Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Still a Democrat** · 06-04-2011, 06:58 PM

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.

...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/164...ma-in-2012

**PoliticalTiger** · 06-04-2011, 07:01 PM

Howard Dean is a smart man but on this one I think he is wrong!

***There Is No Spoon*** · 06-04-2011, 07:20 PM

Howard is being clever.

**RoyGBiv** · 06-04-2011, 09:26 PM

(06-04-2011 07:20 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Howard is being clever.

I think so too.

Howard generally is.

**PoliticalTiger** · 06-05-2011, 12:57 AM

(06-04-2011 09:26 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:
(06-04-2011 07:20 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Howard is being clever.

I think so too.

Howard generally is.

I think so too. It makes sense. He's feeding her massive ego and I for one hope she takes the bait!

**atomic** · 06-04-2011, 07:33 PM

Well that's crazy talk unless he's using the double secret strategy of assuring the wingnuts she's got a shot at the title thereby setting her up for an epic ass-whooping.

**Arkana** · 06-04-2011, 08:28 PM

Howard better be egging her on to troll her, because if he actually believes this he's either stoned or stupid.

**Willinois** · 06-04-2011, 08:33 PM

(06-04-2011 08:28 PM)Arkana Wrote: Howard better be egging her on to troll her, because if he actually believes this he's either stoned or stupid.

Yes. Otherwise...thanks for the concern Howie.

**Arkana** · 06-04-2011, 08:54 PM

A certain place whose name I will not mention is crapping its collective drawers, however. Sarah Palin has gone from "fucking joke" to "OMG TERRIFYING IMPOSING FIGURE" thanks to Dr. Dean's little pronouncement.

You know, "progressives" bitch about how the party is constantly fighting with itself, but do you think you'd ever hear a GOP foot soldier in 2004 say "Oh yeah, Kerry could beat Bush"? Their hero has just done a little bit more to hurt the party he's supposed to represent. Suddenly I'm glad Dean and his flapping gums aren't in charge.

**Willinois** · 06-04-2011, 09:09 PM

(06-04-2011 08:54 PM)Arkana Wrote: You know, "progressives" bitch about how the party is constantly fighting with itself, but do you think you'd ever hear a GOP foot soldier in 2004 say "Oh yeah, Kerry could beat Bush"? Their hero has just done a little bit more to hurt the party he's supposed to represent. Suddenly I'm glad Dean and his flapping gums aren't in charge.

Confidence and self-defeating attitudes can both increase the likelihood of the expected outcome. Republicans understand that much better than self-doubting, nervous liberals.

**jaxx** · 06-05-2011, 06:49 AM

(06-04-2011 08:54 PM)Arkana Wrote: A certain place whose name I will not mention is crapping its collective drawers, however. Sarah Palin has gone from "fucking joke" to "OMG TERRIFYING IMPOSING FIGURE" thanks to Dr. Dean's little pronouncement.

You know, "progressives" bitch about how the party is constantly fighting with itself, but do you think you'd ever hear a GOP foot soldier in 2004 say "Oh yeah, Kerry could beat Bush"? Their hero has just done a little bit more to hurt the party he's supposed to represent. Suddenly I'm glad Dean and his flapping gums aren't in charge.

The comment from Dean made me wonder why he would give her such clout. It wasn't a smart remark, it was a poke in the eye to Obama. And the purists went on the usual rampage about staying home and not voting to primary him....the usual crap that the PL comes up with when they can use a slam for their advantage.

**Treestar** · 06-05-2011, 07:54 AM

(06-04-2011 08:54 PM)Arkana Wrote: A certain place whose name I will not mention is crapping its collective drawers, however. Sarah Palin has gone from "fucking joke" to "OMG TERRIFYING IMPOSING FIGURE" thanks to Dr. Dean's little pronouncement.

You know, "progressives" bitch about how the party is constantly fighting with itself, but do you think you'd ever hear a GOP foot soldier in 2004 say "Oh yeah, Kerry could beat Bush"? Their hero has just done a little bit more to hurt the party he's supposed to represent. Suddenly I'm glad Dean and his flapping gums aren't in charge.

I have to wonder if he's not just bitter about something. He's not helping.

**Drunken Irishman** · 06-04-2011, 09:28 PM

I hope so. Because, in my view, comments like this only legitimize candidates like Palin.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 06-04-2011, 09:52 PM

(06-04-2011 09:28 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote: I hope so. Because, in my view, comments like this only legitimize candidates like Palin.

Howard has his fingers crossed.

roflmao

***azmouse*** · 06-05-2011, 10:36 AM

Oh good grief... shut up, Howard.
Stop courting the PL. You'll never get the nomination for president, nor will you ever be president.

