TNR: Rove, not Dean did the anti-Clark push polls in NH

[robbedvoter]

(I told you so!)
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=bjq57awwJ36hUmhMuLKmgm%3D%3D
As I said, this is just a theory. But if Clark's campaign surges, expect to see a
lot of push polls, anonymous flyers, and perhaps even broadcast ads
criticizing him and praising Dean. (Remember how in 2000 Republicans
bought pro-Ralph Nader television spots in Minnesota?) There's nothing
sinister in any of this--it's just good old-fashioned political hardball. But it
would be silly not to recognize the Republican desire for Dean to beat Clark
for what it (almost certainly) is.

[Upfront]

1. Don't Buy It

No one is going to convence me Dean is a liberal, or that he is unelectable. He gets more electable every day. Did you notice how most of your Democrats in congress voted on the 87 billion Bush* bail out program? Dean is correct, we need to take our party back. First the DLC backed Holy Joe, then Kerry, or Gephart, now it looks as if Clark is their man. Think about why this is. I have, its about money, control, and getting re-elected first, and at all cost. Sorry about this rant but the vote on the 87 billion was the last straw. I am proud of the courage of the 12 who voted for America.

[artr2]

2. This is exactly right

You think the big power boys want to give up power? That's their opate. They will put anyone up there that they think will win. It doesn't matter if they are repukke or dem as long as they do the bidding of the big (money) power boys. People powered Howard scares the living shit out of them and if you think a minute you will realize why

[union_maid]

3. It's because he can win, and win big

If Clark is the DLC's man it's because they know what Rove knows - he can beat Bush and if he gets the chance, he can turn the national dialogue on its head. If Clark succeeds in what he's trying to do, he'll change the tenor of the debate and the neocons will have no market for their policies. It's possible that the huge Republican war chest can't even stop Clark. They know exactly what to do about Dean and even if he does win, it'll be because he got out the liberal, NE vote and the neocons will still own every mind that they've got now. A Dean win would one battle whereas a Clark win would put them in danger of losing the war they're waging against the average American.

I'm going to support Dean or whoever gets the nomination, but I can't see him turning too many red states blue.

[knowledgeispower]

14. You make a strong case

It is a really tough decision for me. I really like what Dean is doing in terms of changing the way politics is done (through internet fundraising and what have you). On the other hand, I relish the thought of a Mondale/McGovern/Dukakis type defeat for the evil side.

Mainly, Clark has to convince me that he has good intentions. I don't doubt that Dean does, but Clark has too many ties to the compromised DLC for my liking.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. The republicans sincerely believe in creationism too

so what.

[maha]

12. I think you miss the point.

For a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with Howard Dean's very sterling qualities, the Repugs would much rather run against Dean than Clark next year. Like it or not, true or not, it will be much, much easier for Karl Rove to smear Dean as a liberal nutjob than to smear Clark. Which is why it is likely that it was Rove and not Dean behind the anti-Clark push polling in New Hampshire.

The Repugs have a long, long history of smearing good, honorable, even centrist Dem candidates as liberal nutjobs going back to before the DLC ever existed. This ain't nothin' new.

I am sure Howard Dean will make a great president, but in order to get him into the White House we Dems need to pull together and stop trying to knock each other down. If your man gets the nomination, you will need the votes and support of Clarkies and, yes, even the dreaded DLC to win the general election.

[andym]

50. Nixon, Muskie and McGovern

There's a long history of dirty tricks where
the Republican party intervenes in the
selection of the opposition candidate.


Rove and Atwater before him learned from Dick Nixon and
the dirty tricks camapaign against Muskie(early
frontrunner, centrist) in 1972 to get their
preferred opponent, McGovern.

Now, if they really are favoring Dean in the same way,
and "supporting" him in the Nixonian way
I believe that they're underestimating him. Nothing
would be better to see this strategy blow up in their face.

[maha]

125. Yes, the question is

not whether Dean would be a good President, as I believe he would, but what kind of smear job can Karl Rove do to him to soften his support.

I think we need to look again at what happened to Mike Dukakis. At the outset, let's agree that Dukakis and Dean are two totally different guys. But on the surface they have some commonalities -- they are former governors from the northeast. And Dukakis ran against Bush I, and this was a campaign that Bush II (with Lee Atwater of blessed memory) actively took part in.

At the time of the Dem convention, as I remember (and I am going by memory here) I believe Dukakis was actually slightly ahead in the polls. The Bushies managed to shred him. Yes Dukakis was slow to respond, but I don't think it would have made much difference if he'd been quicker. Between Willy Horton and Boston Harbor being polluted and I don't remember what all, the Bushes put so many lies out so fast and repeated them so endlessly that Dukakis couldn't get a word in edgewise.

I think Dean would put up a much tougher fight than Dukakis, but it would be one hell of a fight. The Bushies have more money than God, you know.

It makes sense to me that the Bushies see Dean as another Dukakis, and somebody they can handle the same way. Clark, however, is another critter entirely and not as easy a target, from the Bush perspective.

[veganwitch]

171. but dean essentially said...

he would also vote for the 87 billion when he was directly asked by dennis in the last debate.

[xultar]

4. KKKarls usual tricks

KKKarl is up to his usual tricks. I posted on the Clark blog for them to watch out for KKKarl.

That is why Democratic candidate supporters need to quit the infighting and FOCUS the fight where it belongs!

[deutsey]

5. Read Alterman's "What Liberal Media?"

Doesn't exactly give a glowing endorsement of TNR; actually reveals how neo-cons are a big influence there.

What's not surprising is that the DLC/neo-con influences at TNR would be so down on Dean, if you ask me (which you didn't, but, then again, you didn't need to :evilgrin:...)

[KittyWampus]

6. So Who DID THE PUSH POLLS? Dean or Rove?

??????

[maha]

13. I suspect Rove.

Does anyone here seriously think it was Dean? That would be very disappointing.

[Classical_Liberal]

99. It could also be TNR, neocons, or Clark operatives

.

[AP]

126. Oops. I cliked on this post, hoping there was a theory/argument attached

But it's blank. Then a checked...yes, C.L. wrote it. No argument necessary. It's all in the subject line.

[Classical_Liberal]

133. explained it in other posts. I am not a fulltime spinner!

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

144. Yes I am doing it on purpose now! Keep biting!

.

[retyred]

7. Your header is misleading

all you have is your opinion that Dean did not do this, It does sound like something Rove would do but again it's just IMO.

As long as we're going with IMO's, I don't believe Dean can beat "flightsuit" no matter what the polls say on any given day (polls predicted the mid-terms so well) with all the talk from the right saying that their afraid of Dean it doesn't compute that the enemy would give info of who best can beat them, it only fuels the fire in order to get Dean the nomination for an easy win.

Again this is IMO!


Retyred In Fla
So I Read This Book

[dsc]

8. Isn't Riove a political genius?

If he is, I find it hard to believe that he would devise a push poll for the purpose of making Dean look good in such a way that Dean would get blamed for it. Incidently I don't think Dean would have either. Thus if Rove did do this then he isn't trying to help Dean.

[LizW]

9. You got it

This is win-win for Rove and the Repugs. It is a two-tiered attack on Dems: a push poll that appears to hurt Clark, but is really aimed at hurting Dean. Plus, there's the added benefit of promoting infighting between the two camps.

[Skwmom]

152. This theory doesn't hold up when you look at how the press is

attacking Clark and trying to prop up Dean.

[Guaranteed]

16. The Repugs, no matter the analysis,

don't want Bush up against Dean. Dean is an outsider, and he doesn't have the common connections to business, and is therefore unbridled. Dean would tear Bush apart for his business connections, lying to start the war, and he'd tie it all together into a big picture. Talk about characterizing someone, Bush is going to come away looking like one evil motherfucker.
I just can't imagine that if the Repugs really wanted to run against Dean that they would tell us beforehand. Tucker Carlson wearing the Dean badge...what the hell is that? It's intimidation. Don't fall for it.

[AP]

20. Actually, Dean does have connections to business, and he was pro-business

as a governor. He gave favors to IBM, and IBM employs many of his donors. The energy companies he helped as governor employed people who have over 100K to his PAC last February which was the seed money for his election run. He worked on Wall St, and brought people up from Wall St to work in his administration. His family has connections to Wall St too.

