Is there a CONSPIRACY to Destroy Democratic Chances?

[WiseMen]

Do you believe it is an accident that the Democrats have spent the last year not building up a strong candidate, but rather engaged in belittling 9-person beauty contests --- with the result being that senior leaders of the party are out-witted by and play second-fiddle to a candidate who has never held elective office (our man Al). Imagine, there has not been a single substantive 2-person, 3-person or 4- person debate.

Is it purely accidental that massive promotional media attention and subsequent financial backing is given to a candidate whose claim to the nomination is based entirely on competent Governorship of a mini-State with population size and tax-base smaller than many cities around the country.

With Trillions of Dollars at stake, it is naïve to believe that there is not an enormous operation underway to ensure that the Democrats either: (1) field a candidate who is so vulnerable that he could not possibly win against GWB; or (2) field a candidate with so little relevant experience that he will be entirely dependent on outside “advice” and incapable of executing a legislative program to change the status quo.

The latest polls from New Hampshire just confirms that there is something profoundly perverted in the 2004 nominating process: The candidate ahead 25+ points in primary polls is the same one shown to most likely (by a large margin) to loose the State to Bush in the General Election (25-percentage point gap).

Concord Monitor
(New Hampshire)
12/20

-----------------------------------Bush--57-----------Dean----32
-----------------------------------Bush--56-----------Clark----37
-----------------------------------Bush--55-----------Kerry----40

This is not new. The pattern has been consistent since the beginning of polling on this question: Governor Howard Dean is consistently seen as relatively week in a head-to-head against George W. Bush as compared to Senator John Kerry or General Wesley Clark.

USAT/CNN/Gallop
12/17
-----------------------------------Bush--60-----------Dean----37
-----------------------------------Bush--55-----------Clark----40

WashPost/ABC
11/02
-----------------------------------Bush--54-----------Dean----39
-----------------------------------Bush--51-----------Clark----40
-----------------------------------Bush--50-----------Kerry----44

USAT/CNN/Gallup
9/21
-----------------------------------Bush--49-----------Dean----46
-----------------------------------Bush--46-----------Clark----49
-----------------------------------Bush--47-----------Kerry----48

I support John Kerry for the nomination because I believe him to be a unique gift to the progressive movement in our country, in these very desperate times. In a post 9/11 world Kerry’s stellar military and foreign policy credentials provided the Democrats with a opportunity to actually challenge the Bush regime on the issue of national security. At the same time Kerry carried an unimpeachable record of progressive values and a history of indifference to special interests of any kind. He could have been the ideal leader of the progressive movement of our time.

However, the nominating process has played into the hands of the enemy. Instead of burnishing the image of our best candidate, we have denigrated it. Instead of a grass-roots movement rallying behind a spear of excellence, it is agitated in a stupor of mediocrity.

What I find tragic is not that there are larger forces than us at work to influence political outcomes in U.S. elections. That is a given. But rather that many good-hearted and high-minded Dean supporters actually believe that they have things under control – that they are “working the system.” Unfortunately, more than likely, it is the system that is working them.

Many, long time democrats are baffled by what’s happening.

http://www.opednews.com/atkins_1203_kerry.htm

http://www.nymetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/n_9522/


CONSPIRACY BUFFS. CAN YOU HELP US HERE?

[goobergunch]

1. Pennsylvania is a crucial swing-state in the 2004 elections.

<snip>

But Bush is at the 50 percent mark in head-to-head matchups with any Democratic challenger except Dean, who trails the President 49 -- 43 percent. Bush leads in other matchups:

50 -- 43 percent over Lieberman;
50 -- 42 percent over Kerry;
50 -- 41 percent over Clark;
51 -- 42 percent over Gephardt.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x9463.xml

[skjpm]

2. why let us silly democrats choose our own candidate anyway?

No sense picking someone who we agree with most--let's pick someone the Republicans like.

It is really against my conscience, if you can possibly understand that, to vote for a man who voted for the war. If I was smart enough to get out there and protest, Kerry should have been, too. I think someone should throw his medals back to him over the White House fence. I'll vote for him if I have to, but if I have a choice, I'm going to vote for the person who agrees with me about the war.

[cosmicdot]

3. I don't think corporate Media, etc., are going to stop doing what they've

been doing ... so, short answer to thread topic: 'yes'


this should have been response to original thread ~ sorry

[TexasSissy]

7. I don't recall PA ever being critical in the presidential elections.

There IS one state that has NEVER voted for a candidate who didn't win the presidential election, but I forget which one it is. Or at least it had that record until recent elections. I recall hearing pundits on TV discuss it while waiting for election results to come in.

FLA and CA are critical, since they have so many electoral votes. The deep south, as a group, is critical, but no one state in that group individually makes or breaks a candidate, I think. (I'm not incl. FL in the deep south group.)

