The "Republicans want Dean" issue

A lot of time is spent around here discussing the fact that the Dean campaign has gotten donations from the GOP, who want him to be the nominee, since they believe he would be the easiest candidate to beat. Let's have a look at a few other things Republicans believe:

1) Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2004
2) Wesley Clark is a "stalking horse" for the Clintons
3) The Clinton administration was responsible for 9/11
4) Abortion is murder
5) The death penalty is groovy
6) Pre-emptive wars are groovy too
7) Ronald Reagan is the greatest president we ever had
8) Bush* won the election fair and square
9) Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11
10) Fox News is fair and balanced

And so forth. In other words, they have a very long history of being wrong about things. I don't see why their assessment of Dean is any different.

If a Democratic candidate other than Dean becomes the nominee, it should be because the most Democrats voted for him or her in the primaries, and NOT because we are suddenly crediting the right wing with some kind of insight or prescience that they have never displayed before. I don't think we should allow Karl Rove to pick or disqualify our candidates for us.

That's all...

Remember, back in 1980 the Dems thought that Reagan would be a push-over.

For example, I guarantee you they don't think HRC is running for president in 2004. It's something they say to get people to donate money to the Republican Party so that they can beat the Democrat who does win.

The Republicans generally aren't wrong about what they need to do to win elections. They're working to very tight margins and they have demographic trends working against them. However, there's so much wealth at stake that they're definitely focused on the prize.

The Republicans are nothing if not highly motivated. I certainly would never begrudge them that. I just don't believe that they're right in this case.

and that they don't know what's going to work and what isn't going to work?

nt

There's way too much at stake to take changes.

the 'focus group' statistics? I'd be interested in seeing them.

Here are some numbers which indicate any Dem is going to do about the same against * so far. Thus Dean is the best bet because he's raised the most $$ and obviously has greater appeal then the Dems who are behind him in this race.

http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

http://pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

"Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Nov. 18-Dec. 1, 2003. N=469 likely Democratic primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 5:

Which one of the following Democratic candidates would be your first choice for president: ?" If "Don’t know": "Just as of today, would you say you LEAN toward ?"


Howard Dean 15
Wesley Clark 15
Joe Lieberman 12
Richard Gephardt 12
John Kerry 6
John Edwards 5
Al Sharpton 5
Carol Moseley Braun 4
Dennis Kucinich 2
Other (vol.) 1
Don't know/No answer 23
.

"Regardless of who you personally prefer, which Democratic candidate do you think has the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in the November presidential election?" Names re-read, if necessary.


Howard Dean 19
Wesley Clark 11
Joe Lieberman 8
Richard Gephardt 7
John Kerry 6
John Edwards 2
Al Sharpton 2
Carol Moseley Braun 1
Dennis Kucinich 0
Other (vol.) 3
None has a chance (vol.) 6
Don't know/No answer 35

I'm saying their reasons for wanting him are flawed, just like all the other bullshit they believe.

The Carter administration also wanted Reagan; Bush Sr. wanted Clinton. Sometimes you ought to be careful what you wish for. I doubt you'd have the chair of the GOP going to a candidate's home state to run attack ads if you "wanted" someone to get the nomination. They ARE scared, and well should be.

Dean '04...

That is such unabashed proselytizing that it borders on the absurd.

I believe that's what they call "overplaying one's hand".

That would be unbelievably stupid. If I were a Republican wonk, I'd CLAIM to want to run against the candidate I fear the most.

If they want him to run so badly, why are they already running ads against him, BEFORE the primaries?

because people will think "oh, he's gonna lose, let's not nominate him"?
they know democrats are far too self-destructive to realize that, as evinced by his support even with informed people like DUers
They know what they're doing.
Sucks doesn't it?

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Nov. 18-Dec. 1, 2003. N=469 likely Democratic primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 5:

"Which one of the following Democratic candidates would be your first choice for president: ?" If "Don’t know": "Just as of today, would you say you LEAN toward ?"


