Why Dean is Electable

Three Points as for Dean's electability:

1. Clark, as the anti-Dean, will be mute from March through July, 2004 while George W. Bush runs $100 million in TV ads. Why did Clark ever agree to be handicapped by spending limits while Bush is not? How can Clark possibly win in that environment? Groups as Move-on.org, can't work in Clark's favor because they can't mention him by name, and neither can other groups due to the Supreme Court ruling.

2. Dean's list of publicly announced foreign policy advisors is here:

http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002697.html

This list is chock full of the best and the brightest in the foreign policy community, all of whom want to be publicly associated with Dean because of his foreign policy positions and thinking.

Please point me to the comparable press releases for other candidates. Thanks.

3. Electability means the ability to get elected. Howard Dean has been elected five consecutive times in his state (just counting governor races), and he understands the political process having been through that experience repeatedly. Even Dennis Kucinich has been through several elections. Don't you think it is reasonable that many Democrats are skeptical of Clark's electability since he has never stood for election before? Many Democrats don't want a repeat of Bill McBride in Florida: a great guy, but a lousy campaigner when push comes to shove. With no electoral track record, we're concerned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From WillyBrandt, a Clark Supporter and my response to his pro-dean statements:

(1) He will silence the Greens. Not a huge issue, unless we have Lieberman, but Dean and Kucinich will be the most likely to eliminate the Green threat--not so much by their positions but by the nature and composition of their campaigns. Actually, Dean has a lot of Greens in his campaign, and this plays well on his ability to draw support from groups such as independents, greens, democrats, and moderate republicans.

(2) Money. Not merely in the inter-period between primaries and elections, but overall. He can bankroll a big campaign.A big campaign is what's needed to beat Bush---especially in the inter-period between primaries and campaigns---this is why Dean emerges as the strongest candidate to do that since he opted out.

(3) He fights, and does not appear bureaucratic. The force of his speech and personality will rid people of the wimp stereotype quick. Whether it turns them off is another matter, but it seems like a favorable gamble. It's a gamble that's worked so far in the recent polls we've seen.

(4) Many enthusiastic supports who already have some experience agitating politically. Getting the base out is not everything, but it's something; and Dean has a base ready to go. Whether he will excite other parts of the "base"--African Americans, Latinos, etc.--is not yet clear.Dean's lead in DC, and in the poll from SC says to me that he is in the process of exciting African-Americans, and he also drew a large group of Latinos when Dean visited the Southwest earlier this week.

(5) General political skill, not only personally but in his political advisors as well. He has gone from a nobody to the Democratic frontrunner. This is, in essence, an uncertain quantity: can this general ability translate into General Victory? It's not clear, but it augurs well.I think it bodes very well that Dean rose to the top from being an asterik in the poll, because the pundits kept saying he'd peaked, and then he kept surpassing what they said---this is an ability that will bode well in the general election.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From Askew, a Dean supporter:

The reasons I think he'll get elected:

1. His healthcare plan makes sense and can actually get passed through congress.

2. His economic plan - He makes a strong case for why the BushTax isn't working, what is going wrong in our economy and how he is going to fix it.

3. His record as governor of VT - balanced budget, healthcare plan, etc.

4. His personality - his straight talking and the way he works the room during speechs, town halls, etc. Also, he stands up for himself with the media and frames the debate so well.

5. His position on Iraq - He's been right so far and the polls are siding with him by a very slim margin. And, unfortunately, I think Iraq will get worse before it gets better and Dean will be able to use that to illustrate how inept Bush* is at foreign policy.

6. He isn't easily labelled "liberal" or "conservative" much like most Americans. This makes it hard for the media and the GOP to pick a consistent attack and he has a broader appeal this way.

7. His campaign and supporters. They have raised an amazing amount of money and are willing to go to great lengths to get the word out about Dean. This will help offset the media's lies.

8. His "A" rating with the NRA. While he is more pro-gun control than Bush*, he still isn't as pro-gun control as some of the other Democratic candidates or Gore. This will be a big issue in many of the swing and southern states and the NRA sponsored a ton of attack ads on Democratic candidates in the past, having them sit out this race will definitely help.

9. The deficit and his fiscal conservatism. This one is a huge plus. Dean's record of balancing the budget will really help bring conservatives who are furious with Bush*'s insane spending over to our side.

10. Environmental policy - I think Dean's plan of tying a lot of our environmental plan for alternative energy sources into the Pentagon's budget and making it part of the National Security debate was genius. Yes, I am sure some other Democratic candidate did it first, but he explains this so well, that I think even people who are not concerned about the environment would understand the argument.

:kick:

I know it sounds crazy but I've believed it since the first second I heard about it.

I was under the impression that this was related to the primaries only.

"Clark, as the anti-Dean, will be mute from March through July, 2004 while George W. Bush runs $100 million in TV ads."

It's huge. Just that and that alone.

and instead find another predictably lame smear on Clark.

Oooohh! Dean has ADVISORS!! Oooh!!

by some of his verklempt supporters.

Oy vey.

I rarely ever respond to a thread saying something positive about Dean, unless I chime in OR it contains slant attacks on Clark. How about the first line of point #1 or the McBride statement in point #3?

Just examples. This was very definitely an anti-Clark thread.

while * is busy attacking Wes Clark if he gets the nomination, hmm?

Hawkeye-X

Or like the Clark campaign calling out the Chicken-Hawks. Tell Trippi he better come up with something better than the sympathy vote or Rove will put a cap in his ass...

Clark Campaign Strategist Reid Cherlin responded to Tom 'Chicken-hawk' Delay's latest cowardly comments, "The closest to real combat that Tom 'Chicken-Hawk' Delay has ever come was when he got himself a student deferment from Vietnam and instead suited up in his exterminator outfit and defended the people of Texas against invading cockroaches, marauding red ants and hostile moths. Wes Clark has seen real combat, given his blood for our country, and commanded troops in battle, which is why he believes we need to win the war on terrorism instead of declaring victory when we all know that the terrorists directly responsible for 9/11 are still out there at large. General Clark lives in a world where he believes that America will be stronger, safer and more secure if we are focused on winning the war against the terrorists, getting Osama bin Laden and working with our Allies."

http://clark04.com/press/release/135/

"Letting air out of ballon?"

Slinkerwink = MEME-STOMPER!!!

:hi: :evilgrin:

;-)

Your first point seems to just be a criticism of Clark, rather than an argument for Dean's electability. Anyway, couldn't groups like MoveOn still run anti-Bush ads that would benefit our nominee, even if they can't mention the nominee by name?

Secondly, I can't speak for you, but it has to be the candidate that earns my vote, not the advisors behind him. I can't imagine an undecided voter being swayed by the names of a few advisors, especially if they don't much like the candidate himself. Especially if they've never even heard of the advisors.

As for your third point, I won't contend the assertion that Dean's been in the political arena longer than Clark. That's not by any means a guarantee of success in the GE. Furthermore, Clark's lack of experience does not by any means indicate that he doesn't know how to run a campaign. In fact, if Clark manages to win the nomination despite Dean's time, money, and name recognition advantages, it would be evident to me that he ended up running a better campaign, wouldn't you say?

to believe that he's earned that on his own----if Clark isn't doing that, then how can we believe he's electable? :shrug:

can raise enough money and support to be Dean's main rival, given how long Dean and all the other candidates have been in the race, there's no telling how things will go come primary season. Besides that, once our nominee's chosen, the best-run campaign will be a moot point - because hopefully we'll all come together behind whoever's chosen. Right? :D

Just because he would not officialy say he was running while he was going on all the shows about talking about running... doesn't mean he wasn't campaigning.

And how long were the draft Clark people were doing all the PR for him?

Frankly I expected Clark to do better than this... and I think Clark's people did too, which is why they keep floating the 3 month old campaign meme.

