Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting article on who would have been more electable?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
pstans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:01 PM
Original message
Interesting article on who would have been more electable?
Here is an interesting article I found written back in September. It questioned who was really more "electable" in the last election Kerry or Dean. I thought some people might be interested in looking at it and doing a little Monday morning Quarterbacking. Most of the points made I found to be right on. Dean does remind me a little of Bu$h in the way he stands his ground and I think this quality resonates with people. Yes, some people see this as being stubborn, but as Bu$h said, "You may not like where I stand, but at least you know my position." The same could be said for Dean. I think everyone would agree that Dean's positions were far better than Bu$h's and voter's could have clearly seen the differences in policies between Bu$h and Dean and then made an educated decision.

This isn't a "I hope Dean runs in 08" thread, but I think as DNC chair, Dean will help the candidates frame the issues, stand on beliefs, and fight back.


If Howard Dean Were the Candidate ...
Flip-flops wouldn't be the issue; Iraq would. A look at what might have been
By PETER BEINART

Monday, Sep. 27, 2004

Political punditry is harder than it looks. That's what a lot of Democratic voters must be thinking right about now. Last winter Democratic-primary voters played political consultant. They tried to step inside the minds of swing voters and figure out which Democratic presidential candidate could beat George W. Bush. With an eye cast coldly on November, they rejected the man who had first won their hearts, Howard Dean, and flocked to the more "electable" choice, John Kerry. Among New Hampshire voters who said beating Bush was their biggest concern, Kerry beat Dean by a whopping 52 points.

Democratic voters should stick to their day jobs. With just five weeks until Election Day, there's reason to believe they guessed wrong — that Dean would be doing better against Bush than Kerry is. Yes, it's too late for Democrats to switch horses, but imagining how Dean might have done sheds light on what's going on now. Here's the logic:

Americans are upset about Iraq. Less than half of voters approve of Bush's handling of the war or say that it is going well or that it has made America safer. This frustration gives Democrats the national-security opportunity they've been waiting for. But so far, Kerry has blown it. By voting to authorize war, then criticizing it in the Democratic primaries, then saying he would have voted yes again — even if he had known that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction — he has made his Iraq contortions, rather than the war itself, the issue. Even last week, as Kerry stepped up his attacks, Bush continued to evade them with one devastating word: flip-flop.

If Dean were the nominee, flip-flops wouldn't be the issue; Iraq would. The former Vermont Governor opposed the war from the start, and his rationale was as simple as Kerry's was convoluted: Saddam was not a threat. Of course, Dean would have had other general-election vulnerabilities. Republicans would have branded him the second coming of peacenik George McGovern. But Dean could have retorted that he (unlike Kerry) backed the first Gulf War. They would have ridiculed his lack of foreign policy experience. But there's an advantage to not having 20 years of Senate votes to defend, as Kerry has learned. (That's part of the reason Governors usually make stronger presidential candidates than Senators.)

Then there's Vietnam. In the primaries many of those Democratic voter-pundits figured Kerry's heroic service would reassure general-election voters that he was tough enough to lead the country after 9/11. But at best, Vietnam has proved a wash. After weeks of G.O.P.-orchestrated attacks on Kerry's war record, the Los Angeles Times in late August asked registered voters how his Vietnam service affected their vote. Twenty-three percent said it made them more likely to support Kerry, 21% said it made them less likely, and 53% said it had no effect.

And in a subtler way, Dean's lack of a war record might have actually helped him. For the Kerry campaign, Vietnam has been a crutch, an all-purpose response to any foreign policy attack. Partly as a result, Kerry's team didn't use the Democratic Convention to develop a compelling national-security message, a mistake it is frantically trying to remedy now. Dean, because he couldn't talk about Vietnam, might have focused on other things — like Bush's failure to get tough with the Saudis or fund homeland security — that Americans care more about than whether Lieutenant Kerry deserved his Bronze Star.

Dean would have one more, less tangible advantage: he doesn't sound like a politician. One reason the flip-flop charge has stuck is that Kerry, with his meandering, caveat-filled speaking style, often seems like a guy trying to avoid a straight answer. Sensing that vulnerability, Republicans have run the same playbook they ran against Al Gore: portraying Kerry's personality deficiencies as deficiencies of character. As a result, while Kerry leads Bush on most domestic issues, voters turn sour when asked about Kerry the man. In last week's TIME poll, Kerry's biggest deficit versus Bush was in "sticking to his positions." Only 37% of registered voters in the survey said Kerry does that, compared with 84% for Bush.

Dean wouldn't have that problem. Polls in Iowa showed him doing best among voters who value a candidate who "takes strong stands." It's true that Dean's passion exploded the night he lost Iowa — into a scream heard around the world. But it was the flip side of the spontaneity that made him seem authentic, a straight shooter. With his blunt, no-nonsense style, Dean actually evoked — more than any of his Democratic rivals — President Bush.

Were Dean the nominee, the Bush campaign would probably be going after him not as a flip-flopper but as a lefty. Lefty isn't exactly a term of endearment. But at least it evokes issues rather than character. Character debates sank Al Gore and threaten to sink John Kerry now. A debate about issues, on the other hand — especially the biggest issue of all, Iraq — is something Democrats could win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. We already had a huge fight here about that article when it was
first published.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hehe
I wasn't a member here before the election. Maybe some people's views on the question have changed as they have had time to come to grips with the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Back in the days
when it was heresy question the color of the tie Kerry was wearing around here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. If Jesus had run against bush, the Repubs would have crucified him, too.
No one was safe against the smear machine. And it still would have come down to a pickpocket in the voting booth.

I admire and respect Dean to no end. I admire and respect Kerry for many reasons, and he got shafted by the right wing. There's really nothing else to add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Somawas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. No, sorry, I don't think so. The noise machine would have ...
made mince meat out of Howard ( whom I like). Kerry was the much more electable of the two and , frankly, did quite well, considering the uphill battle he had to wage ( war-time president backed by endless $$$ and an utterly unscrupulous organization).

Dean, in addition to, being hammered mercilessly for being too far left would have been excoriated for dodging the draft, being from Vermont, being from New York... you name it, the noise machine would turn it upside down.

Dean never would have held on to the middle of the road Dems to the degree that Kerry was able to. 48% is not bad. That's pretty close to the dem ceiling in nat'l elections. Clinton got 43% in '92 and 49% at the PEAK of his popularity against the pathetic, bumbling Bob Dole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. It doesn't matter whom you nominate against a fraudulent election

It might only change the where and how much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. Ah, go ahead
break my heart.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. Please edit your message per DU copyright rules
which permit a maximum of four paragraphs of the original article and a link to the article itself.

Thanks!
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. You only need to look at Britian to see how true this is
The Conservative Party has the very same problem we did and is losing just like we did. Clearly, Dean might have lost anyhow, but if we don't learn anything else from 2004, we need to learn that we should stick with our guns. We knew the war was wrong but we went wobbly when Saddam got caught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-01-05 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. Let's make it real easy
Dean: "Give Saddam 60 days to disarm, then go in, unilaterally if necessary"

RNC: Dean's a hot head.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC