Explaining Support for Dean in a Nutshell

[BurtWorm]

Dean has been the candidate for Democrats who are tired of playing it safe, who are convinced that playing it safe cost Democrats Florida and the national election in 2000, the Congressional purge of Bushism in 2002, the California recall in 2003, etc. Dean has been the candidate for Democrats who want to draw blood from Republicans in 2004, who want to make the Bushists pay for what they've done to the country, make them pay all year long and through the nose.

Whoever wins the nomination had better realize that we don't want to lose in November. And they better be willing to take big risks to ensure that we don't.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. Odds Are, When You Shoot the Moon

You lose.

God spare me from impatient Dems who are ready to roll the dice with a bet on snake eyes.

DTH

[BurtWorm]

2. Odds are better than when you play a losing strategy you lose

So why play it again?!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. Bill Clinton Won Twice, Last I Checked

Sorry that simple fact is so inconvenient for you.

DTH

[Redneck Socialist]

8. Hmmmm...Ross Perot have anything to do with that? n/t

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. Absolutely Zero

Check the stats. Perot had zero electoral college impact, despite the popular misconceptions on this subject.

DTH

[JVS]

18. Do you have a link?

I'm not saying that you must be wrong, but 19% of the voters and an election where Monatna, Colorado and Nevada go Democratic just doesn't seem to prove your point. Especially considering that Perot got like 26% out in those three states. I'm not saying that Perot definitely was the deciding factor, but I don't see how he's ruled out. What are the stats that will show me.

[Redneck Socialist]

28. We must have different stats

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/elections/96-92electoral-college.shtml

In 1996 I count at least 10 states and 124 electoral votes where if the Perot votes had gone to Dole it would have swung the election.

[BurtWorm]

33. Thank you for that.

I wondered where the statman went. Glad someone got them for us.

[JVS]

34. He's busy starting another thread

[BurtWorm]

35. I noticed.

;)

[JVS]

11. Not to mention Dole being the saddest sack candidate in a long time

[Democrats unite]

16. Who is Ralph Perot?

is He related to Ross Perot?

[Redneck Socialist]

30. Hey it's late, I'm tired. n/t

[BurtWorm]

10. Bill Clinton won a plurality against Bush I with Perot in the race

and a plurality with Bob "Loser" Dole as his sole opponent. Since then, Dems have had the shit kicked out of them in virtually every major contest--not in terms of votes, necessarily, because Gore did beat Bush in 2000. Playing nice and safe doesn't work anymore.

By the way, I think Clark has it in him to kick the shit out of Bush, if he ignores the nervous nellies in the Clinton wing and borrows some of Dean's juice.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. Again, Perot Was Meaningless

Check the record and the stats.

DTH

[BurtWorm]

19. Perot won electoral votes in 1992, and he's meaningless?!

That's a pretty impressive stat for an independent.

[JVS]

22. He did not

but he did get 19%
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

[BurtWorm]

24. Sorry, you're right.

I misremembered that he "won" Maine, but he didn't do that. He just placed there.

In any case, 19% is an impressive stat.

[JVS]

26. Yes it certainly is

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. 19% Is Absolutely Impressive...But It Made No Difference to the Race

Clinton would have beat Bush without Perot in it.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. Umm...I Hate To Break This To You, But Perot Won Zero Electoral Votes

And his second-place support split evenly between Clinton and Bush.

DTH

[JVS]

23. What stats? Where is this?

[Hawkeye-X]

13. And may I remind you that Clinton was an experienced Governor

like Dean was?

Clark is not experienced, sorry to say, DTH.

[JVS]

21. Bill Clinton also oversaw the loss of congress

[Larkspur]

41. Clark is not Bill Clinton and doesn't even have 1% of Clinton's or Dean's

campaign skills.

Clark will get steamrolled by Rove if Clark is the nominee. Clark is a terrible campaigner.

[jsw_81]

20. Your candidate voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush

Plus he supports a flag burning amendment. Why should we trust him?

[JVS]

29. Not to mention the lack of a political record

[dfong63]

37. shooting for the moon is a good description for what Clark is doing

... and his supporters too.

Clark has zero track record in electoral politics. he switched parties at the last minute (or even later than the last minute). he switched positions on the Iraq war. now he's apparently switching his position on free trade (a welcome change, but still a change). i wouldn't trust him any farther than i could throw him.

[Democrats unite]

3. The Florida Recall 2003?

I think we need a retraction here.

[BurtWorm]

5. Freudian slip.

:insert "oops" smiley:

[Democrats unite]

6. I hate to have to say this but the biggest reason we lost in 2000...

Threw his weight behind Dean.

Yes I put the blame on Gore, trying to distance himself from Clinton was not a wise choice.

