Would a Dean win be a Pyrrhic victory?

Should Dean win the nomination and the general election, I would hope it would be a day of rejoicing - it would be the culmination of many people, of many political stripes, coming together to kick Bush out of the White House. It would be a day that would hold off the worst tragedy this country could ever suffer - four more years of Bushco at the helm.

But what kind of victory would it be? Would Democrats really be happy? Or will so many of them be chafing because their candidate wasn't the one who got the nomination?

Some people seem so bitter about Dean's campaigning success that they aren't looking beyond it to see what an asset that will be in the general election.

What if Dean (or Clark or Kerry or Edwards) goes all the way and wins it, but does not have strong enough support from the rest of the party to protect himself from the inevitable onslaught and shitstorm which will arise from the frustrated right wing? Get ready for ImpeachmentTriviaII, The Sequel - This Time It's Personal. Just the way that Clinton was not supported (or indeed, knifed in the back by his fellow Democrats, like Lieberman) during his times of tribulation at the hands of the right wing media and the Republicans, will whichever Democrat who wins this election be subject to this kind of crap from within his own party?

If Democrats could only use as much anger, indignation, and vile against the Republicans as they do against people in their own party, we wouldn't even have to have this discussion. I feel like this party is going to throw away one of the best campaigners they have seen in a decade, just because - well, I don't know why. Because they'd rather be right.

Anyone that can beat Bush is good enough, in my book. Dean is not perfect. I'd certainly like him to be more of a lefty for my tastes. But he is practical and has shown he has fight and can rally support. And that is both necessary and sufficient for my support.

I feel such despair about people working so hard to "beat Dean" instead of bolstering their own opponents. Is it true that Democrats really want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?

Support your candidates - vigorously, with passion, and with creativity. But don't turn such a wonderful opportunity, such as we have with good candidates, into a losing situation for the Rightards to exploit. If we do that, then we most certainly do deserve to lose, regardless of our policies.

Just bitching a bit, I suppose. But we need to look beyond election day, even, and think about keeping everyone's head above water after what has been done to this country. We've got to hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

WAY premature. We don't have a nominee. The general election, no matter who are nominee is, will be a 'long, hard slog.' I'll be happy to have the chance to become an 'offense as defense' activist fighting off flank attacks from the freeper world. Yes, yes, yes, let us get to that point -- that will be a victory!

Imagine that. Not very pretty. But if a Democrat manages to unseat Bush, it is likely that whoever it is won't have much to work with.

Would a Repub Congress be at all cooperative or would they just attack Dean (or whoever) from Day 2 on?

There's a revolution going on in America....get on board !!

5 Southern Senate seats up for grabs. How much coattails do you really think Northeastern anger guy will bring to these elections?

On edit: And one who wants to raise taxes on the middle class to boot. Some coat tails.

MzPip
:dem:

Not only are 5 Democratic Senate seats up for grabs, but what with the latest round of redistricting, you're going to see an upswing in the number of Republicans in Congress.

Besides, as of this point, I can't help but see Bush with a 54-45-1 percentage win over Dean and Nader, getting over 300 electoral votes in the process... :puke: :mad:

Later,

With all due respect, quite seriously, I would personally consider a Dean nomination a lost battle for me.

Dreaming is good for the soul, isn't it? And wouldn't it be great if homophobes suddenly became tolerant, racists became accepting and repukes had open minds?

so much hunger for half a loaf

I wish I could support Dean - great campaign - but I can't. And this IS a Primary, and it IS politics, and people will feel passionate - they should.

I don't understand all the angst around here, when what we are seeing is democracy in action.

I try

Exsqueeze me?

Bill Clinton ran on a middle-class tax cut, not global tax increases.

Clinton went out of his way to fly back to AK to put a mentally retarded boy to death, not talk about moratoriums on the death penalty or that it should be limited to terrorism, killing a police officer or children.

That last one also hits Civil Rights. Clinton's execution was precisely the kind of racial discrimination Dean is talking about.

Clinton enacted "don't ask, don't tell" leaving homosexual men in a different position than heterosexual men, he didn't sign domestic partner legislation.

Clinton dropped a less agressive health care proposal than Dean is putting forth.

I can't think of ANY issue Dean is to the right of Bill Clinton except guns (which isn't going to net him a whole lot of conservative votes since they're hardly pissed at shrub).

You seeing a lot of DLC types swamping to Dean's campaign lately? Probably seeing pink elephants flying around too?

great post. Well done.

...income inequality continued to increase (albeit at a somewhat slower rate, if I remember correctly) to benefit the wealthiest 1%, he continued to support the racist "War on Drugs," gave us Welfare Reform that gave liscence to the States to let even children go hungry and homeless as well as creating a bigger pool of desperate disposable labor for the benefit of our Corporate Masters (thus also further undermining Labor by leaving a big sink hole where a floor for the lowest wages could be), and left the poorest of the poor even worse off than at the begining of his Administration. Not to mention NAFTA, DOMA, and things I've already forgotten.

It's true that Bush makes Clinton look VERY good, but it is not good to forget that he did much to promote the very trends that increasingly make the US look like a Banana Republic.

And I fear that Dean would be more of the same, or perhaps even less is a better way to put it.