**KonaKane** · 06-05-2011, 11:56 AM

While Dean has a record of saying great and stupid things on a revolving door basis, I think we should heed this one. He's saying not to leave anything to chance and NEVER think that the voting public is too smart to elect someone like Palin. Come on guys, after GWB, after November 2009, can you honestly say "no way" can American voters be so stupid?

I think we should be overprepared, and not discount ANYTHING.

**RoyGBiv** · 06-05-2011, 02:29 PM

(06-05-2011 11:56 AM)KonaKane Wrote: While Dean has a record of saying great and stupid things on a revolving door basis, I think we should heed this one. He's saying not to leave anything to chance and NEVER think that the voting public is too smart to elect someone like Palin. Come on guys, after GWB, after November 2009, can you honestly say "no way" can American voters be so stupid?

I think we should be overprepared, and not discount ANYTHING.

Frankly, the current environment is reminding me far, far too much of the run-up to 2000.

Palin could in fact win, and that's the truth.

**Drunken Irishman** · (This post was last modified: 06-05-2011 03:23 PM by Drunken Irishman.)

Until I see a poll that indicates Palin can win, why should I believe she can win?

In 1999, Bush led Gore in the run-up to that race by a wide margin.

Quote:Suppose the election for president in the year 2000 were being held today, and you had to choose between Vice President Al Gore, the Democrat, and Texas Governor George W. Bush, the Republican. For whom would you vote -- Gore or Bush?

George W. Bush 52%
Al Gore 41

Now give me a poll that shows Palin competitive with Obama, let alone one that shows her beating him. Until there is such poll, I'm not going to lose sleep over the potential of her beating him.

Is it possible? Well that's not the question we should be asking. It's possible, I guess, that the world just ups and ends tomorrow.

Is it likely, though? Of course not.

I see no reason to fear a Palin campaign.

At least not until she consistently proves she's capable of contending with him in the polls.

**RoyGBiv** · 06-05-2011, 03:42 PM

(06-05-2011 03:16 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote: Until I see a poll that indicates Palin can win, why should I believe she can win?

In 1999, Bush led Gore in the run-up to that race by a wide margin.

Going in to the Republican convention, Dukakis led Bush in the polls by 16 points.

I don't care about inter-party polls until after the conventions. They are almost meaningless.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 06-05-2011, 05:11 PM

(06-05-2011 03:42 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:
(06-05-2011 03:16 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote: Until I see a poll that indicates Palin can win, why should I believe she can win?

In 1999, Bush led Gore in the run-up to that race by a wide margin.

Going in to the Republican convention, Dukakis led Bush in the polls by 16 points.

I don't care about inter-party polls until after the conventions. They are almost meaningless.

Has there every been an "I hate you" percentage this high? It's not like she's an "unknown" type candidate, people know her and a significant majority say they will never vote for her.

Quote:May 4th, 2011
...
A Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday indicates that 58 percent of the public says they would never vote for the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, ...

**RoyGBiv** · 06-05-2011, 05:32 PM

(06-05-2011 05:11 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Has there every been an "I hate you" percentage this high? It's not like she's an "unknown" type candidate, people know her and a significant majority say they will never vote for her.

First, I'm not going to continue arguing this. It's pointless because there's no way to prove it one way or the other. I hope those who say there's no way Palin could win are right, but I think that's beside the point, just as I think Dean's comment was less about Palin than about the vector by which some Republican with slightly more intelligence but even less sanity could win. The point is that the 2012 election is not a done deal for the Democrats, there are problems we're trying to downplay rather than address and redirect toward the Republicans themselves, and this is a recipe for disaster.

Second, polls at this point of the game are a media invention. They hire the polling firm to construct polls that are bound to produce a sensationalist outcome, and then their marketing department (which controls the news room's headlines) builds a story based on it designed to deliver the biggest impact on ratings. But the polls don't necessarily mean what we're told they mean. If you look at the raw data, it can be interpreted a number of ways, the problem being that we are almost never given access to the raw data.

So, 58% of people say they would never, ever vote for Palin under any circumstance. What does this mean? Well, one thing it does NOT mean is that those same 58% would vote for Obama if Palin were the Republican nominee. It does not even mean that those 58% are even voters. What is the sample? Is it "Republicans and Democrats and Independents" or is it "Republicans and Democrats and Independents who actually have a record of voting"? Do the negatives, in other words, translate in any way to actual voting behavior? It might mean all 58% of them simply refuse to vote at all, leaving Palin's acolytes and Obama's hardcore supporters to fight it out. Do I think it means that? No, but it could.

Look, I think it very unlikely that Palin will make it through the primary process, even if she does officially declare her candidacy. I also think it unlikely, though somewhat less so, that if she were to pull off a miracle and get the nomination that she could defeat Obama. But I also believe that killing the messenger of potential danger is the wrong tactic to take. It's an attempt to make oneself feel better. Things are not wonderful. Things just happen to be the least wonderful in some very important states like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, etc. where Republicans are trying to make right damn sure they continue to be not wonderful. We have to address it directly rather than deny it.

