Howard Dean 2020

[Suburbia]

I think the former Vermont governor and former DNC chairman should run for president in 2020. He's feisty on MSNBC, and he would do well. Thoughts?

[Sir Mohamed]

Nah, he's a yesterday's man. Dems should go with a new face.

[tosk]

even as a republican, i find him really really likable and funny. I have no idea how he would do in the primary but he miiiight be able to squeeze something out? maybe. He could definitely win in Iowa and New Hampshire which would give him an edge assuming he pulls it off. the south would be hard for him to win in I'd think but otherwise he has potential. if he were to win the nomination, I imagine he has a lot of gravity in the midwest and could flip states back. He might be able to get maine's 2nd. all this said i don't think he necessarily wants to run, but i see the appeal.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Funnily enough, despite his enormous success as chairman of the DNC in the mid-00s, he now has a pretty bad reputation among progressives due to him being a lobbyist for corporations after his chairmanship.

However, he has no chance due to my 2 rules that a Democratic candidate MUST have in the television era:

- Be 52 years or younger
- Be attractive

ALL non-incumbent Democrats who were elected in the television era (so 1960 and beyond) have fulfilled those 2 criteria.

JFK was 43

Carter was 52

Slick Willie was 46

Obama was 47

And they were all attractive (according to women I have talked to). The only Democrat in the television era who won despite not reaching those 2 criteria was an incumbent (LBJ).

If the Democrats nominate people who don't fulfill BOTH of the requirements they lose. Whether it's Humphrey, Mondale, Dukkakis, Gore (who fulfilled the age requirement), Kerry, and Clinton. McGovern also fulfilled the age requirement but wasn't the Establishment's choice.

And when you think about it it makes sense -  huge portions of the Democrat coalition are single women and young people.

[McGovernForPrez]

Howard Dean is just a knock-off Bernie Sanders at this point.

[tosk]

Funnily enough, despite his enormous success as chairman of the DNC in the mid-00s, he now has a pretty bad reputation among progressives due to him being a lobbyist for corporations after his chairmanship.

However, he has no chance due to my 2 rules that a Democratic candidate MUST have in the television era:

- Be 52 years or younger
- Be attractive

ALL non-incumbent Democrats who were elected in the television era (so 1960 and beyond) have fulfilled those 2 criteria.

JFK was 43

Carter was 52

Slick Willie was 46

Obama was 47

And they were all attractive (according to women I have talked to). The only Democrat in the television era who won despite not reaching those 2 criteria was an incumbent (LBJ).

If the Democrats nominate people who don't fulfill BOTH of the requirements they lose. Whether it's Humphrey, Mondale, Dukkakis, Gore (who fulfilled the age requirement), Kerry, and Clinton. McGovern also fulfilled the age requirement but wasn't the Establishment's choice.

And when you think about it it makes sense -  huge portions of the Democrat coalition are single women and young people.

carter was attractive? i don't see that. not an ugly guy at all but i guess he fits the era. however i would dispute your rule, i mean gore didn't count as good looking? i think you have the right idea that these requirements help candidates out and increase their viability but I don't think it's an end all be all.

[publicunofficial]

Google "Howard Dean" and "Iran"


Hell no.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Funnily enough, despite his enormous success as chairman of the DNC in the mid-00s, he now has a pretty bad reputation among progressives due to him being a lobbyist for corporations after his chairmanship.

However, he has no chance due to my 2 rules that a Democratic candidate MUST have in the television era:

- Be 52 years or younger
- Be attractive

ALL non-incumbent Democrats who were elected in the television era (so 1960 and beyond) have fulfilled those 2 criteria.

JFK was 43

Carter was 52

Slick Willie was 46

Obama was 47

And they were all attractive (according to women I have talked to). The only Democrat in the television era who won despite not reaching those 2 criteria was an incumbent (LBJ).

If the Democrats nominate people who don't fulfill BOTH of the requirements they lose. Whether it's Humphrey, Mondale, Dukkakis, Gore (who fulfilled the age requirement), Kerry, and Clinton. McGovern also fulfilled the age requirement but wasn't the Establishment's choice.

And when you think about it it makes sense -  huge portions of the Democrat coalition are single women and young people.

carter was attractive? i don't see that. not an ugly guy at all but i guess he fits the era. however i would dispute your rule, i mean gore didn't count as good looking? i think you have the right idea that these requirements help candidates out and increase their viability but I don't think it's an end all be all.

I asked my mom and some other older ladies and they said he was. Most people from the 70s period were ugly so it shouldn't come to a surprise.

Carter at the minimum is at least more attractive than the typical President.

And you may have a point with your last point - there CAN be exceptions, albeit we haven't seen them yet. And with how people are aging "slower" these days, 62 could be the new 52 know what I mean?

