Dean: Dems Doomed if He Loses the Nomination...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=2043&e=4&u=/ap/20031228/ap_on_el_pr/dean

Snip..
"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."

Earth to Dean. Which risk should I take? Alienating some of your supporters by nominating you, or 20% of the entire Democratic voting block if you are? According to the latest CBS poll, 20% of Democrats will vote for Bush if you are the nominee. Based upon the 49mill votes for Gore in 2000, that could be as many as 9.8 million voters bases the 1.5 million number you bandy about.

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

It's a nice change from reading that the Dems are doomed if Dean DOES win the nomination. :)

It remains a fact that no other candidate has fired up the base and organized on the ground the way Dean has. It shows in the fundraising, in the polls, and soon in the primaries.

I'd expect to see some variation in theme.

the primary season continues lomg enough for people other than activists to pay attention and decide who they want to put in the ring against bush.

since only 22% of all registered voters want a candidate that opposed the war, i can understand his fear.

Huh?

One thing Dean doesn't lack is CONFIDENCE.

As for the stat you post, it's a good thing that all voters aren't one-issue voters.

even if it was a question, he could have responded with
"that's a hypothetical and a weak one at that"

or

i'm going to be the nominee so it won't be an issue.

instead he choose to use this inflamatory, if not threathening wording.

why would he coose to answer in this particular way, i wonder?

it was a threat but a meaningless threat since we may lose more votes than that if he is the candidate since only 20% of registered voters want a candidate that opposes the war.

we are soooo screwed.

He's not that great on other issues. He's even "questionable" about gay issues. He's waaay behind Kucinich with that issue.

ONLY 22% OF ALL REGISTERED VOTERS WANT A CANDIDATE THAT OPPOSED THE WAR


and who are we about to nominate?


we are soooo screwed........

Maybe if Dean thought before speaking once in awhile we would not have all these threads.

Just because he doesn't say what you would prefer doesn't mean he doesn't...

calls it "foot in mouth disease".

'plain speaking'.

and make sure to ask Mary for help before expressing any of his positions.

'clarifications', i say, hell yes...ask mary first.

:evilgrin:

considering your attitude

why is the thought of a full primary season so threatening? if he is the one, he will still be the one in may....

:eyes: everyone is sooooo afraid

Yes, that's what I bet he's afraid of.

Sometimes Howard worries too much.

They will have to contend with a looming draft; loss of reproductive rights; loss of tuition assistance and rising deficits. They sit home at their own peril. And this is the message the nominee will deliver to them to get them out to vote.

It's about your candidate.

Maybe it was posted in GD2004 now because it was just posted in the Late Breaking News forum just now and the person thought it would be appropriate for this forum.

Perhaps you thought it was the old story about when Dean said he couldn't make his supporters vote for someone else if they got the nomination. It's not. He's made the same threat again but this time a little bit clearer.

From the article:

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."

I think this completely post-worthy and open to discussion. I don't like the implications of his statements at all.

And yes, I did read the article. Did you get the gist of my comment? :eyes:

story was published today based upon comments Dean repeated today. It's not like I reposted an old story like a lot of people do. I would have never posted the LA Times story with the same information today. I only posted this story because it is current.

over and over and over and over and over.

we are soooo screwed..........

summer that were reported in the LA Times.

...in the event he loses, that is. No? I doubt anyone is having conversations with him about new or re-energized voters, so it's unlikely he's commented on this one way or the other. Dean is *open*.

Open.

Do you really see a threat in his repeatedly saying he'll support the nominee if it isn't him? I don't believe it. I think it is any excuse to slam Dean that comes along.

CNN Breaking News- Apparently, and the details are sketchy here, but it appears as if Howard Dean has said something again. Today Dean said something again and we are just getting word of reaction from the other campaigns.

"I just can't believe he said something again. He never learns. tsk tsk." :silly:

what I do. As a matter of fact. I know he doesn't think he is responsible for me.

So, if he pledged to support the nominee, and urged his supporters to do the same, he'd be doing all he freakin' could, right? :think:

He says he'll support the nominee but he always adds the bit about not being able to tell his supporters what to do, as if Kucinich or Edwards could tell their supporters what to do.

That gives his supporters (many of whom seem to be overly devoted to Dean) permission and even encouragement not to vote unless Dean is the nominee.

He's a traitor to the Democratic Party, nothing more, nothing less.

Greens are supporting Dean... if Dean or Kucinich isn't the nominee, the greens won;t be voting democrat. Get it?

Dean can't order them to all support someone like Kerry or Clark. That's what he is saying. Do not make the mistake of assuming that Dean's supporters will just switch over to Clark or Kerry and kee pushing just as hard as they are for Dean.

Address his comments. Not the fact that I posted them.

This is such an incredible non-issue, it boggles my mind.. :eyes:

do some wearing out of shoe leather, Clark's numbers might actually creep up.

The biggest curiosity I have, and no one has answered in succintly, is that why Clark supporters outnumber all other candidates combined in number of posts on DU, yet Clark does not lead in a single state by any significant margin.

The onlu plausible explanation I can come up with is that the Clark campaign must be making an effort to post here on DU. I have news for them. They will change very few minds here because most posters are very knowledgeable and have strong opinions in favor off their respective candidates. Clark supporters will be better served by spending more time knocking on doors and passing out brochures.

DEAN IS THE WAVE OF 2004.

