Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


No one wins MoveOn primary...
June 27, 2003 10:45 AM   Subscribe

No winner in MoveOn primary... but Dean places first, with 4387%. No candidate getting over 50% means no endorsement for now. But more people voted in this virtual Democratic primary than voted in the New Hampshire, Iowa, and North Carolina Democratic primaries/caucuses in 2000.
posted by Artifice_Eternity (67 comments total)

 
4387%? Wow. Seems like a clear winner to me!
posted by ColdChef at 10:51 AM on June 27, 2003


Dean places first, with 4387%.

What is this, Chicago?
posted by ilsa at 10:52 AM on June 27, 2003


heh...is that why they closed voter signups early?
posted by sarelicar at 10:54 AM on June 27, 2003


Dammnit, ilsa's was funnier.
posted by ColdChef at 10:55 AM on June 27, 2003


Clearly Dean, the most wired candidate, got his people to the polls... er, keyboards. But what I thought was interesting was that Kerry scored second in the candidates-we'd-support-if-it-wasn't-our-guy poll.

Does this mean the Dean votes go to Kerry if Dean's knocked out early (as somepundits predict)?
posted by AlexSteffen at 11:05 AM on June 27, 2003


more people voted in this virtual Democratic primary than voted in the New Hampshire, Iowa, and North Carolina Democratic primaries/caucuses in 2000

Don't forget the disclaimer: this was open to anyone with a working email address and was highly exploitable some someone creating accounts on the fly. I wouldn't be surprised if they got more votes than voted in the last election.
posted by mathowie at 11:13 AM on June 27, 2003


wow... "Other" got more votes then Al Sharpton.

Who is Other?

How do I vote for him?
posted by da5id at 11:14 AM on June 27, 2003


Mathowie: That explains the 4387% for Dean. :) That, or my clumsy fingers.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:14 AM on June 27, 2003


Does this mean the Dean votes go to Kerry if Dean's knocked out early (as somepundits predict)?

Hard to say. Primary voting can be very strategic. While some people wouldn't mind voting for Kerry in the general election (I wouldn't mind at all-- I saw Sen. Kerry speak, and got a good vibe from him and his ability to take on Bush), Howard Dean supporters might throw their support behind primary candidates they want to see get more attention, like Kucinich, to ensure they get more air-time (the "Alan Keyes" strategy). On the other hand, they might swing their support to Kerry if they saw him getting stiff competition from a candidate that the Dean supporters really dislike, such as Gephardt or Lieberman.
posted by deanc at 11:21 AM on June 27, 2003


Other could always be Wesley Clark...
posted by Zurishaddai at 11:22 AM on June 27, 2003


No winner in MoveOn primary...

You couldn't have said it better. There isn't a winner in the bunch.

If God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates.
posted by scarabic at 11:29 AM on June 27, 2003


Amen, Brother Ashcroft
posted by eatitlive at 11:33 AM on June 27, 2003


I like what I've heard about Edwards and although I like Dean, he's way too liberal for the country and doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell when it comes time to voting. I haven't heard a peep about Kerry.

If these candidates are all using the internet to the fullest extent, why can't I find a simple summary page of their stance on issues? Why not link to their 30 second campaign spots? Why not actually use the limitless resources of the internet to show potential voters everything you have to offer?
posted by mathowie at 11:34 AM on June 27, 2003


mathowie: John Kerry on the Issues.
posted by yhbc at 11:40 AM on June 27, 2003


matt: If you read the report from the research organisation charged with verifying the results, you'll see that your scepticism is probably unfounded.

While there may have been attempts to rig the results (such as Republican-sponsored campaigns to select Sharpton) I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of moveon members would not attempt fraud - what would be the point?

While I tend to agree with scarabic, matt's comment that Dean is "way too liberal" is nonsense: Dean is to the right of the party in most respects. Please enlighten me, just on what issues is he a "liberal"?
posted by cbrody at 11:40 AM on June 27, 2003


why can't I find a simple summary page of their stance on issues?

Word.

According to Dean's site, it looks like his #1 strength is he's not George W. Bush. This is a lame way to campaign.
posted by scarabic at 11:42 AM on June 27, 2003


Hate to say it, but DEAN doesn't have the name recognition that the other canidates do.

Of course, neither did Clinton in '92.
posted by da5id at 11:49 AM on June 27, 2003


GO DEAN!!!

