How's DU conventional wisdom scoring? Not so good, eh?

Back in the days of Jiacinto/Carlos, this issue came up often.

McBride was an early DU favorite who fell on his face. There has been a long string of other DU favorites losing big, despite passionate arguments that these candidates could never lose. (And often, narrow Democratic victors were disparaged as sure losers. Wasn't there a ton of cynicism about Landrieu here? I could be wrong.)

Well, how do we look so far during the primaries.

It was Dean Underground here for a long time. Dean won EVERY poll. Who started beating Dean in those polls? Clark. Who's the favorite after Clark? Kerry.

Is DU going to keep the streak alive?

Why are we so bad at picking winners?

to be wrong about. So I hope not.

Too many loonies here. ( I count myself among them. )

:-)

My friend -- who's a young, relatively well known writer in some small circles (I'm crossing my fingers, hoping for that circle expanding) -- said, "my god, it's like a bunch of children in the school yard."

I presume?

;)

So far, in the last few days, I have learned from DU that...

- The only good thing JFK ever accomplished was getting shot;

- John Kerry is worse than Bush;

- Dennis Kucinich is not a liberal or a progressive;

- People who vote only do so because they are sheep.

That about covers the waterfront.

So, I guess those aren't the ONLY things you learn from DU, eh Will? ;-)

:)

"establishment" Democrats upon which to be frowned.

or progressive???????? WTF????????? Who the hell was stupid enough to even think that???????????

I've lived near Cleveland for thirty years, since I was eight years old, and I've practically grown up with Kucinich (as councilman, then mayor, then his comeback congressional win), and I can guaran-damn-tee you that he most certainly is a genuine, bona-fide, grade-A, certified liberal/progressive!

If it hadn't been for him standing up to the banks and the business and political elites when it came to selling the Cleveland municipal power plant to private interests, Cleveland would be a helluva lot worse off than it already is. And that took a lot of guts and courage for him to stand virtually alone like that and take the shit that was endlessly thrown his way for years until it finally became apparent just how right he really had been.

And as far as the only good JFK accomplishing was his assassination, well, that doesn't even dignify a response!

Because we pretend we are interested only in the issues, staying above the huddled masses dependent on their little mass media for information.

But when it comes down to the wire, we are as fearful, as reactionary, as gullible, as pliable, as vicious, as willfully ignorant, and probably a notch or two more arrogant than the average American voters so often dismissed as "sheeple."

We are wannabe pundits, convinced of our own divine insight and shocked at the gall of those who dare to hold different opinions.

are so BAD at picking winners.

It's about picking candidates that you believe best represent your views. That's why Dean, Clark and Kucinich have consistently outpolled Kerry and Edwards -- only recently have either Kerry or Edwards started edging out Kucinich in the DU polls.

Dean has probably raised 50 million. What if that had gone to the candidate with the best chance of beating Bush?

When you look at the top 4 candidates there is simply no a priori method for picking who is the best to stand up against Bush. You think it is Edwards, I think it is Clark but so far the majority of Dem voters think that it's Kerry. Who knows who is right.

Let's say that Bush beats Kerry in Nov. Was Kerry the better choice, or Edwards, or Dean or Clark? Conversely, suppose Kerry beats Bush. Does that mean that one of the other 3 might not have defeated Bush.

You go with your best candidate and then actively work for the nominee and that is how Bush gets defeated regardless of who wins in the primary process.

prove that I was right. That much is true.

However, I think you look back at history, you think hard about what's going on, and there are signs you can look to that help you predict where things are going.

I feel confindent that I understand why Dean and Clark didn't catch on. I could probably write a book about why Gore didn't win. I could write a book about why Clinton did, Dukakis did, Nixon did, etc. etc.

One thing about politics is that, ultimately, it's all done in public. What people do to win is out there (even if they cheat). It can all be read and interpreted. And sometimes the way people think is god's own mystery. But oftentimes, it isn't.

Also, when there's so much money and power at stake, can Democrats afford to fumble around, ignoring history and the obvious signs? I guarantee you the Republicans aren't. Their operation is sophisticated. They have big donors and big corporations with tons of resources not wasting money on the wrong candidates.

My heart sunk when I read this morning a Dean supporter saying about the bat, "I have no more money."

The Democrats rely on unsophisticated voters like us who are going on intution and uninformed opinion to support the party. When we run out of money because we chased the wrong candidate down the rabbit hole, that creates a huge advantage for the Republicans. We're a bunch of cats the best candidate is trying to heard. However, he must try to be as sophisticated, smart, observant and organized as the people in those corporations who control the media and have billions at stake, and who are supporting republicans.

Dukakis didn't win... ;-)

.

I thought were were picking candidates.

And sometimes, DU resembles a bunch of coolers rather than smart bookmakers.

that about nails it.

the TV pundits score about as well.

don't mind leading Democrats downn rabbit holes.

Like Kerry (Kerry people, bear with me). Furthermore, we are more likely to root for the underdog than the general population. In the end, the Establishment candidate is usually far better equipped to pull something off like winning a major party's endorsement for President in many ways. For example, we probably have more Kucinich people here than voted for him in Virginia. I could put up a poll on which one everybody LIKES BEST, and Denny will come out with 15% easy. Problem is, DU doesn't pick the candidate by itself.

My hope at this point is that the remaining major players who aren't Kerry get together and come to some kind of agreement. I think Edwards, with Dean, Clark, and Denny blowing on his sails, can beat Kerry on Super Tuesday. It seems to me that most of most of DU's boutique candidates are kick-ass people, but they are missing something, be it organization, good looks, or "fire in the belly." Put these three together somehow, and we couldn't lose.

I was shocked when Romney won in MA. had voted for the Dem based on "electability."

I was blown away that Schwarznegger was actually elected in CA.

That's why I didn't choose my candidate based on electability, nor do I believe the primary process is over nor do I believe the GE is a sure thing for anyone.

Enlighten us, oh wise one.

Does it have anything to do with hair? As I'm sure you know, the Whattzamatta U Theory of Follicles (WTF, for short) theorizes that there is a direct corellation between total % of remaining head hair and electabilty.

Many scientists disagree, but, to be sure, I am writing in Mel Kiper, Jr. for President, in case you-know-who has problems.

Genuine opinion in DU has been completely skewed by people who're active in campaigning for their candidates. As a model for the 2004 season, it could only be used as a bellweather for working out propaganda campaigns.

many of us probably would have reached some interesting conclusions about who eventually would be the most "realistic" Candidate to go against Bush. However, all the "operatives" and "operative wannabees" constantly hawking for their candidates obscured any real discussions.

Many of the left "undergrounders" here weren't as partisan as the folks who came in with minds already made up as to whom they were going to support. And, many of us might have been more "on board" with one particular candidate or another if we hadn't had so much "in your face" politiking here.

So, I don't think you can lump all DU'ers together on this. The DU polls reflected who was here en force at a particular time advocating for their candidate.

When ones candidate is faltering, people just don't participate as much (ie, they're hushed), and when their candidate is doing great, they participate a lot (ie, they get in the spotlight).

no Presidential candidate that I have voted for in a primary has ever even won my states primary, to say nothing of going on to win the nomination. So clearly I'm pretty out of touch with the rest of the Democratic party and forget about the rest of the country.

Of course I think if I was in charge everything would be perfect and I would hazard a guess that most everyone else here feels the same way. So I would suggest that our passion and arrogance (sheeple anyone?) do not mark us as very representative of the Democratic party as a whole or of the nation at large.

Reagan's perennial runs were a national joke before he whupped Carter.

In the summer of 88, I saw William Schneider predict on CNN that Dukakis would be the next president. He wasn't the only one.

In 92, some Democratic heavyweights stayed out of the race because they were sure of a Bush lock.

I don't recall any political observer predicting a Kerry's blowout in the weeks before Iowa.

We're awful, but who isn't?

I don't think it's that voters aren't looking at the issues - they are. I don't buy the "sheeple" crap. People that participate in primaries are usually well informed. They are voting for who they feel is the best candidate, and yes, who they also think is best able to beat Bush.

Here at DU there are more people (far left leaning) choosing candidates for who will change the Democratic Party, as opposed to who is more likely to win an election.

For example, I wish Kucinich had more support, but he would never win the general election. He's get nearly 100% of the Democratic base vote but hardly any of the center or Independent and Bush would win in a landslide. That's just the political landscape we have to live with. There are more voters in the center than there are on the left fringe.

I didn't know about DU history of never picking a winner in the past, but I can see reasons why DU may not be representative of the majority of the Democratic public.

until Dean, one of the most centrist candidates in the race, kept dominating DU polls.

who want to change the party. Not the same goal as most Democratic voters.

at DU.

I thik DU is more socially liberal (drugs) and anti-war (but really, just anti-Republican/Bush) than the rest of America.

But I actually think DU is pretty out of touch when it comes to core liberal principles, which manifest themselves most precisely with class, race and gender.

The "(b)ut I actually think DU is pretty out of touch when it comes to core liberal principles, which manifest themselves most precisely with class, race and gender" part.

I think you are right about race and gender, especially, and it constantly troubles me because it appears in subtle ways most of the time.

Anyhow, I should also say that I don't believe your candidate is the best one to fight those battles, but then I think the only one who is well-equipped to fight them is not gonna get elected and he is far too scurrilous for me. But that's just my opinion.

Everyone always had to sexualize their criticisms of her back in the day when we talked more about Bush. It was weird. She may be a servant of the corporations. But to have to consistently translate that into Bush's sexual servant was just totally revealing of how many DU'ers imagined black women.

Also, reparations -- a legitimate issue to have a debate over, but there were some brutal discussions about it that included some of the most racist of presumptions and insensitivities. There were, literally, 200 post threads on reparations in which there were only two or three DU'ers who were even the slightest bit sensitive to the pro-reparations argument.

Also, Zimbabwe was another good example. It was amazing some of the racist presumptions that supported the anti-land reform argument. It's one thing to legitimately criticize mugabe. But it's another to say that blacks are too backwards to farm the land that the people who stole it from promised to give back to them 25 years ago (which they kept putting off).

And class too. There's a great book, Wealth & Democracy, which is super astute on the class issue in politics. Buzzflash talked about it forever and gave it away as a premium. There's never been a sustained discussion of that book here at DU. Some people talked about Nickel & Dimed for a while, but you can tell that arguments about class rarely inform the debate here.

And then, take Will Pitt as an example. He made a name here at DU and elsewhere criticizing the hell out of Bush about the war (which is great, don't get me wrong). After a year of reading his well-thought out criticisms of Bush, I remember posting to one of his threads a question along the lines of, "why don't you put as much energy into criticizing Bush's wealth transfer to the wealthy as you put into criticizing him about Iraq -- the immediate danger to the US is another depression, not a cold war." Pitt's reply: "yeah, I need to round out my game," or something like that.

To the extent that Pitt is a spokesmann for DU, I have to comment that I'm still waiting to see that game rounded out on DU. Race, class and gender don't get much attention here. That's where I see a big disconnect between DU and the rest of America. And I think it's no coincidence that I like Edwards alot (for those reasons) and DU has gone from Dean to Clark to Kerry.

I realize I am less adept at discussing class issues than I should be, so I have to say that I am sympathetic with Mr. Pitt on that issue.

To my mind, what is more problematic than the sexualization of someone like Condi Rice (which is admittedly not productive) is the frequent transparency of the white male subject as the abstract indivicual in political discourse even here, on a progressive board. It's not so much that women, or women "of color," are demeaned, in other words, but that much of the discussion about issues renders them invisible as subjects.

From my perspective, you are right about the insufficiency of Dean, Clark, and Kerry as agents for critique of these issues. But I don't think Edwards is, either.

Again, thanks for the response.

i was hanging on every word. you have said what i felt but couldn't put my finger on. all of your posts in this thread have been good, but this one was spot on.

I'm feeling kind of misunderstood today.

Thaks for saying you get it.

you might be my new favorite poster. (still love will p and pete nyc)

You are absolutely on fire in this thread AP.

I'm a relative newcomer to DU, and I certainly haven't had the time to be as well read as I should be, but the other day I read through a thread about immigration, and the cold reality hit me hard.

There was so little sympathy for immigrants that I was aghast. I suppose the majority of this board is idealistic white males, and there was a latent racist subtext to many peoples' comments.

People on this board have an easy time harping on the IWR and the Patriot Act, and there are certainly many GLBT posters who can eloquently fight on those issues, but class and race (and gender, although I'll admit I'm less sensitive to that) seem to get ignored.

Nobody seems able to discuss taxes beyond raising them for the rich and lowering them for the poor. The immigration debate barely got beyond illegal immigrantion and H-1B's being bad. A lot of people don't seem to even understand Affirmative Action on any deeper level.

In this forum, I can't understand how people don't see that it is Edwards who can reach out to the disaffected Republicans and independents that we need to get. Edwards also reaches out to a population of working people that no President has touched in decades. Kerry may be able to win on sheer turnout, but we won't see much real change and he won't be giving a voice to any of us who feel left out right now.

With Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Edwards, there were people saying, "I've been waiting my whole life for a candidate to say that." Nobody says that with Kerry (when they do it means he's regurgitating something someone else said). Kerry can win, but it won't because he has brought more people into the Democratic Party. We may get the White House, but we won't have a stronger party.

I was in that thread on immigration and was pretty taken back with the vitriol there.

I mean, I don't expect anyone to be "happy" about illegal immigration, but some basically advocated hunting them down and sending them back to their country of origin regardless of how long they had been here, their personal history, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if some favored having gunmen at the borders, willing to shot at anyone that tried crossing. It mirrored many freeper threads.

As for this board, here's my take.

There is a self righteous anger throughout this board. Many are openly insulting democratic voters in the primaries. Many don't really seem to care which party is in power. For anyone to honestly believe that any of the candidates would do nearly as bad a job as Bush is ridiculous. Posters are literally lying about candidates' records. I've seen right wing talking points used to attack all of the candidates by posters that claim to be 'radicals'.

...this being the internet and all, it's a lot easier to argue issues and ideas instead of worrying about the actual people they are going to affect.

The way people snipe at candidates makes me wonder if they really understand what has been happenning under Bush - how much money has been flowing to the rich and how we are actually on the brink of taking a step towards greater discrimination with this gay marriage amendment.

It is extremely idealistic here, and when I read the immigration thread it made me think whether any of those people actually knows any immigrants.

In this forum, it makes me think about whether or not anyone knows people actually living in poverty or soldiers fighting in Iraq. The truth is, those people don't really care about what someone voted for a few years ago, they care about what's going to happen to them next year. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the one that cares about the people, but we seem to forget that all too often.

DU could really stand to round out its game.

I'll never state that I know how to do that.

I supported Mondale, Dukakis, Bradley, and Tsongas for cripes sake!

Here is the reality:

DUers are far to the left of the average voting American and more left than the average Democrat. We love those people - like Kucinich - who share our very progressive ideals, but who can't get the average Joe to vote for him or her.

Edwards has zero chance himself.

You're not going to give me any credit?

him. He would be out of the race under normal circumstances. He should have never got in.

running, and between them, Edwards has the best chance of winning. And it doesn't hurt that he's easy on the eyes.

'a joke pretty boy'. You reveal shallowness.

I think John Edwards is a fighter, too, but Edward's rational that he can "beat Bush in his back yard" as the Democratic nominee, is no longer viable. Yet, I am not urging him to quit the campaign.

John Kerry has never been the favorite here at DU; perhaps this is a good omen this time.

I think more people will realize this if they have a chance to see Kerry and Edwards debate each other for the rest of this month.

I think DU is lousy at collectively picking winners.

Edwards has only won in his native state of South Carolina, and we all know that South Carolina is a very red state.

Scott Maddox, the chairman of the Democratic party, has said that Kerry could certainly win in Florida. This is the big prize in the South.

We have good "noses" here for sniffing out details and nuances on any activity. When we work together on this we can ferret out amazing things. And sooner or later even the most bizarre is found to have a basis which leads to exposure eventually.

I didn't come here to be a "mainstream Dem," because look where it got me with the 2000 selection. "Underground" to me means just that. Those who thought this was a mainstream site have been unhappy with that, but why would anyone who is "mainstream" come to a site with "Underground" in the link?

I believe JFK was pro US military strength and standing up to bad guys(remember Cuban missile crisis?) and pro tax cuts. Would any candidate like JFK be elected in the Democratic party now?

The politicians the party elects keep changing the 'core' values.
Military service didn't matter for Clinton, now it's important for Kerry. Go to the DNC web site, where are the core values posted? Why aren't they up front where everybody can pledge to support them. Where is the consistency?

Here is my 2 cents (probably all it's worth) of the issues we don't have consistency in:
Federal budget
National defense
How to best help the less fortunate (food, healthcare, shelter,..etc)
Foreign policy

The tax code in place when he became president was a code that had been in place when Eisenhower started. The economy had grown rapidly during that time, the rich found it easy to get very rich, and by the end, there was bracket creep, and the economy had slowed down.

Having a progressive tax code doesn't mean merely raising taxes on the rich. It means adjusting the code constantly to refelect current values of the dollar, and relative valuations of the dollar at different places on the wealth scale.

JFK did what everyone, even Republicans knew had to be done -- adjust the tax code to reflect current economic reality. It WAS progressive to do that. Ike wouldn't do it because he didn't want it to be spun as lowering the taxes on the rich (even though "rich" was starting to include more and more people every year).

JFK also wasn't pro-"military aggressiveness." He wouldn't give the bay of pigs people air cover. He wanted to pull the US out of Vietnam. And even though his entire Democratic cabinet told him to attack Cuba, we didn't because he said no. (And it turns out that that would have triggered a nuclear war, had he done it.)

However, JFK ran as a hawk, farther to the right of Nixon, because he knew that Americans thought of the Democrats as weak on national security. By running the way he did, he removed that argument from the Republican arsenal, and the election turned on optimism and spreading the wealth instead, which are Democratic strenghts -- homefield advantage, as it were.

I agree with the way you stated his beliefs. It bothers me because I don't believe we can consistently win if we aren't consistent in our beliefs. Thus, it's a guessing game on who will win.

Thanks, for the response.

Is a stretch. I think up until last night it was still Clark country. Now I don't know what it will be. As it has been pointed out, I think Kerry supporters are just very active in rushing to defend JK.

far who's switching to Edwards. Also, a few anxious anti-Edwards posters are jumping in with their opinions.

Considering DU's track record, I'll take this as a good sign for Edwards.

but I predicted Kerry in a walk a long time ago.

I made a bet with my Poly Sci professor the week of the start of the Iraq war that Kerry would beat Bush handily and we'd see the largest voter turnout in history.

So, I guess I'm kinda confident in my guy. :)

:)

come November. :)

Magic Rat decided Kerry would be the nominee because he "looks like a president."

du mostly just goes along with the rest of the nation. most everyone thought dean was going to be the man to beat. maybe he was, and maybe he was beaten. they certainly ganged up on him. the other candidates seem to have agreed with DU on that issue.

and if you think our political discussions *here* are silly, you must not have seen much of the "real world." like, say, the united states senate for instance. underneath all the procedural crap, it's just children on a playground. squabbaling kids? that's us. that's ALL of us. that DU is no exception is hardly a surprise.

polls right from the start. Then Clark. Now Kerry, I believe.

at least, so far as the information i'm getting would lead me to believe. if DU got behind dean early, then some clark, now kerry... it seems the national poll numbers are following DU's lead. if not the other way around, that is.

And if DU'ers are driving the polls and then the polls go against DU ultimately, isn't that a sign of something?

What if the 50 mil dean got had gone to the eventual nominee, or to someone who could have turned it into a victory?

The Republicans don't make these mistakes.

winning the DU polls.

Even with Clark in the race, Dean was still tied with Clark.

Oh my good lord--that explains SOOO much about this board.

No wonder folks here seem to be off kilter...

McBride? Really?? McBride.

I just can't get over it, folks. What were they thinking???

It was a clear as the clueless look on chimpy's face--

McBride was the sacrificial lamb. Reno didn't play the DNC/DLC game and thus got shafted.

What the hell is the "leadership" thinking? (quotes are so very necessary here)

The fact that folks on the DU would back McBride just shows that many folks here need an education in reality.

BTW-- this was not at any time Dean Underground. Only those who backed others would think of it as such. I have never seen a more concerted effort to destroy a candidate on this board than w/ Dean.

They succeeded, at least on this board, and now we will all have to reap the results.

I, for one, don't deserve another McBride....

Wow.. a Dean/Reno ticket....:loveya:

Before y'all freak--just think about it would turn out should this ticket win. We wouldn't have to worry about the 4 years of attacks--for most of the "right-wingers" would spontaneously combust!!

(Barring the cleanup--wouldn't it be great?????)

until his supporters started pushing so hard for Clark to drop out. Give it a rest, eh?

...and it was because of Clark's comment about his tax plan.

Clark must have known it was desperate, and he was reaching for anything. I'm entiteled to declare shenanigans when I see them.

I know I come here for different reasons at different times.