I'm sorry, this is a very weak defense of Dean's electability:

(1) Clark is not the anti-Dean regardless of what a bunch of pinhead pundits say. He's his own man, who is actually very similar on most issues to Dean. Moreover, this has nothing to do whether Dean himself is electable in the general. It's a Clark-bash, little more.

(2) The foreign policy advisors bit is good, and speaks well to his ability to govern. But it will have little effect on whether he'll be President. The smears and caricatures by the Whores will be directed against Dean, not his team.

(3) This comes closest to it. Dean is a skillful politician, but the ability to get elected in Vermont does not mean the ability to get elected in Florida or Arkansas. As an easy counterpoint: Adlai Stevenson had been elected a number of times, but he lost to a never-elected General named Eisenhower.

Here's the beginnings of a better pro-Dean electability argument:

(1) He will silence the Greens. Not a huge issue, unless we have Lieberman, but Dean and Kucinich will be the most likely to eliminate the Green threat--not so much by their positions but by the nature and composition of their campaigns.

(2) Money. Not merely in the inter-period between primaries and elections, but overall. He can bankroll a big campaign.

(3) He fights, and does not appear bureaucratic. The force of his speech and personality will rid people of the wimp stereotype quick. Whether it turns them off is another matter, but it seems like a favorable gamble.

(4) Many enthusiastic supports who already have some experience agitating politically. Getting the base out is not everything, but it's something; and Dean has a base ready to go. Whether he will excite other parts of the "base"--African Americans, Latinos, etc.--is not yet clear.

(5) General political skill, not only personally but in his political advisors as well. He has gone from a nobody to the Democratic frontrunner. This is, in essence, an uncertain quantity: can this general ability translate into General Victory? It's not clear, but it augurs well.

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

if Dean chose Bob Graham, and he is very popular in the South as well as Dean too. If Clark doesn't want the VP job, then Bob Graham will take it, and believe it or not, Graham is the man for the job and serve & deliver the South, as part of the 50-state strategy.

Hawkeye-X

The reasons I think he'll get elected:

1. His healthcare plan makes sense and can actually get passed through congress.
2. His economic plan - He makes a strong case for why the BushTax isn't working, what is going wrong in our economy and how he is going to fix it.
3. His record as governor of VT - balanced budget, healthcare plan, etc.
4. His personality - his straight talking and the way he works the room during speechs, town halls, etc. Also, he stands up for himself with the media and frames the debate so well.
5. His position on Iraq - He's been right so far and the polls are siding with him by a very slim margin. And, unfortunately, I think Iraq will get worse before it gets better and Dean will be able to use that to illustrate how inept Bush* is at foreign policy.
6. He isn't easily labelled "liberal" or "conservative" much like most Americans. This makes it hard for the media and the GOP to pick a consistent attack and he has a broader appeal this way.
7. His campaign and supporters. They have raised an amazing amount of money and are willing to go to great lengths to get the word out about Dean. This will help offset the media's lies.
8. His "A" rating with the NRA. While he is more pro-gun control than Bush*, he still isn't as pro-gun control as some of the other Democratic candidates or Gore. This will be a big issue in many of the swing and southern states and the NRA sponsored a ton of attack ads on Democratic candidates in the past, having them sit out this race will definitely help.
9. The deficit and his fiscal conservatism. This one is a huge plus. Dean's record of balancing the budget will really help bring conservatives who are furious with Bush*'s insane spending over to our side.
10. Environmental policy - I think Dean's plan of tying a lot of our environmental plan for alternative energy sources into the Pentagon's budget and making it part of the National Security debate was genius. Yes, I am sure some other Democratic candidate did it first, but he explains this so well, that I think even people who are not concerned about the environment would understand the argument.

;-)

Point 1: is no given. Howard Dean has a potential to raise Bush-like dollars but there is no guarantee that he will. The importance of this point is also based upon a myth: Gore lost to Bush because he had to few dollars. Gore lost to Bush because he 1) played mostly defense against both Bush and the media; 2) suffered some negative Clinton backlash among more conservative middle-of-the-roaders; 3) lost some key left-wing support to Nader; 4) he failed to mount a strong fight in some key states like Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire; 5) tactically failed to ask for a statewide recount in FL.

