Why Dean would have lost this election

[fujiyama]

and Edwards and Clark would likely have lost as well...

This is why. There were two issues that democrats simply could not compete enough on. These were terrorism and "values". These issues were those centered on fear, and fear makes people do crazy things.

Fear of terrorism overrode people's concerns of the war. Dean and Clark could have repeatedly told people that this war wasn't going to make people safer.

It wouldn't have mattered.

People eventually didn't care about the war. Those that were upsetted enough by the war voted against Bush.

How would Dean have competed on the terrorism issue? What evidence is there that ANY Democrat would have been more competetive on this issue? Ultimately, Dean would have had to answer on his tax policy as well, which was in favor of completely repealing the tax cuts. AFter all, Bush still won on the issue of taxes. Dean would have been creamed on this issue (Gep would have as well). It's obvious that those whose biggest fear was the economy, health care, and the war, all voted for Kerry. That was all there was to be had.

The GOP was able to go after registered voters that had not voted in previous elections. These people were primarilly from rural areas and are mostly born agains and evangelicals. Dean wouldn't have appealed to them. To his credit, he is a secular person, but in TaliBornAgain America, people want talk of "values" - talk of how gays threaten marriage. But, I agree that "values" isn't what necessarily cost us the election. It really was fear, and that fear was mostly with terrorism.

People had it stuck in their heads that Bush responded to 9/11 with force. It was a mistake that people made, because Bush responded with attacking the wrong country. Kerry made this point but it didn't matter. I see no reason to believe it would have mattered if Dean made it either.

I think these "My candidate would have won this election" threads are extremely divisive and idiotic. I'd likely say it if Clark or Edwards supporters started them as well (and I think Clark MAY have had a slightly better chance). The Rove machine was well built. It was effective. I think many posters are making a mistake in looking at this election in terms of "issues". It wasn't about issues. It was about fear - fear of brown people and gays attacking America. It was an election based on irrationality. Dean was absolutely correct in stating that Bush won this based on exploiting people's fears....but as we saw with this election, being right doesn't mean you'll get elected.

We are either arguing about a three million plus margin or a 136,000 margin. If we are speaking of the latter, this conversation really doesn't make sense because it was so close. Kerry did come close in terms of the electoral college but Bush won the popular vote. It's difficult to see how Dean would beat him on either point. There is no state out there that Dean would have won that Kerry didn't, other than possibly Ohio. West Virginia, Missourri, and various other states that seemed close earlier on were BLOWOUTS. They were lost by near double digit margins. What was it that Dean said that would have appealed to West Virginians? Was it his anti war stance? What would it have been that would appealed to those in other southern states? Was it his insistance that they were voting against their interests? Once again, I agree with Dean on this point, but that doesn't make a difference to these people. To them, they were voting for their interests. They believe that creating a theocracy in the US is in their interests.

[OneBlueSky]

1. not to mention that . . .

THEY OWN THE FUCKING VOTING MACHINES!!! . . . (that felt good) . . .

[Atillason]

2. and

The reality of this election is that it was "anybody but Bush" and everybody lost. Looking at the numbers, there is really no way we could have won. There are just way to many people who want things to go back to the way they were (in the Dark Ages). People in Alabama aren't worried about terrorism, they're worried about gays taking to the streets like African-Americans did. This election had nothing to do with terrorism, Iraq, or any domestic issues other than the oppression of "deviant" lifestyles.

[arewenotdemo]

3. good points

Clark may have fared better but I'm not sure of that. I think he wins in 2008 if he's the nominee.

I totally agree that the "war president" won due to fear. Clearly, half the country is brain-dead and bigoted.

[BlazeCarson5]

4. Well I must admit Ive been drinking but your wrong

I was a solid Dean supporter and still am so i guess im biased but that man did something to everyone who got a chance to listen to him speak. He is honest, rational and wasnt afraid to take the not so safe route because the safe thing wasnt what he believed. The party chose Kerry cuz he was a war hero and it made sense to run him against someone like *. But the pugthugs chose Kerry too cuz they could use the tricks previous oposition canadates used against all through out his political career. Honestly if feasible would have gotten on the Kucinich boat but we all know that was a losing battle. Dean however lit a fire that has yet to go out. Weather people want to admit it or not Dean got this party back where it should be, shaped Kerry's campaign and should have been our canidate all the way through. I like Kerry and respect him, but once again we went with the safe bet and where did it get us.... we didnt even break even. Sorry if this dosent make much sense and the spellings bad and im new .. but just had to say it. This party needs Dean now more than ever

[JPJones]

5. I heard Dean speak

Long on fiery rhetoric, short on details.