With virtually all GOP nominees post Nixon, they have all been super old. And of the last 4 GOP presidential winners, not one, but TWO of them broke the "oldest first time elected President" record. Reagan was 69 and Trump was 70.

Ford was 63 in 1976; Reagan was 69 in 1980; Bush was 64 in 1988; Bob Dole was 73 (!!!!) in 1996; John McCain was 72 (!!!) in 2008; Romney was 65 in 2012 and last but definitely not least, Trump was 70 in 2016.

But  you probably noticed it and there is a major exception - Bush in 2000! So perhaps in 2020 we could see an exception to the age rule for the Democrats. As mentioned earlier, 62 is the new 52!

[tosk]

Funnily enough, despite his enormous success as chairman of the DNC in the mid-00s, he now has a pretty bad reputation among progressives due to him being a lobbyist for corporations after his chairmanship.

However, he has no chance due to my 2 rules that a Democratic candidate MUST have in the television era:

- Be 52 years or younger
- Be attractive

ALL non-incumbent Democrats who were elected in the television era (so 1960 and beyond) have fulfilled those 2 criteria.

JFK was 43

Carter was 52

Slick Willie was 46

Obama was 47

And they were all attractive (according to women I have talked to). The only Democrat in the television era who won despite not reaching those 2 criteria was an incumbent (LBJ).

If the Democrats nominate people who don't fulfill BOTH of the requirements they lose. Whether it's Humphrey, Mondale, Dukkakis, Gore (who fulfilled the age requirement), Kerry, and Clinton. McGovern also fulfilled the age requirement but wasn't the Establishment's choice.

And when you think about it it makes sense -  huge portions of the Democrat coalition are single women and young people.

carter was attractive? i don't see that. not an ugly guy at all but i guess he fits the era. however i would dispute your rule, i mean gore didn't count as good looking? i think you have the right idea that these requirements help candidates out and increase their viability but I don't think it's an end all be all.

I asked my mom and some other older ladies and they said he was. Most people from the 70s period were ugly so it shouldn't come to a surprise.

Carter at the minimum is at least more attractive than the typical President.

And you may have a point with your last point - there CAN be exceptions, albeit we haven't seen them yet. And with how people are aging "slower" these days, 62 could be the new 52 know what I mean?

With virtually all GOP nominees post Nixon, they have all been super old. And of the last 4 GOP presidential winners, not one, but TWO of them broke the "oldest first time elected President" record. Reagan was 69 and Trump was 70.

Ford was 63 in 1976; Reagan was 69 in 1980; Bush was 64 in 1988; Bob Dole was 73 (!!!!) in 1996; John McCain was 72 (!!!) in 2008; Romney was 65 in 2012 and last but definitely not least, Trump was 70 in 2016.

But  you probably noticed it and there is a major exception - Bush in 2000! So perhaps in 2020 we could see an exception to the age rule for the Democrats. As mentioned earlier, 62 is the new 52!

yeah okay i see what you mean. all the more reason to have our eyes glued!

[Fuzzy Bear]

even as a republican, i find him really really likable and funny. I have no idea how he would do in the primary but he miiiight be able to squeeze something out? maybe. He could definitely win in Iowa and New Hampshire which would give him an edge assuming he pulls it off. the south would be hard for him to win in I'd think but otherwise he has potential. if he were to win the nomination, I imagine he has a lot of gravity in the midwest and could flip states back. He might be able to get maine's 2nd. all this said i don't think he necessarily wants to run, but i see the appeal.

He's a progressive who's easy to take.  He isn't the nauseating tut-tutter that Hillary and Liz Warren are and he isn't the eager goofball Tim Kaine is at times.  He's qualified to be President, and he has the political acumen to be a successful candidate. 

Dean's persona will prove difficult for Trump to attack.  Trump will label him "Screamin" Howie" or womething like that, but Dean seems like a guy who'll be ready for that and be able to credibly get down in the dirt with Trump. 

Dean also has the persona to take on the task of convincing folks that they might have been wrong about Trump.  By "folks", I mean the critical folks in PA, MI, and WI. 

[NewYorkExpress]

If Dean couldn't beat John Kerry or John Edwards in a really weak 2004 field, he's not going to win in a much stronger 2016 field.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Howard Dean is just a knock-off Bernie Sanders at this point.

One supports single payer while the other is a health insurance lobbyist who opposes single payer. Clearly identical.

[publicunofficial]

Howard Dean is just a knock-off Bernie Sanders at this point.

One supports single payer while the other is a health insurance lobbyist who opposes single payer. Clearly identical.

Dean is a good substitute for Sanders if your only reason for supporting Sanders is a fetish for white guys from Vermont.

[OctoCube]

I never really minded Dean, maybe I just wasn't old enough to know him in 04'.  As the farthest left candidate in that primary, he seems pretty moderate now and nice enough.  I'd need to know more about him, but I wouldn't have a negative opinion of him being the nominee compared to Warren or Gabbard