In retrospect, wasn't Howard Dean more 'electable'?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
While I personally want Anyone But Bush to win the next election, this John Kerry is absolutely pathetic. I really think that Howard Dean, even if he had made a few stupid gaffes along the way, would be getting significantly more attention from the public than Kerry. I think he could have taken advantage of the opening that the public's dissatisfaction with Bush allows.



All Kerry does is nitpick on what goes wrong for Bush. His plan for everything is "I would have done everything the same as Bush except this little thing he overlooked which I would have done." Dean would have had drastically different ideas. Even if there was some risk involved, the public would have listened more than they do to Kerry. Does anyone else think that Dean really wasn't quite that radical as he was painted by the media and really was a better candidate than The World's Greatest Compromisor Kerry?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spindler

    Does anyone else think that Dean really wasn't quite that radical as he was painted by the media and really was a better candidate than The World's Greatest Compromisor Kerry?



    Dean heard of a Vermont risk



    Fuel rod parts missing from nuclear plant



    Wasn't quite the radical? While governor of Vermont, Dean stole and sold nuclear fuel rods to Al Qaeda.



    Where have you been? Connect the dots...



    Yeeeeehaaaaaaaa



  • Reply 2 of 43
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    while i don't agree that kerry's campaign strategy is to just go with the opposite of what bush believes/says, i am really, really sad that Dean is not running. in my mind, he was the perfect candidate; an alternative to big-name, big-money political, corporate-drive machines. he was the perfect mix of a realist and idealist and matched my vision for America perfectly.



    Kerry winning the primary has made me seriously question the American political system, and made me a little depressed. I like Kerry, he stands for good things, but all-in-all, he is just another career politician; another rich white guy.



    sigh. i miss Dean.
  • Reply 3 of 43
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    Dean heard of a Vermont risk



    Fuel rod parts missing from nuclear plant



    Wasn't quite the radical? While governor of Vermont, Dean stole and sold nuclear fuel rods to Al Qaeda.



    Where have you been? Connect the dots...



    Yeeeeehaaaaaaaa







    this is part of what disenfranchised me. people just gulp down whatever they are told, laughing all along. it is the exact reaction hoped for by those who make careers out of swaying public opinion, and generally harmful in every way to the future of America.
  • Reply 4 of 43
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by progmac

    this is part of what disenfranchised me. people just gulp down whatever they are told, laughing all along. it is the exact reaction hoped for by those who make careers out of swaying public opinion, and generally harmful in every way to the future of America.



    As far as I can tell there is no shortage of Bush/Cheney mockery/humor/exaggeration/hyperbole...
  • Reply 5 of 43
    akumulatorakumulator Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    Yeeeeehaaaaaaaa





    It's pretty sad that this is the main reason Dean lost.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Akumulator

    It's pretty sad that this is the main reason Dean lost.



    exactly what I was going to post.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Well there is the ability to still challenge at the convention. The delegates still elect the nominee. The could caucus and decide on someone else. It has happened before.



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 43
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    As a Republican, I would have voted for Dean had he won the nomination. At least the man was passionate about running for the highest office in the land. This election is as sucky as 2000 was. I think Nader might get the largest turnout from disenchanted republicans who can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    The real problem with Howard Dean's campaign? Despite all of the money he raised, despite 'passionate' supporters, the Dean machine collapsed when we got close to prime time. They blew through the cash, didn't get their message out to voters when it was really needed, Iowa was a disaster for them (Kerry winning despite being so far behind, not to mention Edwards pulling out 2nd), etc.



    Then Howard Dean fell apart in New Hampshire. Despite having what was supposed to be a 'strong core', the campaign couldn't rebound from the Iowa 3rd place finish and barely pulled off getting any delegates at all.



    In the end, Howard Dean won only Vermont, his home state, while other candidates, such as Wes Clark and John Edwards were able to pull off victories elsewhere.



    Yes, Dean had a platform where he could speak out, but so did Dennis Kucinich, Wes Clark and Al Sharpton. In the end, Dean was polling more than most other candidates to tell the people what they wanted to hear. Does that make him more 'electable'?



    I'm getting tired of hearing Democrats saying that the Kerry campaign is doomed and that they aren't playing hardball. We have 6 months until election day and this is going to get a *lot* uglier before it gets better. If we've learned anything so far, it's that the Republicans are going to run a lot of nasty attacks on Kerry but it's still very early.



    Right now, the Republicans are already set up for the re-election run. They had this planned out years ago and their structure was already in place. But the Democrats have yet to pull out their real strategy.