Dean is a proven winner SIX TIMES. He will win the 7th in 2004.

Wow! That's not saying much for these voters. Any DEM is clearly better than Bush and Dean is wrong for suggesting otherwise-

It's not wise to actually encourage voters to abandon DEMS just because you lose the nomination...

I know I'm through with 'em.

But tell me, do *all* Dems fit that description? Really?

"...Dean repeatedly has said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee and urge his supporters to do the same. But he said there are limits to the practical impact of his endorsement.


"That's not transferable. That's why endorsements are great but they don't guarantee anything," Dean said...."

Someone pointed out on another board that the new CBS poll says that if he is the nominee, 20% of Democrats will vote for Bush.

That's just the way it is. Call them Blue Dog Dems or whatever, and it's unfathomable to me, but they will.

And once Dean is the nominee, that number will change significantly. Dean is still an unknown to many Dems, despite the media attention. You can test this for yourself by talking to a handful of people at a party or other gathering. I am always shocked to see how little people know about ANY of the candidates (even Bush, LOL).

who want to vote for Bush... really a shsame they hate the democratic party that much.

nominee. I whipped off a letter to the editor of my local paper upon reading this drivel and pointed out that we lose less votes if Dean is not the nominee. Something like, 9.8 million vs. 1.5 million.
My letter probably won't be published though because they printed one on 12/23 (Wes' bDay) titled: "Al Gore's motives."

what would be so bad about saying "everyone who supports me now needs to support the DEMS and oppose Bush..." or "... I would like to encourage all my supporters to vote DEM no matter what the outcome of the nomination..."

You cant make a threat and say it is out of your hands at the same time- Dean should try harder to support DEM unity in this particular case...

I like Dean and I would vote for him, but I disagree with this attitude...

You cant threaten DEMS with voter drain on one hand but then say you will "urge" it not to happen on the other...

All I'm saying is that I wish Dean would have ONLY said the "good" quote you give, and say more things like this instead of the threat statement...

The statement is clear and unequivocal: He will support the nominee, and urge his supporters to do the same.

No candidate can guarantee that his supporters will do what he asks them to do; if that qualifies as a 'threat', then we have 9 'threateners' running for Presiodent, because not ONE can guarantee that.

I disagree with Dean's attitude on this particular issue. I AGREE with him on almost everything else, so dont get so defensive.

You are torturing plain English to arrive at some absurd 'threat'.

over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. people will buy it.........NOT

the bottom line is that dean is the real threat since only 20% of registered voters want a candidate that opposes the war.

we are soooo screwed.

And at 10 1/2 months before the election, it's ridiculous to say 'we're so screwed'. :eyes:

I have, and daily. Don't make it sound like it's only Dean supporters, my friend.

If you can find a comparable quote from Kerry, Clark, etc, that suggests that voters should abandon DEMS, then lets see it.

Who was ever talking about "supporters" anyway???- this thread is about what Dean said, not his supporters. BTW-I'll vote for Dean or any DEM who goes against Bush...

Quit distorting plain English.

...that urges his supporters that voting DEM against Bush is priority #1, instead of sending mixed messages...

Until he does this, then i disagree with his attitude concerning this particular issue.

having said that, I DO like the guy, and I would vote for him no problem...

...Dean repeatedly has said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee and urge his supporters to do the same. But he said there are limits to the practical impact of his endorsement.


"That's not transferable. That's why endorsements are great but they don't guarantee anything," Dean said...."

You can't get much more plain than that. :shrug:

I disagree with you- it was unwise for Dean to suggest that his supporters will not go DEM- oh but at least he will "urge" them to...

All I'm saying is that I wish Dean would not have said this-he should be working to make sure it does not happen, not using it as a threat- it's not good for DEMS in general...

That is the most tortured logic I have ever seen. The man said in plain English 2 things:

1. I will support the Democratic nominee, and urge my supporters to do the same;

2. I cannot guarantee that my supporters will do as I ask.

ANY other 'reading' of his statement is pure bullshit.

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?"

But I can see why you did- even someone like me who would gladly vote for Dean can see a bit of a mixed message- he should have just said the "good" quotes that you give in that post...

Can Gen. Clark guarantee a lockstep support from each and every one of his primary voters in Nov.? Answer: No, he can't.

Another great 'pseudo-issue'. :eyes:

And if Clark did, I would disagre with him, but I would still vote for him or Dean regardless...

Perhaps we can agree that this is a 'pseudo-issue'- afterall, I would VOTE FOR DEAN, and I hope you would vote for Clark or whoever- that is my main concern w/ Deans comments...

I am ABB, but the statement contains NO threat--none.

Soem folks who support Dean will not support Clark or Kerry no matter what Dean says.

want to encourage his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee if that nominee is someone other than him, he has NO business running in a Democratic Party primary. He has gone beyond the rules of good conduct for a Party member.

Yes, yes, he can't make his supporters vote for someone else, but he damned sure can keep his mouth shut about his opinion that they won't vote for anyone else.

Terry McAuliffe ought to throw him out of the party for such threatening hints. Let him take his Wall $treet money and run as in Independent.

He says that he doesn't know if they will, but that he will urge them to do so. Why do you have such a problem with that clear and unequivocal English statement?

more of a warning. :)

How many times a week do we have to hear the other candidates declare that a vote for Dean is certain DOOM?

the subject at hand whether Dean could do more to encourage voters to vote DEM, insteadof using them as a threat...

We are not talking about regular old candidate bashing, we are talking about Dean's threat.h I dont like at all the candidate bashing either...

There is no f*****g threat, and I challenge you to show me there is!:grr:

threat:an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain>

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?"

Are we going to argue semantics, or can we calmly discuss Dean's threat without the flamey-face?

unless reality is threatening to you, Gov. Dean made no threat; he expressed a simple query.

Threat, shmreat, who cares. I disagree with his attitude. Whjy not just say "Support DEMS & oppose Bush, no matter who wins"- and then leave it at that- I would want ALL candidates to do this.

FYI- I have stood up for Dean on many occasions, I hust happen to disagree with him on this- I'm a very partisan DEM and it just rubbed me the wrong way...

I'm just as partisan a Dem as are you, I'd wager, and Gov. Dean said nothing untoward. It has nothing to do with the dictionary; he plainly stated that he will support the nominee and urge his supporters tto do the same. If that's not good enough, I'm sorry.

As you suggested in your other post, this may be a 'pseudo-issue'- I'm willing to call truce. I'm willing to support Dean if nominated,and I hope you will support the DEM too- so it's just a little thing.

I still disagree with you though- I have my perception that this is a mixed message, & you have yours that it is not- peace...

I am a loyal Democrat---ABB through and through.

so you attack everything Dean says and try to spin it into something it is not.

You have nothing else to campaign on other than attacks on Dean.

That's why your guy is LOSING!

In fact, I've taken 5 or so opportunities on this thread alone to say that I would vote for him if nominated. I have posted NUMEROUS posts that defend Dean on many levels- but as soon as I disagree with ONE little thing, you smear me and my candidate.

Dean makes a statement that I legitimatly think was unwise, and then you attack Clark, who has nothing to do with this...

Looks to me like you cant take even a tiny bit of opinion that is different from your own, so you accuse me of "attacking" Dean.

My posts here on this thread are the first things I've typed in at least a year that is even remotley "negative" towards ANY DEM- and I challenge you to find a post of mine to contradict this.

I will accept in advance your apology for falsely accusing me of attacking ANY DEM.

We have lots of positive reasons to support our candidates.

Our candidates may not be front runner in all the polls, but they have our support. That is democracy.

If Dean is the frontrunner, then he and his supporters should start acting like good winners, instead of acting like poor losers

He continues to say all of the national candidates are equivocating on the war, which is not the case.

which is the very definition of independents. There is an outreach to punk voters by a Dean supporter, herself a punk, that has been quite successful. These first-timers are not going to automatically support another candidate, particularly when the Democratic party has been more interested in suburban voters than in those that have been left behind by the establishment.

I also don't expect people that opposed the war in Iraq on moral and ethical grounds to support a candidate that was prowar, regardless of the party affiliation of that candidate.

You should be aware that if Dean were to become the Democratic nominee, there are no guarantees that the antiwar independents will support him if Dean were to endorse anything short of a US withdrawal from Iraq. And if Dean were elected President, I can guaranteed that he will be under pressure from the Left to end the Iraq war as soon as possible (the same will happen to whoever gets elected).

The real world doesn't think in terms of Republican and Democrat, it thinks in terms of issues!

He should be encouraging DEM votes on every level, not issueing a warning or threat on one hand, while "urging" DEM votes on the other. I wish he had presented a more solid, pro-DEM message.

Main Entry: in·de·pen·dent

(3) : not bound by or committed to a political party

From Merriam-Webster

Dems and GOP need independent voters to win. Independents are not monolithic, they range from relatively affluent suburban voters, to those that have dropped out of the political process.

and I can agree with your basic point on Independents who vote against DEMS while still maintaining that it was the wrong thing to say-in the interest of the DEMOCRATIC party.

I am a DEMOCRAT here at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, saying that in my opinion, Dean could have left this unsaid and stuck to positive comments about DEM unity.

It's a VERY small complaint of mine against Dean, a DEMOCRATIC candidate who I have defended on many levels and who I will gladly vote for if nominated...

are currently Clark supporters?

That 20% would have to be made up of supporters of other candidates, right?

You want to make this about Clark- I thought we were discussing a Dean quote, which one or two of us are uncomfortable with.

I never said it was the end of the world, and I have also said that i would vote Dean if nominated...

You ask me about Clark "supporters", well, what did Clark say about them and wheter they will vote DEM or not? We know what Dean said, and I can still like Dean as a candidate and a DEM, even if I think his statement was unwise...

can "i'll take my ball and go home" be far behind?

Show me where that happened, please.

Here's what I think. Dean realizes he has no chance of winning the GE, and seeing the handwiting on the wall, Trippi's giving his guy a shot a being a "POWER" broker.

A HUGE percentage of the electorate don't KNOW who our candidates are, at this point. National polls are meaningless 10 1/2 months before the election.

the power" rhetoric. He's a phony. Wake up, Dean supporters! This man is using you.

but this does seem like a threat. :(

But Gore did that and we certainly didn't all appreciate it!

Gore endorsed Dean for the nomination. Big difference.

Simple statemenmt of fact.

"...Dean repeatedly has said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee and urge his supporters to do the same. But he said there are limits to the practical impact of his endorsement.