"...to the right of Bill Clinton" is a quote from her odd "ringing" endorsement of Dean from a few weeks ago.
so much hunger for half a loaf

support anyone else but Dean, so it isn't just the opposing candidates supporters. It works both ways.

I'm sick of these stupid don't bash Dean threads. His campaign is slaughter the other candidates and painting them with the same broad Washington insider brush. The candidates have held very different beliefs on the issues over the years, but Dean just bashes them all and scorches the party. Then when they fight back, it's always "let's focus on Bush". The gigs up. We get the strategy. Put your helmets on, it's war. That's what a campaign is supposed to be. Whichever candidate survives the hits will be battle-tested and ready for Rove.

I think it was evident of the Dean fan mettle for battle when many were ready to just give up when Saddam was captured last weekend.

A couple bad polls and more gaffes (which only Dean does so well) and I suspect many Dean fans will leave in droves or go off the charts and drop out.

For Dean to recently say the other candidates should stop "attacking" him proved to me once again that he is not ready for prime time.

Dean has built his campaign based on lies and deception about his issues, his background and the common trend to attack the other major candidates. Look or read his speeches for evidence.

For him to even suggest that we should follow Gore's Tammany Hall hooliganism and just get behind Dean is pure and clear buffoonery.

Will we have universal non-profit healthcare? No.
Will we have butter rather than guns? No.
Will we have an end to the drugs war? No.
Will we have our Constitutional rights back? No.

So who will have really won, if Dean or Clark gets it? Clearly, the people who own the healthcare industry, the war industry, and the prisons industry. Here comes the new boss, just like the old boss. Status quo.

Surely we want more than that, don't we?

Will we have universal non-profit healthcare? No. No, but Dean would work to get the current systems to get everyone healthcare. Dean tried implementing single-payer healthcare and no one wanted it. Dean would love to have it, but it's not practical right now and it's important to get the next best plan passed.

Will we have butter rather than guns? No. Dean will revamp the tax code system to make corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, but Dean will not leave this country defenseless. We still need a military, but Dean will use it to protect Americans and to help with humanitarian crisis, like in Liberia.

Will we have an end to the drugs war? No. Dean will not legalize addictive drugs, but he is for rehab over incarceration for non-violent drug users and believes that crimminal prevention starts with helping parents understand their obligations without abusing their kids and helping schools give hope to kids of a better future.

Will we have our Constitutional rights back? No. Yes. Dean has said that he would either gut all the anti-Constitution clauses from the Patriot Act or scrap PA altogether and start anew. PA does give authorities power to clamp down on money laundering, but the rest of the bill goes too far in curbing American freedoms.

Be for Dean for whatever reasons. But what you've posted isn't anything different than any other candidate, and generally worse. If you scratched the surface, his record doesn't match any of it anyway.

Single payer, one example. You show me where he tried implementing single payer in Vermont. Here's what I found from 2000:

"Healthplan: You have said that in the next economic downturn you expect employers will either drop health insurance coverage or give employees a defined contribution so they can purchase their own coverage. What role do you see managed care playing?

Dean: I think that will push Congress toward (a) single payer (system), which I do not support. First of all, I would hope we would be able to keep the private sector involved, getting managed care companies in the individual market-and in a community-rated state that shouldn't be too difficult. Secondly, allow uninsured individuals to aggregate in some way so they can buy health insurance directly from HMOs and other insurance companies, so that we do not end up relying on government programs."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/405541?RSS&WebLogicSession=P2HE6ICbKIEeNC2y162pTy9bfBb7p4r0h9YS24qY4KYWQufNyd1f|-5153661763812177256/184161395/6/7001/7001/7002/7002/7001/-1

because it would likely result in a return to the White House of its current pResident.

The current angry conflict between supporters should not be seen as carrying on past the primary. We will all be happy to have someone in office who is not George Bush. Certainly ANY of the democratic candidates will be more concerned with the average citizen than the wholly-owned-subsidiary of the plutocrats who reigns now.

If I thought Dean could beat BushCo I'd have no problem supporting him. I just don't see that as being the case. Other than rhetoric, I don't see him bringing anything new to the mix. Ditto Kerry, Edwards et al. They are all people who are presenting the same arguments, the same positions (with new frosting) that the US voter has failed to support in the past.

I don't see a rerun of 2000 being much of an improvement, especially since BushCo is now in a much stronger position than the hapless, hopeless, helpless bungler was when Gore et al managed to piss away a winable election. (Oh! Am I allowed to say something like that on DU?)

Clark is a clearly superior candidate on any level when matched up, mano a mano, with Bush. He also is a fighter, not a scrapper. A boxer, as someone said, fights the whole fight, and doesn't hope for a KO to win it in a hurry.

Clark is already fighting BushCo and largely ignoring the other Democratic candidates. There is no direction to change if he gets the nomination, no need to rethink the strategy.

Kerry vs Dean is ugly, as is Gephardt vs Dean.

Clark vs the other guys is boring.

2004 would go to Bush by a landslide.

I'd probably just replace my Kerry bumpersticker on my car with a Hillary 2008 bumpersticker. Start on trying to get the next Presidential possibility in four more years.

Then I'll watch the trainwreck happen to the Democratic Party.
Heck, maybe it might be a good time to join the Greens.

sure want to!