Point 2: the fact that a campaign has advisors means what exactly? All campaigns have advisors, even the losing campaigns. People don't vote for advisors, they vote for candidates. I'm not sure what this point contributes to overall "electiblity".

Point 3: there is no strong evidence that electibility in the Presidential election requires a track record of winning other elections. Most failed Presidential candidates in fact won many other elections. I'm not saying that having won elections isn't important simply that it is not prima facie evidence for winning the Presidency.

"most democrats don't want a repeat of Bill McBride." In fact, most democrats probably don't even know who Bill McBride. I'd say an even greater number of democrats probably don't want a repeat of McGovern, Mondale or Dukakis. Not that this is any more relevant to this particular campaign but also no more specious.

Electibility in 2004 will be about winning and energizing the democratic base however getting 5% more turnout in heavily "blue" states isn't going to carry the election. It also means winning in at least some states like OH, WV, AZ, LA, AR. The democratic base won't be enough. You're going to have to appeal on both the persona and positions of the candidate. You're going to have to be able to reflect a very negative "frame and smear" campaign by the Repubs.

These are the more germane electiblity issues. Being able to convince a significant minority of the democratic base to vote for your in the primaries is NOT evidence of electibility. Again, look at McCarthy, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore ...

I don't know who McCarthy, Mondale, or Dukakis is----like a lot of Americans don't know who Bill McBride is.

He's the guy you would have supported in '88, instead of Gore.

so, others of my generation have no idea who Dukakis is.

But I still know who he is.

It's good to know your history. As it will be repeated if Dean is the nominee.

and Dean now has a growing number of Washington Democrats supporting him......watch for something big to happen on the 26th;-)

Dukkakis was the governor of Massachusetts at least. A state with a relatively diverse populace.

about twice what Dean has---people said there was no way Clinton could win since he was from a small rural state.

You will lose, horribly.

PRESIDENT Wilson was from NH, a state with an equally small population and still won.

Let alone blacks, who were lynched on a regular basis. Wilson won because Taft and Roosevelt cancelled each other out. Wilson won by default.



Arkansas = twice as many people as Vermont. But the major reason is the TYPES of people who live in Arkansas. Much more representative of the United States. More blacks probably live in an average Little Rock neighborhood than in the entire state of Vermont. Vermont is probably the smallest, most irrelevent state of any in this nation. I'm serious.

which can be carried out on a national scale.

That's one of the issues that undermine assessing his GE electibility based upon governing Vermont.

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

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

when Bush runs those ads of Clark praising Bush and his cronies all over national TV while Clark's unable to respond in the inter-primary period.

bye bye


:eyes:

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

and also co-ordinated two precincts for him. The similarities to Dean are striking: the "moderate" governor of a (smallish) New England state that prospered economically in the previous decade, for which the governor claimed credit for (despite the fact that the rest of the country also did well due to a booming economy). Like Dean, Dukakis was seen as the "electable" choice over the far-out Rev. Jesse Jackson, the conservative Sen. Al Gore, the wacko protectionist Rep. Dick Gephardt (who smashed Honda autos at at least one rally) and the cornbally, folksy Sen. Paul Simon.

Of particular interest is also the fact that Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas gave the 2+ hour marathon nomination speech for Dukakis at the convention that year, a speech which not only announced his national prominence but also got him on the Tonight Show because of its length and "cure for insomnia" factor.

Dukakis went down in flames when Bush The Elder was able to paint him as "too liberal" and Dukakis, a pro-business centrist, was unable to weasel out from the label in his half-assed attempt to appeal to "moderate" voters. Not to mention the fact that he picked Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), the most business-friendly Senator on the hill, as his running mate, which kept many liberals at home.

