Will Dean go quietly into the night....

[agcatter]

if he is stopped short of the nomination?

Bill Safire in his column this morning doesn't think so.  I agree.

Safire thinks the Dean personality is such that he'll be royally pissed as will his angry supporters.  He sees a three way split in the general election which Safire terms a bad thing since it would turn a one sided Bush - Dean race into an absolute wipe out because it would further splinter the Dem vote.  Safire, a Republican, argues that a landslide of such proportions would NOT be good for the country.

Would Dean run on his own in the general?  I can a lot more see that scenario than I can Howard Dean just falling in line behind the Dem establishment that banded together to stop him.  No way the volitile Howard Dean, who can almost taste the nomination, is going to just fall in line and be the good trooper in the general.  This is his one shot and this is not the kind of guy who is going to kiss Wesley Clark's behind.  My guess is that we'd see a Howie meltdown of epic proportions should he be denied what he's worked for all these months.

Safire argues the Dems will be better off just nominating the guy and losing in Dukakis fashion come November.

[Gustaf]

if he is stopped short of the nomination?

Bill Safire in his column this morning doesn't think so.  I agree.

Safire thinks the Dean personality is such that he'll be royally pissed as will his angry supporters.  He sees a three way split in the general election which Safire terms a bad thing since it would turn a one sided Bush - Dean race into an absolute wipe out because it would further splinter the Dem vote.  Safire, a Republican, argues that a landslide of such proportions would NOT be good for the country.

Would Dean run on his own in the general?  I can a lot more see that scenario than I can Howard Dean just falling in line behind the Dem establishment that banded together to stop him.  No way the volitile Howard Dean, who can almost taste the nomination, is going to just fall in line and be the good trooper in the general.  This is his one shot and this is not the kind of guy who is going to kiss Wesley Clark's behind.  My guess is that we'd see a Howie meltdown of epic proportions should he be denied what he's worked for all these months.

Safire argues the Dems will be better off just nominating the guy and losing in Dukakis fashion come November.

I would agree that a landslide wouldn't be good, it seldom is. Running as an independent is a big step, but if Dean is dedicated enough he might do it. I doubt it though, if you really hate Bush you wouldn't wanna hand him the election, now would you?

[jravnsbo]

hey how about the Dean-Nader ticket  nader said he might run as an independant.

[Nym90]

No way Dean would run as an independent. I believe he has already said that he'd support the Dem nominee whoever it is. Plus it is ridiculous, everyone was saying the same thing about McCain in 2000. There was tremendous animosity with Bush but ultimately McCain endorsed Bush and most of his supporters voted for Bush. Dean would do the same if he lost the race for the nomination. There have been lots of bitter battles for the nomination in which the losing candidate ends up supporting the nominee, and I don't see any reason to believe that Dean is any different than any of the others who have lost these races.

[© tweed]

No way Dean would run as an independent. I believe he has already said that he'd support the Dem nominee whoever it is. Plus it is ridiculous, everyone was saying the same thing about McCain in 2000. There was tremendous animosity with Bush but ultimately McCain endorsed Bush and most of his supporters voted for Bush. Dean would do the same if he lost the race for the nomination. There have been lots of bitter battles for the nomination in which the losing candidate ends up supporting the nominee, and I don't see any reason to believe that Dean is any different than any of the others who have lost these races.

He said on Larry King that he will support the Dem nominee if it isn't him.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

if he is stopped short of the nomination?

Bill Safire in his column this morning doesn't think so.  I agree.

Safire thinks the Dean personality is such that he'll be royally pissed as will his angry supporters.  He sees a three way split in the general election which Safire terms a bad thing since it would turn a one sided Bush - Dean race into an absolute wipe out because it would further splinter the Dem vote.  Safire, a Republican, argues that a landslide of such proportions would NOT be good for the country.

