Roll Call requires a subscription so I'll only quote a little.

------------
GOP Pollsters Insist Dean Can Beat Bush
By Chris Cillizza

Roll Call
October 6, 2003

A memo being circulated by a prominent Republican polling firm argues that GOPers run a serious risk of underestimating former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) as a general election candidate against President Bush.

“Writing off a candidate like Dean by selectively sorting statistical gobble-de-gook [sic] and mixing it into a broth of ‘empirical’ sociological evidence ignores the political realities of our time,” the memo notes.

One Republican pollster agreed that the assumption that Dean’s ideological underpinnings would alienate swing voters could well be wrong-headed.

“Part of his appeal appears to be more stylistic than substantive,” the pollster said. “There is an element of plain-spoken, Ross Perot style about him.”

Moore and Kaiser also offer an electoral vote scenario under which Dean could defeat Bush in 2004. They give Dean victories in 23 states (270 electoral votes) and point out that Bush lost all but two — Nevada and West Virginia — in the 2000 presidential election. "
------------

Is this simply misinformation?

We have been looking at the "right" half of the coalition of the center. With the exceptions of parts of the south, I I think the right half of the coalition is OK with Dean. Personally, I think the greater danger is losing the "left" half.

Dean has said on multiple occasions that the way that he is going to win is by giving the 40% of the population that is apathetic a reason to vote. He has resisted mightly "running to left" by holding the line on fiscal responsibility and not promising the world. And in doing so, he may not be giving the 40% a reason to vote. He has energized the gay and lesbian community. He is working on students. He is finally starting to put more resources into SC and the paying more serious attention to Black voters. But I'm not sure that this is going to bring out enough of the "apathetic" voters (Perhaps Bush will do that for us - and those who are moving in the House to attach the privatization of Medicare to the perscription drug benefit.)

The only logical, broad issue with the potential to excite the apathetic is health care. The best health care solution (and the only one that's sustainable IMO) is Kucinich's. Gephardt and Clark are promising the world in combination with a tax plan that underfunds the country (IMO). Dean is offering something less in terms of health care with a tax plan that is more sound. Which is more palatable to the "right of center"?

The health care issue can win not only the Presidency but Senate and House races. You tell me - from the "right of center" perspective - which is more palatable?

If I were Dean - And were asked in the next debate about a health care plan - I would say:

"There is only health plan that the Democrats have to offer that is both affordable and sustainable and that plan is the Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton Health Plan. As a party, we need to make our job to see that every parent, that every worker entering the workforce, that every retiree, that every small business owner, that every corporate CEO ask their Senator and their Congressman or women if they support the Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton health plan."

It seems to me that that would bring together a winning coalition.