But yeah, I really wish he'd stop letting his handlers market him as the anti-Bush
posted by UrbanFigaro at 11:52 AM on June 27, 2003


The results suggest that Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich are supported by a lot of voters who have internet access. Does anyone believe that Al Sharpton is going to get only .53 percent of the democratic primary vote?

Assuming that democrat voters come to their senses and end their infatuation with Howard Dean, who do all you lefties actually want to win the nomination? Do Democrats want to win the election and beat President Bush, or are they willing to give 2004 to the Republicans to clear the way for Hillary in 2008? Personally, I think that Liberman or Kerry (and possibly Edwards) would be the toughest candidate, but I see things from a different perspective than most who frequent this site.
posted by Durwood at 11:56 AM on June 27, 2003


Please enlighten me, just on what issues is he a "liberal"?

He opposed the Iraq war. If you haven't looked at a public opinion poll in the last six months, that's more liberal than a vast, vast majority of america and why I don't think he has a chance in hell.

By the way, the guy is probably 99% inline with my own beliefs and if I voted for idealism, I would put 100% of my effort behind him, but I voted for idealism before, and now Bush is president. I learned my lesson.
posted by mathowie at 11:58 AM on June 27, 2003


John Kerry is great, but more importantly, so is his wife. She's a little nutty, but she's really strong on women's rights and civil rights issues.

Of course the GOP is going to have a slander field day with someone like her.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:00 PM on June 27, 2003


his handlers also need to learn how to prep the man for the media (which my hubby would have done quite well if they ever responded to his resume requests...ok, done bitching). seriously, he did poorly on Sunday and didn't have to. I think he's still too much an amateur to go up against Bush. (at least Bush had all the best staffers of that side of politics)

oh - as my hubby says (probably on his site at thecarpetbaggerreport.com) Dean isn't a liberal, but has been trying to pose himself as one. he's more a moderate (for the death penalty and against gun control) then he is leading everyone to believe.

sorry for all the hubby stuff, but he's the expert in this family .
posted by evening at 12:02 PM on June 27, 2003


matt: Dean may be against the war, but I don't see that as being a particularly good marker for liberalism. Many traditional conservatives were also against it.

For myself, I was all for Dean until I found that he a) won't cut the Pentagon's sickeningly absurd budget and b) is a strong supporter of the death penalty. He also comes across as exceedingly dull.

Kucinich is the only candidate with an ounce of progressive liberalism in him. Too bad he comes across as a bit of a loon - perhaps he should take some dullness lessons from Dean.
posted by cbrody at 12:03 PM on June 27, 2003


Dean may be against the war, but I don't see that as being a particularly good marker for liberalism.

I'm saying that 70-something percent of the US thought it was a great idea to bomb Saddam, so that means 70% of the country would never in a million years vote for the man. I call it a good mark for liberalism because I know so few liberals that were for the war.

Many traditional conservatives were also against it.

Really? Many? I maybe saw 4 or 5 tops that wrote anything about it online.

take some dullness lessons from Dean.

Dull, safe, and middle of the road will always win a nationwide election. I'd say Kerry and Liberman are front-runners, just because they are so completely dull. Dean seems to be this election season's John McCain, and it didn't work to McCain's advantage last time. His party picked the safer, more boring bet.
posted by mathowie at 12:21 PM on June 27, 2003


Does anyone believe that Al Sharpton is going to get only .53 percent of the democratic primary vote?

Last poll I saw showed that Sharpton was the #1 pick among registered Black Democrats. While I personally don't think Sharpton has a chance at winning the nomination, that puts him in a very good position as Kingmaker when he chooses to endorse one of the other eight. It just depends on who is willing offer him the best deal.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:23 PM on June 27, 2003


why can't I find a simple summary page of their stance on issues

I've been frustrated trying to find meaty accounts of the Democratic candidates' attitudes towards a lot of questions of foreign policy. I conclude that the silence is intentional. Sticking to platitudes is "diplomatic" (not only with respect to other nations but with respect to domestic interest groups). Kerry may be a "haircut," but I actually respect him more than any of the others, even Dean. Gephardt or Lieberman would be the really depressing outcomes. I'd like to see Kerry paired with someone who can bring in southern votes (either Arkansas's Wesley Clark, as I suggested before, or maybe Edwards or Graham).