It's not enough to list things that you are tired of. It's not enough to inform people that they have the power (whatever that means).

You are under the mistaken impression that Dean's problem is that not enough people heard him. A lot of people heard him and just weren't impressed by his vague populism.

I like Dean and think he should be the head of the DNC, but he would have gotten trounced by the Republican attack machine if he had been the nominee.

[BlazeCarson5]

8. once again disagree

I too saw him speak and i dont believe he was vague. The media played him in snipits basically saying he was antiwar and that was why all the "kids" were getting behind him .. but the truth is he had a lot of details, he had plans set out before Kerry even thought he had a chance. My only argument is this where did Kerry stand when Dean was still in it ... When they both were still in it who do you think put there position out there the best, problems and solutions. I truely belive it was Dean. I wish Kerry would have had the guts to take a firm stand on something before three months till the election. Dont get me wrong I still supported Kerry 150% But I just think Dean made more sense to me, and a lot of other people. What would they have trounced him on, cuz Ive thought about that too .. what could they have dug up worse than the stuff they fabricated onto Kerry. Those Swift shit ads would have had no impact had it not been for the video of Kerry in the Vietnam era. I dont know I just cant beleive there is going to be four more years of this monkey fuck... Im goig to bed im too drunk and tired

[BlazeCarson5]

9. one more thing

I have only been posting on here the past couple times late at night and drinking ... Im sorry about that and I promise to Post tommorrow sober ... Its just you guys can be really intimidating sometimes .. Ive been reading this board almost everyday for about 1.5 years and I love it .. But to post here is intimidating ... Thanks for everything you all do on here everyday.. and sorry for the stupid drunk rambling

[bklyncowgirl]

14. Details, details, details

The Republicans just blew us out of the water (assuming, and this is a hightly debatable point, that the election was honest) but repeating over and over again a simple mantra of conservative values, tax cuts and security.

We Democrats love long lists of detailed policy initiatives (that will most likely never be put in place) that are incomprehensible to the average voter.

One of the things I like about Dean is that he has a gift for making the complex simple. We need that ability to communicate in a straightforward way the big themes of where we'd like to take this country.

[quaker bill]

17. I heard Kerry speak

Short on fiery rhetoric, short on details.

That being aside, my wife and I put our money and hundreds of hours into the Kerry / Edwards campaign.

[fujiyama]

6. I have nothing against Dean

but I really do not think he would have won either. I'm also skeptical that Edwards or Clark would have won either.

The campaign the republicans waged was effective...and would have remained so regardless of the candidate.

We won a majority of moderates and liberals. The main problem is that party affiliations were at parity, which is the first time ever I think.

Dean may have been an exciting and interesting candidate. I'm not going to deny that. I also hope he has a continuing vocal role in the party. I just don't see how he would have competed on the terrorism and values issues. These were what the election was based on - and Dean would have had no better a chance of making this election about anything else.

As for Kucinich, we would have lost in a landslide - somewhere between Mondale and Dukakis.

[JPJones]

7. Sort of right, but Kerry was vulnerable

as a 'liberal' Senator from Massachusetts.

as a Senator who voted against Gulf War I (which was successful) and for Gulf War II (which was a disaster).

as a Senator who failed to explain how the Senate works ($87 billion vote).

as a Senator who failed to mention his accomplishments in the Senate.

as a person with a 'likability gap'.

I know of people who are moderate, don't like Bush, but voted for him because they didn't like Kerry. Here's an e-mail from one of them:

"Thanks for your email, your opinion, and most of all your respectful attitude. Most people who disagree with me just call me a moron. I do get your point. Kerry did put himself in harm's way. I respect anyone who does that. I have my problems with Bush, but Kerry just "hits me wrong"......perhaps not a very intelligent reason to oppose a presidential candidate, but it's true. I realize that it's the right wing strategy to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, but he certainly makes it easy for them. His comments about the SUV were just painful."

[NewJeffCT]

19. Kerry shot himself in the foot on the SUV comments

And, the quote that was played a million times - "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

the Kerry campaign never responded quickly enough or strongly enough with the longer list of Bush flip-flops.

I also don't think Edwards added a lot to the ticket. When they painted him as an ambulance chasing millionaire trial lawyer, we responded with 1 case where a little girl was grievously injured. We needed more than just that 1 case. The Limbaughs of the world painted him as the first lawyer to sign up for all those frivolous class action suits and it spread enough that I know a few moderates that disliked everything about Bush, but voted for Bush because they disliked Edwards' background as a trial lawyer.

