to link to a story that doesn't actually present the data. And props to the NY Post for ignoring the dubious methodology of this poll:

The following results are based on 600 completed telephone interviews among a statewide random sample of adults in New Hampshire. Of the 600 interviews, 450 interviews were among registered voters (170 Republicans, 120 Democrats, and 160 undeclared voters). The interviews were conducted December 7 through 10, 2003.

The ARG's polls mean nothing unless there is a 170/120 ration of Republicans to Democrats in the US. There is not.

In an unscientific poll taken in my living room, 100% of respondents described themselves as "very impressed" by the fart sounds I made with my armpit.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:01 PM on December 12, 2003

I'm impressed by your fart sounds too. Would the Post list that as 200%?
posted by eyeballkid at 4:02 PM on December 12, 2003

Bush-Whacking? : Bush whacking Dean off...don't tell ashcroft
posted by thomcatspike at 4:03 PM on December 12, 2003

Meanwhile, in older news, FAIR-- "the national media watch group"-- declares that The Post is a "Militant White Daily." (...and other criticisms of bias re: the Fox News sibling...)
posted by limitedpie at 4:29 PM on December 12, 2003

Lets say that Dean wouldn't win VS Bush. Does that mean the other Demopublican canadiates would be even a BIGGER loser VS the Republicrat Bush?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:39 PM on December 12, 2003

Bush-Whacking? : Bush whacking Dean off...don't tell ashcroft
Ashcroft's probably taping it!

The Post is a rag--very pro-republican--It's murdoch's money-losing baby (but has good gossip and Keith Kelly). Since there isn't an official nominee yet to go up against Bush, any poll by any organization done now is meaningless, especially one that doesn't even ask an equal number of repubs and dems, and New Hampshire is definitely not a representative state to draw conclusions from...You'd think the Post would have done the poll in NY (except they knew they wouldn't get the results they wanted).
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on December 12, 2003

Wow, look at Rove in that homunculus link...

What a smug little rat he is.


posted by Espoo2 at 4:54 PM on December 12, 2003

It's bad enough that the professional media spends so much time obsessively covering polls instead of writing the actual issues. Why are we doing it too?
posted by rcade at 4:54 PM on December 12, 2003

make that any poll matching one of the nominees up against bush is meaningless now : >

but here's a fun little poll (democratic insiders only polled)-- also meaningless, but telling.
posted by amberglow at 4:55 PM on December 12, 2003

Dean came from the back of the pack against 8 other democrats and has systematically, over the course of the year, worked his way to the top of the pile. Like him or not, the guy runs a good campaign. Something tells me that if & when he gets the chance to campaign head to head against Bush, he'll do just fine for himself. The election is not until next November, right?
posted by spilon at 4:59 PM on December 12, 2003

what a lame post. for something with a more balanced perspective (and great links to boot), go here instead.
posted by poopy at 5:10 PM on December 12, 2003

Espoo2 - wonderful picture......Rove's deep smugness. The ancient greeks would have had a thing or two to say about it...and in fact they still do. Rove is bizarrely unaware - even of the detrimental effect of the attitude which he wears on his own face in public It just goes to show that the very same dynamics of power which were written of thousands of years ago have changed little, if at all, through the ages.
posted by troutfishing at 6:05 PM on December 12, 2003

You know, I was looking at that picture and thinking, "Karl Rove"? Then I remembered that I was thinking of Karl Rove on "That's My Bush".

Frankly, I prefer to think of this presidency as a sitcom. It's the only thing keeping me in sanity.
posted by benjh at 6:17 PM on December 12, 2003

Why do people bother to bitch about FPP etc? How 'bout then we just limit posts to obscure operating systems, sites on Icelandic mud wrestlers, male hoisery of the early 1950's, etc.

Oh, and ban any and all political posts. Yeah, if you've seen it on one of the 957 sites that you live on, then surely we all have.
posted by damnitkage at 7:14 PM on December 12, 2003

Denial runs high here. Yes, New Hampshire is a conservative state. But Dean has very limited appeal to people who are not already convinced that Bush is the reincarnation of Satan. Dean will either have to run far away from his initial supporters after winning the nomination, or he will get destroyed in a Stevenson/McGovern type abject failure.

Face reality now, and maybe the left can find an alternative way of actually trying to convince people by appealing to their feelings as legitimate. Stay in denial, and buy yourself four more years of Bush. The US has never elected someone who projected an image of being an intellectual, and it has never elected someone who ran on a protest platform rather than an optimist one.
posted by fuzz at 8:40 PM on December 12, 2003

But Dean has very limited appeal to people who are not already convinced that Bush is the reincarnation of Satan.
Dean doesn't need to appeal to the majority of people in this poll (they were republicans). Actually, considering more people voted for Gore last time and will vote democratic this time, I'd rethink that statement, or else millions and millions of people think Bush is Satan (which is pushing it). And Dean actually is not running on a protest platform, but an empowering one, which is why he's currently the front runner, but almost any democrat will do well in this election. Maybe you should stop relying on the Post for news? ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:47 PM on December 12, 2003

millions and millions of people think Bush is Satan

I see nothing untrue in this statement.
posted by anastasiav at 8:53 PM on December 12, 2003

It's bad enough that the professional media spends so much time obsessively covering polls instead of writing the actual issues. Why are we doing it too?


If we looked at the issues we'd notice that Dean is no corporate reformer, in fact he's a bit of a corporate slut, he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy, and we'd be looking for a real candidate to hand the country we "take back" to.

I love the fact that lots of people are finally getting involved in politics on a grassroots level, but the person the folks are rallying around isn't all he's cracked up to be. None the less I'll be working my tail off to get Dean elected if he is the nominee.


Face reality now, and maybe the left can find an alternative way of actually trying to convince people by appealing to their feelings as legitimate. Stay in denial, and buy yourself four more years of Bush. The US has never elected someone who projected an image of being an intellectual, and it has never elected someone who ran on a protest platform rather than an optimist one.


Fuzz, the reality of the situation is the country is divided, the old story about appealing to the center is over, it's now a red vs blue battle to the death and whichever side gets the folks to the polls wins, and Dean, for all his faults, is rallying people across the country to work free of charge to get him elected. I've been following Dean since his donor base was made up of gays and lesbians who loved him because of his civil unions talk, and he's come a long way since then, this is one underdog I'm not betting against.
posted by jbou at 8:53 PM on December 12, 2003

actually, fuzz makes a very good point: unless something drastic happens, bush will be re-elected november 2004, but don't let this stop everyone here from getting their war on.
posted by poopy at 9:14 PM on December 12, 2003

unless something drastic happens, bush will be re-elected november 2004
And this statement is based on? We at least have facts to back up our beliefs--the majority of votes cast for a democrat last time, the worsened economy, the war going badly, corruption and scandal in the administration, etc...
posted by amberglow at 9:22 PM on December 12, 2003

and amberglow, how is it that you know that more people will vote democrat this time? are you keeping something from the rest of us?
posted by poopy at 9:26 PM on December 12, 2003

We at least have facts to back up our beliefs

keep living in your cozy prizm amberglow. it's nice there. the dwarves are your friends.
posted by poopy at 9:29 PM on December 12, 2003

i'm waiting poopy--I gave you a list (incomplete at that)--where's yours? why is bush going to be reelected?
posted by amberglow at 9:34 PM on December 12, 2003

amberglow: you made an assumption that dean will be the next pres. i made an assumption that bush will be the next pres. personally, i hope you're right but from my viewpoint at least, things aren't looking too good for the democrats: the post-war jitters aren't making headline news, the economy is up, the jobless rate is down. ok, there's my list, and i'm checking it twice.
posted by poopy at 9:40 PM on December 12, 2003

I don't get all the fuss. Dean is from VT, so of course everyone in NH hates him. They're two completely different worlds (er, states). Also, NH can't possibly make that much difference in a presidential election; it's a little weeny state with almost no electoral votes. The only reason it's at all 'politically potent' is because of all the attention the media pays to the party primaries.

