That defined many voters to turn to another candidate with a scream in 2004. Okay....

n/t

The media (yes, even the so-called left-wing media) edited the scream so that it seemed as if it was coming out of left field, rather than being Dean's response to what was going on with the crowd. Then the media used that edited clip to forward the message they were pushing that Dean was a tiny bit unstable.

What happened was that he was using a handheld mic that blocked the background noise, making him sound crazy. But I don't think it was a deliberate manipulation by the networks, although their coverage of it was out of control and I believe they later apologized to him.

Everyone in that room was screaming just as loud as Dean. It had become a rallying cry that his campaign had used regularly.
At that particular event they used a uni-directional mic that cut out any sound except Dean. So it seemed as if that yell came out of nowhere. The media then poured on acting as if the fault was Dean's.

Not surprisingly this happened after Dean suggested that media conglomerates should be broken up and that we should return the fairness doctrine.

I suspect you knew this, or at least should have.

say so.

And in a Sanders administration I want Sen Murphy as Secy of State.

i am waiting to see what sc thinks of him.

Voters will decide, not pundits, analysts or talking heads

Looks like suddenly the same so called establishment that Bernie slammed is starting to cave in.

Little early I feel, SC is one week away, lets see who comes out ahead there before we panic.

Sanders wasn’t my first choice. And it’s not over yet. But I am 100% behind Sanders should he win. He can ride a wave that could carry the Senate too. If we take the Senate Sanders would have a really chance at sweeping change.

Finally some real change could be a battle cry.

I know who I'd pick, lol

Sanders on the ticket causes us to lose massively with the "middle" - which is where national elections are won.

Insepector Clouseau: What is the price of one piano compared to the terrible crime that's been committed here? Mrs. Leverlilly: But that's a priceless Steinway! Clouseau: Not anymore!

...basically making the point that you can theoretically win with either your base plus a bunch of non-committed toward the middle, or with your base and a bunch to your more extreme side, and there's no reliable way to determine which group is bigger.

I pointed out that, last time, we ran trying to grab a bunch of middle, Trump ran trying to get a bunch of that side's more extreme... and he won. You can't predict which route will be more successful.

Russia will do anything to undermine any candidate who becomes the frontrunner. I'm sure Russia is aware of the perception that Sanders can't win, so they're going to exploit that for all it's worth by trying to sow discord and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But that perception seems to be based largely on false assumptions about so-called independents, moderates, undecideds, etc. And the notion that 2018 was the result of Trump voters switching sides (stated repeatedly by a DU poster and echoed by others). Why do I say false assumptions? Read each of the following 4 articles:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition

Regarding the first 3 articles, those who self-identify as such and such are all over the map ideologically-speaking and the vast majority of so-called independents are completely wedded to a particular party. It's a myth that there's this large mass of astute, consistent middle-of-the-roaders with some well-defined "moderate" ideology, who are just waiting to see which party will put up the candidate closest to the center.

Many people, especially young people, are starving to vote for someone who dreams big and will fight for a future that isn't filled with misery (many people recognize that that's where we're headed with the status quo, Trump or no Trump). From the first article: "Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up. Perhaps more centrist policies will appeal to some voters in each of these categories — but so will more extreme policies." Many of those so-called "extreme policies" poll very, very well.

As for the 4th article, what happened is we saw Dems break turnout records. It wasn't that Trump voters switched sides, or that anti-Trump Republicans came to our rescue in droves. That simply isn't what happened. So, what did happen? Well, for instance, every single major ethnic and racial group had a greater increase in turnout from one midterm to the next (in this case, 2014 to 2018) than ever before in US history. And the age group that had the greatest increase in turnout between 2014 and 2018 was the 18-29 age group (20% in 2014 to 36% in 2018).

Yes, it's true that many moderates flipped districts (while some others lost statewide races for the US Senate). It's also true that some very progressive candidates got elected. We can have a more moderate candidate win a district while also having a very progressive candidate win a national election. Those aren't mutually exclusive events, especially at a time when the driving force in the US as a whole is an opposition to the status quo, a general sense that we're in grave danger and that the US is - in the words of Howard Zinn - "topsy-turvy." A whole lot of people desperately want fundamental change.

So, yeah, I think Sanders can win states such as PA, MI, AZ, etc. Regardless of who our nominee is, I think it'll be a close election.

Dean has made no secret of the fact that he doesn't like Bernie, who was a thorn in his side when he was governor. But that is encouraging.