But that all avoids the main issue, which I think is beyond doubt now: the Republicans would prefer to run against Dean.

Look, CA elected Davis governor, and the Republican media convinced them all to recall him and vote for Arnold. Dean's popular appeal now is the equivalent of the popularity that got Davis elected. Now the question is whether the Republicans and the media can shove a story downt he public's throat, like they did about Davis, that makes more people willing to vote for Bush. The story they want to shove down your throats about Dean is going to be the easiest to create and play out. The one about Clark is going to be much harder.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. Davis was never popular. Davis ran against weak republicans

and Dean is taking the corporations out of politics.

[AP]

48. The point is that Davis was popular enough to win an election & then media

turned him into a loser in 4 months.

Dean's message and popularity is no more within his control that Davis's was.

[Classical_Liberal]

58. Davis was unpopular for being a corporate enabler

Dean has promised to take corporate money out of politics and I take him at his word.

[AP]

66. Dean was a corporate enabler in VT.

Anyway, we're going off on a tangent.

Davis won a Democratic election. Within months the MEDIA turned him into the reason the CA economy was in trouble (with no mention of the Republican role in the mess).

Just imagine what the media would do with currently popular Dean.

[Classical_Liberal]

85. I don't think that is true, and beside Dean never lost his seat there

and isn't a loser like Davis so there is not comparison. You are the one off on a tangent, because your guy is losing. So you tear down Dean.

[AP]

88. UR desperate...ignoring facts...not putting together logical arguments...

...writing short posts (again).

And borrowing words I used elsewhere.

[dsc]

96. but we had that happen too

He did have his tough races after signing a huge, progressive property tax bill for schools and the civil unions bill. He fought and won on those issues. He needed, and got, over 50%. I will admit that the media in VT is better than the country but still if he could win that race he will win this one.

[AP]

115. Remind me of the details of the property tax bill.

In Wealth & Democracy, Kevin Phillips points out that property tax is not only not all that progressive, but, municipalities have given so many property tax breaks to corporations (which Dean did with IBM, right?) so that when property tax rates go up, almost the entire burden of that increase is now paid by middle class people and not by the wealthiest members of the community -- corporations.

[dsc]

117. He did all of the following

He instituted a statewide property tax to be shared among all communities to fund schools (previously schools were funded via local property taxes).

He allowed people to pay either 2% of income or the property tax which ever was lower.

Local schools could have their own taxes on top of the state one but they had to share a percentage of that.

[AP]

123. Why not just have a progressive income tax?

Wasn't there a problem with this? There was some kind of revolt?

[dsc]

128. Yeah wealthy people got soaked and revolted.

and this was a progressive tax. Or did you miss my second point. Poor and middle class people had to pay at most 2% of their income.

[AP]

134. I'm not clear how it's progressive...

A flat property tax, or a flat income tax of 2% isn't progressive. I suspect it was the middle class who felt soaked and not the rich. Granted, people making over 100K might have been most shocked by the new $2000 tax, but they're only paying that because companies and individiuals farther out on the wealth scale were also paying 2%, rather than, say 2.2% while people lower down paid 1% (and that's just a "for example").

Progressive would be adding a new income tax bracket farther out, and adding another .5% to their rate.

Also, progressive would be taking away IBM's property tax break so that they were bearing some of the burden of the property tax.

[dsc]

142. I will try this again

First the 2% thing is only an option at the low end. Otherwise you pay State Property Tax $1.10 per $100 of property value. That means that on a 50k house one would pay $550.00. Thus anyone owning a 50k house with an income of up to 27,500 would pay less then the property tax. On the other end of the income scale if you have a million dollar house you pay $11,000. Your income would have to be under 550k for that to be the worse deal. But you have to pay the property tax regardless as there is an income limit on that. It isn't the poor getting soaked here.

[AP]

150. I don't think you said it was only an option at the low end.

Or if you did, I missed it.

Where was the threshold at which you didn't have the option?

Also, for the reasons I said, I susect it was the middle class getting soaked. And part of the problem they even needed to go to individuals for the property tax hike might have been because of the tax breaks states and municipalities give to corporations (like IBM?).

[dsc]

151. I did

I said if you were poor or middle class etc. But I will admit I could have been clearer. I think the cut off is something like 50k but don't know off the top of my head.

[AP]

157. Just as an aside, it looks like this bill was designed to let wealthy...

retirees off the hook. Those are the people who might have less than 50K in income but would live in expensive, fully paid for houses. And those are the people who'd most object to having to fund public education and have poltiical power.

[dsc]

172. Good grief

If he doesn't exempt them he is evil for not doing so not he does and he is evil because God forbid a wealthy retiree can benefit too. Christ, he really can't win with you can he?

[janx]

121. Yes. They're trying to intimidate. I find it laughable.

"Genius" Rove et al. have no idea what's coming.

[AP]

17. This story wasn't leaked by a Republican -- it was on a NH pol site --

Three people who got the call told a reporter all independently of one another. Nobody made them call. It was totally unpredictable. One of the people who called was a 50 year old PhD who already liked Clark a little. She found the call so slimy that she called a reporter.

Rove couldn't predict that that would have happened. This information came out unintentionally. They never thought anyone would blame Dean. They just didn't expect to call a smart, middle aged Clark supporter who would be sufficiently outraged to call a reporter who would then report on it.

So, there's no double, secret reverse probation angle to this.

[dsc]

19. huh?

They called a thousand or more people in one of the smallest states in the union and didn't expect to contact a Clark supporter? This is a state famous for paying attention to pollitics. This is a state which is famous for having well educated people who fled Massachusetts. It is ludricrious to suggest that the idea this would come out was unforseeable. Especially by someone we are saying is a political genius.

[AP]

21. Do you hear about every single push poll conducted? They MEANT to reach...

Clark supporters. They just didn't mean to reach a PhD who knew what a push poll was who then reported it to the press.

Dsc, I know you're a knee-jerk defender of Dean, but c'mon. This is not a situation where you can reasonably argue that they meant to have their cover blown. If that were the case, it would have been reported in the NYT, or the Washington Post first, and not on a political website by a NH reporter.

[dsc]

22. Regardless of whether they meant to or not

Given Rove supposedly being a genius the word forseeable comes to mind. I am not a PhD, nor are most people here, yet I know what a push poll is as do most people here. My contention is that either Rove is a dumb ass which makes his opinion irrelevent or he isn't really for Dean. I happen to believe the second one but I don't have direct knowledge.

[AP]

27. Rove controls the media anyway. Nobody is going to know about this outside

of DU. TNR reported, OK. But if the NYT, the Wash Post, or CNN starts talking about, then maybe I'll believe you. If they don't talk about it, I'm going to have to believe that this part of the story wasn't meant to be published, and then we're back to Rove duing push polls to help Dean and hurt Clark.

Is the NYT or Wash Post or CNN or Fox reporting this story? Is William Kristol talking it up? Is Novak talking it up? (Hopefully, we're not skewing the data by talking about them).

[dsc]

29. I have no earthly idea

I don't watch fox news nor do I read the NYT on a regular basis. But the presumed purpose of this was to affect change in NH thinking. I find it pretty un genius like to call thousands of people in NH and not forsee that some NH press outlets might find out. This isn't like the West Wing episode where they were thinking of moving the press room and it truely was bizarre that someone from the press had been called. Here they called way more people and in a way smaller state. It was forseeable by anyone who is a genius which is the lynch pin of why we supposedly should care what this man thinks.

[AP]

37. If NYT/WashPost/CNN/Fox don't report on this, what does it matter that

some website posted this story? How many people in NH even read TNR?

Your argument that is this is a double-reverse trashing of Dean is a stretch.

Nobody reading these stories in TNR would even be left with the impression that Dean did this.

And without any of the regular media whores trying to spin this as someting Dean did, where does that leave your theory?

Oh, that the people called would think that Dean did it?

