Wow! A Fox News poll shows negative numbers of Dean? Stunned, reeling, I stumble away from the keyboard in shock and dismay!
(The preceding is sarcasm. If your irony detectors do not register at least .9, you need to recalibrate. This public service is brought to you by the Mothers March Against Cognitive Dissonance…)
Yes, one print publication. A veritable torrent. To be fair, NPR has mentioned it, and I think it got some slight mention on the Sunday talk shows. It sure isn’t casting the kind of profile on the media radar that the topic matter demands. I mean, they’ve got fucking PROOF that Iraq was a set-up, and it’s SUCH a non-story. It’s strange, I thought the liberal media would be trumpeting this story to the heavens.
Well, I guess you can try to minimize the impact of your own cite now, if you want. Kinda awkward, though. Ugh - sorry, bro.
If at first you don’t succeed, retreat to the previously undermined argument. Our guy is raising scads and scads of money too. The other things about Dean’s fundraising - not only is he raising more money than his predecessors, he is doing it through small amounts from many, many more people (which to me suggests getting more commitments from more potential voters, but hey, who can say what the future will bring) and he is expanding fundraising further into red states, which should be especially good for generating movement at the state level.
And back to the bastion of “I like our guy better, so there.” Well, a less than impressive trip around the block.
But thanks for playing.
I’m too lazy (or it’s too late in the evening) to verify the following statement I snarfed off the internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true:
“Note to your friends and family that after 44 days of [the Downing Street Memo] information going public – throughout the world , that only about dozen stories were reported in the corporate-owned papers, magazines, radio and television. Contrast that with ‘Hairgate’ back when Clinton was in office where there were 770 references to that scandal (a haircut in Air Force One - that did not delay airport traffic - but implied that it did) in the corporate press after 44 days.”
Do you have a specific criticism of the poll? The poll questions were provided.
In any case, the real story is that Dean’s numbers were sharply down. Not surprising, and worth noting.
BTW, Hentor, that 18 point shift comes from a drop in the favorable rating and a corresponding hike in the unfavorable rating.
Why is that worth noting? It really isn’t likely to be because of his statements as chair of the DNC, since the current numbers are nearly identical to his numbers in the Fox poll from January 2004. So they are sharply the same as a year ago. Is that worth noting? I don’t think it helps your argument that Dean is screwing up as DNC chairman.
On the other hand, I provided you with other polling numbers that show a steady decline in Dean’s unfavorable numbers. Yet you persist in failing to account for all of these factors, and blindly soldier on.
Facts versus partisan lockstep. Sad, Mr. Moto.
I think you’re failing to account for the fact that presidential candidate and party chairman are very different jobs requiring different tactics. Ken Mehlman doesn’t behave like Bush, does he?
Yet Dean is taking on the job as if he were still a candidate, with the same hot rhetoric and bombast. And there is evidence that he is ignoring the nuts and bolts of his job, by not filling key positions and alienating fundraisers.
Again, time will tell. But I think you’re the one ignoring facts, Hentor. You busily explain away every one I present.
Really? Cite?
Well, maybe that needs to change. One depressing and frustrating feature of American politics is that we don’t really have “political parties” as the term is understood in most countries. Our “parties” are merely brand labels. No membership dues, no membership cards. Candidates are independent entrepreneurs, responsible for running and funding their own campaigns, and the party leadership has no power of discipline over them, before or after the election. Even as labels, they often mean very little, from the voter’s point of view. The Democratic candidate in a given election can be more conservative than the Republican, or vice-versa. David Duke is just as good a Republican as George Bush, Lyndon LaRouche is just as good a Democrat as John Kerry, because there’s nobody who can authoritatively say he isn’t; there’s no procedure for expelling anybody from the party. Maybe we need a system of European-style cadre parties with real organizations and real party leaders.
You can’t have that without smaller, more ideologically pure parties and coalition governments.
I don’t think the way back to health for the Democrats right now is for them to become more ideologically strident and for their party to shrink.
We don’t need “coalition governments,” we don’t use a parliamentary system. As for “smaller, more ideologically pure parties,” yes, we do need that, that’s the whole point. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169
The Pubs have been growing steadily more “ideologically strident” with every election ever since 1980. It doesn’t seem to have hurt them.
After reading so very, very, very often your dire warnings about how the Democrats should make themselves less distinct from the Republicans because their message is losing them elections, what will you do when the Democrats win the mid-terms and the next presidential election? Will this mean that the Republicans should become more like Democrats? Will this mean that you should become a Democrat?
Hentor, I grew up in the Mon Valley. My dad and granddad were steelworkers and union members, as is my brother. Another brother and my sister-in-law are teachers, like my aunt is. They’re union members too, and they’re all Democrats.
Dad’s side of the family was descended from Welsh coalmining stock, and later went into railroad work and the mills. My mom’s family was Italian. Pap came through Ellis Island in 1915, and died last year. He lived in Clairton most of his life, so it’s no mystery what political party he belonged to.
If I came through this (an environment I know you’re well familiar with) and didn’t become a Democrat myself, what on earth makes you think I’d become one on the turn of an election that didn’t go my way? I wouldn’t think you’d turn Republican after a series of bad breaks.
The flipside of my background, though, is that I understand Democrats. They’re not some foreign species to me. In a very real way they’re family. And while I have chosen not to be a Democrat myself, because of beliefs I hold that cannot be reconciled with those the party holds in general, I understand that the Democrats are an important part of the civic dialogue, that they will win elections, and that when they are a strong and reasonable and responsible party, America benefits.
Some of my criticisms in the past have been of tactics, and some have been of positions the party holds as a whole that don’t seem to help either the country or its electoral chances. These are fair criticisms, and I do offer them constructively.
In the short term, it is nice to see the Republicans winning, and I do press for this in my volunteer work for the party and my political donations. But I honestly don’t welcome long term Democratic weakness or collapse. It wouldn’t be a good thing for Democrats, it would be in ways worse for Republicans. And the country as a whole would be poorer for it.
But therein lies the problem, Moto. I come from similar background, first walked a picket line with my Teamster grandfather when I was three.
But this ain’t the “Republican Party” any more. The extreme wing has made an unholy alliance with religious bigotry. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Barry Goldwater wouldn’t piss on Karl Rove if Rove were ablaze, he had standards and principles.
A conservative party is a necessary thing, a car must have brakes. Negotiation toward prudent progress is the very engine of democratic change. (As well, they offer a reliable foil: “Well, sure, I’d love to extend citizenship to gay whales, but the Pubbies won’t let us…”)
If you repudiate this disgraceful alliance, you will certainly lose some power, albeit temporarily. But if you don’t, you’ve sold out for thirty pieces of shit. I don’t envy you this choice.
But its your choice, not mine.