Would Dean run on his own in the general?  I can a lot more see that scenario than I can Howard Dean just falling in line behind the Dem establishment that banded together to stop him.  No way the volitile Howard Dean, who can almost taste the nomination, is going to just fall in line and be the good trooper in the general.  This is his one shot and this is not the kind of guy who is going to kiss Wesley Clark's behind.  My guess is that we'd see a Howie meltdown of epic proportions should he be denied what he's worked for all these months.

Safire argues the Dems will be better off just nominating the guy and losing in Dukakis fashion come November.

How would the DEMS be better off by just nominating Dean and losing in a Dukakis fashion?

[agcatter]

I don't really understand it myself.  Heck of a choice though, isn't it.  Thumped badly in a two man race, or slaughtered in a three man race.  It's never a good thing to let your anger override your common sense.  That's exactly what Dems will do by nominating Dean.

I have another theory.  The reason the Dems are determined to commit suicide is that they don't really believe they are.  Liberals live in a cacoon.  They talk to nobody but themselves.  They read the NY Times, attend the same cocktail parties with the same people, circulate the same "Bush lied" rhetoric over and over among themselves.  They have no connection whatsoever with anyone in "flyover country".  In short, they are living on their own little planet, and regardless of the polls, have the mistaken impression that most hate Bush just as much as they do.  Arrogant and condoscending, these people will wake up the day after election day wondering what is the matter with America.  The answer is nothing.  How out of touch can you get?

Zell Miller tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen to him.  After all, he's just another simple minded, ignorant redneck.  Whatever.

[Gustaf]

I don't really understand it myself.  Heck of a choice though, isn't it.  Thumped badly in a two man race, or slaughtered in a three man race.  It's never a good thing to let your anger override your common sense.  That's exactly what Dems will do by nominating Dean.

I have another theory.  The reason the Dems are determined to commit suicide is that they don't really believe they are.  Liberals live in a cacoon.  They talk to nobody but themselves.  They read the NY Times, attend the same cocktail parties with the same people, circulate the same "Bush lied" rhetoric over and over among themselves.  They have no connection whatsoever with anyone in "flyover country".  In short, they are living on their own little planet, and regardless of the polls, have the mistaken impression that most hate Bush just as much as they do.  Arrogant and condoscending, these people will wake up the day after election day wondering what is the matter with America.  The answer is nothing.  How out of touch can you get?

Zell Miller tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen to him.  After all, he's just another simple minded, ignorant redneck.  Whatever.

I think it would be unfair to say this of Democrats specifically. It goes for most people. Look at religious groups, who have the same tendency. A similar thing happened when we had our referendum in Sweden on the euro, where the elite was so united in favour that they never understood that most of the people were against, which led them to say tremendously stuoid things. It happens in all closed environments. I think a lot of people in this forum place too much stock in a lot of occuring incidents which most Americans probably will never learn about.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I don't really understand it myself.  Heck of a choice though, isn't it.  Thumped badly in a two man race, or slaughtered in a three man race.  It's never a good thing to let your anger override your common sense.  That's exactly what Dems will do by nominating Dean.

I have another theory.  The reason the Dems are determined to commit suicide is that they don't really believe they are.  Liberals live in a cacoon.  They talk to nobody but themselves.  They read the NY Times, attend the same cocktail parties with the same people, circulate the same "Bush lied" rhetoric over and over among themselves.  They have no connection whatsoever with anyone in "flyover country".  In short, they are living on their own little planet, and regardless of the polls, have the mistaken impression that most hate Bush just as much as they do.  Arrogant and condoscending, these people will wake up the day after election day wondering what is the matter with America.  The answer is nothing.  How out of touch can you get?

Zell Miller tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen to him.  After all, he's just another simple minded, ignorant redneck.  Whatever.

I think it would be unfair to say this of Democrats specifically. It goes for most people. Look at religious groups, who have the same tendency. A similar thing happened when we had our referendum in Sweden on the euro, where the elite was so united in favour that they never understood that most of the people were against, which led them to say tremendously stuoid things. It happens in all closed environments. I think a lot of people in this forum place too much stock in a lot of occuring incidents which most Americans probably will never learn about.

