Before you count Dean out, remember Clinton in 1992: 5% in IA, 25% in NH

[overground1]

Clinton came in a dismal distant 3rd in Iowa, and a weak 2nd in New Hampshire, nearly 10 points below Tsongas.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000487.html

If Clinton could survive all that and the "bimbo erruptions", then Howard Dean can certainly survive this and the "anger erruptions".

This is far from over. It's time for us to regroup and redouble, then retake the White House!

GO DEAN!

[JohnKleeb]

1. Of course its only just begun

But let me tell you about Clinton and Iowa in 1992. Iowa homeson Tom Harkin was running that year, Clinton didnt stand a chance honest, and this year Dean had the backing of Harkin yet still lost. However you are right, this process is far from over. We've only had 1 primary so far.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. BINGO! Also, having their homeson made it impossible for any....

one to take Iowa who's name WAS NOT Tom Harkin.

:kick:

[The_Counsel]

16. Well, That Explains The 2.5% Part, Anyway...

True, no one was going to take Iowa from Harkin that year, but damn... 2.5% of the vote (which is what Clinton got) is pretty bad. Under ANY circumstances...

That still doesn't explain Clinton's distant second (at 25%) in New Hampshire. Folks had declared him dead for sure. But not only was he the "Comeback Kid" shortly there after, he went on to win the Presidency. Twice.

Not saying any of this gives Dean a chance in hell (especially if he doesn't WORK for it); just that there IS a precedent...

[overground1]

19. It doesn't explain why Tsongas got TWICE Clinton's showing in Iowa though

[The_Counsel]

23. No, It Doesn't...

By most accounts here, Clinton didn't even campaign in Iowa -- pretty much what Clark did this time around.

My point is Clinton got absolutely MURDERED in Iowa, for whataver reason. Then he went to New Hampshire and, pretty much, got his ass kicked there too...

...then he won the Presidency twice.

It just doesn't seem like a good idea to write off a candidate with so much cash in his war chest after just one primary. Dean isn't going anywhere before at least March, and he may stay in this thing until the money runs out just to piss people off. Ditto for John Kerry, and even Wes Clark. The one candidate who REALLY needs to be consistant is Edwards; and he's more than capable.

Matter of fact, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Edwards win this thing virtually by default, to be honest...

[w4rma]

34. This year, Gep, the Iowa homeson, ran a kamikaze campaign against Dean.

Three candidates won delegates from Iowa. Dean was one of those three candidates (K:12,E:10,D:5).

[liberalhistorian]

2. Yes, that is certainly true,

the problem is that his numbers in NH have slipped a lot in the past several days. If he doesn't do well in NH, I'm not sure he can overcome, so to speak.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Clinton didn't compete in Iowa

that's a huge difference.

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Also

Clinton was no where near being the frontrunner going into Iowa

[Maddy McCall]

25. Yep...I think the original post supports a Clark presidency more than a

Dean one. If a New Englander doesn't win New Hampshire, then he surely won't carry southern states.

If a Southerner doesn't win New England, that's fine, because he is still going to take Southern states...oh, and Clark is doing EXCELLENT in polls in western states.

[overground1]

29. I disagree. Clark was positioned as the anti-Dean. Kerry's win in Iowa

takes the wind out of his sails. I do not think there will be the same appetite left for Clark now, but we will have to see after tonight's debate.

[poopyjr]

36. I thought Iowa was unimportant?

LMAO

[Mz Pip]

4. One huge difference

Clinton didn't announce for president until Oct '91. Dean has been running in IA and NH for nearly 2 years.

And Clinton was never ahead in IA or NH in the polls so the expectations for him were much lower at that point.

MzPip
:dem:

[robsul82]

7. Clinton got crushed.

I mean, no one really ran, but Clinton was CRUSHED. Interesting thought.

Later.

RJS

[overground1]

9. 11% compared to 5% doesn't look so bad, + Clinton got ½ Tsongas' showing

Harkin wasn't the only one who beat Clinton in Iowa. Tsongas doubled Clinton's showing.