The only reason I posted that comment about the Dukakis/Bush polling is to show a counter-example to polls that, a year and a half out, seem to say there's no way this or that Republican could win. People didn't like Bush either, and they hated Quayle. They were fed up with the Reagan years, and scandal was all over the place. Yet, contrary to all the early polls and punditry, Bush won in a landslide.

***There Is No Spoon*** · 06-05-2011, 05:58 PM

(06-05-2011 05:32 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote: But I also believe that killing the messenger of potential danger is the wrong tactic to take. ...

I agree, I complimented him for being clever.

Just as you're using me as a proxy to combine your arguments into one post, I agree that Dean is probably using Palin as a proxy for the possibility that another candidate could win it. I do actually think than many Republicans would vote for Obama faced with the prospect of a Palin Presidency. This union is not in a position to survive such an event and I am pretty sure that enough of the majority of Republicans who are still sane would not destroy this country just to make a point.

**KonaKane** · 06-05-2011, 03:40 PM

“You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."

- Scott Adams

**Drunken Irishman** · 06-05-2011, 05:14 PM

No they're not.

Especially when you're dealing with a candidate who is very well known, like Palin is currently.

Your point would have merit if we were dealing with candidates who had yet to be shaped by public perception. In that regard, I agree. Early in that campaign, I'm not sure many Americans knew much about Dukakis, except that he was from Massachusetts. Then Willie Horton hit the news and his campaign started to implode.

Palin is different, though. Out of any candidate, beyond Pres. Obama, she probably has the highest name recognition. People have formulated their opinion of her over the last two and a half years and I'm not sure a convention will change that.

So if she's not getting any traction right now, even after she was a VP candidate in 2008 and is known almost universally, I don't see that changing.

Again, I'm not going to lose sleep over this. I don't believe she can beat Obama.

**Drunken Irishman** · 06-05-2011, 07:49 PM

Of course there is no way to know if Palin would beat Obama because none of us can peer into the future and even then, it's still unlikely she gets far enough in this election cycle to go up directly against Obama.

However, I feel confident in saying that she isn't a very likely candidate to win the general election. She is way too divisive and I don't see her appeal going beyond what she already has. People know Palin. They know exactly what they're getting. She can't reinvent herself and frankly, the way she's going about her campaign now suggests she doesn't want to.

Opposite of Palin is a president who, while not always popular in terms of policy, is very likable and has huge favorability ratings.

That does not bode well for a divisive candidate. Palin can't grow her support and I see her support topping out at maybe 40%.

**RoyGBiv** · 06-05-2011, 08:05 PM

(06-05-2011 07:49 PM)Drunken Irishman Wrote: However, I feel confident in saying that she isn't a very likely candidate to win the general election. She is way too divisive and I don't see her appeal going beyond what she already has. People know Palin. They know exactly what they're getting. She can't reinvent herself and frankly, the way she's going about her campaign now suggests she doesn't want to.

The Republican campaign so far has been so bizarre I don't feel confident making any predictions. But, if forced, I'd give a very slight edge to her never even formally announcing.

She's in this for money and fame. She gets a lot more of both not being an official candidate.

***NJMaverick*** · 06-06-2011, 05:53 AM

I am beginning to think Dean is a dumb as Sarah

**The Capitol Punisher** · (This post was last modified: 06-06-2011 07:35 AM by The Capitol Punisher.)

He's right. If the unemployment rate doesn't get around 8%, any Republican could feasibly win.

On edit: Let me add, I've called Dean a complete fucking moron in the past, particularly during the great health care debate. He's wrong more than he's right on these things. But he's right on this. People didn't elect Republicans in 2010 because they liked them. They did it because they were pissed off and out of work, and they're willing to just keep shuffling the cards until they get a winning hand. It's irrationality at its finest. And it could easily benefit Palin - or any Republican who gets nominated - unless something's done about it.

**RoyGBiv** · 06-06-2011, 07:38 AM

(06-06-2011 07:31 AM)The Capitol Punisher Wrote: He's right. If the unemployment rate doesn't get around 8%, any Republican could feasibly win.

On edit: Let me add, I've called Dean a complete fucking moron in the past, particularly during the great health care debate. He's wrong more than he's right on these things. But he's right on this. People didn't elect Republicans in 2010 because they liked them. They did it because they were pissed off and out of work, and they're willing to just keep shuffling the cards until they get a winning hand. It's irrationality at its finest. And it could easily benefit Palin - or any Republican who gets nominated - unless something's done about it.

The card shuffling analogy is a good one. Voters as a group are very much like the poker player who ignores the odds or even logic and draws four cards while holding a 2.