What makes more sense? That push pollers would push poll, or that push pollers would call and do the political equivalent of heavy breathing untitl the people being called blamed Dean? Anyway, if that were the case, the callers would have lied and idenitfied themselves as calling for the Dean campaign to really make the point, rather than lie and say they were calling for a polling company that didn't exist.

[dsc]

44. As even you point out

TNR got this story from NH media. As to why I think the people called would think Dean did it I can point to both the fact that TNR felt they had to state he didn't and that when this story broke here a few days ago several people stated they thought Dean did it. Even if it didn't happen yet it is still forseeable which is my point. The man is supposedly a genius yet he doesn't forsee that it could go public.

[AP]

53. you are s t r e t c h i n g your evidence

People here thought Dean did it because they're partisans. (Do you have a link, by the way? The ONLY stories I've seen about this were here yesterday, and nobody thought Dean did it).

Don't DU'ers usually cite Occam's Razor when arguments start to get this tenuous?

As for not foreseeing it going public, EVERYTHING YOU DO IN POLITICS has the risk of going public. You're trying to get the public to vote for or agianst something, so you have to reach out to the public. If you're push polling, you're alwasy running the risk that someone will complain.

I stand by everything I've argued so far.

[andym]

60. going public-- Rove didn't seem to care

Rove didn't care that his push polling
became public in SC against McCain.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/SC_000210.html

Didn't seem to matter, they had the desired effect anyway

[AP]

63. So Rove DOES do push polls (and, btw, read article - they denied doing it)

And notice, this story never would have come to light if that consitiuent didn't complain about it at the Town Hall Mtg.

Oh, I see. She was a PLANT.

Right.

[andym]

78. Rove is a "genius" in the Nixonian sense

Rove is a "genius" in the Nixonian sense:
So far he has gotten away with so much dirty political
work, and he has been barely sullied. Even
treasongate seems to have only affected him for
a day or two. It'w amazing. He remains the powerbroker in the Whitehouse.

It really is amazing in the article I posted about push polling
in SC that he got away with this. It says something
about the awareness of the average American voter that this never
became a defining issue in the primaries or the general election.


Of course, Rove and friends won't hesitate to use a
dirty tricks strategy against Democrats. Nixon used dirty tricks against the electable Muskie, and yet his fall was for Watergate (spying
on the DNC), not so much for the dirty tricks.

[madfloridian]

10. What a sneaky way to get in a jab at Dean.

And my, what a lot of implications you loaded into one paragraph.

[w4rma]

11. …part-owner of The New Republic, gave $2,000 to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc.

WHEN YOU'VE LOST THE NEW REPUBLIC . . . Tapped's new favorite thing is the Federal Election Commission database where you can type in anyone's name and see if he or she has donated money to political candidates or parties. (Tapped's old favorite thing was The Washington Post's home buyer database, where you could learn how much your neighbors spent for their apartments.) So check out this nifty little listing (go here and search for “Steinhardt, Michael”) that we discovered while trying to see which big-shot New Democrats were supporting which Democratic presidential candidates: According to this list, Michael Steinhardt, former Democratc Leadership Council stalwart and part-owner of The New Republic, gave $2,000 to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. on June 20, 2003.

Now, we know that there's often little direct relationship between a magazine owner's politics and the views of its writers, but it is a notable thing when one of the more prominent New Democrats around starts financing the continuation of the Bush administration.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/07/index.html#001288

[AP]

18. This story didn't come from TNR first. If TNR doesn't like Dean, they're

certainly entitled to pick it up. But this was reported on NHPolitics, or something like that, which is really small.

[LizW]

69. Right. It came from the Clark campaign first.

"According to the Clark campaign..."

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_8pp.shtml

Of course, they wouldn't have any reason to try to make Dean look bad, would they?

[AP]

71. Are you saying the three people who reported this are lying for Clark?

How do you explain the hit piece on NPR which repeated the same Shelton-BS from the push polls, and the internet chatter repeating these same points?

The consistent pattern speaks volumes.

[LizW]

94. How would I know?

Ya'll were just talking about the source of the story and I pointed out the original source. It was the Clark campaign that put this story in the media. Evidently they weighed the effects of having the push poll stuff about Clark repeated in the media against the possibly making Dean look bad.

[AP]

100. I'll admit that it was...

...my impression that the woman called the reporter. But the campaign called the reporters.

Obviously, the reporter checked his facts (he interviewed this woman who was willing to go on the record).

I also presume that the Clark campaign probably called many reporters. And it's probably revealing that you didn't read this story from any of the usual whoring supspects (NYT and Wash Post). We're reading about it in one of the smallest, least oligopoly-entrenched souces probably reporting on NH politics, and I'd be surprised if this story went much further than DU and TNR, since it seems like even NPR is on board with the smears and the political strategy represented by the push poll.

Again, I don't see any reason to believe that this story isn't true as told.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

86. Holy Shit. Blame the Victim, Much?

That is just shameful.

DTH

[LizW]

108. Well, am I wrong?

This story got into the media directly from the Clark campaign. If they thought the information in the push poll hurt their candidate, they could have just kept quiet about it and it wouldn't have gotten repeated in the media. But it was a chance to make Dean's campaign look bad. Politics 101. The only debate was probably about where to go with the story.

Victim? LOL. You tickle me, DTH. This unusually early primary push poll was a God-send to Clark. Not only is the "smear" old news that Clark's campaign has already addressed before, but the pollsters are so accomodating that they give information in the poll that "fingers" one of Clark's opponents (the front runner, in fact!) as the push poller.

Victim? (falls off chair laughing)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

113. So the Victim Is Just Supposed to Shut Up and Take It, According to You?

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper, Liz.

Push polls are sadly effective, there is no question that it would've hurt Clark and helped whoever was pushed for, in this case Dean.

I believe Bush was responsible for this push poll, not Dean. But the observations of the base article cited in this thread are valid, IMO. Bush did this because he's scared of Clark, not Dean. Rove knew that even if the push-poll were to get out (by no means a guarantee), such a thing would be considered small-time news, with little to no negative repercussions to Bush.

It also feeds into the hostility between some Clark/Dean supporters and campaign people, and spreads dissension among our candidates, which really makes it a win-win for Bush.

DTH

[LizW]

140. Please stop

with the "victim" stuff. You're going to make me hurt myself.:D

People are not as naive as you think. A push poll hurts candidate A, the person pushed against, but it also hurts candidate B, the person pushed "for", when candidate A goes to the media and implies that candidate B was behind the poll.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

143. There Was No Such Implication

Clark's campaign stated the facts. There was absolutely no implication whatsoever that Clark's campaign accused Dean of doing it.

DTH

[AP]

145. How many push polls do you KNOW about in the history of push polling?

I know about them allegorically. I know that Bush was accused of push polling against McCain in SC, but the Post, which reported on the story, went out of their way to absolve Bush ("they gave us a copy of their script") and they made the allegation sound like a set-up OF BUSH (similar to your tack here)!

Now we have this one, which almost passed under the radar, but for one woman going on record, one itty bitty tiny news source picking it up, and the TNR reporting on it, and DU'ers writing about it. No other media whores seem to be picking up on it in attempt to cast aspersions on Bush or Dean.

Now, I can' t believe these are the only two times anyone has ever push polled.

So it seems like push polling works way more often than it gets blown in, and even when it gets blown in, it STILL doesn't look like it's hurting anyone. (Don't overestimate the influence of even 100+ post threads in DU -- it's not the same as having the media whores for or against you).

[LizW]

160. Oh, I know push polling happens much more

often than it gets publicized. I was push polled at least three times in the recent tax amendment vote in Alabama. Usually, I think, push polling doesn't tend to be publicized unless it has some racist bent, or involves a scandal of some kind.

I don't think just because a push poll doesn't get reported means it "worked" (against the intended candidate). How do you measure whether push polling "works" anyway? Wouldn't you have to track the people who were polled and ask them if the push poll swayed them?

[AP]

162. It looks like the push polling worked in Alabama, eh? I presume it

was the anti-tax crowd that had the money to push poll.

So were back to the fact that it's a chance worth taking.