P.S. And my vote is actually going to matter, since I'm moving to New Hampshire in a month! :)
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:37 PM on June 27, 2003


Here is a good link at MoveOn that has all the candidates answering specific questions (except Liberman, I guess he didn't have the time.) It gives a good view of what their positions are.

I went into the voting fully expecting to vote for Kerry, but I didn't like his answers at all. He didn't answer the questions. I wasn't impressed. He either sideskipped and answer or gave some pat, politican sounding answer. He also avoided saying why he voted for Patriot Act I, the war on Iraq, and a host of other issues where he handed Bush what he wanted on silver platter.I didn't like his answers.

I ended up voting for Dean. I don't know if he's too liberal-but I remember that Clinton was the underdog from the beginning and got the momentum he needed later on.

I'm embarassed that Al Sharpton and Carol M-B are even on the list. Why are these idiots running????
posted by aacheson at 12:44 PM on June 27, 2003


Steve_at_Linnwood, I guess Sharpton's low showing means either that online activism is an overwhelmingly white activity, or that progressive blacks don't actually support him.

Matt: I take your point(s) but your statement:
I call it a good mark for liberalism because I know so few liberals that were for the war
doesn't make logical sense! Most A's are in favour of B, therefore those in favour of B must be A?

Also, a fair number of self-described conservatives participate in the Stand Down anti-war blog.
posted by cbrody at 12:51 PM on June 27, 2003


FTR, I'm pretty sure Wesley Clark doesn't want to be POTUS. He wants to be Defense Secretary or National Security Advisor in a Democratic administration, and he ups his chances of getting that post if he elevates his national status by sending up White House trial balloons.
posted by jengod at 12:53 PM on June 27, 2003


The media has been spinning Dean for a liberal -- Dean himself really hasn't. He was against the Iraq war, but supported the war in Afghanistan -- hardly 'anti-war.' He's a somewhat conservative Democrat in New England -- we (I'm from Maine) tend to produce politicians that are not easy to pigeonhole. Dean's getting slammed from some for being way left, and from others for being a closet conservative. Hmm.. I wonder if he might be juuust right.

Dean gave a major foreign policy speech this week at the Council on Foreign Relations. Check it out.
posted by Medley at 12:56 PM on June 27, 2003


Matt-
Dean may want to give the impression of being liberal (and that is mostly what matters) but he is, in reality, rather independent. While governor of Vermont, he pissed off Democrats more than Republicans. I see him as almost a forebearer of the "libertarian left," which is this voting block that I made up and I like to pretend is important.

But if he appeals to young people, that will give him a leg up, and really kill all of the McCain analogies (though I like the idea of a Dean/McCain ticket).
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:56 PM on June 27, 2003


Kucinich is the only candidate with an ounce of progressive liberalism in him. Too bad he comes across as a bit of a loon - perhaps he should take some dullness lessons from Dean

All too true. Maybe the biggest news of this poll is Kucinich's strong showing. I'd like to be encouraged, but as cbrody says, somehow Kucinich comes off as flakier than Dean even though he's really less so. I can't believe that Kucinich will be anything more than a debate-influencer, so I'm not tempted to spend my vote on him yet.
posted by Zurishaddai at 1:04 PM on June 27, 2003


But if he appeals to young people, that will give him a leg up, and really kill all of the McCain analogies

Was McCain big with the older set? I thought he got a lot of support from young people, just because he had a sense of humor about himself (on multiple late-night talkshows, etc). Heck, I would have loved to see McCain win in 2000, even if I didn't vote for him. I can't tell if it was because he was just really likeable and charismatic, or if he really was independent, but I've often thought how much safer I would feel today if he were president, even with 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
posted by mathowie at 1:31 PM on June 27, 2003


Was McCain big with the older set?

Maybe that was a bizarre assumption on my part, but young voters were a hallmark of Clinton's success, and they seem to be more "targettable" for the Dems than the Republicans.

The wierd thing baout the last couple of years, with PATRIOT, the war, etc., is that it has actually made me appreciate real conservatives, which was an area in which I was sorely lacking before. I would also dig on having McCain in office, if only because he actually displays nads. It is telling that he gets shit for being hypocritical re: campaign finance reform, whereas somehow it is OK for the rest of Congress to be crooked, as long as they don't talk like they wish they weren't.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:37 PM on June 27, 2003


I voted enthusiastically for Dean during the MoveOn.org primary after seeing him during the Rainbow Coalition-hosted debates. Unlike Kerry, Dean seemed engaged and ready put forth rational arguments to support his views, rather than relying on emotional rhetoric.

