Dean, his numbers, and what they don't mean

I'm starting to see a trend in the threads here since support for Howard Dean has begun to slip in the polls, and the support for other candidates has increased.

There seems to be a growing conviction among some Dean supporters that the reason for this recent turn of fortune is due to unfair "bashing" of Dean by his opponents and "the media", as well as some sort "Stop Dean" conspiracy involving the DLC, the Clintons and another player to be added later.

Which brings me to my point. I believe that Dean's problems are, in part, his own creation. The so-called "bashing" is something the frontrunner in any campaign goes through, and any weaknesses, inconsistencies or problems that candidate has will be under the glare of criticism once the race comes down to the wire. His success or failure under such scrutiny is the true test of his viability as a nominee.

The bulk of the media coverage he has received until recently has been one of amazement at his campaign's success, the inroads he has made through the internet and grassroots support, and his ability to tap into the anger of the Democrats. There has not been, in my opinion, much criticism or attention paid to the candidate himself or the details of his run. The media is mostly obsessed with the horse race. He was the presumed frontrunner, and has been proclaimed the most likely to win despite the fact that the primaries had not yet got into full swing. However, it is natural that a campaign that has led for so long before the actual primaries would eventually get a second once over by the voters now that it is time to make an irrevocable choice, and that other candidates would also get a much closer look now that attention is finally turning fully toward the primaries.

It is also worth remembering that, in past primaries, frontrunners in December have been blown out of the water by candidates with single digit percentages of support.

It also does a great disservice to the candidates other than Dean, to imply that external influences trying to stop his nomination are the only reason for their newfound support. As much as Dean has brought to the table, all of the candidates have appeal and merit on their own terms, and are every bit as worthy of support as he is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Lieberman and Dean have both attacked Clark in the last week. Doesn't that count?

Oh, I forgot... any criticism of Dean is a smear. Any criticism of other candidates is perfectly valid.

Maybe because he is the frontrunner and stands in their way? As for them being "DLC establishment", that seems to be, first, in the eye of the beholder, and second, applies to anyone who criticises Dean to some people.

And as a black person, I don't like being compared to the KKK, thank you very much.

"And as a black person, I don't like being compared to the KKK, thank you very much."


on edit: never mind this post, I saw the comment, I hope you take notice of the sig line.

:yourock:

I roll, too. ;)

or stop saying what isn't true.

However they have definitely UN-endorsed Dean. Or actually, "put a hit out on him" would be more appropriate.

I had a longer response prepared for this, but it got lost in the censorship of my previous contribution to this thread.

" The AP report stated that more than 75% of the networks' news programs coverage of candidates other than Dean was positive, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found. "

http://www.republicons.org/view_article.asp?RP_ARTICLE_ID=1135

the article you reference also says

"Dean's coverage rose to 59 percent positive in December after former Vice President Al Gore endorsed him, the study found."


So when Dean's negative press was at its high, he was the frontrunner. When media coverage of him IMPROVED (from 49% favorable to 59% favorable) in the month of December, his numbers started to drop.

Perhaps you should hope for more negative coverage.

Does not give a time reference in terms of the positive or negative quality of coverage over time. Was this the case over the entire year, consistently? Has his "negative" coverage increased or decreased over time?

Frankly, I find the presumption of the ability to quantify what constitutes "negative" and "positive" hard to swallow. It is so subjective, it is hard to take such studies seriously. Any criticism, valid or not, can be termed negative. A backhanded compliment can be found "positive". Who decides?

And there's not much there.

Dean is selling "outsider" status, opposition to the Iraq war and NCLB, and "people power," or the idea that his is a grass-roots, bottom-up campaign. Actual policy differences with the other candidates are fairly trivial. Some problems:

*The war has already taken place, and Dean has basically the same recipe for resolving the actual problem in Iraq as every other candidate. So then the question becomes, who will the voters in the GE trust to get the job done? A candidate with actual foreign policy and national security experience, or the ex-Governor of Vermont?

*Outsiders don't parade around the country with insider endorsements and get away with it forever. Dean is playing a double-game, and voters are apparently finally catching on.

*Grass-roots candidates aren't secretive by nature (the papers, Governor, the papers), and they tend to score higher on the humility scale than Dean. Something doesn't add up here; lifetime moderate goes left, claims to be the only true Democrat in the race. Rips the competition for supporting IWR and NCLB, and takes Harkin's endorsement gleefully, even though Harkin voted for each of these things. And how about that $20K payoff to debating partner Moseley Braun? Grass roots candidate or world-class operator? You make the call.

Looks like Iowans are catching on. Hopefully the rest of the country isn't far behind.

I believe Dean's endorsements from those "Washington insider Democrats" that he says need to go have caused voters to question whether or not he is a true outsider.

Gore - insider
Bradley - insider
Harkin - insider

He's been endorsed by the very same Washington insiders he claims not to like. So, in a way, I think it's good that Clark hasn't garnered the traditional party endorsements. I hope President Clinton doesn't endorse him. Clark has a great opportunity to position himself as the true outsider in this race.

Who do you think you are?

Everytime he made a misstep or was dishonest or rude they rewarded him. Not good. Howard is a legend in his own mind. If Dean has turned off voters, there is plenty of blame to go around.