[AP]

116. Your first pagraph doesn't make any sense.

If someone is push polling against you, and might have reached 500 or 1000 people, and will likely do it again, the BEST thing you can do is report it to the press, so that people called and yet to be called will be aware. It's the ONLY way to undermine the effectiveness of those calls other than by calling everyone who already received a call yourself.

Just because it might hurt the Dean campaign if you do that is NO reason not to do it.

Is Clark supposed to care more about how the fact that it will hurt dean if people realize Republicans want Dean to win the primary than he cares about people being told lies about himself?

Furthermore, don't you think it's interesting that only the smallest outlet in NH cared to report on this?

[LizW]

131. 500 or 1000?

I don't know where you got those numbers. I only read about three people who complained to the Clark campaign. How would anyone know how many people were called?

But aside from that, I think you and I agree. A savvy political outfit would be stupid NOT to go to the press with this kind of thing. That was my point, supporting my larger argument: that whoever did this poll did it to hurt Dean as well as Clark. Some people polled will fall prey to the "push" and that hurts Clark. But more people "get" what push polls are about and the poll hurts Dean with those people.

[AP]

135. You pick a number. My argument is the same.

Do you think people hire consultants to prank call a couple voters during commercials while they're watching 70s Show reruns?

You're also making a big logical leap...that the campaign would find out.

As you said, only three people reported this happening. Who can count on that happening?

A second logical leap .. that today's whore media would even care about this.

For you to find out about it a tiny web site had to report it (and nobody else did) even though Clark probably tried to tell every reporter in the press pool).

But, you know, I do admire your effort to make this look good for Dean. I just don't think your argument has firm logical underpinnings.

[LizW]

156. No, if you like 500-1000, that's fine with me.

1. Do you think people hire consultants to prank call a couple voters during commercials while they're watching 70s Show reruns?

Don't know about that.

2. You're also making a big logical leap...that the campaign would find out.

Well, if the pollsters want the campaign to find out, they will. And hey, they did in this instance, didn't they?

3. As you said, only three people reported this happening. Who can count on that happening?

See my answer above.

4. A second logical leap .. that today's whore media would even care about this.

For you to find out about it a tiny web site had to report it (and nobody else did) even though Clark probably tried to tell every reporter in the press pool).

I thought you all were discussing up thread that The New Republic picked up the story from that tiny web site (and used it to put Dean down and prop up Clark, the poor victim!)

But, you know, I do admire your effort to make this look good for Dean. I just don't think your argument has firm logical underpinnings.

Well, I'm certainly no match for the sly put-downs Dean receives here daily, but I do what I can.;)

[AP]

159. Again, not making much sense.

Because people found out, the pollsters must have wanted people to find out? It's just as possible that they didn't want people to find out.

Hey, look, I could run down these points one at a time, but I just thing we have got to get beyond the point of denying what is perfectly obvious.

If you want to hypothesize scenarios which let Dean off the hook -- which construe all this is a very clever, contrived, deliberate plot to gradually leak this information out, first to a middle aged PhD, then to the Clark campaing, then to a tiny NH political journal, then to TNR, then to DU, but no farther than that -- have at it.

There are way more productive ways to spend your time if you're a Dean supporter than to contnue to deny the obvious.

If you want Dean to win the primary AND the general election, you're going to have to deal with stuff like this, and figure out why it is that Rove wants Dean to win, and what you're going to do about it.

If you want Dean to win the primary and lose the general election, than keep doing what you're doing. Treat this stuff as little brush fires you need to stomp out without addressing the facts which explain why these brush fires are popping up in the first place.

[LizW]

165. Ah, I thought we'd get back to the mantra

sooner or later.

Speaking of brushfires, while you're chanting the predictable "Rove wants Dean" line, another of your candidate's speeches has surfaced wherein he praises Bush.

Here, you can borrow my wet blanket.;)

[AP]

167. This is funny for a couple reasons.

First, I'm not a Clark supporter. That fact points to the weakness of making arguments in defense of your candidate which hinge on whom the person making the argument supports.

So, don't get distracted by whom I might be supporting. Better to focus on the problem your candidate is facing.

Also, "getting back to the mantra"? We never left it. And it isn't a mantra. It's part of the landscape. This whole thread is about that issue. It's why you're in it trying to stomp out the notion.

I could understand this approach the first time any evidence supporting this notion came out. However, now it's time to deal and move on.

If you want to win the primary and lose the general election, keep doing what you're doing.

If you want to win the general election, you need a strategy.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. All Serious Political Observers Recognize Clark Would Be Tougher to Beat

Than Dean, for exactly the reasons described in the article. While I think Dean certainly would have a chance, Clark's chances would be better.

I don't want this election to be close enough for Bush to steal. I want the possibility of some coattails, especially in the South.

Clark is our best shot at beating Bush.

DTH

[IndianaGreen]

23. Clark won't get the peace vote

He will get the vote of all those non-veterans that are mesmerized by the authoritarian image of a man in military uniform.

Some people may think of Clark as the new Eisenhower, that may be fine for them but not for me. Having to choose in 1952 between a moderate Republican like Ike and a real Democrat like Adlai Stevenson, I would have chosen Adlai. I don't want an American Caudillo!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. Disagree

I think Clark will get most of the "peace" vote if he's the nominee, although I certainly concede that the most strident 1% or so might stay home or vote third party. His anti-war position will resonate just enough for people to give him a chance, especially considering the alternative is certain war with Bush.

DTH

[IndianaGreen]

41. Clark will have to answer questions about NATO's bombing in the Balkans

There are legitimate and troubling issues about General Clark's command of NATO during that war, issues that were raised in reports published by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

These are questions that will have to be publicly answered by General Clark himself, not by his supporters in an obscure website.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. I Doubt It'll Get Much Attention

The vast majority of ordinary Americans agree that Kosovo was a just war, and that NATO was righteous. I'm not sweating the most strident 1%, we probably wouldn't get any significant number of them anyway, unless we nominated Kucinich.

DTH

[Pastiche423]

56. Ha!

clark get the peace vote?

A military man that was fired from his long termed career. A man that killed thousands of innocent men, women and children, that dropped cluster bombs and DU on hospitals, schools and churches is going to get the peace vote?

I believe millions of American citizens will disagree w/that statement.

[AP]

65. Would you call Powel a man of peace? A guy who wouldn't intervene

because he didn't see how American interests were served by stopping the deaths of thousands of people?

Which one of these two guys was in a Democratic administration and which one is part of the current Republican administration?

[jumptheshadow]

80. "Mesmerized by an authoritarian image"

At the speech I witnessed Clark give, the line that drew the most applause, and hollers, and a standing ovation was this one: "Dissent is a form of patriotism."

And, yes, it is heartening to see someone with Clark's military background arguing vehemently for a freedom that had been trampled and spat upon in the rush to war. A freedom that people like Limbaugh and Coulter and all the yahoos who Dixie Chicked the Dixie Chicks would like to see stripped from our political landscape.

Perhaps people also support Clark because:

1) They like his liberal ideas and the common sense way he has articulated them.
2) They genuinely believe he is the best person for the presidency at this particular point in American history.
3) They like the fact that he overcame adversity and worked hard to rise from the lower middle class. They like the fact that he never has shirked responsibility.
4) They are sick to death of the polarization in this country. They want a president who can unite people, not drive them even further from each other.
5) They consider Clark as our most electable candidate -- a concept which the Republicans seem to support.

[Skwmom]

154. I think Clark will get the "smart" peace vote.

Clark believes that force should only be used as a last, last, last resort. He felt that it was a crime that we didn't step in and help out in Rwanda (where millions were hacked to death). The man has a lot of humanity and if you would let yourself look past the uniform you would see that.

[gully]

24. I'm sorry, who might those 'serious' people be???

:shrug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. Nearly Every Decent Pundit Who's Not Shilling for the RW

And any serious observer of politics here on this board.

DTH

[dsc]

30. Oh really

It is your contention that not even one supporter of Dean on this board is a serious observer of politics. Do you care to back that up?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. I Think Most Dean Supporters Here

Including yourself, Gully, tend to desperately avoid admitting the fundamental truth that Clark is more electable. You didn't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that Clark would do better in the South, and would be harder to smear in the South.

Most Dean supporters point to Dean's alleged ability to "change politics as usual" or some such similar idealism, rather than his great chances against Bush. Those who do sincerely believe that Dean is the most electable against Bush are IMO clinging naively to the historically discredited notion that you can win solely by energizing the base, and the unsupportable notion that Dean is somehow less vulnerable on issues where he will get crucified by the $200 MM Bush war chest.

DTH

[dsc]

33. I want a citation right now

where I have discussed Clark's ability or non ablility to carry the South or for that matter one in which I discuss the relative ability of Dean and Clark in that regard. For the record, it is my opinoin that none of our candidates can carry the South without either a white center right third party candidate (like Perot) or winning the national vote by landslide proportions. Gore actually did worse in comparison to his national showing in every competative Southern state than Dukakis did relative to his except Florida. If you take out their home states, Clinton Gore managed two Southern states in each of 92 and 96 (Lousiana and Georgia in 92 and Lousiana and Florida in 96). In all of those they won with much narrower margins than they did nationally. In none did they get anything close to the 50% our nominee will probably need.

I think that barring a huge win by us Dean, with a Southern running mate is likely to win the state with his running mate and nothing else in the South. I think the same can be said of Clark with the exception that if he picks a Southern VP they can get two states. No Perot or Perot like candidate and I don't care who we nominate that is the most we will get. To be generous I will throw in Lousiana. Maybe Clark comes out of the South with 15 more EV than Dean. The price for that is a nominee whose views are sketchy and whose record is non existent.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. The South

Gore did poorly in the South because he was perceived as having "gone Washington," so much so that even despite his last-minute effort to move his campaign back "home" to Nashville, he couldn't win his home state of Tennessee.

If you take out their home states, Clinton Gore managed two Southern states in each of 92 and 96 (Lousiana and Georgia in 92 and Lousiana and Florida in 96).

This is a blatant untruth. Clinton carried LA, GA, MO, KY, WV and home states of AR and TN in 1992. Clinton carried LA, FL, MO, KY, WV and home states of AR and TN in 1996.

Even if we use your limited definition of the "South," last I checked, Florida, Louisiana and Georgia are pretty damn important states.

Even your attempt to dismiss AR and TN as "home state" irrelevancies is absurd. In terms of sheer electoral pragmatism, Dean comes from VT, a relatively safe Dem state. Clark comes from AR, which went for Bush in 2000, but Clark will carry it easily. The advantage there is Clark's.

Finally, running mates are less important than the principal in terms of carrying Southern states. Lloyd Bentsen couldn't even carry Texas, when he ran with Dukakis.

DTH

[dsc]

35. WV, MO, and KY

are not Southern states. They are never discussed as being part of the solid South. They didn't join the Confederacy (WV did but suceeded). I stand behind what I wrote.

As to the rest. You wrote that post in direct response to mine. I didn't know what to think of the Gully thing. But I took including yourself to mean the person whose post you responded to and that was me. If you don't believe me go to the upper right corner of your post and click you will be sent to mine.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

38. All Three Are "Border" States That Went for Bush in 2000

But like I said, even if we accept your definition of the South, the rest of your thesis is absurd. I note with great pleasure your inability to respond to any of the rest of my points, save this triviality which I had already stated was arguable.

DTH

[Classical_Liberal]

51. and Dean doesn't have the antigun liabilty that made him unpopular

in border states.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. Umm, Neither Does Clark

Clark also has a much more attractive profile to these states, as a military Southerner perceived as moderate who fought and bled for his country. Meanwhile, Dean will be painted by the $200 MM Bush war chest as a draft-dodger who went to his rich Wall Street doctors in order to obtain a medical exemption, and then promptly went to ski and work on construction.

Next?

DTH

[AP]

57. Southerners serve in the military out of proportion to representation in..

population, and there are more military bases in the south, again, out of proportion to geographic size.

People here say that they're all going to be mad about the war and vote for Dean. But I say there's no way that the media is going to allow America to be mad about war by next fall. They're going to be working overtime to make Bush look like he made right decision about war and that opposing war was wrong.

Dean plays into that strategy. Clark turns that strategy against Republicans. That's why Republicans want Clark out of the way BEFORE they start making the war look like it was right.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. Clark won't take the corporate money out of politics or institute

the fundamental reforms I want. I also find him commitment to undoing the pnac dubious because war hawks like your self support him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

62. IOW, You're Defaulting to "Dean Will Change Politics as Usual"

I get that, I totally understand that's how many Dean supporters feel. I happen to believe that's what Clark will do as well, but obviously YMMV on this.

I'm glad you're effectively conceding that Clark is more electable, however. It shows sound logic and good sense, IMO.

DTH

On Edit: Responding to your own edit, I am not a "war hawk," despite my screen name. I demonstrated against the Iraq invasion. Nice try at irrelevant "your supporters are being mean so I won't vote for you, wah!" comments, however.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. I don't know that he is more electable

and neither do you. He could turn out to be like Perot's goofy VP candidate for all I know.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

83. Comparing Stockdale and Clark? Wow, That's Lower Than Low.

You realize you're now in the same company as Tweety, don't you?

Stockdale was a fine man, who unfortunately didn't appear to weather the ravages of time as well as some.

Clark has a track record of success and brilliance. He is in the prime of his life, and I have no doubt he will do extremely well as a candidate. By all accounts, he is improving dramatically as a campaigner, and I have little doubt he will do great.

DTH

[Classical_Liberal]

87. He has no track record at all of getting elected.

. and neither did Stockdale.

[AP]

97. And what kind of record does Dean have in getting elected to a top....

executive position that he didn't already hold?

Ok, I know, he got elected to state house in VT, and to Lt Gov in VT (a state that's probably smaller than a couple battalions?).

I'm just trying to be funny with this one.

Ignore me.

[Classical_Liberal]

101. Dah, he was elected Governer of Vermont

That is is the top executive position there.

[AP]

104. never as anything other than incumbent. He never won as challenger or open

The Gov died of a heart attack while cleaning his pool and Dean became the governor.

[Classical_Liberal]

105. Edward's has yet to win a second term and Clark has won nadda

!

[AP]

127. at least JE has record of beating incumbant in a state-wide race.

Dean has never done that.

Edwards also did it running as a democrat.

[Classical_Liberal]

129. So, they have both won elections, and neither has won the Presidency

. I don't give any special status for beating incumbants. That is your subjective priority, which probably only came after you decided you preferred Edwards on political grounds.

[AP]

138. In fact I said the opposite above -- I state that this is NOT a priority

for me.

[dsc]

107. and we all know incumbents never lose

It isn't like Davis was recalled, Cleland lost his seat, the governors of South Carolina and Alabama lost their seats, or anything like that. No wait it is like that.

[AP]

67. You should vote for Edwards.

This is a 50 min interview with Laura Kanoy (sp?) on NHPR.

At around 42:30 -- Edwards says he wants public finance with free air time -- which is probably why CNN has him on their pay no mind list)

Is anyone else saying this?

http://www2.nhpr.org/audio-graphics/audio/ex-2003-10-14.rm

[Classical_Liberal]

81. Edwards is prowar

.

[AP]

89. Yet he didn't vote for 87 bil to support war. Dean said Dean would have.

Nuances.

[Classical_Liberal]

98. I don't have an opinion on that

If it is part of an exit strategy it could be good. I don't know what Dean has said on the specific bill either.

[dsc]

68. It would be nice to get an apology

from you for your smart ass attitude in that post. I assume by now you know that it wasn't borderline delusional or not reading to think it was addressed to me.

Clinton Gore won Georgia by 0.6% while winning nation wide by 5.6% in 92. They lost Georgia ib 96 while going to a better nation wide win. BTW in 92 only 86.1% of Georgians voted for the major party candidates. I will say this here and now. If Max Cleland couldn't win over a draft dodging whack job in 2002 Clark isn't going to win Georgia in 2004.

As to Florida, I think Dean should pick Graham or Feinstein. Both would help Florida immensly. Though with Jeb in charge I am not so sure we should count on Florida.

I take it you forgot what the home state of Dukakis' opponent was. It was Texas. Also Bentsen also ran for Senate which was stupid. I also think that we could have run a Richards Bentsen ticket and lost Texas. It is a hopeless cause.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

73. Clark, Dean and Florida

Clark/Graham or Clark/Edwards has a significantly better shot at Florida than Dean/anyone. Clark has several times the support of elderly folks compared to Dean (and Dean will get smeared by the Medicare/SS claims, which I happen to think are BS, but nevertheless, the immoderate statements are there, on the record, ready for Bush to use), and also has expressed stronger support of Israel than Dean.

As for GA, I agree that in today's world, Clark would have a tough time there. But he'd have a much better shot than Dean, whose chances in GA are basically non-existent.

Finally, Bush Sr. was from Kennebunkport, Maine at the time of the election and for years before that. The Dems were really hoping Bentsen, at the time one of the most popular politicians in TX, might be able to steal a march on Bush there. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

Regardless, not all VP candidates deliver on their home states. Except for Gore in 2000, nearly all Presidential candidates deliver on their home states.

DTH

[dsc]

75. For someone who told me to read carefully you might try it yourself

In the upper right hand corner of post 32 is a place which says reply to post 30. Post 30 is my post. So yes now I really want an apology since you stated it twice.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

77. You're Absolutely Right, and I Do Apologize

I'll fix that now. Sorry about that!

DTH

[dsc]

92. thank you

It wasn't that big a deal and now I see that Gully had the post above mine.

[AP]

43. Gore was also running against a guy who looked more Southern than him.

I don't think Bush looks more southern when you put him next to Clark or Edwards.

[Classical_Liberal]

82. Well I think Bush looks more Southern than both Edwards and Clark

He is evangelical christian. How is your opinion more objective than mine?

[AP]

91. That's because you'll say any nonsensical thing and stick it in subject ..

...line and then try to back it up with 10 words or less which, which rarely make sense.

I'm not saying my opinion is more objective than yours. But I am saying that at least I'll try to back up my opinion with facts, logic, and argument and direct reference to the text.

Actually, I will say that my opinion is more objective than yours. It's way more objective than yours.

Usually, the more you write, the more nonsense you propogate.

[Classical_Liberal]

102. neener, neener, neener ! make it personal then

Good day!

[AP]

118. With you, it's the only thing left. Really, your posts are less than 20 wd

long. You write non-sequiturs. You don't develop your ideas. It's all just tag lines and opinion sloganeering.

If you cited facts, and developed arguments, I'd address them. You don't. So I address what you do write.

[AP]

40. The Dem just has to be competitive in the south -- you have to force Bush

to spend money in every state if there's going to be any chance of winning the race.

And, like Clinton, you just have to win two or three southern states so that you can roll through your strongholds and win.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

42. Exactly Right, AP

Democrats who claim they're willing to completely write off the South immediately marginalize themselves as rank novices in terms of political analysis, IMO.

"Oh, pooh-pooh, it's only LA, GA and FL (and AR and TN, and also WV, MO and KY)." ROTFL!

DTH

[IndianaGreen]

46. Dems cannot compete in the Bible Belt

A lot of people will vote for Bush because they are convinced he is Gawd's Annointed One.

Catering to those voters will antagonize everyone else. Besides, none of those voters want the US to withdraw from Iraq or to stop our one-sided support of Israel in the I/P conflict.

Gore had the correct strategy to win, it only failed due to fraud in Florida!

[AP]

54. Clinton competed in the bible belt. He forced Republicans to have to spend

timea and money there, and drew their attention away from other states.

If Bush spent 200 million bucks and all his time in NY and CA, they could probably pull off something like Arnold.

[knight_of_the_star]

74. Exactly

We NEED someone to be able to compete seriously in the South to beat Bush. If we ignore that region, we will be handing him all the electoral votes there to him on a silver platter. Even if we fight for the South and lose every single electoral vote there, we will have forced Chimpy to spend money and time there that he could have used in other parts of the country, thus freeing us up to secure our strongholds and contest ground that can be contested.

[madfloridian]

28. Question

"All Serious Political Observers Recognize Clark Would Be Tougher to Beat"

I have heard a lot of serious political observers support other candidates, or at least speak highly of their potential.

Could you please be more specific as to just who the
"serious" ones are.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Polls, Common Sense, History, Geography

All of these things show Clark is more electable against Bush than Dean.

The polls consistently show Dean showing about twice as badly as Clark in terms of loss-margin to Bush. Clark is generally inside the MOE while Dean is generally outside.

Common sense dictates that being able to neutralize Bush on his one "strong" point, foreign policy, is going to be very important, especially given the traditional Republican theme, reinforced by years of usage, that Democrats are weak on defense.

History shows that Democrats cannot win just by energizing the base.

Geography clearly favors Clark, as a Southerner with a military background who won medals and was wounded in Vietnam and is perceived as a moderate (even though he's more liberal than Dean), over a New Englander who avoided service and is perceived as liberal.

The TNR article also describes very well the panic among the RW (remember Drudge, O'Reilly, Rush, Novak, FAUX, all started slamming Clark over everyone else, starting from the moment he declared) about Clark, and the extemporaneous comments by the RW in favor of running against Dean.

DTH

[poskonig]

49. All serious political observers never thought Dean would go anywhere.

Well, Dean is proving them wrong.

I know many Clark supporters are impressed by authority, but arguing from authority can be fallacious logically.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Please Read Posts #31, 32, 34 and 38

If you want to try your hand against some specifics.

And I can't speak for the pundits on this, as most weren't even paying attention that early. But I for one always had a feeling Dean would take off, especially given that he was the only candidate who was clearly against the war early.

DTH

[poskonig]

64. The argument isn't there.

Your idea states that Clark is a superior candidate because he is polling 4 or 5 points higher than Dean against Bush 14 months before the election, the Democratic base is not a significant factor as Dean makes it out to be, and we need to look strong on defense, due to the war on terrorism. "History" supposedly also supports this.

Our case example will be 2002, which is recent, and during the post 911 hysteria. It includes Max Cleland who ran a centrist campaign in the south, had authoritative credentials that supposedly made him look strong on defense. Cleland lost. What is notable is that Mary Landrieu, also from the south, ran to the *left* during her run-off election, and actually won by juicing up the base.

Therefore,

1) Your claim that Democrats have never won by turning out the base is false.

2) Your claim that military credentials are a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for victory, is also false.

3) Taking 2 and 3, we can conclude it is possible a Democrat can be competitive in the south by turning out the base without military credentials.

What you have left are two things. One, "authoritative" analysts who predicted that Dean would never go anywhere, and then predicted "peaking" and "implosions" over and over and over again. Secondly, you are left with Clark's massive 5 point polling advantage compared to Dean head-to-head with Bush. This is not very big, you must admit, especially being at the critical 14 month point before the election. Secondly, given poll numbers change, and Dean has the fundraising, organization, message, tactics, and experience to win nasty campaigns, Dean appears to be the candidate that would do better against Bush, not Clark.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

70. You Think Landrieu Won By Running Left?!?

I'm not sure what planet you were on, but if Landrieu had put herself any closer to Bush during her re-election campaign, she would've been hugging him. It was all over the news, her ads touting how much she voted with Bush, etc. etc.

1) Your claim that Democrats have never won by turning out the base is false.

First of all, I didn't claim that "Democrats have never won by turning out the base," since that would be a ridiculous claim. What I *did* say was that Democratic presidential candidates historically have not won solely by energizing the base.

2) Your claim that military credentials are a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for victory, is also false.

Boy, you're 0 for 2 so far in terms of what I've said.

You have my sincere condolences on the death of your reading comprehension skills, however.

3) Taking 2 and 3, we can conclude it is possible a Democrat can be competitive in the south by turning out the base without military credentials.

I have always said it's POSSIBLE. It will just be HARDER, as any remotely honest political observer would indicate. That's all I've been trying to say, is that Clark is more electable than Dean. I never said Dean couldn't win.

Even you seem to imply a concession to my point that it would be harder for Dean to win, taking your choice of words "it is possible" into consideration.

Secondly, you are left with Clark's massive 5 point polling advantage compared to Dean head-to-head with Bush. This is not very big, you must admit, especially being at the critical 14 month point before the election.

This is true, but early indicators are all we've got. It shows a trend that will continue to be problematic for Dean as the campaign wears on, it's a deficit he'll have to trim, and considering the inherent difficulties he has in the South, I suspect it would be a long, hard road.

Secondly, given poll numbers change, and Dean has the fundraising, organization, message, tactics, and experience to win nasty campaigns, Dean appears to be the candidate that would do better against Bush, not Clark.

Clark will outraise Dean in Q4, mark my words.

As for organization, those can be built. If anything, your "14 months before the election" argument works in favor of Clark here, more so than Dean, because Clark can build his organization during that time, while Dean's fundamental messages and weaknesses to attack will be much harder to deal with. And it's impossible to change the fact of Dean's geography and lack of foreign policy credentials and military service, whether it's 14 months or 14 years from now.

Tactics and experience, we'll agree to disagree.

DTH

[AP]

72. The base Dems turnout and win with is, ahem, the black vote. (edited+)

How's Dean doing with that Demographic?

The other demographic is labor. I didnt see Dean's name coming up in the AFL-CIO endorsement debates. It's Gephardt and Edwards they've been talking about.

Incidently, these are the only two demographic groups which vote out of proportion to their actual representation in the population. The religious right used to top that statistic, but are declingin in participation and voting at about 3/5ths the rate they voted at their peak in 94, if I remember correctly.

[poskonig]

84. First of all, you're wrong about Landrieu.

The pubes had this prediction about Landrieu's strategy:

"This may be why Landrieu is suddenly running away from the "accomodationist" party leadership, which (the theory goes) led the Democrats to Tuesday's debacle, and seems to be preparing to do a 180-degree turn as a Bush-bashing old-style Democrat. Given Louisiana's conservative political culture, and the election feat of historical magnitude President Bush has just pulled off, this strategy has to qualify as a "Hail Mary."

"We're looking at a toss-up going into December 7, and that's bad for Landrieu," says Louisiana political analyst John Maginnis. "Landrieu's problem is energizing the black base, and that's going to be even more difficult with the Senate not at stake. I don't know why black voters would turn out. There's nothing else on the ballot that day, no local elections. She didn't get a particularly good turnout from black voters this time, and that's her base. She tried to position herself as a pro-Bush moderate, and that turned black voters off." http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher110702.asp

As the article goes on, they even bashed her with the gay rights crap that supposedly will sink Dean, if we believe Clark and the experts. What happened? If you look at the data, Landrieu did in fact turnout her key demographics, including professionals, but more importantly in that election, blacks.

While you continue to equivocate on the base issue, if one can win by turning out the base in key swing states, it is implicit that one can also win nationally. You're wrong about this, i.e. "History shows that Democrats cannot win just by energizing the base." regardless if you admit it publically or not.

You've also stated

"Common sense dictates that being able to neutralize Bush on his one "strong" point, foreign policy, is going to be very important, especially given the traditional Republican theme, reinforced by years of usage, that Democrats are weak on defense."

Now you're saying neutralizing Bush on this issue is not important? Nice, but not necessary in the bottom line? I'm smiling as you spin yourself out of this one.

I'm taking your lack of response about Dean's campaign experience, fundraising, organization, political skill, and clarity of message to be a concession. Prophecy is not a refutation.

:toast:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

90. You're Citing National Review?

I'm sorry, but that publication doesn't hold much water with me.

Landrieu won by embracing Bush and turning out the black vote in a fantastic GOTV effort run by several key endorsers who did a kick-ass job, especially in a few key precincts.

Like AP said, how's Dean doing with Blacks? About half as well as Clark. Clark will also pick up the support of many members of the CBC, I believe, which will be a big coup.

There is also a huge difference between a Senate race and a Presidential race. What sells in one region won't sell in another. That's why Southern status is such a big plus, because regionalism has been proven to be stronger in the South than in New England or the West.

"Common sense dictates that being able to neutralize Bush on his one "strong" point, foreign policy, is going to be very important, especially given the traditional Republican theme, reinforced by years of usage, that Democrats are weak on defense."

Now you're saying neutralizing Bush on this issue is not important? Nice, but not necessary in the bottom line? I'm smiling as you spin yourself out of this one.

Umm...WTF are you talking about? I'm obviously saying that it WILL be important to neutralize Bush on foreign policy. Clark can do that, Dean will have a much harder time of it.

Again, my condolences. When's the funeral, anyway?

I'm taking your lack of response about Dean's campaign experience, fundraising, organization, political skill, and clarity of message to be a concession. Prophecy is not a refutation.

Except on the current state of their organizations, that wasn't a concession at all, it was merely an agreement to disagree, as I previously stated. And while it's a fact that Dean has raised more, he's also been in the race much, much longer. Again, I don't concede Dean has better fundraising potential. The only logical thing to do is wait until Q4, when both candidates have had a full quarter.

DTH

[dsc]

109. While I wouldn't site the NR and don't know why that poster did

It was a widely remarked change in strategy on Landreiu's part which saved her seat. She went from running as Bush's pet to running as against Bush on trade. She also returned to her base. She all but lost in Nov running as Bush's mini me and then won running toward her base on Dec 7.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

111. That Wasn't My Perception, But YMMV

She actually won the plurality in the November election, and almost won an outright majority.

I didn't perceive her running from Bush at all during the runoff, except for highlighting the issues on sugar. Again, I did perceive a kick-ass GOTV effort by her endorsers and staff, which made the difference for her.

DTH

[dsc]

124. admittedly from an editorial but they state this as fact

http://www.populist.com/03.01.edit.html

Landrieu sported a liberal but pro-business voting record which had her, among other things, voting for the 2001 tax cut for the rich and "fast track" trade deals. She started the runoff campaign by firing the consultants who had her bragging during the pre-Nov. 5 campaign about voting with Bush over 70% of the time. Instead, for the runoff she highlighted her differences with W and opened a wedge between the GOP and rural voters with the disclosure that the Bush administration had secretly agreed to allow more Mexican sugar imports into the US, threatening 27,000 sugar farmers and the state's $1.7 billion sugar industry. Her support for gun rights defused a potent issue in rural areas where hunting is a religion and her support of a ban on "partial-birth abortions" also helped in a state where one-third of the electorate is Catholic.

end of quote

Cleary she didn't consider it a victory and she did change her campaign strategy.

[AP]

130. The general election and run-off required different strategies.

The only goal the Republicans had int he run-off was to get her below 50% so they kept adding republicans who could peal off bits of her support, even though none of them could ever beat her head-to-head. I believe they ran a black Republican to get her black support, they probably ran a woman to get some women away, and then they probably ran Republicans were liberal only on one issue, to get several different groups of single-issue voters.

When the general election came along, it was back to campaigning as usual.

[dsc]

132. she fired the people

so cleary she didn't think they did a good job. She brought in the people Daschle used to reelect Johnson.

[AP]

147. "fired" or "didn't rehire"

Whose characterization was that it was a "firing"?

[dsc]

149. This one

She started the runoff campaign by firing the consultants who had her bragging during the pre-Nov. 5 campaign about voting with Bush over 70% of the time.

and several others that were stated at the time. The above is from a post three above this one on this thread.

[poskonig]

170. Again, the logic matters, not the authorities.

The post I initially responded to indicated that "all experts agree" that Clark is a better candidate than Dean. This is an argument from authority, just as the NR dig is an argument against authority. Please focus on the argument, not the authorities.

My argument was two pronged. I indicated how the experts have consistently been wrong with Governor Dean. In conjunction, I presented cases in the post 911 south where running to the base has worked and running of military credentials has not, arguing against the CW.

Your response to this has been ineffectual. You claimed turning out the base historically not helped Democrats win elections, and believe this trend will continue into 2004. This is despite the fact that the three largest growth groups in the United States -- working women, professionals, and minorities, vote Democratic in overwhemling numbers. Your strategy is a recipe for disaster; Dean is on the path to success.

You've also said that neutralizing Bush on defense is very important, but denied it was necessary to victory. Perhaps it is very important, but just not required to win the election. I guess it is not that "important", eh? Unlike some candidates (hint hint), Dean has been giving accurate assessments of the Iraq situation and the current administration for over a year and can make the case for a new direction without contradiction.

On NR, though this is tangential, I was illlustrating how Landrieu went into Bush-bash mode in 2002, and how the Republicans were mocking the theory how Bush-bashing would win her the election. Republicans repeat similar arguments today about Dean, and Clark supporters curiously repeat them. :P

I not only insisted that Dean has better fundraising potential, I maintained that he has more campaign experience (being through organized hate campaigns at one point), great ability to organize, a clear message, and a gut feeling for when to use to right tactics.

The response? Dean doesn't like black people. At least that's what you and AP implied. Republicans also said this about Gore, who did quite well. Democrats all share a common purpose and have a similar set of values, so I'm counting on Dean doing well in the African-American community after he wins the nomination.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. I think TNR did the anticlark push poll

If Dean didn't do it, he looks like a Rove favorite and if he did it he looks dirty. It makes sense because Tnr hates Dean. It also makes sense because their editors are known Bush supporters and repukes. The favor Clark because he is an unproven campaigner, and TNR wants Bush to win.

[AP]

61. That is laughable.

Now, the act of reporting creates suspicions of bias. Maybe nobody should report anything.

Look, the story didn't even start with TNR. It came from a NH reporter. Was TNR sitting in a dark room, waiting, drooling, hoping that a middle-aged PhD would call the press and complain about this, and scouring the independent NH newspapers and websites looking for mention of their poll?

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Who knows what the affiliations of the PHD are

.

[AP]

93. Yes. Let's not believe anything...except in the righteousness of Dean.

Why don't you try to lay out a coherent argument stating why it's more important to completely ignore this story than it is to engage in the possiblity that it says something we should all be considering about campaign strategy, history, and politics.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. So you think saying Edwards and Clark look more Southern than Shrub

is objective logic. Come off it. I don't like your candidate because he disagrees with me that the war is bad. That is an objective fact.

[AP]

103. Dean doesn't think war is bad. He agrees with Afghanistan and every other

military action other than his very narrow definition of what should have happened in Iraq (30 more days of inspection, if no cooperation, invade? wasn't that it?).

[Classical_Liberal]

110. I don't think all war is bad and agreed with our actions in Afghanistan

Furthermore you didn't see many antiwar protesters in the Afghanistan phase. So what? Afghanistan was the actual home of OBL. Iraq had no links to OBL. There is a bid difference. Just because I think someone should be able to kill in self defense doesn't mean I condone murder.

[gully]

119. Nope that's not what he said.

Your full of untruths about Dean...

[AP]

122. I believe I have a quesiton mark in that statement. I'm not clear on Dean

position. I actually blame Dean. I don't think he has been clear about where he stands on Iraq.

I notice you're not venturing a guess. Is it because you know that anything you wrote that looked good could probably be easily contradicted by Dean's own quotes? Is it becuase if you wrote exactly what his position is, it would look humorously convoluted?

Why don't you tell me Dean's position on Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

106. Quick, look, there's a PNACer under your pillow....

Talking about being paranoid! Must be shell shocked from the Clinton Wars and the 2000 election!

Hope you recover soon!

[Classical_Liberal]

112. Who was Judith Miller's anonymous Iraqi scientist?

? It isn't like neocons aren't known fabricators. It isn't like they aren't scared to death of Dean.

[AP]

139. When this push poll story is reported by Judith Miller rather than tiny NH

political journal, and she spins it to make Dean look bad, then I'll think that someone is sabotaging Dean, rather than Clark.

Shall we look through the NYT this weekend and count Shelton quotes and compare them to negative stories about Dean?

[Classical_Liberal]

146. What you believe is unimportant to me. I don't know what you believe

anyway, other than your word. The pissing contest comes from a neocon rag. I don't trust em. So sue me.

[AP]

153. Why do you engage in this discussion if your fall-back argument is...

"I believe what I believe...I don't need to engage in the text or theory or rhetoric...so sue me"?

[Classical_Liberal]

158. You support TNR's prowar position

therefore you are biased to support the spin against antiwar Dean, and Clark.

I have different views, and values than you. Nothing to disguss here, other than pointing out those differences to the readers who are against the war.

I happen to think you wordy spin is a turnoff to most.

[AP]

161. Well, that really came out of nowhere.

You state something as fact which you have nothing to support. I have no simpatico with TNR. I don't know

You then say that it proves that I'm biased.

You misstate a fact -- Dean isn't anti-war (I notice nobody has taken up my challenge to explain Dean's position on war).

You add a clause "and Clark" which makes no sense.

You say that you have differnt views and values, whithout even coherently or accurately stating what you think mine are.

And then you try to dismiss the whole notion of making coherent arguments as "wordy spin", in a pathetic attempt to elevate what you do -- sloganeer with no fact, argument, textual reference, or anything.

The problem with your posts isn't that they have different views and values.

They have NO views and NO values.

[Classical_Liberal]

163. You support a pro-IWR candidate n/t

A candidate TNR supports. That looks pretty sympatico to me. I am not going to explain what people can read elsewhere in the thread. We all know Dean is no pacifist, but then neither are most of his supporters which include me. Nitpick all you want.

[AP]

164. What does who I support have to do with push-polling by Rove for Dean's

benefit and to Clarks detriment?

You think all your no-sentence subject line only posts trump all arguments about these issues simply because of who I support?

You plan on winning a general election with that strategy? (Or do you plan on not winning?)

Good luck.

[Classical_Liberal]

166. I won't refight the thread. That is silly

. You always play this game of forgetting points made before in the thread when things aren't going good. This technique appeals to stupid readers who won't follow the thread, and trolls.

[AP]

168. Easy to say. Impossible to substantiate.

If there's some point I forgot, then state it. Because you couldn't, I'll assume this post is just more sloganeering from you unsubstantiated by fact and reality.

As for strategies one uses when things aren't going well, usually, things not going well would have to preceed their implementation.

Because that's the case, I'm going to have to point out that your strategy in this post is a better example of what one might look like.

[kodi]

114. anyone with phone caller id from the pollsters can find out who did this.

trace the phone number, then trace back to those who bought the phone time. its just that fucking easy.

rather than lather about dean versus clark, both whom are preferable to bush, focus on beating bush.

[AP]

120. No it isn't. It traces back to a company. The company has conf. agrees.

with their clients. There's no way to compel them to tell you for whom they're making the calls.

The best you could do is if the company only had Dem clients, or only and Republicans clients, and even then you're just basing you're assumption that this client is the same part as the rest on circumstantial evidence.

Anyway, almost no consultancies ONLY take business from one party.

Also, if you know how to go backwards in time and do this, let me know, 'cause there are some things I'd like to warn people back in 2000 about.

[kodi]

137. check public records on payments by political parties to these orgs

the political parties and the action committees have to disclose where and when their outflow goes. cross reference these with the phone numbers used by the polling orgs and the times of the payments and push-polling instances.

unless the polling orgs are privately held, public investors have the right to find out who their customers are.

[AP]

141. I totally agree that this would be the thing to check.

But the consultan probably will have serveral clients.

Let's check Bush's FEC report after the quarter closes.

Also, I bet there isn't a single political consultancy which is a public company. It's sort of incompatible with what they do. You don't want shareholders to be able to vote in any onld board member to hire and fire executives who deal with private clients.

And, again, let me know when you get that time machine working.

[kodi]

148. capone was caught by following the $, and bush can be too

and your comment on the fec report is exactly that to which what i was referring.

when i worked with a campaign our opponent's fec report was a gold mine in ascertining what they were up to and who they were working with. this allowed us to predict their future behaviors by anticipation of them acting within the boundaries of the behavior profiles of the people and orgs they paid for to do "not so public" campaign work....like polling...like push-polling.

any decent private investigator could find this out in a day or two.

[AP]

155. It'll be three months before these FEC reports come out, which might be

why this was done on Oct 8, one week into the new quarter.

[kodi]

169. oh, i bet they did it months ago too, but i also bet no one checked it out

and it points to a real problem with democratic campaigns, they are run by mike dukakis types who try to be right, while the repugs' are run by michael corleone types who try to win.