[liberalhistorian]

12. Tsongas?

Yuck, talk about a Lieberman-clone! I was so glad when he lost.

[mohc]

8. It's all about expectations

Can dean win? Sure. But the situation with Dean is completely different than with Clinton. First, Clinton did not contest Iowa, and they have a favorite son running. Second, although Clinton campaigned hard in NH, he was never expected to win. Clinton was banking on the later southern states, which is exactly what propelled him to the nomination. Dean however, was expected to take both Iowa and New Hampshire until the last 2 weeks. Clinton beat expectations, Dean is not. Dean basically now has to outlast the other candidates. But if the rest of the field narrows quickly, all the support will fall behind that one other candidate. I just do not see any clear path to victory for Dean.

[liberalhistorian]

11. I don't see where he's

electible, also. And I don't think he's the liberal god he's been made out to be, either.

To me, his reaction in Iowa was childish, he thought he was "entitled" to it, and when he didn't get what he wanted, he blew his stack and that didn't look presidential at all.

He has a tendency to be hot-headed, which is fine as long as it's kept under control, but he doesn't keep it under control and I just don't think it looks good for his campaign. His numbers in NH have really fallen, and if he doesn't take first place in NH, it's going to be harder than ever for him to come back.

My parents watched his entire speech Monday night, and they thought he seemed "drunk and hot-headed." I'm afraid I have to agree with him, much as I wish I didn't.

[overground1]

13. Triangulation. The others are all running for the "electability" vote now

Dean is the only candidate running on pure passion. Everyone will come to a different conclusion of who is the most "electable" and the vote will be spread out to Kerry, Edwards, and to a lesser extent Clark. Kerry will have a strong showing in NH which will keep him in until at least Super Tuesday, Edwards will do well in the south, and hold out until at least then. Clark will syphon off votes from both. This leaves Dean as the only candidate with a consistent and solid showing in all states, even if they aren't all-out wins.

[HFishbine]

31. There's no clear path for any candidate at this point

But you touch on the key to a Dean victory, the longer the field stays crowded, the better for Dean.

[VolcanoJen]

10. More about the Clinton '92 campaign

You know, that man ran the best damned campaign for the Democratic nomination that I have ever seen in my life. In fact, I doubt I'll ever see anything like that comeback again.

The Clinton situation was really different than the race today, though. He was dealing with the Gennifer Flowers story, started plummenting in the NH polls, and then, the "draft letter" came out. Anyone remember that, where he thanks a Colonel for getting him out of the draft. It almost buried him, and I thought it was a lot more serious than the "bimbo eruptions," at the time. However, his brilliant campaign team figured out a creative way to "spin" the letter, going on Nightline and talking about how amazing it was that a tortured man of 22 could have written such an eloquent letter. Damn if it didn't work.

For more information on how Clinton survived January 1992 and became the "true" comeback kid, take a moment to read the collected recollections of James Carville, Paul Begala, Raul Emmanuel and DeeDee Myers here:

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/nightline/clintonyears/clinton/chapters/1.html

The really good stuff starts about 1/4 of the page down.

:D

[poopyjr]

14. NEWSFLASH: Dean ISN'T Clinton

There are so many things wrong with this comparison it's unreal.

1) Clinton didn't compete in Iowa. He spent very little time and money there. Dean has spent 2 years there and millions of dollars, only to get blown out.

2) Clinton is of course from the South, and had credibility, network and minority support throughout the South. And it showed in SC, where he won some 60% of the vote. If you think Dean is going to even remotely come close to that number, you're dreaming. Dean will place something like 4th in SC. How many internet Deaniacs do you really think exist in SC?

3) The field of candidates in 1992 was MUCH WORSE than this current field. '92 had Harkin, Tsongas and Brown? They made Clinton look like the obvious choice in the end. This year's feild is filled with 2 or three guys who look MUCH BETTER than Dean, relatively speaking.