What are you referring to when you say: "I think a lot of people in this forum place too much stock in a lot of occuring incidents which most Americans probably will never learn about?" Most, if not all of these intellects on this forum do keep well in touch with what's going on. We stay informed. I watch CNN like it's the only channel sometimes.

[agcatter]

I didn't mean to imply all Democrats, and I'm afraid that my post did convey that.  I'm sure there are a lot of Democrats very worried about what their party is about to do.  Of course, just like on the the Republican side, it's the ideologues who are the activists and the ones who vote in the primaries.  These are the ones cut off from reality.

I also agree totally that the human tendency of people in closed environments is to become out of touch with the outside.  This is not unique to Democrats at all.  However, it does, I think, explain what is going on inside the Democratic Party at the moment.  It happened before in 1972, and happened to the Republicans in 1964.  Sad really.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It kind of reminds me of the Democrats in 1984.  After one of the biggest landslides ever - the one for Reagan, Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham said (although it has been attributed to others as well) "I can't understand how he could have won. No one I know voted for him."

[agcatter]

htmldon,
Your illustration sums up nicely the liberal cacoon problem.  I'm sure Katherine Graham encountered very few if any conservatives on her cocktail party circuit.

[Nym90]

Well, conservatives are no less out of touch I wouldn't think. People who do nothing but listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News all the time and are therefore deluded into thinking that everyone supports massive tax cuts for the rich and oppressive government intrustion into social affairs. Of course that's a false description of the great majority of conservatives, but it's no less inaccurate than your portrayal of the liberal elite. People on both sides who only hear favorable news from their own side will always have a biased view and think that theirs is the only "real America".
As for the comments about Reagan, I'm sure there were a lot of Republicans thinking the same thing about Clinton in 1996. I'm sure more than a few of you were just absolutely and utterly shocked as to how anyone could vote for that guy. Ideologues always have absolute and utter loathing for successful politicians from the opposite party.

[Gustaf]

I don't really understand it myself.  Heck of a choice though, isn't it.  Thumped badly in a two man race, or slaughtered in a three man race.  It's never a good thing to let your anger override your common sense.  That's exactly what Dems will do by nominating Dean.

I have another theory.  The reason the Dems are determined to commit suicide is that they don't really believe they are.  Liberals live in a cacoon.  They talk to nobody but themselves.  They read the NY Times, attend the same cocktail parties with the same people, circulate the same "Bush lied" rhetoric over and over among themselves.  They have no connection whatsoever with anyone in "flyover country".  In short, they are living on their own little planet, and regardless of the polls, have the mistaken impression that most hate Bush just as much as they do.  Arrogant and condoscending, these people will wake up the day after election day wondering what is the matter with America.  The answer is nothing.  How out of touch can you get?

Zell Miller tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen to him.  After all, he's just another simple minded, ignorant redneck.  Whatever.

I think it would be unfair to say this of Democrats specifically. It goes for most people. Look at religious groups, who have the same tendency. A similar thing happened when we had our referendum in Sweden on the euro, where the elite was so united in favour that they never understood that most of the people were against, which led them to say tremendously stuoid things. It happens in all closed environments. I think a lot of people in this forum place too much stock in a lot of occuring incidents which most Americans probably will never learn about.

What are you referring to when you say: "I think a lot of people in this forum place too much stock in a lot of occuring incidents which most Americans probably will never learn about?" Most, if not all of these intellects on this forum do keep well in touch with what's going on. We stay informed. I watch CNN like it's the only channel sometimes.

Yeah, that's my point. I know from being politically active that when you follow politics you get to know about a lot more things than most people. And you might say that Kerry said that or Edwards did this, man that's gonna be important, and occasionally you forget that the general public might be completely unaware of it.

[Gustaf]

Well, conservatives are no less out of touch I wouldn't think. People who do nothing but listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News all the time and are therefore deluded into thinking that everyone supports massive tax cuts for the rich and oppressive government intrustion into social affairs. Of course that's a false description of the great majority of conservatives, but it's no less inaccurate than your portrayal of the liberal elite. People on both sides who only hear favorable news from their own side will always have a biased view and think that theirs is the only "real America".
As for the comments about Reagan, I'm sure there were a lot of Republicans thinking the same thing about Clinton in 1996. I'm sure more than a few of you were just absolutely and utterly shocked as to how anyone could vote for that guy. Ideologues always have absolute and utter loathing for successful politicians from the opposite party.

Exactly. I remember the day after the last election we had in Sweden, a referendum, and my teacher asked the class if they were pleased with the result. Most kids in my school are upper class and right winged and so they all said no. And then one of them said, bitterly, if no one was pleased, then how come the outcome was what it was? He seemed unable to grasp that there were other people with other ways of thinking.

[agcatter]

<As for the comments about Reagan, I'm sure there were a lot of Republicans thinking the same about Clinton in 96.  I'm sure more than a few of you were just absolutely and utterly shocked as to how anyone could vote for that guy>

Not really.  I think most people can read polls.  Perhaps Mrs Graham was so out of touch she just couldn't imagine the polls being accurate.  In any event, it's the Dem lefties that now need to reconnect with reality.  Dean will be beaten badly.

[JNB]

 Conservatives can be in a echo chamber as much asd liberals are, and yes, there are many conservatives who do little more than parrot what Limbaugh says and what the WSJ editorial pages print. Their conservatism is quite loud, but at the same time, very shallow and often clueless.

   People need to take a few steps back when they try to talk about elections and predictions. In 96, it was clear to most clear thinking conservatives that once Dole got the nomination, it was all over for the GOP. Lamar Alexander may have been able to take on Clinton, but Dole was by in large the worst canidate the GOP had ran since Goldwater, and even Goldwater had more of a core base of support than Dole did.

  Unlike Dole, Dean does have grassroots support, and will galvanise the 35% of the electofrate that hates president Bush, but 35% is far less than 50%.

[Nym90]

I realize that most conservatives weren't shocked that Clinton won, given the polls. What I meant is they were probably shocked that people actually voted for him and liked him.

[Deltabgjim]

I don't really understand it myself.  Heck of a choice though, isn't it.  Thumped badly in a two man race, or slaughtered in a three man race.  It's never a good thing to let your anger override your common sense.  That's exactly what Dems will do by nominating Dean.

I have another theory.  The reason the Dems are determined to commit suicide is that they don't really believe they are.  Liberals live in a cacoon.  They talk to nobody but themselves.  They read the NY Times, attend the same cocktail parties with the same people, circulate the same "Bush lied" rhetoric over and over among themselves.  They have no connection whatsoever with anyone in "flyover country".  In short, they are living on their own little planet, and regardless of the polls, have the mistaken impression that most hate Bush just as much as they do.  Arrogant and condoscending, these people will wake up the day after election day wondering what is the matter with America.  The answer is nothing.  How out of touch can you get?

Zell Miller tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen to him.  After all, he's just another simple minded, ignorant redneck.  Whatever.

     Okay, reality check. I was an active supporter of a team of one incumbent mayor, a city council incumbent and two council candidates running on a smart growth platform in a VERY conservative suburban Atlanta county (Douglas). The enthusiasm and overwhelming majorities each candidate got, even in races that we were expected to lost, gives me new hope for the rank and file of progressive voters.
     Armed with this kind of verve and energy for fundamental issues, an exposure to the truth behind the glitz of Bush & Co. (e.g. "Bushwhacked" by Ivins & DuBose), and a charismatic leader, the Dems have a winning formula. Dean has the advantage that he is plainspoken and can reach the rank and file. He's opened up the Democratic party to the networking college-age set, which, properly organized, could be more powerful than FNC or the Washington Times.  
     These are amazing times when the formerly disenfranchised are given a chance to make a real difference in the daily lives of their communities. No, the liberals are not in their ivory towers in Boston and Berkeley. The south became liberal when FDR turned on the lights with the TVA. Zell Miller comes from this tradition and in his book still speaks with complete reverence toward the man (never mind a wealthy New Yorker). Yes, I admit I met and voted for Miller TWICE (and Cleland twice, oh if their fates had reversed). But I think he's lost his grip. In the book, he complains that Tom Dashcle asked him over lunch why Miller said in the Post that he thought the Majority Leader to be "tough as a pine nut". Miller explained that he had said "pine knot" and meant it as a compliment to steadfastness. Daschle apparently only half got it. Miller uses this to explain why Daschle [and his ilk] is up in his ivory tower and completely clueless as to the needs of Americans. More simply, Daschle is from a prairie state, and descriptions of tall, multiple-branched evergreens weren't the most vivid images in the South Dakotan's mine. Oh, well.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

<As for the comments about Reagan, I'm sure there were a lot of Republicans thinking the same about Clinton in 96.  I'm sure more than a few of you were just absolutely and utterly shocked as to how anyone could vote for that guy>

Not really.  I think most people can read polls.  Perhaps Mrs Graham was so out of touch she just couldn't imagine the polls being accurate.  In any event, it's the Dem lefties that now need to reconnect with reality.  Dean will be beaten badly.

Yeah, I don't even have to hope that Dean will be beaten badly, just sit back and watch it happen. BUSH: 4 MORE YEARS, 4 MORE YEARS.

[agcatter]

Delta, I hate to burst your bubble, but no northern Democrat has carried a Southern state in the last 40 years.  (Exception being LBJ's Texas in 68 in a three way split with Wallace).  But don't take my word for it.  Look it up.  Check out what happened to McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis in the South.  Zell doesn't seem out of touch in the least with the current state of the national party in the South.

There's a big difference in winning a local election and selling the National Democratic Party in the South.  Apples and oranges.  Molly probably didn't get around to mentioning that.

However, I admire your passion and enthusiasm.  It is no more passionate than that which exists on this side.  In both cases, it is very healthy and good for the political system.

[Gustaf]

Delta, I hate to burst your bubble

Yeah, right...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

, but no northern Democrat has carried a Southern state in the last 40 years.  (Exception being LBJ's Texas in 68 in a three way split with Wallace).  But don't take my word for it.  Look it up.  Check out what happened to McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis in the South.  Zell doesn't seem out of touch in the least with the current state of the national party in the South.

There's a big difference in winning a local election and selling the National Democratic Party in the South.  Apples and oranges.  Molly probably didn't get around to mentioning that.

However, I admire your passion and enthusiasm.  It is no more passionate than that which exists on this side.  In both cases, it is very healthy and good for the political system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's nice, first you burst his bubble and then you try to ease the blow by commending his enthusiasm! Seriously, though, Bush will probably win, but it isn't certain.

[agcatter]

His bubble is going to burst whether I do it or not.

Of course Bush's election is not certain.  Nothing in politics ever is.  That's why most of us on this board enjoy the game of presidential politics like we do.  Lots of twists and turns.

[Gustaf]

His bubble is going to burst whether I do it or not.

You do have a pint there....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course Bush's election is not certain.  Nothing in politics ever is.  That's why most of us on this board enjoy the game of presidential politics like we do.  Lots of twists and turns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I estimate Bush reelection chances at something like 70-80%. I think that the most likely thing to happen is that a few states, which were either very close the last time or have other reasons for changing hand, change hands, like West Virginia, New Hampshire and Nevada for the Reps and Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon for the Dems.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

His bubble is going to burst whether I do it or not.

You do have a pint there....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course Bush's election is not certain.  Nothing in politics ever is.  That's why most of us on this board enjoy the game of presidential politics like we do.  Lots of twists and turns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I estimate Bush reelection chances at something like 70-80%. I think that the most likely thing to happen is that a few states, which were either very close the last time or have other reasons for changing hand, change hands, like West Virginia, New Hampshire and Nevada for the Reps and Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Oregon for the Dems.

Bush isn't going to carry Nevada. They're still pissed about nuclear waste being buried there.