But if there's something particular about PA's importance, please share!

[dsc]

14. If you think any Dem can with without PA

you are certifiable.

[goobergunch]

17. If Gore had lost PA, he would have lost the election.

If Bush had won PA, he would have won the election.

It is impossible IMHO for us to win in 2004 without Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes.

[Triana]

36. why is tom ridge over OHS?

...his job is not overseeing OHS. It is to deliver PA to * in 2004...and he will.

[goobergunch]

45. If we lose PA, we lose the election.

I really don't see how Ridge's position is helping Bush in PA.

And it's DHS, not OHS.

[JailBush]

4. Yeah, I figure everything's probably rigged.

That's why it's so important to focus on a variety of campaigns and issues, with an emphasis on LOCAL. Instead, the sheeple paint themselves into a corner, then put all their eggs in one basket. They think all they have to do is sit on their butts until next November, then vote for whoever's running against Bush.

That's a fabulous recipe for failure.

[cosmicdot]

5. I agree with "local" - grassroots as the spoiler

we must become Paul Reveres et al

[Sensitivity]

30. I was Involved with Imagine America supporting Kucinich. Can He Win?

I like the grass roots work IM is doing but I think we need to
defeat Bush next November. So far Dean seem the strongest, but I
Kerry gets a few win he would be a good second choice.

[WiseMen]

35. I wish as a Party we could go back to idea-based grass-roots education

[demnan]

6. Kerry lost a lot of early supporters by voting to allow

Bush to start this stupid war in Iraq. If there's a conspiracy to destroy the Democrats look no further than the U.S. Senate.

On the other hand I think Kerry is a fine man, an honorable man. I just disagree with him on this issue.

[Skip Intro]

9. Didn't Kerry say he was misled re: his vote?

I am seriously asking, because I don't know.

We know bush lied to the public, and I've read that senators were told Iraq could hit the US. What's important for me now, as far as this issue goes, is what are the candidates that voted for the resolution saying now. Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt - no remorse there, and therefore no support from me. But Kerry - has he said he was misled, and has he said he regrets his vote and/or that the invasion was wrong?

I definitley won't support a pro-war candidate (unless one is our nom, which I really hope isn't the case), but I want to be fair. If Kerry voted the way he did based on lies the bush admin told him, and he now sees the invasion as wrong, then I could accept that.

[Sensitivity]

12. He said Senate Bush Lied to him, but did not retract his vote.

[ajacobson]

8. The "Primary" is a sideshow

to distract us from the real fight between the Bavarian Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich.

Hows that for conspiracy?
:-)

[Sensitivity]

10. What would Dean have to do to be "credible" in your view??

[comradebillyboy]

11. credibility comes from winning votes

after iowa and new hampshire, if current trends hold, dean should have lots of committed delegates. that is credibility. with public support and sucessful money raising, the demo establishment will jump on the bandwagon too.

[helleborient]

13. Something theorists like this willfully ignore...

Howard Dean is less well known on a national basis than most of these other candidates...it's very similar to Bill Clinton.

Once Clinton's campaign kicked into gear as the presumptive candidate he was unstoppable.

There is zero reason to think at this point Dean's campaign would do otherwise - his grassroots support across the country is stronger than Clinton's was at this point.

[WiseMen]

15. Absolutely False. Both Polls and Focus Group show Dean with High Profile.

[Padraig18]

18. Your two polls about NH compare apples and oranges.

The poll among DEMOCRATS had Dean with a double-digit lead; the poll among *ALL* NH voters (and NH is a Republican state, I remind you) show marginal diffrences among the Democratic candidates vs. Bush. I fail, therefore, to see where a case can be made that we should nominate JK, since we will likely lose NH in any event. :shrug:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Padraig18]

20. Excuse me.

Please read what I wrote. The first polls showing the preference for Dean are among Democrats; the second, vs. Bush are among all voters, and in a solidly republican state.

[WiseMen]

23. YES, And Dean Fares Far Worse than Kerry Against Bush

[Padraig18]

24. Not far worse.

He fares within the MOE, so he could actually be doing better than JK against Dubya, too.

[WiseMen]

40. This is simply not true. Focus Group and Surveys Show Dean/Lieberman Most

recognized with Clark comming a little behind.

Any count of media minute over the last year will show the
overwhelmingly greater coverage of Dean.

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. There's definitely a conspiracy alright.

And those who are truly "wise" can see it plainly.

[poskonig]

21. All of the candidates are within the margin of error of each other.

Consistently.

Bush versus Democrats x,y,z has been looking better for Bush due to an optimistic outlook on Iraq and the economy. There is no conspiracy about it.

[Padraig18]

22. Absolutely correct.

They all fall within the MOE vs. Bush in NH, a Republican state. :hi:

[WiseMen]

25. Any Statistical Backgound Guys?? Multilple polls, same results! NOT MOE

[Padraig18]

26. What is your question?

They are within the MOE consistently.