4) Dean is not the engaging personality of Clinton, he lacks the charisma that would be required to mount anything realistic beyond NH (unless he of course wins NH--which he wont). Clinton was the best pure politician possibly EVER. I mean EVER. In the history of politics. Dean shoots himself in the head every week.

The comparison is baseless.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Clinton was not the best pure politician possibly EVER.

He was the best pure politician EVER. No possibly about it.

Don

[liberalhistorian]

24. Excellent analysis,

I agree totally.

[John_H]

15. Here's why that comparison is dead wrong.

1)In '92 nobody campaigned much in IA because Harkin was running. Dean campaigned his ass off in IA (the "prefect storm, eh?) and got smoked.

2) Clinton went UP in New Hampshire from near last after the infidelity stories broke, and thus had upward momentum instead of the rapid downward Dean has.

3) Clinton swept the South, which not even the most ardent pro-Dean believer believes Dean can do.

4) Clinton had only one strong challenger--not three. And Clinton's challenger was battling fears about his having cancer.

5) Clinton was 3,463 times the campaigner than Dean is.

If this the Clinton comparison is the last reason to hope for Dean, well, it ain't very hopeful.

[Maddy McCall]

26. Yes...that's why I think Clinton's campaign compares with Clark more than

with Dean. Except for number 4, look at the similarities.

[West Coast Democrat]

17. You've proved in your other postings that you hate Clinton

so why are you comparing him to Dean?

[overground1]

20. I think that is jumping to conclusions, I've only dissed the DLC - but

This is not about comparing Clinton the man to Dean, their positions or their campaigns. It is just a sober look at the numbers for everyone who thinks Dean's 3rd place showing in Iowa at 11% makes him DOA.

[West Coast Democrat]

21. Clinton was not from a neighboring NH State

Dean is. That's his part of the country.

And yes, you have directly bashed Clinton several times in your posts...why the sudden admiration?

[overground1]

27. show me where

I have shown neither contempt nor admiration for Clinton. I don't see how you interprit this as "admiration" for Clinton. I'm just going by the numbers as a matter of fact.

Clinton's support was concentrated in the south where he got large percentages. Dean's support however is not as lopsided, but instead uniform across the country. This is a race for delegates whom are awarded by percentage of the vote perstate. A uniform showing or a concentrated strong showing in one region will average out the same.

Dean is in a very good position for a national campaign rather than a last stand in any one region.

[mot78]

22. 2004 is NOT 1992

It's comparing apples and oranges to suggest it. Clinton was always seen a an underdog, while Dean had the frontrunner status since June. Dean's sawyer intervew does seem like a redux of Clinton's CBS interview about Flowers. If Dean comes in second in NH, he's still in the race, but as a weak candidate, and if he comes in third, he should get out.

[9119495]

28. Harkin ran in 92. No one came to Iowa.

[overground1]

30. That just goes to show that Iowa isn't really that important

February 3rd is when the race really begins.

[poopyjr]

32. I disagree. It showed how unimportant it was in 1992, not 2004.

If Tom Vilsak were running for president this year, you'd see alot of the same thing going on as in '92. This year however, Iowa was important and very much up for grabs.

[overground1]

33. The first, last, and only time Iowa was important was in 1976 - n/t

[poopyjr]

35. Iowa has turned John Kerry's campaign around--and effectively ended

Dean's. It wasn't important? ok :eyes:

[overground1]

37. It didn't end Dean's campaign. He's down, but not out.

Iowa only managed to give Kerry enough of a bump to make Clark irrelevant. Clark however has never been a serious contender anyways. All it's done really is stir the pot a little.

[TexasSissy]

38. I know, I know. I'm the one who first posted this, in response

to the practical anointing by the media of Dean as the winner before even one vote had been cast.

Now the media is going overboard in thinking Dean is finished.

I guess we should remember that media pundits don't like to say, "Hey, I don't know who is gonna win. Could be anyone." Which is the truth.

None of the candidates should be counted out, except possibly Kucinich and Sharpton.

I'm a Clark supporter. I certainly don't underestimate Dean's resilience, and I doubt the other candidates do, either.