"That's not transferable. That's why endorsements are great but they don't guarantee anything," Dean said...."

felt like he was warning the democratic party that he can't control his supporters. Which is true, he has no control over their votes or support in the general election. But, the other feeling I had was he was inferring he didn't need my support, because he has all that he needs. JMO

Nobody here is listening anymore.

I think it proper to reply to attacks on our guy, but frankly, I no longer care what the other guys said, nor do I think we should waste our time starting threads criticising them. All that does is repeat the old mulch over and over. This quote from Dean is old, old, old and wasn't worth much when it was new.

And its good for us. If they don't get Dean the nomination then theres only one viable guy running who's not a conventional Washington politician.

So, let's just decline the urge to attack and go into total reply mode only. Saves a lot of time AND serves to identify where the majority of attack threads originate.

Just my opinion, but I'm an old guy so listen to me for pete's sake.

You are correct; the 'attack mode' folks are wrong. :hi:

Dean: Dems Doomed if He Loses Nomination
1 hour, 15 minutes ago

"Howard Dean (news - web sites) said Sunday that the hundreds of thousands of people drawn to politics by his campaign may stay home if he doesn't win the Democratic presidential nomination, dooming the Democratic Party in the fall campaign against President Bush (news - web sites)."

A quote all the 'pile on Dean' folks want to seem to ignore from the same yahoo story:

'...Dean repeatedly has said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee and urge his supporters to do the same. But he said there are limits to the practical impact of his endorsement.


"That's not transferable. That's why endorsements are great but they don't guarantee anything," Dean said...."

:eyes:

It was a current statement and not the old one, that's all.

I'm getting a bit defensive. Peace. :hi:

although it's an old line from Dean.

SNIP.."I think eventually the nomination is going to be won by somebody with a positive agenda," Dean said. "What's happening is, in their desperation, those guys have thrown their positive agenda out the window. I can't imagine it's going to help them. It might hurt us but it can't help them."

SNIP..."Dean sought to turn the tables Sunday, arguing that his blunt-speaking, Washington-outsider approach has drawn back legions of voters who had been turned off by politics. He warned that many of them are likely to stay home on Election Day, rather than vote for another Democrat, if he is not the party's presidential nominee. ...."

And he says he would support another candidate, but that many new to the process would not. He is right in that he has attracted many people who have been disenchanted with politics.

Maybe the others need to speak more powerfully.

just curious?

part of a Dean statement. You wrote it thus:


SNIP..."Dean sought to turn the tables Sunday, arguing that his blunt-speaking, Washington-outsider approach has drawn back legions of voters who had been turned off by politics. He warned that many of them are likely to stay home on Election Day, rather than vote for another Democrat, if he is not the party's presidential nominee. ...."

but let's put emphasis on the controversial portion:

SNIP..."Dean sought to turn the tables Sunday, arguing that his blunt-speaking, Washington-outsider approach has drawn back legions of voters who had been turned off by politics. He warned that many of them are likely to stay home on Election Day, rather than vote for another Democrat, if he is not the party's presidential nominee. ...."

He ALSO said:

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."


You cannot seriously argue that he's not strongly suggesting that his million and a half supporters will take their Dean posters and stay home from the polls if another Dean wins the nomination.

I know that you are sensible enough to know that's not how the system works. Dean may well win the nomination, but not a single vote has yet been cast.

The million and a half Dean supporters are trying to dictate who the party's choice should be without input from all the other millions of registered Democrats.

This is absolutely unconscionable. Dean should be kicked out of the Democratic Party as a traitor who refuses to abide by the rules of party loyalty. Let him run as an Independent.

"...You cannot seriously argue that he's not strongly suggesting that his million and a half supporters will take their Dean posters and stay home from the polls if another Dean wins the nomination...."

I can and will seriously argue that that is not what he's saying. He said:

1.) I will support the nominee, and will urge my supporters to do the same.

2. They may or may not do as I ask.

NO candidate can guarantee 100% 'trensferability' of their supporters, and it is naive to assume that they can.

:hi:

And then tell the others to stand up for something again.

We can argue all we want about whether the Dean voters are turned off by a non-Dean nominee (likely to be Edwards or Clark IMHO) or whether they will rally behind the nominee (since neither are typical Washington politicians, I think they rally)

But the point here is not whether Dean is right, the point is that Dean has the arrogance to think HE is the issue. His lips keeps saying "You-you-you" but his eyes/heart/mind are saying "me-me-me". If this "movement" is all about Dean, it can't be all about You. Here's what I hear: Dean is exactly the typical politician, with no real constituency he serves other than himself. His reputation in Vermont and among the Democratic governors was that he was a peacock. He played that down before but he couldn't hide it as long as he needed to.
Will this matter to Dean supporters? I doubt it. They will still think it is about them, that it is their campaign, when it has been a successful con game from Day 1, starting with a candidate posing as something he is not.

I don't see it. I see a frank statement by a candidate for President.

would react if he isn't the nominee. Also, according the the latest CBS poll and a lot of other polls, we have more to lose if Dean is the nominee than we have to gain if he is. His statement is arrogant and is not based in any way on reality. While it may be a reality that some of his supporters will not vote for anyone else, it is not a reality that the 'Dems are doomed." The polls suggest otherwise.

Answer: No.