Near the end, Dukakis started to surge in the polls when he actually STOOD UP to the smears the Repubs were making against him, and acting like a REAL LIBERAL and standing up to their attacks. Unfortunately, it was too little too late, and he got whupped.

In 1988, I worked for and supported Mike Dukakis not because I thought he was the candidate who would stand up for liberal values, but because I thought he was "electable". He appeared moderate, not too flamboyant, and easily digestable to middle America. And he got his ass kicked-- BADLY-- because in the end he didn't stand for anything, other than being "not Bush".

This year, I'm behind Dennis Kucinich for all the RIGHT reasons: his position on the issues, his fortitude, his willingness to stand up for what is RIGHT (even if it's not popular at the time), his honesty, his ability to stand up to criticism from opponents, and the fact that he's willing to address issues that aren't even ACKNOWLEDGED by the "front-runners" (the defense budget, the School of the Americas, instant-runoff voting, the "war on drugs", etc.).

Althought it's cliched, there's still some truth in that old saying that "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". I would seriously investigate the '88 election, because the parallels to today are striking, to say the very least.

leading in democratic primaries says absolutely NOTHING about being able to win those states in the general election. How long have you been watching presidential campaigns?

will bode well in the general election.

"independents and others" from? Not one vote has been cast.

Primary voters and GE voters are two very different things.

policy expertise.

you don't know who McCarthy, Mondale or Dukakis are? And we're supposed to value your political insights? yer a crackup.

Gore failing to ask for a statewide recount in Florida. In fact he did ask for a full recount in the first week or so after the "election."

Needless to say, the Bushies refused.

After the primaries, there is money pooled in to start ads. And in terms of ads Bush could use on Dean vs. Kerry or Clark, Bush has a lot more dirt to play around with if Dean is the guy. That's why Rove and all the other GOP fellas are salivating at the chance of running against Dean.

As for Dean having "advisors" to cover his patootie on his other weaknesses with no foreign policy or national security experience, that's an obvious admission on your part that he is very vulnerable on those fronts. No one is going to vote for someone for President because he has "great advisors" planned for foreign policy and national security.

That's a bit like saying a musician is a great singer because she/he can lip-sync really well.

As for his electability because he was a governor of a small state in New England with the same population as Austin, Texas... um...whatever, dude.

I thought you might mention that Dean is a good debater, but then realized any mention of that might show his obvious cowardice at not wanting to debate Kerry on national security issues. Nice try at trying to cover up that liability as well.

1)If Republicans are so afraid of Dean, then why are they attacking him early in the primary season? Why is the media dogpiling on Dean now? Oh, because the media is bought for by right-wing corporations. Why do conservative Republicans keep saying that Dean's wrong on Iraq, and why do they say he'll be beaten easily?

2)How is Dean more vulnerable than Bush on issues of foreign policy when Bush has done HORRIBLY where foreign policy is concerned?

3)Dean's debated Kerry in the Democratic Presidential Debates, and there'll be one more presidential debate in Iowa next month that will be carried on C-SPan.

Besides, it's presumptuous of Kerry not to want to debate Clark or the other top-tier candidates........oh, that's right, he's desperate.

Dean is the only Democratic candidate the media ever talks about.

and they keep running that Osama bin laden ad on C-Span, so yes, I'd say the media is dogpiling on Dean.

It must suck to be right all the time....how does Howard do it?

Kerry wants to debate just Dean and not 7 other people on the stage with 1 minute responses.

I understand why those that don't want Dean to debate Kerry feel that way. It would be a mess for the Dean campaign.

Dean wants to brag that he knows about national security and foreign policy, but apparently is either too shy or scared to show he can stand on a stage and debate Kerry alone.

Kerry is running second behind Dean in New Hampshire and is running second behind Dean in Iowa in some polls.

I'm detecting fear in the Dean camp on seeing Kerry on a stage with Dean.

now I must sleep. Damn you, DU.

in the current mindframe of a fanatical Clark supporter - so why try?

is nominated, when he is getting destroyed.



I am ABB, but I shudder at how marginalized Dean will be.

but I would never look forward to a Democrat losing personally.

that they would look forward to seeing the dem nominee lose to Bush.

But what would you expect from a supporter of someone who thinks reagan was a truly great leader?

I want to see you eat a big helping of goddamned crow pie.

But I don't see it happening.

Incredibly relevent. </sarcasm>


Could blacks and women vote in 1864?


Is there a Civil War going on?


Is Bush like Abraham Lincoln?

so why are you trying that tack with me?

Not 1888 LOL


You don't think the political landscape has changed in the past 150 years?

You refer to a time when blacks and minorities could not vote. Women were widely considered property and the vast majority of people couldn't read or write.

Give me a break.

no matter what the historical context it is in.

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

I'm a Clark supporter and see a number of deficiencies with respect to the primary campaign and a few potential issues for the GE. I'm not close minded but threads like this are not about reasoned attempts to discuss potential issues. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

(not a stump speech) and realize this man KNOWS what he is doing. I challenge anyone to watch this speech and tell me Dean is not meant to be our nominee.

that he has a very good grasp of the issues. I'd never claim otherwise. Although I've seen both Clark and Edwards in these townhall discussions and they are also very quick and on the point.

I don't think the performance, per se, argues for whether he will or won't be the nominee.

therefore he's gonna be president!!!



Bush is a fucking dumbass and is president.

No more so than does the good performances for the other candidates argue for their candidacy.

You should really apply for a Dean press secretary position. :loveya:

This is something I'm posting around different places cause I think its a good idea. You don't have to agree. I sure as hell couldn't make you agree, even if I wanted to. Its just something to think about if you find yourself spending too much time on this stuff and aren't a "Guardian of the Gates" like Slinky seems to be.

Its mostly aimed at us Clark supporters but you could substitute any other candidate's name here too.

to wit:

There are less than 1000 hours left until the ball drops.

We aren't going to convince anyone else on DU to sign up with our guy, not Dean supporters, not Kerry supporters, not anyone.

It really isn't worth the effort to reply to the old tried and true anti-Clark crap, whether its Pristina or Waco or whatever.

Just shut it down and let's move on.

We've got an election to win and it isn't going to get won here.

-------------

Oh, on second thought, you folks supporting other candidates. You go right on doing what you're doing here, okay? Thanks heaps.

My point isn't that the inevitable Republican attacks would make Clark unelectable, rather that his military bona fides are no real armor against Bush, despite what people might think. He will almost certainly be forced to fall back on his domestic platform - his weakest hand to play and certainly not the one that his most ardent supporters use as reasoning for electibility.

There is only one real defense against the viciousness of the Republican attacks against our candidate - whomever he might be - and that is he must be a "Master Politician."

Politics is more art than science and it's successful practioner must have a level of gut instincts about the electorate and the political process that borders on magic. He has to be able to not only react to the political weather but predict it and have the savvy to make the rain fall on the other guy and the sun shine only on himself. The only way to acquire this skillset is to practice it on a full time, professional basis. For years.

Wesley Clark is no master politician. And why should he be? He spent the last thirty-five years serving his country in the military accumulating all manner of leadership skills, but also denying him experience in the rough and tumble domestic politics that underlies the presidential race.

Some might say that Clark's time in the highest echelons of the military gives him the equivalent of a domestic political experience. But that just isn't true, anymore than saying George Bush could be a four-star general because he's been president. Military politics is an entirely different world and the experience just isn't that transferrable.

Clark recently criticized Dean for relying on foreign policy advisors to buttress his inexperience in foreign policy. According to Clark international diplomacy is not something you can learn from advisors but something you have to experience yourself. Perhaps so, but the need for personal experience is even more important in American electoral politics, a field where Clark has never "run for sherrif."

