The Dean campaign is over

Remove all ads!

... at least for all intents and purposes.

This round of the primaries/caucuses has come to an end. Kerry won 5 states. Clark won Oklahoma (by a thin margin) and Edwards won South Carolina.

• Arizona
  Kerry: 43%
  Clark: 27%

• Delaware
  Kerry: 50%
  Lieberman: 11%

• Missouri
  Kerry: 51%
  Edwards 25%

• New Mexico
  Kerry: 40%
  Clark: 22%

• North Dakota
  Kerry: 50%
  Clark: 24%

• Oklahoma
  Clark: 31%
  Edwards: 30%

• South Carolina
  Edwards: 45%
  Kerry: 30%

Here's a link to the full results.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/02/03/

So what do you think? Is this the end of Dean? Dean is the only candidate that oppossed the War on Terror.

 

Howard Dean might not have been electable, and I'm glad that he won't be pitted against Bush in November. That said, Dean has done wonders for the Democratic party, galvanizing the base, swelling the voter rolls, appealing to younger voters, and raising money. With any luck he'll realize the essential role he's played thus far, and keep playing it right through to November.

 

I hope he plays right through to July. Once the nomination of (Kerry most likely) becomes official, it's a really bad idea for another Dem to stay on the ticket. If Dean stays, every vote he gets is essentially a vote FOR Bush, as it is taking a vote away from Kerry.

 

@ Aldeth

I don't think Dean has sufficient time to run as a third-party candidate.

 

What I'm worried about are the hardcore Deaniacs who just won't let go and support the nominee when Dean loses (almost certainly Kerry will be said nominee). I can just see the headlines now: "Bush Narrowly Beats Kerry" (sub-head) "Dean steals 9% write-in vote"

BOO!

I hope Dean will eventually own up to his defeat and throw his support behind the nominee like he said he would. If his mantra of "let's buy Bush a one-way bus ticket back to Crawford, TX" is sincere, he'll concede that overthrowing Bush is what matters most when it finally sinks in that he's done for.

 

I personally think Dean will thrown in the towel if he has poor support on the next Super Tuesday.

The only risk for the Democrats is if the Dean supports, which lean towards far-left, go to another party. Most likely they would go to the Greens (also called Pinks - for Pinkos).

All in all, Clark seems to have had the biggest jump of all the candidates between Iowa and now. Even though he didn't win many states, he is the second runner.

 

The American left is entirely too pissed off to indulge in throw-away votes to the likes of Nader et al. There's too much at stake, and everyone knows it. Look for a solid block of support (including Dean's) behind whomever gets the nomination.

 

@ Blackhawk - I meant as a write-in canidate - obviously only one Dem will show up on the ticket. Clark made the biggest jump, but Dean still has the second highest total number of delagates won at this point - probably because Clark won exactly zero in Iowa and New Hampshire.

@ Gonzo - If that had happened in the last election, i.e., if liberals hadn't "thrown away" their vote on Nader, Bush wouldn't be the president today, as Nader gained almost 2% of the vote in Florida.

 

@Aldeth: Yes, that was true. In 2000. Back when we were talking about the 'Incredible Shrinking Presidency' and it didn't matter all that much who was running the show. People voted for Nader because they were bored. Now they're (we're) scared...terrified at the thought of that man running the world for another four years. Considering he lost the popular vote and still behaved as though he had a landslide mandate, geez, imagine what he'll do if he wins as much as fifty two percent.

The stakes have risen exponentially in the interim. Look at Iowa. In an overwhelming percentage of exit polls, people were going for the 'electable' candidate. No one's going to be sending a Nader-ish message to Washington. The left wants that guy out of there.

 

Yes, the left want Bush out...and many of us will probably vote for whoever the democratic nominee is come November.
And in 2008, the dems will be in teh same boat they were in in 2000. This push to be "moderate"(meaning "more like republicans") is annoying at best. I voted for Nader in 2000 and will be taking my votes to a third party again, if not this election then next, along with hundreds of thousands of other liberals who are not interested in supporting a conservative democratic candidate because he "might be less evil than a conservative repulican".

 

I don't see any of the Democratic candidates as being "Electable". There just doesn't seem to be one who stands out as making a serious challenge...and I think that Bush (at least at this time) has a significantly higher approval rating against any Dem candidate .

Remember, approval ratings are against an imagined standard, not a real opponent. It is my feeling that Bush has more grassroots support than is apparent...especially against the ragtag group that the Dem party is trundling out.

 

There's so much to respond to here... Hs,
here are some latest poll numbers that show that you are somewhat in error:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-03-bush-kerry-poll_x.htm

Sorry, HS, it appears that "rag-tag" bunch of Dems are beating up on your guy pretty badly, at least at the moment. But I'm sure that support for Shrub must be somewhere - as are those WMD.

 

Hacken Slash, if only I could be more optimistic...but I'm still worried that the election will be a squeaker. Chandos has it right, methinks. The nation is too evenly divided, and I think it'd be a close race whether Dean or Kerry won the nomination. This is the kind of race that could turn on a single bad debate, or a bad piece of Iraq news, or even on a single governor, if Schwarzenegger can steer California right.

Though if you'd like to get a feel for leftist angst over Kerry's simmering sliminess, check out the inimitable http://kausfiles.com - it's a great blog, even though (or because!) I disagree with it much/most of the time. Who knows - come summertime, we may realize too late that a zealous Dean was much more "electable" than a patrician Kerry.

 

Reasons I am not optimistic about the 2004 election:

• Bush is now a proven leader. Whether you like his policies or not, he has a degree of legitimacy to his statements.

• Saddam will be on trial at the end of the year. Americans really do not care about the WMD. Going to war to stop a tyrant is really reason enough for conservatives and moderates.

• The Electorial College map has changed. The states that elected Bush have gained 5 seats. The Gore states have, obviously, lost 5. This means that Bush does not have to carry the close states with few electors. Florida is very important.

• The polls of Kerry v. Bush, Edwards v. Bush are not encouraging. Democrats are voting for who they think can win. The campaign will close this gap to nil.

• The War on Terror has enormous pull amongst conservatives, moderates and blue-dog liberals. I myself am a Democrat. I will vote for Bush if Kerry, Clark or Edwards sound weak on the war.

 

I don't know about that, Blackhawk. He is already taken a big hit as a result of the errors (or fabrications) over the war in Iraq. The WMD issue is not the trival matter you seem to think it is, since Bush DID put the credibility of his supposed "War on Terror" on the line in invading Iraq.

Also, as I'm sure you have noticed, there are a few Dems with good war records, something Shrub does not have. His very poor record in the military, which has recently become an issue, is not representative of "leadership quality," and that both Kerry and Clark have.

Again, the way in which the war has been conducted has also tarnished the "leadership" quality of Shrub. Since Vietnam there has been a confusion in command. Although the military is under civilian control, there has been the problem of civilain command. There is a real difference, and the War in Iraq is further proof of how the civilian planners failed to listen to the real generals who were critical of the war plans before the invasion of Iraq. The Shrub administration has probably been the worst since Vietnam in this regard.

It really started with Macnamara, and Lyndon Johnson, who personally picked out bombing targets for his generals during Vietnam. Now the failures in Iraq have further demonstrated how the fighting should be left to the soldiers, ONCE the decision is made by the civilian government to extend military force into a given situation. Our soldiers are paying the price everyday with their lives because Shrub and his gang failed to listen to the generals - who predicted correctly - what the current results are yielding.

If you can provide an example of how Shrub has demostrated good leadership, I would be glad to consider it, since I might be a bit biased here.

 

I am wondering what this war on terror is which is so important for Blackhawk. If you mean every effort to stop further terror attacks in the US and elsewhere I really dont think there is any candidate whose goal is to work for more terrorism in the world. There might be some candidates who think a different approach than Bush II's sledgehammer approach to flyswapping might give more satisfying results.