Kucinich really came across like a crank and Mossely-Braun gave her best high school principal impersonation. The rest of the candidates looked like the same old bunch of Dems that we've come to know and distrust.

I give Dean the same outside chance that Clinton had against Bush Sr. I'm impressed by the local "Meet-ups" that Dean has organized on his site (next one is July 2nd at a community near you).
posted by Neologian at 1:49 PM on June 27, 2003


Dean's web-savvy campaign served him well in the MoveOn poll, but Dennis Kucinich's 2nd place performance was a real surprise, garnering 24% of the vote, and over 50% more votes than Kerry, who came in third.

For me, the best perspective on the meaning of this race has come from the candidate's website stats at Alexa.com. Although not purely scientific (especially considering that the candidates often have multiple websites), it does reveal some interesting trends.

Dean, by starting early on his campaign (with a website up before September of last year), using weblogs, and making the internet a key part of his campaign effort, has the highest internet profile of any of the candidates. His reach rank on Alexa puts his site as the 7,177th ranked site for unique visitors over the last week, with an average of 23,230 over the last three months. In comparison, supposed frontrunner Joe Lieberman's joe2004.com website has a reach rank of 63,926 over the past week, with an average of 163,286.

Dean isn't the only one who has capitalized on the web, however. Dennis Kucinich's campaign wouldn't exist if it weren't for a grassroots effort to draft Kucinich (link to archive.org). Kucinich entered the race in mid February, and despite the late start has obviously used the internet very effectively with his supporters as well. His kucinich.us website has a reach rank of 16,610 over the past week, with an average of 70,389 over the past three months. He has also launched a weblog at denniskucinich.us which will attract additional traffic. Kucinich's campaign has come a very long way in a very short time, but is he gaining ground, or just rapidly establishing his niche?

Kerry, though coming in third in the MoveOn poll, shows some strength. His johnkerry.com website has a reach rank of 15,140 over the past week, with an average of 75,532 over the past three months. This website performance would be more impressive if Kerry hadn't started so early in the race, and if his traffic hadn't spiked from very low levels to around 12,000 in the days prior to the MoveOn polling. What this indicates to me is that Kerry's website, although reaching an audience that is comparable to Kucinich, failed to translate the same amount of visitors into the same amount of votes. Perhaps Kerry's visitors are a bit less internet savvy than the Dean and Kucinich supporters, however... in which case they might only show their face when people go to the polls. If that is so, we could be in for an interesting four-person race with no clear front runners and wildly different results between states.

Today is a good day for Dean and Kucinich, because they've done the best in mobilizing across the Internet... but can either of these performances translate into a victory in the primaries later? That remains to be seen.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:51 PM on June 27, 2003


"If I voted for idealism, I would put 100% of my effort behind him, but I voted for idealism before, and now Bush is president. I learned my lesson."

That's a cop out. Gore won California easily, so it's not as though your vote was "wasted".

When the choice is between Kang and Kodos, I'll vote earthling any day...
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:06 PM on June 27, 2003


The feeling among many of my Democrat friends is it doesn't really matter - no one can beat Bush. The silver lining is he will have to own up to his disastrous policies during his second term, setting up a Democrat victory in 2008.
posted by sixdifferentways at 2:08 PM on June 27, 2003


Yes, but will you want to live in the US and the world that's left over after 8 years of the leader of the Hitler youth leading the US? (Yes, so I'm overexaggerating a bit...)
posted by aacheson at 2:27 PM on June 27, 2003


I give Dean the same outside chance that Clinton had against Bush Sr.

Does Dean plan on recruiting a media savvy third party billionaire like Ross Perot to drain votes away from Bush 43 in 2004?
posted by Durwood at 2:40 PM on June 27, 2003


Does Dean plan on recruiting a media savvy third party billionaire like Ross Perot to drain votes away from Bush 43 in 2004?