Dean doesn't have to beat Bush in NH; he only has to beat all the other Democrats in the primary, so that he can move on to running in, and winning (if in fact he can) the big states like California and New York.
posted by LeLiLo at 9:41 PM on December 12, 2003

unless something drastic happens, bush will be re-elected november 2004

bush won by about 2 votes , i dont think thats insurmountable, the left has become more active , thus more people from the left will vote this time, unless something drastic happens to dean of course, maybe they'll detain him under the patriot act.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:42 PM on December 12, 2003

and let's not forget the whole 911 pedestal thing. that counts for at least 500 points (or a deciding factor in the election).

and i hope the sgt. is right, but i just don't see it in my social circles.
posted by poopy at 9:46 PM on December 12, 2003

Actually, my assumption is that a dem will be the next president. Dean is the frontrunner for the nomination, but almost any democrat will do.
And while post-war jitters (is that how you explain the daily attacks on and deaths of soldiers?) aren't in the headlines anymore--the gouging and corruption of contractors like Halliburton is the daily headline, replacing the Plame scandal (hey, did Bush ever catch the folks in his employ who leaked?). And the stock market may be up, but there are no new jobs being created, and a 6% unemployment rate (the highest in 9 years), as well as a greatly devalued dollar. Leading indicators point to....no more Bush.
posted by amberglow at 9:54 PM on December 12, 2003

amberglow:

first of all, i want to apologize for being nasty with that whole dwarves comment. nothing personal, it's just that i've seen all these political posts on mefi and it got the better of me.

secondly: care to make it interesting?
posted by poopy at 9:58 PM on December 12, 2003

A Festivus Pole?
posted by psmealey

The Airing of Grievances
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:58 PM on December 12, 2003

(hey, did Bush ever catch the folks in his employ who leaked?)

No.
posted by homunculus at 10:02 PM on December 12, 2003

you got it poopy! 20 bucks, or more? : >
I say a dem as pres in 2004; you say bush stays.
posted by amberglow at 10:02 PM on December 12, 2003

the 911 pedestal ?

bush screwed up big time on 911, he ran away when it happened if i remember correctly and took ages to get to the trade center , some pedestal.

i dont think many people will have forgotten that.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:04 PM on December 12, 2003

oh man this is easy money :)
posted by poopy at 10:06 PM on December 12, 2003

Speaking of 9/11: Iraqi Agent Denies He Met 9/11 Hijacker in Prague Before Attacks on the U.S.

Not exactly a trustworthy source, but I don't think that anyone under interrogation could maintain a lie like that indefinitely.
posted by homunculus at 10:15 PM on December 12, 2003

Twenty dollars, oh come now. Are we children on the playground? Is this a game of marbles or toss-a-ball?

Where I come from we bet with men's lives.

Gentlemen, I will make a proposal to you. I say we drop this penny-ante charade of a wager, and make it interesting.

I say we split the world in three equal pieces, and winner takes all.
posted by Hildago at 10:57 PM on December 12, 2003

The US has never elected someone who projected an image of being an intellectual, and it has never elected someone who ran on a protest platform rather than an optimist one.

I agree that Dean's personality may be a problem (more because he seems a secular man that an intellectual), but your other point is way off-base. Optimism is at the heart of Dean's message, and I see his supporters seizing more on the forward-looking message: health care, increased support for small business (and its attendent stable job creation), a balanced budget, rural broadband, etc. There is far more optimism than vitriol.

Granted, as long as the sabateur establishment of his own party is airing commercials comparing him to Ossama bin Laden, the reality of his message may not get to matter. I hope these establishment Democrats come to the realization that they should shut up. It took the conservatives almost thirty years to wrest control of the Republican party, so it may be understandable that these wankers are shocked to see their party taken over during a single election cycle. I understand that it must suck to have your party taken away from you, but--ideology aside--the DLC are nothing if not consummate losers. And beyond that, they have made every effort to communicate--in no uncertain terms--that the new people brought into the process by the Dean campaign are not wanted. So I guess if you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:28 AM on December 13, 2003