[arewenotdemo]

22. And SCREW the dumbass who wrote that, oh...

"Kerry just hits me wrong". What an ignorant, imbecilic attitude!

I'd ship that MF'er to Iraq on the very first train.

[high density]

10. Without the fear of terrorism, Bush would not have won

The "values" voters are always going to go to the anti-choice/anti-gay Republicans. The thing that put it in Bush's column was really the fear of terrorism and this obviously was not present in 2000.

Those who were concerned about Iraq and the economy went overwhelmingly for Sen. Kerry.

As for Clark, he was talking about values during the primary campaign but I really don't think it would have made any difference because of his position on abortion and gays. Where Gen. Clark could have possibly made a difference on is the terrorism slice of the vote.

Then again, none of this matters if the vote is rigged. :shrug:

[frustrated_lefty]

11. I'm trying to avoid this issue.

But, you raised it. Would Dean have lost? Maybe. Would he have conceded within 24 hours of the votes being counted? NO!

Here's an interesting statistic. Vermont, where Dean governed, was rated among the three states with the best average health per capita. Guess what? Health and medical care is a selling point in Florida.

Dean was in favor of leaving gun issues to the states, and he was vocal about it. That easily could have swung Tennessee and North Carolina.

Screw it, I'm too tired to sell a candidate when the point is moot.

I agree with you on one thing. Fear decided this election, fear is shaping this nation. And, it's a sad and painful thing to witness.

How could 59 million people be SO stupid? :(

[fujiyama]

12. I disagree

that TN and NC could have been swung by Dean or anyone else for that matter. Bush won these states by double digits. There are no red double digit margin states where any Dem could have likely won. I also think that for those that believed health care was a major issue voted for Kerry.

I too am tired of these threads, but usually these types of threads have been started by former supporters of other candidates.

Either way, I'm with you in the frustration that 59 million people could see what was going on the last 4 years and decide "gee this guy sure deserves another 4". It's just mind boggling and it makes leaving the country very tempting. At the least, I'm tempted to move to a state that went blue by double digits. VT is a good option.

[JPJones]

13. Edwards or Clark may have threaded the needle

Edwards would have had the likability that Kerry lacked, but may have seemed weak. He missed a lot of Senate votes and may have been weak on foreign policy ('Who is Leah Rabin? Yitzhak Rabin's widow. Who is Yitzhak Rabin?'). He also voted for the war and against the $87 billion and probably would have failed to address this issue just like Kerry (if Bob Shrum had anything to do with the campaign).

Clark is a tough SOB, but had no experience in government. He is a loose cannon and the Kosovo war may have been used against him (Shelton saying he didn't serve with honor or whatever). I don't think the WWIII thing would have stuck (if he said, 'This is the first time the Republicans have said that a Democrat was too tough on the Russians'). But ultimately, I think he was the best choice. He also had a silver star from Vietnam, but didn't protest the war (which killed the veterans vote). He also didn't have a Senate voting record to bitch about.

[fujiyama]

15. Those are pretty much

the reasons I supported Clark.

I do however agree that he was inexperienced with electoral politics. He may have had a better chance had he decided to run earlier - meaning competing in IA. Things may have turned out differently.

Who knows. I thought Kerry did the best he could. I think he made some mistakes, but ultimately the American people really fucked themselves over giving him another 4 years. I talked to a cousin of mine from India (and she probably benefits from Bush's outsourcing policies as she works for an American company). My mom said her reaction was one of confusion asking why the hell Americans would give Bush another 4 years.

My mom had little to say. Hell she didn't even want to mention politics on the phone because she's so worried about the PATRIOT Act. I don't blame her.

[arewenotdemo]

23. good points about Clark

and the Vietnam war protest did take a toll.

It's just fucking nauseating to me that the vast majority of Americans are neither mentally nor morally capable of understanding that John Kerry's protest of a racist, genocidal war was an act of courage and real patriotism.

[Julien Sorel]

16. The Deanites will never get it, everyone else already does.

There's really no point in arguing this point, as Dean support stopped being about winning and losing a long time ago, well before the Iowa caucuses, really. If Dean runs in 2007-8, he'll be like Dennis Kucinich this cycle. Except Kucinich's supporters were actually sane, and supported Kucinich because they shared his ideology, whereas Dean support is more akin to a cultish worship of the man himself.

