Reply
Fri 6 Feb, 2004 07:46 pm
What exactly happened?
It wasn't the Screech. The Screech was the last nail in the coffin--the downward spiral had started and was swirling in earnest.
Who found that tape of Howard dissing the Iowa caucus?
Was it more Howard, and his self-inflicted wounds, or the DNC?
Were the polls never accurate?
The Screech was nutty, but I can't believe it singly derailed what Howard had going. This must be the greatest reversal of fortune in American political modern history.
What is the post-mortem of Trippi's theory to spend the wad early? Interested in thoughts.
IT IS HARD TO believe the Dean campaign spent 40-something million on a caucus and a primary.
I guess it's probably hard for Dean to believe as well.
Hindsight: No matching funds.....really bad idea. :wink:
Sofia, I think it all comes down to money. Mr Dean had a message that resonated with lots of (particularly young) people. They dug into their jeans and contributed $20 or $100 on-line.
Mr Trippi thought that would be an endless source of funds, so the Dean campaign decreed that they wouldn't seek Federal matching funds.
When the Dean effort stumbled in Iowa and New Hampshire, the money coming in dried up and now he is broke and Trippi is gone.
It was, in my opinion, a fine effort to run a noble, populist effort. But doomed to failure.
I'll be elaborating on this later.
But I'm wondering if Bush was able to turn up the "Fear Factor" a bit again.
I think that the central equation is message vs. electability. Over and over, what I read and heard about from friends was that people were so happy to be part of a movement, with like-minded people, the parties, the grass-roots, stuff, activism! We can do it!! Over and over (and this was part of why I never became a Dean supporter), this seemed to be 80% about the activism -- being part of this cool movement with cool people -- and 20% specifically about Dean.
This is by definition a fickle group, a group that wants to believe that Bush can be felled and that they can help fell him by supporting _____. Before Iowa, _____ seemed to be Dean. In Iowa, the electability issue was focused as it hadn't been before, and I think a lot of the people in the ABB group (Anyone But Bush) found that Kerry stacked up better against Bush than Dean. Not that Kerry was a better person, or had better ideas, or even necessarily would make a better president (though I think he would) -- but that he had a better chance of beating George W. Bush than Dean did.
So I think it's not the scream or anything so specific, but that Dean was putting too many resources into "I can bring down Bush!" That was easily punctured.
I worry about Kerry doing that, too, he needs to strike a balance.
I think you're right.
The 80%/20%! Astute.
He was sorta destined to tank.
It wasn't about him.
I sort of felt sorry for him at the end. He must've been bewildered.
sozobe wrote:Over and over, what I read and heard about from friends was that people were so happy to be part of a movement, with like-minded people, the parties, the grass-roots, stuff, activism! We can do it!! Over and over (and this was part of why I never became a Dean supporter), this seemed to be 80% about the activism -- being part of this cool movement with cool people -- and 20% specifically about Dean.
.
The bigger question is, how well this movement can stay alive. As I see (saw) the Dean campaign as a first attempt to turn opposition to the "Bush Doctrine" into a political movement, and this is what I think Bush and his handlers are afraid of.
Check this comment I made to a web page out
Quote:
Do or Do?
Tomorrow is it for the Dean Campaign. A win in Wisconsin, Dean and his army of technically savvy activists live to fight on another day.
But defeat means the end of Dean's Presidential campign, much to the delight of Bush and his Neo-Imperialists and their allies in the Democratic party.
But should it mean the end of the movement that got Dean this far. It seems to me that this movement is what Bush and Company fear the most. Dean represented a new "Grass Roots" movement, a movement that may have begun as some people saw that Bush was going to take the tragedy of September 11th and use it to pursue an imperial agenda that I didn't understand until I read more and more. As long as this movement didn't try and become an electoral force, it was safe. Dean's campaign represents perhaps the first step towards this.
So should Dean drop out, we can't repeat the mistake made over thirty years ago and fold onto ourselves. That mistake may have lead us to this point now. We must keep going. Use sites like MoveOn, and Act For Change to keep pressure on Bush and Congress, rely on Buzzflash and Common Dreams to get the news that Bush doesn't want us to know. Of course, also keep this site as part of your toolbox as well.
We have something going here, something that may have Bush, his handlers, and those who handle the handlers, worried. And remember, very often things don't work on the 1st try.
NeoGuin, did you see the article in today's NYT about Dean's supposed ultimatum? Some weird doublespeak at the end.
Quote:As the day went on, there was some confusion about precisely what Dr. Dean had intended to say with that e-mail message. Dr. Dean's campaign chief, Roy Neel, told reporters that they should not read the words from Dr. Dean saying that he would be "out of the race" if he lost Wisconsin to mean that he would be out of the race if he lost Wisconsin.
"I don't think that e-mail says that if he loses Wisconsin, he will get out of the race," Mr. Neel said.
Asked about the confusion sowed by Mr. Neel's remarks, Dr. Dean merely referred to the words of his e-mail message, which he called "a brilliant ploy."
Asked what he meant, Dr. Dean said, "It depends what your definition of the word 'ploy' is," adding that he sees a ploy as a "strategy."
:-?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/06/politics/campaign/06CAMP.html?pagewanted=2
(Btw I love the paragraph I bolded -- vintage NYT.)
Went to the NYT for that,
Kucinich is beating Dean in Washington State?? Weird. (28.6 to 28.5 right now.)
At any rate, I think it's to be expected that Bush will do what he can to undermine his opposition, duh. And? If Dean couldn't withstand that (and as I said above, I think that was the least of his problems), would much prefer to have him out of the way now.
Here me now and understand me later: Bush and his supporters would have been thrilled to face Dean in the national.
None of them, Bush included, isn't without some weak spots. Dean had the most (or, thinking about Clark) the easiest to spot. Still, he tapped into something, and revolutionized campaign financing. He made a mark. Of course, from my side of the fence, it smells like a skid--but, he deserves a bit of deference...
Sofia--Don't be so sure.
And at least you agree that Dean tapped into something--question is, can we keep that going.
If not, I fear the next movement may not be so--nice.
It looked too much like he "lost control." That's a no-no in presidential politics.
And all you people think that Kerry, the democratic big wigs pick for president will win. I would vote for anyone, with the exception of Sharpton, but Kerry. He is a Washington man ruled by the Democrat elite. Just another boughton big business pol. If this the best that the dems can do then I think Bush is going to be pres. for another four years. God help us all!
Rabel:
I agree, to a point, which is why I think the "Dean Movement" needs to keep moving to try and get some more "Dean Democrats" into office and get some more Progressive voices in.
Fewer Daschle's more Pelosi's.