Howard Dean 15
Wesley Clark 15
Joe Lieberman 12
Richard Gephardt 12
John Kerry 6
John Edwards 5
Al Sharpton 5
Carol Moseley Braun 4
Dennis Kucinich 2
Other (vol.) 1
Don't know/No answer 23
.

"Regardless of who you personally prefer, which Democratic candidate do you think has the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in the November presidential election?" Names re-read, if necessary


Howard Dean 19
Wesley Clark 11
Joe Lieberman 8
Richard Gephardt 7
John Kerry 6
John Edwards 2
Al Sharpton 2
Carol Moseley Braun 1
Dennis Kucinich 0
Other (vol.) 3
None has a chance (vol.) 6
Don't know/No answer 35

The Republicans are BLUFFING. They fear Dean big time. :hi: Buh bye George!

1) the DLC kneejerks in reaction and stabs Dean in the back because they don't have the good sense to actually analyze anything the GOP says

2) voters who _do_ take the time to think these things over will probably come to the conclusion that the GOP is trying to use reverse psychology. Dean has them running scared, therefore they will vote for him.

So here we go again, yet another split on the left.

but I think the DLC will back Dean if he gets the nomination (or at least not undercut him), if only because they have no other choice.

that is the case.

Otherwise the rest of us will have to pull together without them.

But, you would think it would be in their best power-hungry interests to support the Dem nominee, whoever it turns out to be.

although not only RWers are against abortion (I'm pro-choice, BTW). But I agree wholeheartedly that our nominee will be chosen by OUR voters.

I honestly will support the nominee, whoever he or she is or however he or she gets nominated --- I just hope it's the result of the wishes of the Democratic electorate as opposed to fear of Karl Rove.

republican leaders know those things are not true but lie
Karl Rove doesn't believe any of those 10 points but wants Dean

But that doesn't mean his reasons for wanting him are sound.

Deanieweenies may not like it, but the truth is the GOP want him to be the DEM nominee. The reason Dean's candidacy is a loser in the general election is he is a draft dodger. Spin it any way you want, but Dean showed up at his draft physical with a note from his doctor and an X-ray, then said all the right things to get out of Vietnam. Then, he celebrated by spending that winter skiing the moguls in Vale, Colorado.

In the general election, Ho-Ho will be painted as Coward Dean. End result: Four more years of Bush. That's why the GOP supports Ho-Ho, overtly and covertly.

You're cute.

It's used as a term of endearment.

EDIT: Can't spell on teeny tiny monitor.

punishment of a 6 month extention to his duty time.

The man was found guilty - how do they hide that?

(I know the whore media will do all it can - but how do they get around the 6 month ext. as punishment that is in the record - granted the punishment papers have been removed - but the ext to his time is obvious by looking at the dates)

...they control the Congress, the Courts, just about every darn thing that can be bought. What we got on our side, including the good Dean supporters ("The Deanieweenies"), is the people. The majority of Americans are good people and they want clean government, fair elections and a level playing field for home, school, and work.

That said, too large a percentage of them also get their news largely from TV. Remember Selection 2000: The consortium of news organizations that counted the overvotes found Gore won Florida by 50,000 votes or whatever it was, it was huge. That was in 7 of 8 scenarios examined. The only one which showed Bush as the winner was the one that counted only part of the votes. Which was the one reported in virtually EVERY NEWSPAPER, RADIO AND TV STATION? Bush wins Florida.

Then came 9-11 and we weren't supposed to think about anything except rallying behind Fearless Pretzel. Even DUers were saying put Florida behind us, we got bigger fish to fry than POTUS and the SCOTUS. Well, history will repeat itself if Smirk and Sneer and Rove have anything to say about it.

The American people will hear non-stop next year about the brave hero of Baghdad, George W Bush. We on DU, and anyone who knows anything about the drunken lout, know he's an AWOL frontman fraud of an election stealing conspiracy. But that won't change how ABCNNBCBSFOX portrays the draft dodger Bush as hero. Yee-uck.

Most people I bring it up with DO have a problem with draft-dodging when it comes to the President, especially men. Ask a man you know who is undecided and who has not heard the story. Tell the story about Dean's visit to the draft board doctor and how he went skiing that winter in Vale and listen to the reaction. I bet you find it matters then.

There is no way Dean can convince the middle class that paying higher taxes will help their lives.

Is Dean able to explain to an average citizen, who doesn't even pay attention til the week before the election by the way, that higher taxes and the PROMISE of health insurance for all is in his/her best interest? Especially after that average citizen has already taken a paycut or had their benefits slashed and is paying higher property taxes and state fees ALREADY.

NO WAY!

He has the ability to speak in language the general public understands. Once they see there are good reasons for raising their taxes, they'll still vote for the guy who promises to lower them. End result: Four more years of Bush.

Dean is flawed because he didn't want to go to Vietnam? What's flawed is a sense that because he got out of Vietnam he is unelectable. Remember Bill Clinton? He got out of Vietnam and was skewered in the press for having done so.

People who would base their decision on this exemplify what is wrong with the Democratic party. Too many of us are completely reactive.

I agree that republicans aren't always correct in their assessments of electibility. Can't we trust our own instincts about who is the best candidate and who will be most appealing to the majority of voters instead of reacting to what we think they think? Many Democrats honestly won't believe that Howard Dean is the best candidate or that he will be the most appealing. That's fine and they should support someone else. But second guessing ourselves out of fear of what republicans really want is a losing proposition.

Second, you can't trust what republicans say. They say they want Dean (well, sometimes they do. other times they worry that he's the Democratic Ronald Reagan). Do they mean this? Is it reverse psychology? Double reverse psychology? We don't know and we should stop wasting time trying to figure it out.

Third, nominating a candidate because we think that that candidate won't be able to be demonized by the right wing as a godless, gay-loving, abortion-loving, gun-hating, terrorist sympathizer is just CRAZY! ANY CANDIDATE WE NOMINATE WILL BE PORTRAYED THAT WAY! We could nominate Zell Miller and he'd be portrayed that way. If they could do it to Max Clelland they can do it to anybody (and even if you are suspicious of the results of the 2002 Georgia election, there is no denying that they succeeded in convincing way too many people that a man who gave three limbs in service to his country was Osama's best friend).

We need a candidate who can fight against $200 million worth of demonizing, because we won't be able to find someone who can avoid it. They republican playbook will be the same no matter who we put up. Howard Dean is in the best position to do that because he is the best able to attract supporters who can talk to their neighbors, friends and coworkers one-on-one and bypass the media spin. Many people don't understand the appeal, but they'd be foolhardy to deny it. The crowds, the meetup supporters, the many, many small checks -- it's a phenomenon.

Dean has quite a centrist record and the ability to run what is essentially a national grassroots campaign to communicate that record. I believe that he'll win. But if he can't, then nobody else could have either.

Allowing the GOP to determine who our nominee is going to be is not such a hot idea, in my opinion.

And how do we know they have donated? As far as I can tell the Republicans for Dean are people who honestly perfer him over Bush.

the GOP does want Dean. It's obvious if one has been paying attention to the media.

And it isn't just the republicans either. There are Democrats who think Dean would lose to Bush also.

I do agree with the last bit however in not letting GOP leadership determine the candidate. But that shouldn't mean hiding a head into the sand about what the GOP thinks about the candidates.

I am not saying they don't want Dean. I'm sure they are convinced he's unelectable. However, that doesn't mean they're right. We shouldn't confuse their doublespeak diversionary tactics with actual knowledge.

:toast:

And if they do want Dean, good. So do I! He'll clean *'s clock!

It'd be an amazing story - not just that the Dems beat Bush but that the country is ready for 1) someone whose key position in the campaign was an anti-war position; 2) a president from the Northeast (not since JFK and the southern strategy); and 3) someone (like Mondale) who out of the box says he'll raise tases on the middle class.

It's #3 that has me most worried. Dean supporters say that he's not "raising" taxes, he's "repealing" the Bush tax cut - which is true and I agree. But I'm not sure most voters will get the distinction, and the Rethugs will be relentless on this point.

I agree that Rethugs are stupid, etc.., but I'd still rather rally behind a candidate that they're afraid of.

OK, flame away!!