The level of thoughtful skepticism and anti-authoritarian outrage creates a tone of contrariness. Passion runs high (thank gods). Strength in diversity doesn't translate to bumper sticker campaigning.

How about:

DIVIDED WE STAND!

For better or worse, barring an extraordinary circumstance Kerry is ontrack to be the nominee. His primary performance is almost on par with a sitting President. He is winning in all regions now. I think Kennedy did better against Carter, than the whole field so far is doing against Kerry.

The 81% satisfaction figure if Kerry is the nominee in CNN's Tennessee exit poll is telling.

...from McBride to Clark.

Sometimes DUers can get it right, especially when it's based on results. In this case, the difference is that Kerry's dominance represents actual results. And the early multiple primary system has been designed to be results driven-- it's impossible to contest multiple states without 10's millions of dollars-- therfore election results are the primary factor in delievering more good results. Barring some major revelation about Kerry, it's impossible to see how he loses.

The number one challenger, Edwards, just took a beating in his own region. He's more telegenic and charismatic than Kerry, but it takes time to build celebrity and Edwards doesn't have time. As for issues, based on track record, I expect Kerry to be borrowing many of Edwards issues over the coming weeks to completely neutralize him.

That said the course of human events is unpredictable. Tsongas was done in 1992 by rumors of the recurrence of his cancer as much as by Clinton. Anything can happen, if some revelation about Kerry comes out, but at this moment, it looks very bleak for Edwards and Dean.

Btw, look at your examples, they are not based on results, that is, election results. In fact, they are not even based on polls near the election (which are FAR less reliable than real results). McBride didn't hold a commanding lead over Bush. In fact, McBride did came close to J Bush in the polls a few weeks before the election, but J. Bush had 30 million to McBride's 10 million for TV ads in the last 3 weeks. Case closed.

As for Clark, he only has one set of winning results (in OK). Outside of his first two weeks in the campaign, in which he led in the national polls (an indicator of nothing), he never led in the polls anywhere until shortly before NH, where he had good polling in AZ, OK, NM, and maybe ND. But his lead was erased by the effects of Kerry's NH win. His poor results last week sealed his doom. Election results beat polls.

BUT this in no way guarantees that Kerry will beat Bush. Far from it. I am not at all confident that he will win.

He has a future with the party, but only if he doesn't act too independently. I see lots of pressure on him to get out this week, and a poor showing in WI to force him out.

...satisfied.

But I think Edwards's ideas will triumph.

Will you be satisfied if Kerry "borrows" some of Edwards ideas?
I think this is the most likely scenario.

Yeah, Kerryy should borrow all the ideas that come out of that experience.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/67598.php

"One of the reasons I am supporting John is that he campaigned against NAFTA and knows that we have to fight for fair trade, not just free trade," said Bonior, who remains a popular figure with labor audiences not just in his native Michigan but in neighboring Wisconsin."

It would be nice if he could do well in Wisconsin.

People choose who they prefer.

Why don't we learn from history?

Why'd we nominate DUKAKIS?????

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

Clark to Kerry support.

I'm talking about the popular favorites at DU.

DU has a bad record for picking winners.

who's the winner, bush?

Just imagine what could have been achieved with all the money dean raised.

Republicans don't make mistakes like that.

They make every dollar count.

they raise that much more money - so if it is mispent.. no problem... there is still that much more to spend... Haven't particularly found republicans (locally, nor nationally) particularly more cautious in their spending... they just raise a boatload more...

Goldwater. They learned their lesson.

They knew NOBODY was going to be Clinton, thus Dole.

The Bush family runs the Republican party, which explained '92.

Other than that, they're much smarter than Dems when it comes to picking winners early and making no mistakes. Money begets money, I guess. But there's no excuse for us to get it so wrong (Mondale, Dukakis.)

Uh, he won the Dem primary over the much better-known Janet Reno. What Jeb! and Bush*co did to him thereafter is another matter entirely.

Then again, DU was hardly the only bastion of early support for Dean. Right before Iowa, the mainstream media, and even a number of "superdelegates", were on the Dean bandwagon, too. There goes that theory...

(or at least I saw it here first).

And he was a terrible candidate, and that election might mean that Jeb has a real chance at being president some day. That could have been a turning point. I bet Reno would have done better.

People here are liberal and want to win. The more liberal the better. That's why Kucinich pulls 20% here and Gephardt got 1%.