I think a Dean/Graham ticket would have won

[WI_DEM]

First, I have nothing but respect for John Kerry and John Edwards. I supported Dean in the primaries and then Kerry in the general election. Kerry/Edwards worked their hearts out and came up just short.

I do think though, that despite what some people may think that Dean would have been a potentially better candidate in the general election.

Dean never hid the fact that he admired Bob Graham of Florida especially with Graham's critique of the intelligence failures of the Bush administration. Also, like Dean, Graham opposed the Iraqi War. Finally, Graham is the most popular politician in Florida--a key electoral state. I think it is likely that Dean would have chosen Graham, because he needed someone from Washington to balance his ticket.

This is why I think Dean/Graham would have been successful
1) Dean is a Governor who didn't have a 20-year record of Senate votes which could be distorted. The American people seem to respond better to Governors maybe because governors have executive experience. Dean's Vermont record could not be used to prove he was a "spend and tax liberal" since Dean balanced every budget he submitted and still provided tax relief. He left Vermont without a deficit when his term ended unlike most states in 2003.

2) Dean's position on Iraq was easy for the American people to understand, he opposed the resolution and the war. Also, his controversial comment about the US not being safer for having captured Sadam gained credibility. John Kerry had a nuansed position on Iraq which, frankly, baffled many people. Was he for it or against it?

3) There would be not switch boat ads dominating the August/September news cycle had Dean been the nominee. Oh, sure Rove would have thought of something, maybe about Dean's medical defement and then going skiing. Dean would not have hesitated to denounce Rove and underscore it by attacking AWOL Bush.

4) Iraq would have been the major issue of the democratic campaign from day one with a Dean/Graham ticket with the security failures of the Bush administration a strong second. Through August and most of September, Kerry seemed to go from issue to issue on an almost daily basis hoping something would stick--it was only towards the end of September that he finally began to make Iraq a key issue that the campaign began to gain ground and put Bush on the offensive. NOTE: I have nothing but respect for how Kerry played out the last six weeks of the campaign.

5) Kerry did very well in the debates; so I can't fault him here. I think Dean would have also done well going on the offensive vs. Bush--but Dean would not have been as smooth as Kerry was, but I think that Dean might have connected a bit better with "folks" because of his more plain-spoken manner.

6) Domestically, I think health care would have been a more prominent issue with Dean leading the attack. With Dean's credentials as a doctor plus providing health care to nearly every child in Vermont without unbalancing the budget he would have been able to argue that it can be and must be done.

7) Electorally, I think it is hard to see what states Kerry won that Dean would have lost. I think Dean would have carried the East just as well as Kerry did. I think Dean maybe would have done even better in some of those states. I think the West coast would have gone for Dean as well. In the midwest I think Dean would have won Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. So where would Dean have an advantage which Kerry did not? perhaps in Florida with Graham on the ticket...If I had been advising the Dean campaign, and had Bob Graham on the ticket I would have had Graham spending nearly all his time in these three states: Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas. Considering that Bush won Florida by only 5-pts it is conceivable that Graham might have been enough to swing the state towards the Democrats. Along with a clearer and more credible attack on Iraq by Dean as well as an emphasize on healthcare I feel that Dean/Graham would still have done very well with young voters but also made inroads with Seniors.

Of course this is just Monday morning quarter backing and we will never really know.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

1. I always liked

a Dean/Clark combo.

[JohnnyCougar]

4. that would have won for sure

landslide

[EndElectoral]

2. You don't get it! If the election is rigged, it doesn't matter who runs

[bluedog]

3. no Democratic Match would have WON

face it..........it was fixed as was 2000's race......fake fraud.whatever you call it......bush's election was cast in Gold from the beginning!!!!!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The fix was already in.

It doesn't matter who the nominee was. Any of the candidates would have been a thousand times better than Bush, but the election was fixed long before the nomination was decided. You can argue that the Kerry campaign made some mistakes, and that another candidate would have been better -- all campaigns make mistakes, and no candidate is perfect -- but that's not what cost the election. Dirty tricks are what cost the election -- the pernicious combination of voter suppression, BBV funny business, libelous advertising, and Rove's disgraceful appeals to the fundies to take away the civil rights of an entire class of people (remember -- ignorant, frightened people need somebody to hate and to feel superior to).

I believe the DNC needs to be taken apart and rebuilt from the bottom. We need to keep the grass roots mobilized, investigate and deal with election fraud issues, and continue to resist the Regime. It is pointless to worry about which other candidate might have won, because the likely truth is that, all other conditions being the same, none of them could have done it.

And future events will be pivotal. Bush owns Iraq now. He owns the economy. He owns the War on Terra. I believe there will be a shitstorm arising from all of these things, and Bush will have run out of excuses. Our response will depend in large part on the events of the next couple of years, over which we have no control. Wait, regroup, resist.