Um. Honestly, the reason I first began supporting Dean? Was because I liked him, not because I agreed with him. I do more or less agree with him (although he never seems to mention some issues that are very important to me, and I’m lukewarm on some that he keeps putting at the forefront). But I saw Kerry and Gephardt speak at the same event where I saw Dean that first time, and they said a number of things I agreed with too. What Dean had that they didn’t was precisely heaps and heaps of charisma.
I think I see where you’re coming from; Dean’s charisma isn’t the same kind as either Clinton’s or Bush’s laid-back, friendly fratboy sort. Dean’s charismatic and passionate in a way that Clinton and Bush weren’t at all. But he’s not a humorless leftist scold - I’ve met one of those, too, and his name was Kucinich. And I recall thinking as I left his speech that he seemed like a nice guy with some nice ideas - he even hit one of my hot-button issues that Dean seems to ignore - but his personality was completely uninspiring, and would make him unelectable even if I felt inclined to support him.
And, frankly, that charisma is exactly why I feel like Dean is the only one of the Democratic candidates that I know much about who has a serious chance at beating Bush. Kerry and Gephardt have a complete lack of anything to put up against Bush’s affable fratboy persona. But Dean’s got it.
One thing about Cleland he was polling about 10 points higher than the Republican guy when he went into the election. He was very popular and considered untouchable on things like national security.
I think he lost because the voting machines decided to vote Republican( I looked at an article on them and the software is made so that someone with no computer experience can change the votes and fix it so no one can tell).
Actually, I think Dean is vulnerable on another front: the Democratic front.
I fully expect one of his Democratic opponents to start attacking him on social issues. If that seems illogical, remember this: back in 1988, it was NOT George Bush or Lee Atwater who dug up the Willie Horton issue as a weapon against Michael Dukakis: it was Al Gore! Once it became clear that Dukakis was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, he became a target for attack from the increasingly desperate Democrats who hoped to derail him.
Right now, Dean is the frontrunner of the Democrats, in terms of money and media exposure. PERHAPS, the other Democrats will roll over and play dead for him, in the interest of party unity… but don’t bet on it. I suspect one or more of the Democratic contenders will start firing at Dean on social issues before long.
Chance:
I’m rather curious about the word “reëlection” that keeps showing up in your posts. Are you doing this intentionally, or is your computer doing it for you? Sorry if it seems overly trivial, but I can’t help wonder.
I agree that the other Democrats will attack him. Though funnily enough it is only recently that they have stopped. According to the other campaigns they all want Dean to be the frontrunner in order to weed out the competition. Which makes sense as Dean is sort of on one side of things and all the other candidates are on another side. That allows them to present one strong contender against Dean.
The Ryan—I put the dierisis on reëlection because that shows that there’s another syllable there. Usually, two Es next to each other are pronounced together, like in meet; this just makes it clear that they’re not. I also do it with coöperation and reälign, for example, and there are others. I draw the line at reäct and doïng, though.
It’s clear enough to English speakers that there are two syllables there, I realize, but I feel it needs to be emphasized (not deëmphasized). Others who feel this way may simply hyphenate, but the dierisis is more neat, I think.
I guess this might be a little old-fashioned, but it’s important to me. The only English-language publication that I can think of off-hand that does this is The New Yorker, though there must be others.
My own personal pet peeve is the first-past-the-post (or “winner-take-all”) system that Canadians, and Americans, have to put up with. Many of us have to choose between voting for a party (eg Green) and voting against a party (eg republicans/tories, in my case). Can’t do both.
I quite like Nader because he’s far more interesting than anyone Canada’s come up with to challenge the two-party rule (although I’m keeping a close eye on Layton). Is electoral reform possible/likely in the U.S.? And is Nader still the third-party candidate?
Sorry for the hijack - this is an interesting discussion that I otherwise can’t contribute to, beyond watching and learning !
My Nader comment about the Green Party getting less protest votes this year. I’m quite certain that people who vote have had it handed to them that their vote does matter, thanks to last Florida.
I like to think it’s possible. Many people, when confronted with the idea of electoral reform, will sputter, “But… but the Constitution says it has to be that way, and it’s very hard to change the Constitution!” Not exactly an argument, but rather mroe of an indication of just how unimportant the issue is to some people.
Of course, “electoral reform in the United States” is a broad topic. When I think of electoral reform, the longest criticism I’ve had of it is our Electoral College, but you might mean something else. I also feel that it’s very important that voting systems be standardized, and the Florida model not be allowed to continue, much less expand into other states—but this is another topic.
Basically, one of the troubles with proposing electoral reform is that there are always plenty of detractors who will automatically assume you’re just a partisan trying to overturn the last election. Not so. I’ve opposed the Electoral College for many years, and the 2000 election only deepened my feelings about that. The mess in Florida is a newer problem, and one that is not being addressed nearly enough.
Nader might still be a third-party candidate. If he wants to run for president again on the Green Party ticket, the nomination is certainly his for the asking. However, he might not ask for it. Nader has publicly said that if the Democratic nomination goes to either Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich, he won’t run. He added a caveat to Dean, though: as long as Dean doesn’t compromise his positions while running for president, he wouldn’t enter the general election, provided Dean got the nomination. So we’ll see whether Nader will run again. As an avowed Dean supporter, I’d like to see to it that Nader doesn’t feel the need to.
I’m starting to come around a bit on Dean. He’s been playing up his more moderate positions lately, particularly fiscal responsibility, without letting up on the relentless attacks against Bush. Kerry is still my first pick, in no small part because it will be next to impossible for Dean to win the general election as the gay marriage candidate, and he’s been skewering Bush pretty well himself lately. Anyway, I’m no longer convicned that having Dean as a frontrunner is a bad thing. A Kerry-Dean ticket would be damned interesting, I think.
The Democrats’ basic problem is that anybody who is liberal enough to win their nomination is too liberal to win the general election.
Right now, Dean is their fair-haired boy, because (basically) the media has crowned him. The Democrats have the choice of either forming their usual circular firing squad around him and start attacking him, or nail their colors to the mast and hope he doesn’t do anything stupid for the next sixteen months.
Anyone who attacks Dean will lose media coverage. Mainstream media types hate it when Democrats don’t do as they are told, so they aren’t going to give any publicity to an attacker of their designated hitter. Remember Dean’s gaffe about “breaking into the country club”? If he keeps saying dumb things like that, they won’t be able to hush all of them up.
Health care costs are going to be an issue in the 2004 elections, so Dean had better be loudly in favor of means testing for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, or he loses credibility on the deficit, and the “entitlements for the rich” stuff that Democrats trot out every month or so. On military matters and the war on terror, Dean has no credibility, so he will try hard and fail to avoid the subject. The whole “Bush lied about WMD” thing will be played out in a few months, so whatever bump they get from that will be gone by next year, except as a sermon to the Democratic choir.
A lot can happen between now and the elections, and probably will, but if the economy recovers (as it probably will) whoever the Democrats pick might as well concede now.
I don’t necessarily think it will be a landslide, but it certainly won’t be as close as the 2000 elections.
I’m hoping Hilary changes her mind and runs. Now that would be an interesting election.
It’s beginning to look like 1994, in a way. That was the year that the country was shocked when Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America led the Republicans capture of both houses of Congress.
The Republican victory shouldn’t have been a surprise. There was lots of pre-election information pointing in that direction. However, for one reason or anther, that information was downplayed by most of the media. I see a similar thing happening today.
Consider, for example, this headline from today’s New York Times: In Ohio, Iraq Questions Shake Even Some of Bush’s Faithful. Sounds bad for Bush. However, the article itself says,
Democrats who just look at the headline may be unduly encouraged.
Not so. Consider Bill Clinton, who won the nomination and did just fine. And he wasn’t even a liberal. Michael Dukakis was a liberal, yes, and he was pummeling George Bush until the Willie Horton thing came along. Dukakis was no dream candidate, but I honestly think he’s underestimated, despite the train wreck that the 1988 election was for him.
So is that why the media were so wrapped up in the lovefest over George W. Bush in 2000? Or does this only apply to Democrats? And regarding 2000—did the media hate Bill Bradley and love Al Gore? If so, then why did they turn on Al Gore?
Even if the economy recovers, I wouldn’t say that would be a guarantee of invulnerability for Bush. After all, remember all those people who said the humming economy would render Gore unbeatable in 2000? And remember how close that election turned out to be?
If it were that unlikely for the Democrats to win the 2004 election, I’m sure none of them would be running. Bush is beatable, but there are no guarantees yet.