Is Howard Dean the next "Ronald Reagan"?

Mr. Right Is Mr. Wrong

"But the comparison that comes to mind when Lieberman bashes candidates who are popular with the party's base voters is not to the 1972 race, but rather to the 1980 contest for the Republican presidential nomination.

That year, moderate Republicans were horrified by the prospect that the party cadres were preparing to nominate former California Governor Ronald Reagan for president. Reagan's foes warned that if the conservative icon became the nominee, the November election results would be as disastrous as the 1964 campaign where standard-bearing conservative Barry Goldwater got trounced.

... There was even talk that former President Gerald Ford might have to be drafted into the primary competition in order to stop Reagan. But the party faithful could not be dissuaded. They followed their principles and their hearts and went with Reagan. The November election results proved them right. Even if Americans did not agree with Reagan's ideology, they preferred his confident style to the more nuanced and centrist offerings of Jimmy Carter and John Anderson.

Democrats who counsel compromise going into the 2004 contest are likely to find themselves disregarded in much the same way that Republican compromisers were in 1980. And rightly so. If the party chooses a candidate who is confident enough to aggressively challenge George W. Bush, Democrats might well find that steering a bold course is far more appealing to the great mass of American voters that the circumnavigations proposed by Joe Lieberman."












George Bush GOOP




:donut:

And I think you are 100% correct. The Carter campaign wanted to run against the B-movie actor.

I can't wait for the party in DC on Jan 20th. :D

There are historical parallels.

The question is, will the election resemble a 1972 McGovern loss or a 1980 Ronald Reagan upset victory?

(Though I sometimes wonder if we could have another 2000 ... the country is divided 50-50.)

So long as it doesn't resemble 1958.

:shrug:

There are interesting historic parallels.

Dean is first and foremost Dean, however.

Reagan was a stooge. Not really an ideological conservative, but more a vehicle that the Repubs could use to further their agenda. I see Clark as being Reagan for the Democrats in this way: he isn't really a Dem, but he could certainly be of use to Dems because of his likely popularity. This is not necessarily a bad thing either, IMO, in case you think I am bashing Clark.

In 1980 the Democrats were salivating at the prospect of facing Ronald Reagan. Today, the Republicans are salivating at the prospect of facing Howard Dean, not Wesley Clark.

nt

..but Reagan won when many democrats crossed over and voted Republican.

I don't see (yet) a scenario where Republicans cross over to vote for Dean.

http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

or this interesting result

WOULD CONSIDER VOTING FOR DEAN IN NOVEMBER
(Registered voters)
Yes
All
42%
Dems
67%
Reps
14%
Ind
42%


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml?cmp=EM8707

Dean's campaign parallels Reagan's very heavily in the way he's appealing to anger of that part of the Democratic base that didn't move to the right along with Bill Clinton, much in the same way Reagan appealed to the RW of the Republican party. In addition to that, Dean appeals to moderate, non-partisan Republicans (believe it or not, there are plenty of them) the same way Reagan appealed to the "Wallace Democrats."

What remains to be seen is whether Dean's campaign will run more parallel to the 1976 - when Reagan first tapped into the base, but too late to win enough delegates - or the 1980 primary season & election.

You mean parallel to Jimmy Carter?

(Carter said on Larry King Live that Dean's campaign reminded him of his own. Jimmy Carter was an unknown in 1976 who came out of nowhere.)

In the late half of the primary season, that's when Reagan started scooping up delegates, but too late to get enough to win the nomination.

In 1976 the only names I was familiar with were Carter, Ford, and Nixon. (I was in school ... obviously I wasn't learning much.)

:silly:

nt

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

Those are some strong words. :crazy:

How could you say such a thing!

couldn't resist!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=561616


:silly:

How Dean Could Win . . .

By William Kristol
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27
…
Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It's Bush, Dean will point out, who's trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.
…
The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47806-2003Dec8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=24883

TO: Moore Information Clients & Friends

FROM: Hans Kaiser & Bob Moore

RE: Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

A recent article by David Brooks left readers with the distinct impression that Republican pollsters are all of the opinion that Howard Dean cannot possibly beat George Bush. We regret that he didn’t check with us first, as it is our belief that Dean has the potential to be a formidable candidate who could give the President a very difficult race.

The conventional wisdom that has some Republicans giddy about a potential Dean candidacy is not only misguided, it is counterproductive. Writing off a candidate like Dean by selectively sorting statistical gobble-de-gook and mixing it into a broth of “empirical” sociological evidence ignores the political realities of our time.
…
The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle. More than any other candidate in the field, he will be able to present himself as one who cares about people (doctor), who balances budgets (governor), and who appears well grounded while looking presidential. To be sure, he doesn’t look that way to the GOP base, but that has no bearing on the election, because they will never vote for him anyway. He can appeal to the middle and Republicans can ignore his candidacy at our peril. We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover.