I have never seen any that said they would vote for Bush however.....
And a point I'd like to make: Clark is a better politician...that's right, a better politician, because he knows better than to make this kind of statement. Clark has learned very quickly how to speak in a political campaign.

Glad you agree with me. :D

NO candidate can 'guarantee' that their supporters will do as they ask; all they can do is ask that they do so.

ABB

Look, if we think our guy is the only chance we have to beat Bush, and Dean gets the nomination, does that mean Bush has somehow become more acceptable?

Not at all.

So why would we refuse to support Dean, or Kerry, or Kuchinich or whomever? We turned to Clark because we didn't think the others could do the job. If one of the others is all we have to work with, then we still have to work our hardest to make sure the "Invisible Airman" gets sent back to Crawford regardless.

We likes Clark, my precious, yes we does and we don't like Dean, no, no, no.

But we hates Bush...

And he is quite right in saying that while some would transfer, many would not.

Dean is bringing in folks who are greens and indipendants who have no loyalty to the democratic party who are just as likely to stay home or vote 3rd party if the nominee were Clark or Kerry.

This is all about Dean, as far as Dean is concerned. He dismissed Graham, he has ignored Kucinich, he misspeaks about other candidates without regret or apology and he thinks he owns you and your vote.

That's what I mean by arrogant. It is all about him. If he doesn't exist (or win) then you don't have "The Power" anymore. You can't decide that Kucinich is the real anti-war deal who never equivocated and he had to vote. You can't decide that Edwards is the real deal who has spoken for the voiceless for his entire career. You can't even decide that Clark really is a Democrat. Without Dean, you don't have the power. You only have to power to nominate him. That is true arrogance.

Hit his thumb, more like it.

it's ok for the Dean supporters to stand for what they believe in but it's not ok for anyone else. I was "ripped to shreds" for saying I can cast my vote for any Dem presidential candidate except Dean (my husband and I stand by that..as early supporters of the campaign we left for reasons that remain very important to us)

Hypocritical?

An independent voter that is attracted to a Democratic antiwar candidate is not likely to support the Democratic nominee if his preferred candidate does not win the nomination, particularly if the nominee turns out to be one of the candidates that supported the war.

Most voters consider themselves independent nowadays. They are the most likely to be turned off by infantile calls for "party unity."

While many of Dean's supporters are Democrats, and they will support en masse the Democratic nominee, there is a significant number of independents and first-timers that may not support another candidate (unless it is Kucinich) if Dean were to lose the nomination.

You guys might as well accept the fact that the 2-party era is long over. The only reason the Democrats and Republican even exist as parties is because of the undemocratic winner-take-all electoral process. Once we start adopting proportional representation, and abolish the Electoral College, we will then join the other civilized nations of the world in which the person with the most votes wins, and in which the legislatures truly represent the voters.

I will choose participatory democracy over party apparatchiks any day!

You wrote:

"I will choose participatory democracy over party apparatchiks any day!"

You would vote for Kucinich, wouldn't you? Any other Dem?

Personally, I will not vote for Dean. Period.

Kucinich is the best candidate of all the Democrats running. That said, I would probably vote for any of the other Dems except Dean. I already know enough about him to rule him out. Anybody who runs for office is a politician. Some are better than others. Dean is not one of the better ones. He's a con man and a liar.

"If it's Dean, I go Green."

Lucky for us, we have a strong group in Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton.

I think the polls reflect the mass rejection of the prowar candidates.

Doesn't really have anything to do with the snippet that started this thread, but it is a great point, IMO:

"I think eventually the nomination is going to be won by somebody with a positive agenda," Dean said. "What's happening is, in their desperation, those guys have thrown their positive agenda out the window. I can't imagine it's going to help them. It might hurt us but it can't help them."

So go ahead. Keep on bashing. Just know that it is YOU, not DEAN, that will give Bush 4 more years.

Dean is one who came out against the other candidates months before ANYONE else had said anything about him. This is just another revisionist statement by Dean.
If Dean is right, the party will nominate Edwards, who has the only positive agenda. It sure won't be Dean.

which necessarily involves criticism of the incumbent and of others in the Democratic race.

Dean started out criticizing other Democrats in the race, calling them "Bush Lite."

Dean falsely says he is the only anti-war candidate.

Dean falsely says he is the only white candidate to talk about race.

Dean falsely says he is unable to convince his zealous supporters to vote for another Dem who wins the nomination instead of Dean. If he can convince them to support him, attend meet-ups, do campaign work, and donate money to his campaign, he can convince the great majority of them that it is essential to defeat Bush, whoever the nominee may be.

Each candidate has a special segment of the electorate that they motivate and inspire more than any other candidate.

The risk of that segment of the electorate becoming disheartened by their withdrawal or loss is always there regarding every candidate.

Dean will endorse the nominee. What supporters do, no candidate can truly say.

:thumbsup:

In NYC, 2001, Ferrer the loser of the dem primaries, endorsed the winner - sort of - while quite publicly telling supporters to stay home. result - by a very small margin, the GOP-er won. That's why the GOP convention will be in NYC!

That poll had a sample size of 244 people... and on that you base the claim about 20% of the demcoratic party?



Yet Newsweek's poll shows that Clark is doing NO BETTER than Dean vs. Bush.

Bush 53% Dean 40% UD 7%

Bush 53% Clark 41% UD 6%


Dean and Clark are doing about the same vs Bush.

Bush, that takes ALL voters into consideration. Even Dean supporters.