[quaker bill]

18. You cannot know the results of an experiment that was not run

First, most of the polling that suggests that this election was about moral values is fatally flawed. When asked to give a reason why they voted as they did, without suggested catagories, "moral values" barely registers at all. Sorry to disappoint, but it was the war on terra first and the economy second.

Kerry could not make the case against the war effectively because "he saw the same intelligence" and "voted for it" to quote Bush.

Add to this the fact that they knew how to run against Kerry. He was a known quantity. They did not have to look far to find the swifties. Although it is complete BS, the "controversy" distracted attention from the real message, Bush's failed record.

None of the other candidates running had this weakness in their resume. Rove had to look at the Democratic Convention as a complete gift. There were no serious attacks on Bush and he already had the ammo in reserve to blow apart the war hero mythos we spent all that money to create.

A better bonus yet for Rove's red state strategy was Kerry's high profile involvement in the 1960's anti war movement. (read What's Wrong with Kansas) Don't get me wrong here, personally I think more highly of him for this. However, that movement is associated with anti-Americanism, drugs, and sexual promiscuity in the red states.

Add to this Kerry's Senate voting record. Regardless of your opinion of it in total, any Senate voting record is full of compromises. The bills are large and complex and often contain some small bits the candidate would have preferred out, but they vote for the bill because the larger picture is good. The ugly bits were dissected out, as they always are, to use against any candidate coming from the Senate or the House. This is why candidates from the House and Senate rarely win.

In summary:

Gephardt would have done better than Kerry (because he did not have the Vietnam albatross).

Dean would have done better than Kerry (because he had no Vietnam albatross and did not "see the same intelligence", clear record as a fiscal conservative)

Bob Graham would have done better than Kerry (lack of Vietnam and "saw the same intelligence" but voted no because he thought the case was not made. in short, he was actually right on the war and voted his convictions)

John Edwards alone would have done at least as well (no vietnam - too young, less voting record to dissect.)

Wes Clark could have done better (war hero, General, no voting record to dissect, no swifties, no anti-war movement).

None of these guys had Kerry's well understood and very well researched weaknesses. In the final analysis they all would have done at least as well and some perhaps better. We will never know.

One thing I do know though. I will work against the nomination of the next "electable" candidate even harder than last time. Our "leaders" clearly have no clue about "electability".

[fujiyama]

21. You're right in that it was terrorism

and this was an area Bush could NOT be beat on. That's what I'm trying to say. Looking back, I don't see what could have been done to convince Americans that Bush has been wrong on fighting terrorism.

As you said, we don't know the results of an experiment that wasn't run....then how come supporters of other candidate continue saying their candidate could have? I'm fuckin sick of those threads.

[whosinpower]

20. Well, my thoughts are

That until the US discovers a way to have trully free, fair and transparent elections - then no democrat will win in the future - period. The republicans are in the first trimester of their 20 year plan - they will not give it up in 2006, or 2008.

I won't say stolen election, or election fraud - skewed and manipulated election results are closer to my thinking. WE can go round and round on moral values, rural voters etc - do you really think there are THAT many rural voters - to change the outcome of a general election???? I grew up in a rural area - and we have NO voice in government simply because we do not have the population. I think I read somewhere that Bush basically discovered an additional 9 MILLION voters (as compared to 2000???) that is allot of people.

I am not sure why the electoral process in America is so complicated and so open to manipulation. I can think of a variety of methods to make the system easier for everyone - and that does not use complicated and nonfunctioning electronic systems.

Here is one simple idea - have the ballot boxes individualized - standard boxes but coded by color - red=repub, blue=dem, green=green...and have each voter simply put his ballot in the appropriate box. At the end of the election - simply WEIGH the box - to determine who won. (that would be for presidents only)

[bemildred]

24. Horseshit.

Harry Truman said it fifty years ago, if you give the voters
a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will pick
the Republican every time. Try running on a genuine Democratic
platform instead of a Republican wannabe platform and see what
happens. "Terrorism" (scaring the shit out of the electorate) and
"values" (culture war) are Republican memes and will NEVER work
for Democrats, never. FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear
itself. THAT is a democratic message.

[seabeyond]

25. diebold would still be in place, votes would still

be suppressed and stolen

[zulchzulu]

26. Wait...Dean did lose elections in the primary season...so...

...while hypotheticals like this can be amusing, Dean didn't make it to Super Tuesday.

If you don't make it to Super Tuesday, you certainly won't make it to November 2.

Perhaps we could see why Al Sharpton would have lost too...