True, Wesley Clark has performed well in the campaign to date and presented well his views. He came out in opposition to the war. He developed his grassroots campaign with a blog based web approach. He attacked Bush. He offers a domestic platform. He has done many of the things that Howard Dean has done, but Dean was always there months ahead of him. It isn't just Clark's late entry into the race that accounts for this, it is the result of Dean's experienced hand on the political tiller.

People talk of "electibility" and "Teflon" and "momentum" as if they are properties of nature that fall randomly upon certain candidates and that the electoral process merely uncovers them. But in reality they are manufactured whole by the candidates themselves using the tools of politics.

I don't know this for sure, but I have a strong and growing suspicion that Howard Dean is the best damned politician this country has seen in decades. The way he has taken his campaign from nothing to front-runner status, defined the issues and, in the process, changed forever the political landscape is absolutely phenomenal. And that is what it will take to beat George Bush.

You stated that you don't know who McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis are so how can you speak to the issue that Dean is the best politician that we've seen in decades? :)

plus that he's charged up a lot of people that I haven't seen in past presidential elections such as the Gore/Lieberman election.

seriously, I think a good study of some historical elections will give you a better idea of what you're talking about.

The Dean "phenomenon" may seem like something totally new to somebody who only remembers the previous presidential election, but it's nothing new to those of us who've been around the block a few times.

In 1988, Jesse Jackson built one hell of a coalition of racial minorities, union members, farmers and progressives. It was called the "Rainbow Coalition". In fact, Jackson came seemingly out of nowhere in Iowa and won THIRD PLACE in a race where he was all but written off as a serious candidate.

Not only did he scare the hell out of the Democratic party leadership, he had the big media giants shitting their pants at the possibility of a Jackson nomination. For a couple weeks after Iowa, he was the subject of debate among Democrats (and the media) all over the country, if not the world. His grassroots movement suprised the hell out of the establishment, and the attacks against him by fellow democrats really showed an ugly side to the party not seen since the Civil Rights era.

In 1968, Eugene McCarthy enlisted the support of numerous young people and others who raised the grassroots in New Hampshire when he ran on an anti-Vietnam war platform. Although he finished second to President Lyndon Johnson, his 40+% finish was enough to cause Johnson to leave the race altogether. McCarthy's "victory" was also the catalyst that caused Bobby Kennedy to enter the race, and arguably led to his premature death at the hands of Sirhan Sirhan.

I don't mean this in a patronizing manner, but a little knowledge of history goes a long way. You'd be amazed at the similarities between today's candidates and those of the past-- not to mention the differences.

1. He is too weak a candidate to run against George Bush.

Maybe he is, but the Democrats have not come up with anyone better. For example, in the five most recent polls, Bush beats Dean by and average of 9.6 points. Bush beats Clark, presumably the best alternative the Washington establishment can produce, by 7.2 points, a statistically insignificant difference. Hillary Clinton's five poll moving average, by the way, is 7.6 points.

2. Dean is too weak among blacks.

The Washington Post wrote recently, "Dean has been dogged by questions of whether the former leader of an overwhelmingly white state would be able to attract African American supporters." Well, the answer is right outside the Post's front door where not only have a significant number of black city council members endorsed Dean but he won 61% in a straw vote at a meeting of the Ward 8 Democrats, in the poorest and blackest part of the city. And this at a contentious session where a black ward official attacked a lonely white member as "poor white trash." DC will have its primary in January and while the non-binding results will probably have little impact on elite white journalists who will continue to wonder whether the former leader of an overwhelmingly white state will be able to attract African American supporters, black voters elsewhere are likely to take note of DC's choice.

3. Dean can't win in the south

Again, while the Democrats are in trouble throughout the south - all are beaten by 30 or more points in Alabama - Dean again does well in the primary match-ups. He is currently ahead, if not by much, in Florida, Texas and Virginia. He is far ahead in DC and tied for first in Alabama. In Georgia*, Dean comes in fourth, but only three points behind the first placed Clark. In North Carolina he is a distant second to Edwards and in South Carolina Edwards and Dean are essentially tied. In one of the few southern match-ups against Bush, Dean does one point better than Clark in Florida, which is to say he loses by a changeable 7 points.