[WilliamPitt]

7. The only fly in the ointment is this

Campaigning on an if-it-feels-good-do-it platform, i.e. getting all unhinged on Bush and every Democrat who has failed to block the plays in the last three years, feels righteous. God knows, we all crave a feeling of righteousness after the last three years. But most of America is hypnotized by the bullshit, and I am not sure this is the best tack to take.

I'll be happy to be wrong, and Dean has my support upon nomination no matter what happens. I just hope he finds his way back to the "Washington Democrats" before too much more time passes, because he is going to need them to win. I'm also not sure putting the ideological wing of the party in the driver's seat is the best bet for a national campaign across a country where 90% of the voters don't really see things through DU-type lenses. That's the downside of an internet-based campaign, I fear.

Hoping I'm wrong.

[Redneck Socialist]

14. "Washington Democrats" need to...

...come over to him. If, as you seem to fear, Dean wins the nomination and the Washington establishment abandons him or sit on their hands and does nothing (same thing really) then yes he (we) will lose.

If on the other hand the establishment dems use their money and influence to support the energy and passion of a legitimate grassroots movement we have more than fighting chance to beat the Bush machine.

[FubarFly]

15. Have you checked out his endorsements lately?

Plenty of establishment types are coming around. Dean has been quietly building an impressive network of Party support.

http://www.endorsementsfordean.com/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_search=1

[BurtWorm]

17. But Dean is not "ideological" as far as I can tell.

Ask any Clark lefty or your fellow Kerry supporters. Dean lefties know he's not ideologically pure. I'm not looking for ideological purity. I'm looking for someone who knows how to land a punch that really, really hurts. We're not up against nice guys. That should be clear to everyone on this board. It's not about righteousness. It's about devastation.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

31. "Dean has been the candidate.."

"Dean has been the candidate for Democrats who are tired of playing it safe, who are convinced that playing it safe cost Democrats Florida and the national election in 2000, the Congressional purge of Bushism in 2002, the California recall in 2003, etc."

In rhetoric and media coverage I agree.

TWL

[BurtWorm]

32. "Kucinich is the candidate for Dems tired of the whole shebang."

Would you agree with that? I think if I were in my 20s, I'd be strongly for Kucinich. I'd have less of a sense of my own mortality and would be whole hog for ideological purity. But at 44, I'm tired of losing crucial elections. I don't know if this is a change for the better. ;)

[ThirdWheelLegend]

36. I understand about losing. I just don't understand 'winning'.

I understand being tired of losing crucial elections.

Here is the question: What constitutes a win?

I think this is the most important question. Do we win just because a of the letter (D)? I consider 'WE' to be the people of this country and the world. And I'll tell you I don't think they win anything by simply getting a (D) into office. They still lose, but maybe a little less and the last place trophy is delivered with a :) on it.

Looking back at the 8 years of Clinton/Gore, WE THE PEOPLE lost a mother lode. NAFTA, DMCA, TELECOMM ACT of 96, more deregulation, more war. We just had the charming Bill Clinton to make us feel good about it. Oh yeah and the (D).

Do we win without cutting the Pentagon budget?
Do we win by continuing the illegal occupation of Iraq?
Do we win by keeping the patriot act?
Do we win by keeping NAFTA?
Do we win by being cozy with big energy?
Do we win without Universal Health Care?
Do we win... ?

I am not so sure.

TWL

[BurtWorm]

38. One victory for the people is on my mind.

Kicking the fascists out of power. That's all I care about at this stage of the game, because fascists are more dangerous to the nation and the world than Democrats. When they're out, then I'll feel more free to press on in the bigger game of fully restoring power to the people.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

39. My issue: Replacing fascists with Shiny Happy Fascists(tm)

lol I don't think I can trademark that :P

anyway...

"That's all I care about at this stage of the game, because fascists are more dangerous to the nation and the world than Democrats."

Which Democrats? The ones who are just as beholden to the corporate interests as the republicans? As I said before just because your oppressor is charming and makes you feel good does not mean you are any better off.

I worry that by putting the happy face on our destruction that this calms the people. As the Chomsky book says, "Manufacturing Consent".
We forget our anger and outrage and all the wrongs in the world. With Bush and his caravan of raging assholes it is not hard to see the injustice in it all. With a (D) and a smile we may just become sedated enough to forget what is really going on... until it's too late.

TWL

[BurtWorm]

40. You point is well taken, but

I don't believe people ever stop working on justice issues, and you have to admit, it's easier to work on them when the government is not looking for ways to make its critics look like terrorists. The president of the United States is not going to be a radical leftist any time soon. But the radical rightists are in power now. It seems to me, the more urgent task is to disempower the rightists. The sooner the better.