Howard Dean’s appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan’s than any other Democrat running today. Granted, that’s not saying much with this field, but there are similarities here. The Democrat party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes which they believed would marginalize him to the far right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. Howard Dean has the potential to offer a similar type candidacy.
…
http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=709103

Bush team considers Dean formidable Republicans admit they underestimated Dem candidate

By Judy Keen
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Republican Party officials and political advisers to President Bush admit that they underestimated Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and say they now consider him a formidable potential adversary.

Some Bush allies say he reminds them of another insurgent candidate who once bedeviled Bush: Arizona Sen. John McCain. His wins in Republican primary elections in New Hampshire and Michigan rattled Bush's 2000 campaign.

''There is something going on there, and I tell you, if we don't pay attention . . . we're making a big mistake,'' says Tom Rath, a Republican strategist and Bush adviser in New Hampshire.
…
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030908/5477666s.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=103020

:yourock:

someone who is loved by America..
but has leftist liberal policies..

he is much more liberal than dean who i find too conservative and republican to be the next president after what we have been through..

i also doubt he would have any chance of winning..
end of story,,

ahh, not this American.

Dean will win, end of story.

You think the South and central states will go for a wishy washy stuttering record sealed loud mouth who keeps Blinking when he's not saying something ridiculous like Bush knew about 9-11..

true or not - this does not get you votes outside your 150,000 meetup member cult..

Clark will appeal to the sort of folk who don't use the internet..
who want a leader that they know can respect their values while still keeping them safe

Dean does none of those things.. and apart from his anti war rethoric - echoed by every other candidate- I am really lost on why you think he can be the next commander in chief friend,,

Dean is kicking Clarks ass in the polls in Georgia. Last time I checked that was the south.

Also, here are the latest polls.

http://pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

This is a 'telephone' poll, not an 'internet' one. I do believe most Southerners own phones? Also, catch post # 14, pretty much clear up the Dean's not electable lie.

Doubt you'll read this, but Greider spells it out...

Why I'm for Dean
by William Greider


First, the rivals saw him as a McGovernite lefty from the 1960s. When that didn't take, they decided to depict him as a right-wing clone of Newt Gingrich who wants to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. Finally, opponents sold political reporters on the story of Mr. Malaprop, an oddball from tiny, liberal Vermont so insensitive to the nuances of American politics his mouth will destroy him. Howard Dean surged ahead through all this. The other candidates and witting collaborators in the press got him wrong every time.

Howard Dean is an odd duck, certainly, in the milieu of the contemporary Democratic Party. He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school--a shrewd, intuitive pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach--leading, it's called--seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and focus groups, the data interpreted for politicians by expensive consultants. The press corps has not had much experience with Democrats of this type, so reporters read Dean's style as emotional, possibly a character flaw. He reminds me of olden days when Democrats were a more contentious bunch, always fighting noisily among themselves and often with creative results.

The ubiquitous "party sources" have explained that Dean merely caught a lucky break by declaring early and forcefully against the war on Iraq at a time when Americans were overwhelmingly prowar. Who knew things might change? The doctor knew.

A more pertinent question is, Why didn't other leading candidates see this tragedy coming? Their reticence was symptomatic of the inert Washington insiders, exceedingly cautious, indifferent to whatever roils the party's rank and file, and always a few steps behind the curve. The explanation that Washington candidates voted for the war on principle or were misled by Bush doesn't help them. Their blindness to the potential consequences (now unfolding) is another reason to be for Dean. He, meanwhile, speaks plainly to the error of US imperialism. "America is not Rome. We do not dream of empire. We dream of liberty for all."

More: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031215&s=greider

Isn't that why he would pick Clark as his running mate if he gets the nomination?

No,
Although Reagan was a major right-wing idealogue, he won
because he came across as completely harmless, a nice old
man with some apparent public warmth. He convinced many apolitical voters he was a moderate simply on the basis of this personality.
That was why he used the "There you go again" on Carter.

Dean is a charismatic but polarizing figure, even we Democrats either love him or hate him (just look at DU). If he wins, he'll win as a partisan, which historically is very rare outside of times of great national upheaval.

If anyone could be the Demo equivalent of Reagan in this election it would be Clark, because of his background and warmth, the apolitical masses would consider him a moderate. However, it looks like Dean will be the nominee, so let's hope that Dean writes a new chapter in the history books.

It's a historical parallel.

A candidate whom the party in power craves to run against because they think they can easily defeat him but who winds up winning, leaving the pundits asking themselves how they misread the American public.

I speak as one of those PUN-ditz.

:silly:

Without the jowls or landslides. :-)

Besides, Ronald Reagan is no longer governor and Mike Dukkakis would never move to California.

:shrug:

;)

(From Bartcop)

thats terrific

"President Jimmy Carter and the Democrats rubbed their hands with glee in 1979 and 1980 at the prospect of facing Ronald Reagan in the general election. They thought him too far outside the mainstream to win. What they didn’t realize was that Reagan was creating a new mainstream and would reshape American politics for a generation.