[WiseMen]

27. PLEASE READ DATA and Refer to your Probability 101

Standard Sample is approx 600.

USAT/CNN/Gallop
12/17
-----------------------------------Bush--60-----------Dean----37
-----------------------------------Bush--55-----------Clark----40

Dean's 23 point gap in not statistically equivalent to Clark's 15.

WashPost/ABC
11/02
-----------------------------------Bush--54-----------Dean----39
-----------------------------------Bush--51-----------Clark----40
-----------------------------------Bush--50-----------Kerry----44

Deans's 15 point gap is not statistically significant to Kerry's 6.

[Padraig18]

28. The 'data' is apples and oranges.

You cannot cross-compare polls.

PS, on edit: Where are the links for these polls?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[quaker bill]

31. An alternate view

<<Snip>>

This is where Howard Dean comes in. If one thinks of the Democratic Party as rebuilding itself after its disastrous 1980s, then Dean—or more appropriately, "Deanism"—is a new and potentially more powerful stage of the rebuilding process. Clinton rebuilt (forgive the Marxist terminology, but it happens to fit) the superstructure. Dean is rebuilding the base. "If Clinton modernized the message," says Simon Rosenberg, the most prominent centrist Democrat who's enthusiastic about Dean, "then Dean is rebuilding the party. In the '90s party, it was, 'Write us a big check.' Regular people were left out of that equation. Now, through new technology, we're getting them back in."

There's a tricky thing about this rebuilding stage, though: It excludes party insiders. It has nothing to do with Washington. It's no wonder that Democratic insiders, so accustomed to having complete ownership of a process like a party primary campaign, should dislike Dean and even fear him: He has stolen the process right out of their hands. He is not "of" them in any way, shape or form. In fact, his accumulating successes merely serve to emphasize their irrelevance to this rebuilding stage. No wonder they should take a kind of emotional comfort in writing him off as the new George McGovern; it's much easier to dismiss a thorny thing than to come to terms with it.

<<snip>>

Besides, insurgents do win sometimes. Because the standard historical analogies to Dean (McGovern, Barry Goldwater) have now run their course, let me add two more to the mix. The first is Andrew Jackson—invoked, significantly, by Dean himself at the Dec. 9 endorsement event with Gore. Say all you want about 1828 being ancient history, but some things are eternal. Bringing new constituencies into the process and transforming politics through that infusion is one of them. Yesterday it was the pamphleteer, today it's the blogger; but the impulse and the ardor are the same. Another is Harold Washington. It was impossible, the experts said, for African Americans to elect a black mayor in Chicago. Couldn't be done. Well, it happened. He won the way Jackson did, which is the way Dean is hoping to.

<<snip>>

Insiders need to start thinking about making their peace with Deanism. The party—the (still) post-1988 party—needs a rebuilt base, and Dean is doing that in a way that has no precedent. And instead of fretting about all the ways Dean could lose, the insiders might do better to spend some time thinking about how he might win.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/1/tomasky-m.html

The whole article makes a great read. A lovely antidote to some the fear and liberal hand wringing that has been passing for informed analysis of late.

[stickdog]

32. Sure. You and Will Pitt are now both honorary Skull'n'Bonesmen.

Poll results are a lot easier for "wise men" to control than other signs of campaign strength like the number of supporters, fundraising totals and endorsements.

[Scott Lee]

43. I see I'm not alone in this!

Thanks for the viewpoint.....popcorn?

[batman]

33. yes its called the STOP DEAN MOVEMENT

prepare to watch them fail

[adadem]

39. That's the point

polls show Dean failing miserably against Bush...those are the polls all Democrats should be looking at to unite behind the strongest candidate to take on shrub.

[edzontar]

41. In other words--support DEAN!!!!!

And stop the "Stop Dean Movement" and other divisive dirty tricks that serve our enemies!

[auburnblu]

34. Could be

I wouldn't call W's party wanting to win a conspiracy, they have certainly tried to put a negative spin on the candiadtes. Bill Clinton has seemed to help Clark a little, but I still wonder if Hillary wants a win. She would be a very strong candidate in 08.

[WiseMen]

37. The Bogus Pro-Dean Bias in ABC Poll, Cast Huge Suspicion re Manipulation

[stickdog]

42. That's not a very wise take, now, is it?

Isn't your entire argument based on poll results?

If poll results can be so easily and obviously biased, doesn't that destroy your argument?

[adadem]

38. None of it makes sense

Perhaps the polling questions are "misleading" or "confusing" repondents ie: "who would you like" vs "who do you believe"

[Scott Lee]

44. No, but there sure is a push to slime Dean.

And it's all quite evident. When are we going to talk about some REAL issues instead of all this tinfoil hat legendry?