This is a useful exercise in how badly the corporatized media reports political campaigns, let alone other things. The reasons include:

- The extraordinary length of time it takes national reporters to overcome their presumptions in the face of contrary facts.

- A bias towards certain candidates based on Washington dominant political and cultural values.

- An inability to deal with something new, which is, after all, three quarters of the word 'news.'

- A narrow, clichéd view of American politics and history.

- A disdain for hard facts, such as numbers, in comparison, say, to sound bites acquired over a beer in New Hampshire.

Sam Smith/Progressive Review

*Now 1st in latest Georgia poll.

Well, that blows my theory all to hell!

oops...wrong map...ah well close enough :nuke:

Howard Dean: A Citizen's Guide to the Man Who Would Be President is an outstanding book that describes on what Dean does day to day, and what he has done for each issues, including his fiscal conservatism (I was really surprised when I read that part), his civil union, dealing with the Republicans from the Northeast Kingdom, being friends to the environment (and not being friends with the environmentalists, but that doesn't bug me too much)

I think it's a must read, and it's cheap too.

Hawkeye-X

1) he has the best run campaign
2) the most energetic support
3) the most money, and ability to continue to raise it
4) the best message (social & economic justice with a common sense foreign policy)
5) a centrist record with plenty for progressives & Greens & and potential fiscal conservative converts
6) he sticks to his beliefs, but, like a Dr. is pragmatic and will change his mind if something isn't working
7) a proven record of results (healthcare/eduaction)
8) he takes the fight to the Republicans, reframing the debate
9) he's not afraid of taking on his own party's leadership (a leadership quality right there)
10) A straightshooting quality, and ability to explain the issues that doesn't play well for pundits, but extremely well for the public (just look at the polls)
11) He is absolutely unafraid to differentiate himself from George W. Bush - even where Bush is popular (this is how minds are changed).
12) He has woken up the sleeping giant in the Democratic Party

I could go on but you get the picture

:toast:

Here is the repost from above:

Point 1: is no given. Howard Dean has a potential to raise Bush-like dollars but there is no guarantee that he will. The importance of this point is also based upon a myth: Gore lost to Bush because he had to few dollars. Gore lost to Bush because he 1) played mostly defense against both Bush and the media; 2) suffered some negative Clinton backlash among more conservative middle-of-the-roaders; 3) lost some key left-wing support to Nader; 4) he failed to mount a strong fight in some key states like Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire; 5) tactically failed to ask for a statewide recount in FL.

BTW, slinkerwink, you're an indefatigable self-KICK artist.

I'll debunk your post by saying that Dean is going to raise upwards over $15 million this quarter, and that groups like moveon.org and the democratic party can donate money to Dean---there's also that 75 million from Soros. Dean's the best money fundraiser out there which will help insulate him against attacks from Bush during the inter-primary period.

Clark's nowhere near that.

then nighty night for me.

Soros can donate $2000 to Dean. MoveOn and the 527 groups can only donate to campaigns if they are PACs and then a limited amount. What they can do is run issue campaign's against Republican positions and they will do that regardless of who the Dem nominee is. Basically, if Dean is to raise $200m, he's going to have to do the bulk of it through individual contributions up to the $2,000 limit. I'm not saying that he can't but you shouldn't just blithely assume that is already in the bank.

Besides, you totally ignore the issue with respect to the 2000 election that Gore's loss wasn't primarily due to lack of funds. It will take more than money to win.

Sleep well.

"indefatigable self-KICK artist"

A quick check just showed that Slink averages about 50 posts PER DAY since she signed up. That's gotta be a DU record!

Over 300 posts a week... most of them slamming Clark.

And after all this time on DU, she still doesn't know who Dukakis or Mondale are. More reading and less posting is my advice.

please review the rules for posting a new thread in GD before posting a new thread in GD. Please do not "call out" other DUers or carry arguments from thread-to-thread.

Thanks