Some Republicans are rubbing their hands at the increasing likelihood that President Bush’s opponent next November will be former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whom they believe could be depicted as another Michael Dukakis. They may be right that Dean is unelectable. On the other hand, when a wave begins to form, it’s not clear whether it’s going to peter out without effect or keep building until it sweeps all before it. Dean as Dukakis or Dean as Reagan? One day we’ll know."

http://www.hillnews.com/editorial/121003.aspx




"His stump performances have even impressed conservative columnist Robert Novak, who reminds Republicans (many of whom are salivating at the prospect of running against the man who legalized civil unions in Vermont) that Democrats -- in California in 1966 and nationally in 1980 -- had been certain they would win in November if the GOP would only nominate the eminently beatable Ronald Reagan."

http://us.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/28/column.shields.opinion.dean/



"The Democratic Party is a lot like the Republican Party in 1980. Joe Lieberman reflects the careful centrist, trying to ride in the wake of Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s successes and hoping that there is something there in the center that can win the Democrats the next presidential election."

http://www.occams-razor.info/archives/000066.html

He may be the next Richard Nixon.

You mean he'll have to resign and turn over the reins to his Vice President, Wes Clark???

:silly:

Reagan did and staff agencies like the EPA with people hostile to their purposes. He might institute less progressive taxes, I suppose, as I hear he did in Vermont, from somebody else's post.

Reagan created the biggest budget deficits this country has ever seen. We are still paying for them.

Lots of anger (heat) but no program for change (light); a professional, connected politician who's playing the outsider role to appeal to voters; has gotten a major pass on his issue positions by the press because they're more interested in his fundraising prowess (Dean)/flamboyant personality (Ventura), appeal to some "disenfranchised" middle-class who somehow suddenly feels "victimized" by the current crop of corporatists who run the White House/State House.

And many many more...

Jesse "The Body" Ventura was a great wrestler.

(and wrestling isn't fixed like elections)

:P

hmmm ... isn't that like the San Diego Chargers telling the Green Bay Packers they have no chance of going to the Super Bowl this year?

:silly:


By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM, Associated Press Writer

"MANCHESTER, N.H. - With a month to go before the New Hampshire primary, John Kerry made some of his strongest attacks yet against Democratic front-runner Howard Dean), portraying Dean as inexperienced in foreign policy, wrong-headed on the economy and a muddled thinker."

full story

Clark takes away Chimp's only issue--national security. Dean turns National Security into Rove's twenty ton sledge hammer.

I don't think Dean is there.

EOM

Howard Dean has decided that the DLC isn't even good enough for the party. So instead of uniting people together and drawing independents and republicans, it's best to just tap the .1% of the population that blogs. No way guys. Doesn't work like that.

Even though we hate Dubya, there are a lot of people who love him and this will be a very close election, as opposed to a landslide - if we nominate the right person who can attract even registered republicans and make em switch! A person with great character and leadership can and will do that, that's Wes Clark.

Anytime a Republican classmate of mine tells me she is going to vote for Dean in our open primary, I cringe. Deaniacs - get real!!!

Barry Goldwater got the nom in 1964 for the republicans and lost, meanwhile changing the tone of conservative politics. And it hasn't changed. If Dean gets the nom, I hope he doesn't convince all Dems to be angry as a means to bring change. We don't need anger, we need leadership.

2000 was the year of the McCainiac. 2004 seems to be the year of the Deaniac.

Both parties don't like "iacs" so perhaps what Bush did to McCain you can expect someone high up (Senator Clinton?) will do to Dean.

DAVID BROOKS

"In 2000, John McCain led an insurgent campaign against the Republican establishment. Say what you will about GOP elites, they do not lack self-confidence. When McCain hit them, they hit back, viciously. In South Carolina, they insulted McCain's honor, caused him to lose his equilibrium and left him battered and defeated.

An election later, the Democratic establishment faces its own insurgency campaign. Howard Dean has launched a comprehensive assault on his party's leaders. First, he attacked their character, charging that they didn't have the guts to stand up to George Bush. Then, he attacked their power base, building an alternative fund-raising and voter mobilization structure. Now he is attacking their ideas, dismissing the Clinton era as a period of mere damage control.

So how are the Democratic leaders defending themselves? They are responding as any establishment responds when it has lost confidence in itself, when it has lost faith in its ideas, when it has lost the will to fight. ..."


Full Story

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

It was a J. G. Ballard short story -- I altered the title to conform to polite practice in this discussion -- but he did use the eff word.

It is said that at the GOP convention, some GOP young staffers took the title off the story and sent it around as a joke. It was apparently taken as a serious outline (it was told in outline form) of why Reagan would appeal to the younger voters.

The rest is history. Or so says Ballard. :-)

Maybe Dean can get J.G. Ballard to write a story about him???? Ballard went to medical school...maybe former doctors can stick together?????

While I don't actually think Dean is a Ronald Reagan in terms of appeal, if the media believes he is, then people's perception will change.

I guess my main reason for the self-serving kick is to see if anyone else is familiar with this bit of Reagan campaign lore.

There was time when Reagan was not the Great Communicator but simply the hilariously wrong-spoken governor of California. Images can be changed for good or ill.