I'm currently drawing up a piechart about how dumb W is.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 2:51 PM on June 27, 2003


Funny, I've asked myself the same question. Where the Hell is Ross Perot and his charts with all this deficit spending going on?!?!?
posted by Neologian at 2:52 PM on June 27, 2003


There's one thing about Dean, and that he's drawing a lot of people.
3200 in Austin, over 5000 in Burlington for his announcement.
I was at a rally earlier today in San Diego where there were at least 500 people. To draw that much now is pretty imprssive, your have to admit...
posted by themikeb at 3:31 PM on June 27, 2003


Does Dean plan on recruiting a media savvy third party billionaire like Ross Perot to drain votes away from Bush 43 in 2004?

I was hoping so, back when Warren Buffet started making waves about the latest Bush tax cut. For a couple of days he was all over the place, then he turned tail and went back to Omaha... oh well.

Anyway, at this point Dean has my vote. He ain't perfect, but he seems to me to be the best of the lot. If he gets a strong southern running mate (Edwards anyone?), keeps Nader in a lockbox, and finds some way to energize younger voters like Clinton did, I think he just may have a shot.

And the notion that 70% of the people will never vote for someone who opposed the war may be a premature conclusion to draw. If we have several more months of piling up dead soldiers on a daily basis, more signs of deception and no sign WMD anywhere, public sentiment could sour in a big, big way. Even though the war is popular now, time has a way of sorting stuff like that out. Lets just hope it doesn't take too much time.
posted by spilon at 4:22 PM on June 27, 2003


Funny, I've asked myself the same question. Where the Hell is Ross Perot ...?

I think a better question, that I have heard no one talk about is:

Where is Nader?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:31 PM on June 27, 2003


Why is that a better question?
posted by UrbanFigaro at 4:41 PM on June 27, 2003


Nader's thinking about running as a republican...
posted by cjoh at 4:49 PM on June 27, 2003


I was pleased to see Lieberman placed barely above Sharpton...to paraphrase Jon Stewart (because I don't remember the exact words) he's "for people who like Bush...but think he's just not Jewish enough".
(Not an anti-Jewish remark any more than it was than when Jon Stewart said it...I just think a Democratic candidate whose big issue, in these f***ed up times, is cleaning up Hollywood movies, should go do cluster-bomb cleanup duty in Iraq.)
posted by uosuaq at 5:45 PM on June 27, 2003


Nader not sure he will run. May endorse Kucinich.

In an interview before his speech, Nader said he has yet to decide whether to launch another third-party run for president next year, saying he is waiting to see how the Democratic primary field shapes up. He is particularly interested in the candidacy of liberal Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who was also scheduled to speak last night but had to stay in Washington for a Medicare debate.

"I'm waiting to see how the [Democratic] Party reacts to a progressive candidate," he said.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:58 PM on June 27, 2003


but I voted for idealism before, and now Bush is president.

a substantial majority of voters voted for the idealist lefty ralph nader and the lack luster middle of the road schmuck al gore 3 years ago. im with atrios in the yellow dog democrat club - as in "ill even vote for a yellow dog as long as its not bush" ... i'd have to think twice about voting for lieberman.

dean is electable - but watch for other horses to emerge from the pack.

more on the moveon.org primary here -
posted by specialk420 at 6:05 PM on June 27, 2003


The only candidate that has a 30 second spot is Dean, and it is prominently featured on his homepage and his blog. It's even in Quicktime & RealAudio formats with high & low res options.

There is also HowardDean.tv which uses technology similar to ESPN's site to download high quality video of speeches and other events while the computer is idle.

His issues page is more of a mini-site with in-depth explanations of what he would do in numerous major policy areas.

And most telling of all, Dean is raising literally millions of dollars completely online.

The second quarter fundraising race ends in 3 days. Dean will shock the political world when he raises more money in this quarter than any other Democratic candidate.
posted by jgilliam at 8:39 PM on June 27, 2003


Do Democrats want to win the election and beat President Bush, or are they willing to give 2004 to the Republicans to clear the way for Hillary in 2008?

please seek help, durwood.
posted by lescour at 8:49 PM on June 27, 2003


The second quarter fundraising race ends in 3 days. Dean will shock the political world when he raises more money in this quarter than any other Democratic candidate.

Isn't there a statistic somewhere that says something along the lines of "whatever candidate has the most money by this point historically becomes the nominee?"

I'm embarassed that Al Sharpton and Carol M-B are even on the list. Why are these idiots running????