That a HUGE percentage of the electorate can't even identify our candidates. The national polls are a JOKE, at this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=34135&mesg_id=34809&page=
and this on a Dean fundraising thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=33793&mesg_id=34684&page=
They are ENTITLED!

"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."

"...Dean repeatedly has said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee and urge his supporters to do the same. But he said there are limits to the practical impact of his endorsement.

"That's not transferable. That's why endorsements are great but they don't guarantee anything," Dean said...."

It seems to me as if Dean is one one hand grudgingly saying yes, I'll endorse, while at the same time saying there is no one of his "stature" out there so if "my" people stay home it will not be surprising.

For someone preaching unity this seems a bit disingenuous, and seems to smack of "me, me, me" that was talked of previously.

How do these two Dean comments "rate" with others participating in this thread?

Only folks who don't support Dean have any trouble understanding this, it seems. Dean has picked up many 'non-traditional' supporters: Greens, independents, first-time voters and voters who haven't voted in years. If he 'promised' that they would support the Democratic nominee, someone would attack him for either arrogance, or naivete. it's a no-win situation, no matter how he answers, it seems...

God forbid that he should pledge to support the nominee and ask his supporters to do the same.

:eyes:

It's time for another "If Dean wins the nomination, will you support him" poll?

:eyes:

I would think in the interest of party unity he would say that everyone should support the eventual nominee, but I guess I'm just one of those non-supporters who just has trouble understanding. :eyes:

BTW, why is it a "no-win situation" for him to pledge party unity? Hubris is a good thing - could you let him know? :)

Goose, meet gander.

:wtf: does any of that even mean? :shrug:

I am put off by them.

Just as I've been put off by his arrogant dismissal of independents & moderates in his zeal to "revive the party base", which I will once again point out has NEVER been able to install an occupant of the White House all by itself.

It seems that in Dr. Dean's mind all he needs is himself.

Gov. Dean has NEVER been dismissive of Independents and moderates. :eyes:

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

1.) I will support the nominee, and urge my supporters to do so;

2.) My supporters may or may not do as I ask.

Where is this 'arrogance' you speak of?

"dean may very well get the nomination, but in the good chance he won't, he need not worry about those that will have nowhere to go. . . <snip>
they can all get together and help carry his big head back to Vermont.

Read it to Mr. DemBones and he laughed, too. Glad you quit lurking and started posting!

:yourock:

It'd be self-destructive to avoid nominating Dean in order to maybe keep people for whom even he isn't sufficiently like Bush. That'd be utter lunacy!

He should be rejected because his policies are too much like Bush's, not because they're not enough like them!

Sure, Congress and Washington politics suck. But it's OUR mess, and we cannot toss it aside as we can't toss ourselves aside.

p.s.

Where they came from in the first place...

ROTF! :bounce:

Your gratuitous slap is noted.

eom

I'd like to see you back up that statement.

would you like to see a picture of them? Although right now they are covered in something that seems to be brown and smells to high heaven.

So far I see nothing but content-free smearing...

LOL!!!

disingenuous by the way is how I feel about the Dean campaign.

Have a nice day.

I'll be needing them all. Wish I still had my "mucking" boots (knee-high black rubber boots won for "mucking out" stables.)

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

That's simply your personal take on his statements.

all his supporters will back Dean right?

Ha ha.

And Kucinich will promise that all his supporters will back Dean and Edwards will promise that all his supporters will back Dean and Lieberman will promise that all his supporters will back Dean and Kerry will promise that all his supporters will back Dean and Sharpton will promise that all his supporters will back Dean and Mosely Braun will promise all her supporters, etc.

So then we'll all be backing Dean if he wins the nomination!

Yippee!

because that's what PARTY LOYALTY is all about.

Howard Dean is loyal only to Howard Dean.

Anyone who believes otherwise. . . well, P. T. Barnum said it best.

Will the support our nominee, if it's not DK? Et tu, Brute.

Does he, of all people, not understand "anybody but Bush?" Does he think if he's not the nominee, his supporters will sit home on election night?
Or does he think the threat is plausible?

Dean SAID:

1. I will support the nominee, and urge my supporters to do the same.

2. My supporters may or may not do as I ask.

Any other reading is completely tortured.

Looks to me like the reporter is putting words in his mouth.

from the clear implications of Dean's comments.

Being optimistic that you will win is expected and a good quality in a candidate.

Being pessimistic IN PUBLIC that anyone but you can win is treachery and vanity -- an ugly marriage.

No doubt the pundits and others who attacked him with that one were also just following the clear implication of his words.

How terribly sad.

short and sum up a story as well as possible. I think the AP reporter (not a pundit) did pretty well and don't think it is an attack. I don't see bias in the article. The reporter gives three direct quotes from Dean, none from anyone else, and uses indirect quotes from "other Democratic candidates" as well as from Dean. He gives Dean the last word in the article, too, ending with a direct quote in which Dean denigrates other Dems.

"Dean Says His Supporters May Not Vote Dem If He Loses Nomination" is too long.

Can you write a title that's better from your viewpoint as a Dean supporter and is still short and sums up the article?

Let's see ... from a pro-Dean slant, it could go something like: Dean Will Support Dem Candidate if He Loses the Nomination.

From a more observational standpoint: Dean: Voters Turned off by Conventional Dem Thinking

the article, plus your titles are too long. Not to mention that you spun it as if Dean had pledged loyalty to the Democratic Party when in fact he is a TRAITOR.

The important information in the article is his threat that his million and a half fans will take their ball and go home, screwing us all. All for one spoiled little rich kid's ambition and ego.

There is no excuse for this arrogant man's behavior.

No excuse for Dean's so-called arrogance, but it's perfectly okay for journalists to exaggerate for headlines?

from the locked thread:

"Dean predicts backers may stay home if he doesn't win the nomination"

Quit putting words in Gov. Dean's mouth.

is kinda misleading. It's unknown by Dean and the reporter whether Dems are "doomed" if his supporters sit out.

My piss-take wasn't directed at you, personally.

They did a similar thing to John Kerry recently. Headlined "Kerry Says Dean Has No Chance Vs. Bush," then you read down and see: "Talking to reporters after his speech, Kerry stopped short of saying Dean was unelectable." Nor do they quote him anywhere in the story as saying 'Dean has no chance.'

AP is just reminding us what whores they are.

I didn't read that article but if your description of its contents is accurate, (and I see no reason why it wouldn't be), the title was quite misleading.

I don't think this title is really misleading. Perhaps "Dean: Dems May Lose If He Loses Nomination" would be more accurate but it uses the same verb twice. Got any better ideas for a short title?

The other title is easier to re-do, it could have said "Kerry Hints Dean Would Lose to Bush" in about the same space. If there were enough room for an extra word, "Dean HINTS Dems May Lose" would be a better beginning than "Dean: Dems May Lose."

I love word games. . . ;-)

took it upon himself to pervert the quotes that way.

Is is utterly amazing to me that the same seemingly intelligent posters who claim that the media is biased against Democrats always believe what they see in print.

I am not saying that Dean was misquoted, but really wonder if the article captures the tone and inflection of his statements, and whether he was taken out of context. I have to believe by the headline alone that this reporter has an agenda which is not to report the news.

That people - both pro Dean or pro another candidate always attack each other rather than consider the quality and accuracy of the reporting is just beyond me.

This thread is like a Christmas present to Karl Rove. People - you should be ashamed of yourselves - keep your eye on the ball!

Who is the reporter, what is the reporter's reason for the headline, what is the agenda!

Rooting out all of those "conventional" politicians seems to be the main focus of the Dean campaign. He and Al Gore want to "remake" the Democratic Party but they don't think it's necessary to win the general election in order to achieve that goal.

By Dr. Dean's estimation,the Republican and Democratic parties are becoming too much alike. Dean revealed his hand recently when he criticized Bill Clinton's steerage of the party, rebuking the Big Dawg's notion of "the end of the era of big government".

Dean will be content with wresting power away from the evil clutches of the DLC. He and Al Gore can set up shop, bide their time and make a run at the presidency in 2008 after the Bushistas have the country reduced to shambles.

A slight variation of the Nader 2000 agenda.

He wants the people to be able to decide who their leaders are. If/when Dean gets the nomination, this will become much clearer. I hope you will trust me about this. I've been following this campaign for a long time.

his statements, such as the one in the original message.

seeing a Dean supporter such as yourself who is willing to say, "If/when Dean gets the nomination".

It is a refreshing sight and one I've seldom seen on these threads.

:thumbsup: :-)

Sorry, is there too much of, "when President Dean signs the ___ bill .."

He is uncomfortable with the media pundits asking him about his "front runner" status and points out that the democratic process will determine what happens. He couldn't actually declare himself to be from the democratic wing of the democratic party and then assume his own candidacy.

This is so important to our country right now. We have to have a working process, particularly after the disaster of 2000.

That's why I don't like it when so-called journalists write dishonest headlines. It has been done to all of our candidates.

I can't stand the divisive tactics, and I'm convinced they're coming from the right wing because the right wing loves this kind of thing.

We should all be better than this, and we can be. If we allow the right wing to divide us, we'll be weak. We can't allow that to happen. So we have to believe in our democratic process with all of our hearts, and we have to work for it--no matter which candidate. This may be our last chance.

Thanks again for your kind comment.

"<snip>this will become much clearer. I hope you will trust me about this. <snip>"

Why can't you tell us NOW?

Perhaps it's like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war?

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

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

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

Last month, the polls showed Dean and Clark neck in neck, with more Democrats supporting Dean than Clark. This month, they showed something different. Next month, they'll show something different still -- they could show Clark below Carol Moseley Braun if she adds another 6% like she did in the last poll. Yet somehow, I doubt the Clark folks will jump ship to her campaign. Early polls are meaningless. Often, LATE polls are meaningless -- like the ones that showed Clinton and Dole "neck in neck" prior to the election.

If the only thing you care about are polls and being a "winner," rather than principles, you've already got a candidate -- his name is George W. Bush.

I must say I tire of the constant efforts to twist the words of Dean into something he's not said. Dean is indicating the simple truth -- which is that he cannot guarantee that all these NEW VOTERS he's brought into the party with his ideas could get as psyched about, say, an establishment senator from Massachusetts, a conservative four-star general, or an establishment senator from Connecticut.

Anyone who claims he said anything more than that, or "threatened" anybody, is lying, plain and simple -- and we have more than enough lies in the Bush camp. We don't need them from fellow Democrats.

Some people just look for crap that isn't there, just because they support someone other than Gov. Dean. It's amusing, at times, and infuriating at others...

Thank you.

Dean does not have to say (and he has said it repeatedly, now) that he can't make his supporters vote for anyone else.

I'll make two points:

Point #1. No one can guarantee anyone else's actions. That's understood, doesn't need to be said at all, unless you want to hint that your supporters will not vote Dem if you're not the nominee.

Point #2. Dean's supporters are unusually susceptible to suggestions from him. His influence on them is enormous. Ergo, he could influence most of them to vote for the Dem nominee, whoever it is.

Dean does not have to say (and he has said it repeatedly, now) that he can't make his supporters vote for anyone else.

I'll make two points:

Point #1. No one can guarantee anyone else's actions. That's understood, doesn't need to be said at all, unless you want to hint that your supporters will not vote Dem if you're not the nominee.

Point #2. Dean's supporters are unusually susceptible to suggestions from him. His influence on them is enormous. Ergo, he could influence most of them to vote for the Dem nominee, whoever it is.

Dean does not have to say (and he has said it repeatedly, now) that he can't make his supporters vote for anyone else.

Dean actually has to reiterate this point because the assumption from the media is that we're all brainless starry-eyed cultists. As a gay man I am used to getting smeared by the media so it's no big deal, but you should see the reactions from some of the political "newbies" to this sort of suggestion!

The reality is, anybody who wants to inherit the Dean "superstructure" (if he's not the nominee) has to inspire and motivate the participants the same way that Dean has. They have to allow the superstructure to run independently of central control (as Dean has) rather than "bring it in house" (which would ruin it). They cannot expect people to be committed to "another path" unless that other path is similar to the one they were on, and excites/motivates/encourages the way Dean's does.

:kick:

In case you didn't notice, this is not an opinion article posted by a Clark supporter - it's Dean's own words trying to extort votes from other Democrats. Why am I not surprised that "the good doctor" has a God complex?

Sadly, now I understand why people are ready to give up on the Democratic Party. With "front-runners" like this I'm ready to throw in the towel.

The disservice you do is to the party and yourself (not to mention the country).

Dean has no more "control" over his supporters than Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, etc. And he has stated, from the beginning, that he will support the Democratic nominee for president. Period. Any suggestion otherwise is just plain dishonest.

Think about it -- why would the front runner risk his position of strength to make a threat for support when he doesn't need it?

Further, you're going to have to work with people you're presently blasting at some point if you want to win, whether that person's choice is the nominee or not.

And from my research on him I have come to the conclusion that he does have a God-complex. This is the last thing I want my next president to have. Sure, it's my opinion but it's my right to have that opinion, and to share it on this board.

I do no disservice to anyone except those who would silence me because I am a Dean supporter. And those who would silence me for that reason are not worth my time. Those who would patronize me, like yourself, are worth my contempt.

So then Dean people are not being insulted, we're just cultists following a man with a God complex who thinks he can command us to support whoever he wants. When we're not spending time trying to silence you, we're patronizing you or working overtime to earn contempt in the face of your extensive research proving Dean is the AntiChrist. Thanks for clearing that up. :evilgrin:

"I think eventually the nomination is going to be won by somebody with a positive agenda," Dean said. "What's happening is, in their desperation, those guys have thrown their positive agenda out the window. I can't imagine it's going to help them. It might hurt us but it can't help them."

between all the screaming and rhetoric. His stump speech is scream at Bush, followed by scream at Enron, followed by 'You have the Power'. Simply awe inspring...

Yeah, it sounds like you missed it completely.

his prior threat goes nowhere so he tries to up the ante on the threat.

And he decides to break his no personal details thing to be Christian as he dips below the Mason-Dixon line.

This is just so pathetic for a supposed frontrunner.

No wait, this is Dean, and entirely believable. Never seen such arrogance from a major Democratic contender for president. Ever.

I knew he would do this, as I have been telling his supporters on here for weeks on end.

whether he should have said something like this
much less whether it constitutes a threat
I'll just say this

I know a good number of Dean Supporters. In EVERY case - they would vote for Lieberman rather than Bush. They WILL go to the polls.

So who gives a crap what Dean thinks - these people were angry long before Dean was. Dean is NOT the catalyst. Bush is the catalyst. Dean is the benficiary - and if he were not there every Dean supporter I know would be just as angry and supporting someone else. The only thing big in this story is Dr Dean's ego.

Like, for instance, calling Dean wrong on the Iraq war, not an "expert" enough to see it was a good thing, etc...

If you agree with Dean on Iraq, then this is insulting.

However, since Dean will win the nomination, this is a non-issue.

AGAIN! What an arrogant thing to say. Makes me think he wrote Al Gore's endorsement speech. You know, the one where Gore told all the supporters of the other candidates to "get behind Sir Howard"...:eyes: Unbelievable statement. :grr:

Dean is for himself. Kind of selfish.

Folks, Hope you all snap out of your 'Camelot' JFK dream world and intelligently look at the big picture! If there were only Democrats voting, then Dean is the man. HOWEVER, if the ultimate goal is to take over the governmental branches, then you need to think about who will command the most votes from ALL parties (Green, Dems, Libertarian, Independant, and Rep). My opinion, this is not Dean. Dean may be the 2008 or 2012 choice, once momentum is built up. If you vote your heart and not your mind, then you will have a broken heart and a headache.