    In late June, you'll have Bill Clinton on every news show, every new channel, and generally all over the place promoting his memoirs and who *doesn't* want Bill Clinton on their show? But he won't just be promoting his book, he'll also be campaigning for John Kerry and there isn't a better campaigner on the planet than Bill Clinton.



    You'll see the convention in July in Boston be the real start of the Kerry campaign and the momentum will build through election day. It's too early to count Kerry out at this point, have some faith.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    In hind site Dean was not more electable. The Democrats should have found a nice competent governor to run.
  • Reply 11 of 43
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Akumulator

    It's pretty sad that this is the main reason Dean lost.



    basically. stupid americans, which i'm one \
  • Reply 12 of 43
    faydrauthafaydrautha Posts: 127member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    The Democrats should have found a nice competent governor to run.



    Never thouth I'd see competent and governor in the same sentence.



    I think the republican slander machine worked overtime on Wes Clark and Dean beacuse of FEAR. They truly feared that those 2 over the others would have challenged Dubya. It's a shame too because Dean at least seemed passionate about running, something I've never, EVER seen before from a candidate.



    And I was excited to hear from Clark as well. You know it's a crazy year when SHARPTON starts making legitimate points in a debate...
  • Reply 13 of 43
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Dean & Clark would have been the strongest combo. Kerry is too........wishywashy...
  • Reply 14 of 43
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    The 'scream' was *not* the reason that Dean lost the race. Heck, Dean had already lost Iowa *before* making the 'scream'.



    There's no doubt that the 'scream' didn't help Howard Dean much, but I still don't believe it was the reason he lost. Clark was right on Dean's tail in New Hampshire before the Iowa caucus but the Iowa bounce for both Kerry and Edwards took votes away from Clark and Dean finished even lower in the polls than was expected.



    I think that people didn't realize who the candidates were and when it came time to vote, people saw who had won in previous primaries/caucuses and felt that if that person was good enough for other Democrats, they were good enough for them. The two exceptions were John Edwards in South Carolina and Wes Clark in Oklahoma, and yes, I know Dean won Vermont but that was his home state.



    It's too early to judge who is more 'electable', but at the rate Dean was making those big mistakes, don't you think we'd see the Bush attack machine out in full force to capitalize?
  • Reply 15 of 43
    faydrauthafaydrautha Posts: 127member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    It's too early to judge who is more 'electable', but at the rate Dean was making those big mistakes, don't you think we'd see the Bush attack machine out in full force to capitalize?



    You don't think they were in full force WAY before now? I think they definately picked their target early.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FaydRautha

    Never thouth I'd see competent and governor in the same sentence.



    I think the republican slander machine worked overtime on Wes Clark and Dean beacuse of FEAR. They truly feared that those 2 over the others would have challenged Dubya.




    Please? Bush was grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of running against Dean.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by FaydRautha

    It's a shame too because Dean at least seemed passionate about running, something I've never, EVER seen before from a candidate.



    Clinton? McCain? You're in irrational Dean worship land. Come back to reality.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    finagainfinagain Posts: 31member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Akumulator

    It's pretty sad that this is the main reason Dean lost.



    The scream is not the main reason that Dean lost. There were two contributing factors:



    1. The overwhelming majority of Americans, despite what you read and hear, won't support folks with even a HINT of a far left tilt. Never happen.



    2. The Democrat establishment didn't want Dean to run -- they engineered his collapse. He was a nobody, an outsider who hadn't paid his dues, so they sh*tcanned him.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    I vote for the last post, it nails the two biggest reasons that Governor Dean isn't where Kerry is now.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    They yeaaaaahhhh heard round the world. That's one for the history books all right. Main factor or not its amazing how hard he tanked after that.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    What's amazing is that people cannot even remember 5 months back.



    Dean's entire ground organization was made up of true believers. That's great for creating a sense of momentum, but it was also his downfall. They were inexperienced enough to be prevented from utilizing their numbers and emotionally devastated when the Iowa results came in. This, coupled with a terrible decision to engage in MAD with Gephardt ensured that Dean wasn't going to get anywhere. All the polling in the week leading up to the Iowa caucus indicated that both Gephardt and Dean were dropping like stones, while Kerry and Edwards were surging. I saw non-public polling which accurately reflected the results 8 days out. The only thing the scream did was reenforce the, correct I should add, notion that Dean was a loose canon.



    Was Dean more electable? I don't know. Was Dean the reason Dean lost? Absolutely!
Sign In or Register to comment.