I just watched that ad again. What a pile of bulllshit. I'm no conspiracy buff--and I don't see the Clintons behind this as some surely do--but can this be anything more than an attempt to sabotage his candidacy? This is akin to the whole "McCain has ablack baby" crap that the RNC pulled. I think the deeper story of the Dean campaign is the fucking straight-up coup of the Democratic party that needs to happen. They couldn't be more clear about their disdain for the half-million of us who don't want to see the coronation of a party insider. There is no doubt about it, Geppy, Kerry et al, this attitude is why we are in this situation. Clear majorities of Americans support progressive causes, but the "progressive" party can't win a fucking election due to their being enamored with the Republican model of politics. Fuck the Democratic party. If the sabotage of Dean's campaign continues, they will cut themselves off from an important emerging voter base.

It's like those assholes took a look, said "now there are some innovative and workable ideas--let's crush them." It is a pathetic attempt to validate their own "Dean can't win" groupthink. If none of them can beat a guy who can't win, can't they all just fucking go away?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:39 AM on December 13, 2003

Bush Sr. lost in '92 because he lied. "Read my lips; no new taxes!" That's what he said. Bush Jr. will lose in '04 because of his many lies. America proved in '92 when we elected Clinton (a candidate who was not well-known at the time, not unlike Dean now) that LYING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO EASILY FORGET OR LET SLIDE. Sorry I raised my voice, but...IT PISSES ME OFF!

Even Republicans are realizing what a cabal of thugs we now have in power. I mean, come on, it's hard to deny, especially with the new $61,000,000 Halliburton overcharge bullshit. Vice President Cheney is still on the payroll, you know.
posted by wsg at 12:45 AM on December 13, 2003

These are the assclowns that made the ad:
Americans for Jobs, Health Care and Progressive Values

Address:
12700 Lake Avenue, Suite 1607
Lakewood, Ohio 44107

Phone:
202-285-0587 for press inquiries - Robert Gibbs

E-mail:
[e-mail]

Apparently helping to re-elect Republicans is a "progressive value."
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:47 AM on December 13, 2003

I understand that it must suck to have your party taken away from you, but--ideology aside--the DLC are nothing if not consummate losers.

Huh? 'consummate losers'?

Former DLC Chairman Bill Clinton was the only Democrat to win two terms as president in half a century. One of the purposes of the DLC's founding was to prevent yet another McGovern/Dukakis/Mondale death march, and they were notably successful in this.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:27 AM on December 13, 2003

America proved in '92 when we elected Clinton... ...that LYING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO EASILY FORGET OR LET SLIDE.

Even Republicans are realizing what a cabal of thugs we now have in power.

hehe. remember all these words you speak come this time next year.

fuzz was absolutely right: you people are living in some kind of tolkein fantasy world. not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by poopy at 2:04 AM on December 13, 2003

millions and millions of people think Bush is Satan

I see nothing untrue in this statement.


Millions and millions eat McDonald's every day.
Enjoy your BigMac.
posted by HTuttle at 2:05 AM on December 13, 2003

Silthy-
As for the Clinton incongruity, it seems perfectly clear who rode who's coattail. Clinton was a hell of a politician. I'll admit that the DLC's passion for unprincipled waffling helped him win re-election, but so did Ross Perot. The fact that they have had virtually no success with any other candidate says to me that there was something special about Clinton's ability to get elected, and he could likely have had success with a different team behind him.

The DLC's is a political methodology which has proven itself stale, an approach which leaves the party continuously lagging behind Republicans in fund-raising, which since 1996 has steadily lost House, Senate and municipal seats, and which has so failed to cobble together a cohesive message that the Democratic Party is bleeding voters to the left and the right—all this at a point in history when demographic trends would seem to encourage exactly the opposite on all counts.

If the DLC is so great, why can't they do anything without Bill? And why do they have to make such pathetic attack ads because their presidential candidate is getting straight-up slaughtered? They are running a pro-war, tax-cutting guy whose entire campaign image seems to center around emphasizing the fact that he is named Joe. They are rather out of touch, and are failing to offer alternatives to the incumbent, which really ought to be a requirement for an opposition candidate.

"Wow! Now that I know he's named Joe, I've changed my mind on all of the core issues that originally brought the party together. Let's pawn the New Deal and spend the cash on cracking down on violent video games!"
--Democratic Voter
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 2:17 AM on December 13, 2003

Ignatius: It's also possible to turn your logic around, and say that during a time when the Democratic party was rapidly losing favor with the voters, the DLC managed to elect a two-term Democratic president. Quite an achievement.

If the DLC is so great, why can't they do anything without Bill?

Because the Democratic 'base' is far to the left of the DLC? And it's the Democratic base that votes in primaries.

I agree, the 'Joe' thing is sad. I imagine it's an attempt to downplay his last name. Which is not only sad, but troubling: are his handlers afraid of antisemitism? Among Democrats? Looks like.

Reminds of me of Pierre Dupont's effort, a decade ago, to recast himself as 'Pete Dupont', an apparent attempt to counter another supposed prejudice, against hoity-toity European-sounding names.

And Lamar Alexander, whose literature referred to him as Lamar!. The National Review, which thought Lamar! was a lightweight, started to referring to him as Lamar! in its copy.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 2:50 AM on December 13, 2003

poopy,

hehe, you didn't refute any of the points in my post with any facts or links. You just quoted from it and then said, "hehe, remember all these words blah-blah." What else can defenders-of-all-things-Dubya do when they are once again confronted with actions from this administration that are blatantly indefensible? The links aren't there.
posted by wsg at 2:59 AM on December 13, 2003

That pic of Kärl Rove - he looks like he's ripe and worthy for a good frog marching.
posted by wsg at 3:12 AM on December 13, 2003

I agree, the 'Joe' thing is sad. I imagine it's an attempt to downplay his last name. Which is not only sad, but troubling: are his handlers afraid of antisemitism? Among Democrats? Looks like.

I thought that at first, but I actually think it's an attempt at fake populism. Like, "man, he's named Joe, just like a regular Joe." Either way, it is absurd to make a single syllable the focal point of your existence.

Because the Democratic 'base' is far to the left of the DLC? And it's the Democratic base that votes in primaries.

I don't think it's left/right, but the Democratic base largely feels disenfranchised from their party's power base, and unsure of it's message. I think that's because the DLC chopped up the message a bit, and the values of the party don't feel intact. Democrats (rightly, I would guess) tend to feel that special interests are most important in elections, as opposed to, say, religious right-wingers, who think that God chooses a candidate. The DLC's corporatization of the party has only made it moreso. Not that Dems should start thinking that God would choose their guy. Sharpton?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:28 AM on December 13, 2003

It's a tremendous, enormous waste of time to sweat Bush vs. Anybody polls right now. The vast majority of the American public has never even *heard* of Howard Dean yet and probably won't really coalesce any opinion until the convention season...not to mention the fact that Dean has not yet earned via election the Chosen One status that some now grant him.

One week before the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Bill Clinton was in *third* place in the polls, far behind George H.W. Bush and also behind one H. Ross Perot. After the convention, he had a polling lead he never lost.


Bush's people are smart enough to know this, too. Junior's got a will to power that is stronger than his daddy's. They might enjoy pointing out these polls to lazy reporters, but they're not going to go slack because of these unimportant numbers.
posted by Phaedrus at 8:14 AM on December 13, 2003

It's also that we've lost the Senate, and it's like the DLC doesn't even care. Centrism is fine, but not being active enough or fighting for core dem values is not. I think Ignatius is right about Clinton and the DLC. The medicare thing should not have passed, for one recent example.

And poopy, it's a bet! everyone here is a witness. : >
posted by amberglow at 8:19 AM on December 13, 2003

you go, amberglow - keep hope alive!

I am thinking it's early yet. The current junta is so unprincipled that I am hoping some of their transgressions may yet resonate. I think a huge part of the democratic campaigning has to be an upsurge of complaints to media to focus on issues and to stop serving as Rove's personal PR arm.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:37 AM on December 13, 2003

I'm waiting for the Post to print a poll saying how many Democrats think they should slit their own throats for being against Furher Bush.

That poll would be as useful as this link's.
posted by Busithoth at 8:39 AM on December 13, 2003

you go, amberglow - keep hope alive!

amberglow has got a lot more hope than i have. the republicans - thanks to 911 - are dictating what the issues are going to be in this election: the war on terror, economy (now that it's beginning to turn around), homeland security. these are what people are going to be focusing on if the republicans have their way. the dems need to create their own issues instead of following the lead of the repubs. from the stats i've seen, the public is concerned about the war but it isn't reflecting much on the presidents approval rating and my belief is that the people honestly believe that iraq is just a small part of the war on terror. the one trump card liberals had was the economy and even that has blown up in our faces.

sigh. well, one thing i am happy to see is dean in there. if anyone has a chance, it's him. and amberglow, this is one bet i would love to lose. :) you certainly do have a hell of a lot more hope than me.
posted by poopy at 10:37 AM on December 13, 2003

I am very hopeful, and all the stats i've seen give bush bad marks on the economy, which i consider the most important indicator of whether or not he gets reeleected--Are any of us better off than we were 4 years ago? Are our futures more or less secure? Are there any growth sectors besides defense spending? Any job creation at all? etc...
posted by amberglow at 10:46 AM on December 13, 2003

I'm not sure the economic gains are gonna last. I think the combination of tax rebates and holiday spending are more guilty than the president, whom I've been told has little or no effect on how well the economy performs.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:59 AM on December 13, 2003

whom I've been told has little or no effect on how well the economy performs.

If that's the case, then why do we hold the President responsible for economic downturns, especially when he belongs to the opposing party?

Seems to me that both sides of the fence know that the President plays a minimal role in the fluctuations our economy encounters, but are more than willing to point fingers to get votes and win elections.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:12 AM on December 13, 2003

I'm not sure the economic gains are gonna last. I think the combination of tax rebates and holiday spending are more guilty than the president, whom I've been told has little or no effect on how well the economy performs.

What I find funny about the economic debate especially in the weblog wars is how this one topic thrives on useless facts. Both sides use useless facts in all areas of debate, but with the economy it's just some much more prevalent.

You go to a diner and listen to people talk, and if it's the death penalty, abortion, gun control, crime, etc, you might actually hear people quoting the same stats the ads and pundits do about that subject. This isn't the case for the economy: never, outside of a smoke break directly outside the Goldman-Sachs building, will you hear a bunch of people arguing over the current statistical job growth rate for Q3, or the current percentage increase in productivity.

I always find the debates about the economy amusing, especially when it's people like NRO columnists explaining how the "liberals" just don't get how great the economy is because of the net gains in tech stock as if the middle-American blue-collars they claim the right to association with give a rat's ass while standing on the unemployment line.

There are only two factors that remotely weigh the status of the economy in terms that the average American voter cares about, and those are tax cuts and joblessness. Bush is facing the fire on both of those right now, since he's likely unable to sell another $300 payoff like he promised the last election, and he's nearing three million on the negative side of the job growth chart. Frankly, if Bush can create three million middle-class jobs in eleven months he deserves to be President, but unless Japan sneak attacks Hawaii again I don't see that happening.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:25 AM on December 13, 2003

what BlueTrain said. of course the president has little to do with the economy (whether it's up or down), but that isn't going to matter come election time. and from the itty bit i've garnered from economics, the timing of the turnaround here couldn't be better for bush.
posted by poopy at 11:29 AM on December 13, 2003

Every time I hear someone compare Dean to McGovern, I like to remember what happened to the guy who beat McGovern.

And from the look on Rove's face, I'd say history does have a good chance of repeating itself.
posted by kgasmart at 2:28 PM on December 13, 2003

Newsweek's latest meaningless poll looks a lot better for Dean than did the other meaningless poll:

Meanwhile, neither good news on the economy, the passage of a Medicare bill nor his surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad seem to have boosted President George W. Bush’s approval ratings among all registered voters: with 51 percent approving and 42 disapproving, his ratings are the lowest in the NEWSWEEK poll’s history. And less than half (45 percent) of voters say they want Bush to be reelected.

If an election were held today between Dean and Bush, the Vermonter would still likely lose (the president retains a 49 to 42 percent lead among all registered voters in a two-way race). A full 34 percent of all voters give Dean little or no chance of winning in a face-off against Bush.

Dean’s approval ratings may continue to climb, though, considering more than a third (35 percent) of registered Democrats consider Gore’s endorsement significant enough to make them more likely to vote Dean, and a majority (53 percent) of all registered voters think Dean has at least some chance of beating Bush in a hypothetical two-way election against Bush next year.

The other leading Democrats slipped slightly against Bush. If a two-way election were held today between Bush and Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut would garner 42 percent of all respondents votes, as compared to Bush’s 51 percent, which represents a five point jump for Bush over a month ago. Similarly, in a race between Clark and Bush, the retired general would win 43 percent of the votes (compared to 45 percent last month) and Bush would win with 49 percent (up from 48 last month).
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:15 PM on December 13, 2003

hey dagny. why no citation on who did the polling? not the post's owner murdoch's little minions by chance?
posted by specialk420 at 3:27 PM on December 13, 2003

My friend sat in during a nation-wide conference call with Dean's national campaign manager. This was about two weeks ago and the way my buddy (who's an editor at an alt-weekly) described the call caused me to want to support Dean. Up until now I've been a Kerry supporter.... honestly I think he is the best man for the job, but at some point you have to concede to Dean's much better run campaign. Kerry has sadly had several meltdowns within his group. (If only Kerry had Dean's staff!) Anyway, the Dean staff is hardcore. When asked if about what states they could carry, the Dean PR person said, "Everyone else is focused on states... we are focused on the nation as a whole. We're going to win it all." Of course this is second hand and I'm paraphrasing... but gezz... the Dean folks have run an excellent campaign. And that leads me to belive that Dean would make an excellent president. Shit, he could easily be better president than Clinton... and Clinton was no where near as bad as Bush Jr. or Sr. have been. I think that impression will become apparent to the voters out there.

Dean is a badass.


The other thing that the PR person pointed out was Dean's push to get $100 dollars from 2 million Americans... do the math and that comes out to more money than Bush has... and it strikes out special interest.

He's got me close to signing over my $100.00
posted by wfrgms at 6:09 PM on December 13, 2003

interesting article on the future of the parties--when information is cheap and easy, and you can build an organization online (as Dean has done), do you need to rely on the 2 parties?
posted by amberglow at 7:18 PM on December 13, 2003

TPM has a link to an interesting analysis of a Gallup poll of Democrats which should trouble Dean. It seems that on some issues even Democrats think Dean is to far left.
posted by gyc at 7:43 PM on December 13, 2003

What a smug little rat he is.

That picture of Karl Rove....There should be a law about dressing up Washington insiders to resemble real people. That man's arms are whiter than Gollum's...

"My precious..."
posted by mecran01 at 7:00 AM on December 14, 2003

Also, NH can't possibly make that much difference in a presidential election; it's a little weeny state with almost no electoral votes.


Just a reminder... if NH's "almost no" electoral votes had gone to Gore instead of Bush in 2000, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Instead, we'd be discussing whether ex-Gov. Bush would be mounting a primary challenge to McCain for the right to run against President Gore.

What's more, NH was one of those states where the few thousand Nader voters tipped the balance (if I remember correctly). If most of them had gone to Gore instead, it would be a very different world.
posted by sesquipedalia at 7:33 AM on December 14, 2003

O.K., you got me there, sesqui. All the states mattered in that last, freakish elecfion. Much more important than NH in 2000, though, was the fact(s) that a) the winner's brother controlled the key state, and b) Gore couldn't even get the electoral votes in his own state. I wonder how many presidential candidates (winners or losers) haven't even managed to win their home states?
posted by LeLiLo at 10:54 AM on December 14, 2003