Being Devil's advocate here, have even a fraction of the people instantly denouncing Sharpton bothered to look at some of his platform initiatives? I think the idea of amendments for the right to vote and gender equality are understandably sensible, and the way he uses them in an analogy with the 2nd amendment is at the very least a highly intelligent point.

What I don't understand is how every four years people act as if they have no idea why fringe candidates run for office... because they actually have issues their constituency- small as it is- wants to make vocal. I voted for Bradley even as I knew he wasn't going to win a single state in the primaries because I wanted the "lefter" candidate to remain at least a light issue for the frontrunner to deal with. The fact that we're addressing Sharpton's candidacy verfies it in itself.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:21 PM on June 27, 2003


In less then a week Dean has raised a little over 1.2 million dollars on the internet alone. I've been working on the Dean fund raising campaign, and the most repeated statement of all the donors is "I've never given to a candidate before in my life, but Dean...." fill in why he's special to the donor. Plus Dean has a strong grassroots network in place to challenge the Bush machine. Dean lurched back to the center in his kickoff speech on Monday, and has overcome a pretty bad appearance on Meet The Press. I don't think the Dean campaign is going to fizzle like his opponents think it is. If anything it's Dean's nomination to lose right now, his campaign kickoff rally got him the national attention, good and bad, that the other candidates wish they had.

Dean's positions on the issues are pretty much middle of the road, and he's drawing in the moderate Republicans sick of Bush's right wing leanings(this is seen in the email messages to his campaign, I'm not just making this stuff up). Dean's speeches are rousing rallies, I don't know why anyone would call him boring? His personality has been a big draw, and his almost manical passion has drawn people to his campaign. The more people who see Dean speak the more they like him, watch his speeches on DeanTV, and tell me you still think he's boring.
posted by jbou at 9:27 PM on June 27, 2003


Dean is the most web-savvy of the bunch, but I still have reservations about his ability to take on Bush in a general election. Personally I'm a John Edwards supporter and believe he needs more Dean-style "straight talk" like this to make his move, soon (he may also be electoral college friendly, thanks to North Carolina). But his campaign's web presence is best characterized as "ass". Kerry has the resume, but he needs to loosen up - lately I've seen him on the stump and its much improved from a couple of months ago, I see him improving with the Dean challenge much like Gore did with the Bradley candidacy. The best thing Dean may bring to the table even if he doesn't get the nod is that he's bringing a lot of young progressives to the booth with him.
posted by owillis at 9:59 PM on June 27, 2003


Why is that a better question?

Do you not remember the 2000 election ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:16 PM on June 27, 2003


thanks jbou for the info
posted by MzB at 10:33 PM on June 27, 2003


Republicans are changing their party affiliations to Democrat at Dean events. I volunteered at two events this week, and I helped a Republican at each event switch parties on the spot. It *is* starting to happen, and I expect this trend to continue.
posted by jgilliam at 10:36 PM on June 27, 2003


Do you not remember the 2000 election?

Whatever. I thought you had something to say. My mistake.
posted by UrbanFigaro at 11:23 PM on June 27, 2003


whatever the results of the perhaps flawed moveon poll ... lets not forget the program. dan quayle and senior - out in 4. dubya and cheney - out in 4.... lets just hope we are done with the ground hog day reruns of dumb and dumber after this round.
posted by specialk420 at 11:34 PM on June 27, 2003


I'm still going with my heart on this one. Just because. But I will wholeheartedly vote for the democrat that gets the nomination. Lieberman or Bush again though, I'm gone I guess. I'll just join the army and be done with it. If you can't beat 'em join the branch of government they use to further their aims and just simply, peacefully, let go.

Luckily I still have a year and a half to mull that "leavin'" and "joinin' the army" idea. Plus Lieberman has yet to make his pitch to the progressive wing. I doubt he will. And that is why I support Kucinich. The issues I myself believe in will at least be in the hopper.

Really though, all I want is Democracy where politics are more or less civil. That, I have no idea as yet, as to how to go about. I suspect it is not possible. But I hope to help further humanizing forces.
posted by crasspastor at 12:46 AM on June 28, 2003


The Economist has some pointed words on the Dean 'insurgency' (behind the subscription wall here). Some quotes:

"... He is now the Democrat to watch. To understand why you need to understand the state of mind of hard-core Democrats. To put it simply: they're pig-wrestling mad. They're mad about the “stolen” election, mad about tax cuts, mad about John Ashcroft and mad, above all, about the Iraq war. No sooner had Mr Dean sounded his trumpet against that conflict than he had an army at his back. "

"The sight of Mr Dean on the (Liberal) tiger's back is striking terror into the party establishment. On Capitol Hill Democrats worry that a Dean candidacy will not only allow Mr Bush to sweep the electoral college but also to cull vulnerable Democrats in the conservative south and the middle-American heartland. What chance has a liberal north-easterner backed by money from Beverly Hills and Harvard Yard of helping the Democrats in vulnerable Senate seats in Arkansas, South Carolina and the two Dakotas?

The Dean campaign is indignant about such arguments. Didn't me-tooism produce the debacle of 2002, they ask? Well, yes. But the only thing more dangerous for the Democrats than Bush Lite is McGovern Extra Strength."

"... The problem for the Democrats is not just the man from Vermont but the rank-and-file rage that he embodies. Far too many Democrats are just too angry to think straight at the moment. And far too many would rather go down to glorious defeat than make the irritating compromises necessary for power."


Similar points are here.
posted by grahamwell at 8:12 AM on June 28, 2003


grahamwell, with all do respect, that is bullshit. Scroll back, and click the link to Dean's foreign policy speech, and read it, it's a solid plan, and doesn't sound McGovern like at all. Dean is not the peacenik candidate, that's Kucinich, and the braindead press has failed to do their homework, but Kucinich is working hard to point out that Dean isn't the liberal wackjob candidate, he is. The liberal idealists are great, I used to be one, but it's time for pragmatic thinking, the Dem establishment candidates like Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Graham, and Gephardt are tired politicos who can't get a rise out of a crowd of men at a stripclub who have been popping Viagra all day. Kucinich is Nader with a bit more flare, the country is just not ready to lurch so far to the left right now. That leaves you with Dean, like I said above Dean is a moderate, and has rallied people together who want to shift the government away from the wacky right wing mess it's become. To counter the talk about Dean only appealing to academics, and checkbook liberals all he has to do is release the demographic breakdown of his donor base, it's made up of people all over the map, lefty college kids, older folks, middle class working folks. If Dean only appealed to the academic elite, and the checkbook liberals he wouldn't have been able to raise 1.6 million on the internet this past week. If anyone is appealing to certain demographics it's the other candidates, Kerry= his wife's business friends, and some vets, Lieberman, his rich CT base, Gephardt = labor, Edwards = trial lawyers, Graham = Florida money, looks like they've covered the Democrat's base. Dean has come out of nowhere to grab the spotlight, and now the Dem establishment is using their friends in the press to try, and knock Dean down.
posted by jbou at 6:34 PM on June 28, 2003


In the end i think there's no doubt that any rational person who considers themself to be liberal or even slightly left of center is going to be voting "Not Bush" in the next election, so when it comes time for the primaries should we really be looking for the candidate that we believe will win? I'd say that when your trying to widdle down the group the more important thing is to vote for the guy you WANT to win and then if you don't get exactly what you want you can at least say you tried,...and then vote "Not Bush" in 04 (Damn, i need that as a bumper sticker)
posted by NGnerd at 8:07 PM on June 28, 2003


well, there we go..
posted by NGnerd at 8:09 PM on June 28, 2003


Jbou: You're there, I'm not and its snarky for an Scotsman to quote from an English magazine on US candidates. The 'rage' however I see here all the time and I have a shudder of deja-vu, of the 17 long years when the British left fulminated in impotent rage against Thatcher. Please don't make our mistakes. Foreign policy might be very presentable but you know that your candidate needs to be much sharper on taxes and spending or he will be dismissed. NG, the anyone but (X) ... yeah, that's just how we committed suicide in 1983.
posted by grahamwell at 6:11 AM on June 29, 2003


Dean raised millions in the past week alone, and has now passed the 6 million mark. He's gunning for 6.5 million by the end of the 2nd quarter (midnight on Monday.) That would put him right in line with the front-runners, financially speaking.
posted by UrbanFigaro at 9:31 AM on June 29, 2003


« Older Giving Credit...   |   How Not To Be A Summer Law Cle... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments