dean is like mcgovern, dukakis, and mondale

[skjpm]

They are all good men who deserve to be President.

McGovern, Dukakis, and Mondale were good candidates who lost, not because of their own "unelectability", but because their party failed to rally around them.

The world would be an infinitely better place had the Democrats stopped their infighting and voted en masse for Mcgovern, Dukakis, or Mondale.

Are we going to make the same mistake with Dean? And then blame him when it's our fault?

[Langis]

1. I am not all the excited about Dean

But if he gets the nomination that will change. All my available money/time will go straight to his campaign.

[JohnKleeb]

2. like wise

I'll do what I can to get him elected.

[sallyseven]

3. WellI voted foir all three of them

I never regreted it. I am just not sure about Dean.

[Bucky]

36. McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis are beautiful... sexy even

Wow. That's more woman than I can handle. Oh my gay stars!!!

[joefree1]

4. I guess this type of thinking is why the Freepers think we're wimps

Not me. Dean has created a popular movement and that scares the Washington politicos, the corporate media, and I guess you.

Don't be so afraid of what of the "party" might think.


Images from Dean Rocks the House of Blues, Hollywood
From wtmusic http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=919849
From Joefree1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=921300

[caledesi]

5. Get a grip. Dean is nothing like McGovern or Dukakis.

He is a "stret fighter" and neither McGozern or Dukakis was that. They were too nice. Dean is not very nice about the state of American and I appreciate that.

This whole "anti-war" pacificist thing must be put to rest. Dean supported Gulf War I and Afghanistan. Is that a pacifist? He has incredidble judgment. He knew from the start, the "war" in Iraq qas wrong.

Dean is not going to be "McCained." Believe me, he will fight back and that's why I like him.

No "fake smiles" here.

[skjpm]

7. I agree. I like Dean's "anger"

and I think it sets him apart from the other three. But we shouldn't let another good candidate go.

[absyntheNsugar]

10. I think you're missing skjpm's point

He's not saying these guys were at fault, but that we need to support Dean, not fight within the party.

[joefree1]

12. On second read (maybe the third) I believe you're right

My appologies skjpm. But I agree with others here that Dean must be able to attract independents or even Republicans to win.

[dolstein]

38. Yeah, his last name has fewer syllables

Otherwise, they're all the same.

[ShadowCabinet]

44. Absolutely correct!!

Dean is nothing like McGovern or Dukakis. Both candidates and campaigns made a single major mistake. They let their opponent define them to the public.

That's where Gov. Dean is different. He stands his ground and takes the argument to his opponent and not vice versa. Why do you think that everytime he gets attacked, his latest "bat" garners more money? Because he fights back. He is not a doormat the way that McGovern and Dukakis were.

I was too young to vote for McGovern, but I did vote for Mike Dukakis. It infuriated me that GHW Bush always gained the upper hand in the campaign by defining Dukakis to the public, so all Dukakis could do was constantly refute things, diluting his own message and vision for America. Gov. Dean isn't like that.

To quote Sean Connery in "The Untouchables"....."if the other guy brings a knife, you bring a gun. That's the Chicago way." Well that's how the Dean campaign has been operating and that's why they are going to win.

[BootinUp]

6. Well

I voted for Mondale and Dukakis.

Is lack of democractic party support what did them in? I was young at the time, so fill in details for me if you like.

All I know is that right now Dean could get every single damn democratic vote (of likely voters) and still lose. There ain't enough. You gotta have more than that.

[Clark Can WIN]

8. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination

But I'll be damned if anyone is going to body snatch my heart and my opinions before I get to the voting booth.

Just because someone believes Dean is the superior candidate doesn't give them any right to deride others for not sharing that opinion. It's ludicrous. It's not my fault if I don't think Dean can win. It's nothing I did. It's DEANS fault, it's what DEAN has done. If Dean loses we won't have anyone to blame but the Dean voters who chose him as our nominee. Makes just as much sense.

[MIMStigator]

26. So will I but won't give any money. Not a gambler on lost causes

nt

[Bombtrack]

9. He is like them, but he would likely lose for other reasons of similarity

Than you're reason given in the initial thread

McGovern had a sharp minority viewpoint when it came to defense/foriegn affairs at a time of war, and was beaten by the incumbant who was way more trusted on foriegn policy viewpoints and credibility(secondarily he had a very unpopular economic platform). And thirdly, McGoverns primary campaign supported as whole by the most left-wing of any of the democratic candidats, and the primary was sabotaged in part by the GOP so that he would win it ------- Dean is/would be exactly the same.

Mondale had a proposition to raise middle class income taxes(or as the Deanies prefur, JUST go back to the previous administrations/decades taxation of the middle class), secondarily, Mondale was less credible/trusted on foriegn affairs than the incumbant -------- Dean is/would be exactly the same

Dukakis was a governor from from a small(ish), very liberal, New England state, who held a very unpopular viewpoint in most of the country on a major social issue, and secondarily was not taken nearly as seriously or trusted on foriegn policy as his predecessor and his challanger. This allowed his Texas opponent to write off the south and concetrate on the midwest and west-------- Dean is/would be exactly the same, only Vermont is much smaller, and more stereotypically liberal than Massachusetts was, and the major social issue would switch from the death penalty to gay marriage/civil unions

[BootinUp]

14. I agree with your analysis

Nice analysis there bombtrack, I don't remember anything about McGovern, but the rest of it sounds about right.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. I voted for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis, and agree

with your analyses of the three losses, and the implications for Dean.

Must we do this again?

[Julien Sorel]

11. They were all good men, average campaigners,

and some of them were the wrong candidates at the wrong time. Like Dean, McGovern was more a Democratic temper tantrum than he was a candidate for president. Mondale had his tax raising pledge, a soft on defense image, and a wildly popular Reagan to overcome, and Dukakis was a pinch hitter anyway -- Gary Hart should have been the nominee, not Dukakis. The difference between Clinton and Gary Hart is that Clinton got caught after being elected. Dukakis was smearable, and the one thing everyone should have learned by now is that if a Dem candidate can be smeared on certain issues, he or she will be smeared.

[Bombtrack]

13. that isn't the main reason they lost

Even though that is thrown around alot here, (usually in defense of Dean)

please see my post above

[CalebHayes]

15. It is not worth the risk. We need Clark!

:kick: :nuke:

[jonnyblitz]

20. with all due respect to you and your fellow Clark supporters

I have never seen more people motivated to support a candidate out of sheer fear than I have the Clark supporters. I am serious. You guys are truly mortified. "He is the only one that can beat Bush" is your mantra.

[JohnKleeb]

22. I prefer supporting on the issues

but all the other reindeer will laugh and call me idealistic :D. Sorry for the damn song, thats what happens Jonny when you work at a grocery store, you hear variations of songs all the livelong day, Ive heard 3 not 1, not 2 but 3 variations of Jingle Bell Rock now :argh: sorry for the rant.

[jumptheshadow]

47. Well let's change that mantra

Clark is the best man for the job, in terms of international and foreign policy experience, his stands on the issues, his character and integrity, his direct contact with working class people, his strong yet diplomatic personality, his likeability, his intellect and his electability.

Howard Dean doesn't hold a candle to him. And, from a smart, strategic point of view, Clark carries a lot of weapons that Dean doesn't. He can attack Bush, with credibility, on the war, on national security, on foreign policy, on his military record, on taxes, and on his penchant for secrecy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. "Too liberal!" The battle cry of the DLC.

Dean is far from "too liberal". In fact, he is a helluva lot less "liberal" than I'd like him to be.

What the 'moderates' fail to point out is that, with the exception of Clinton, their program of moving the party to the right has been a dead loss.

Clinton only won in '92 because Perot took votes from Bush. In '96 because the repugs ran a corpse against him. Yet the mythology remains that we have to move to the right to win. The idea that we must become more republican to have a chance persists despite the loss of congress, and Gore's defeat in '00 when he moved to the right in a vain attempt to capture 'moderate' votes and sacrificed the left to the Greens.

McGovern lost because the American people weren't ready to face the obvious fact that we had lost the horror in Vietnam.

Mondale lost because Jimmy Carter was inept as a president.

Dukakis lost because he ran a bad campaign against a masterful and incredibly dirty and racist campaign.

I voted for all three and would do so again without a second thought.

Dean has an uphill fight. But, not one of the 'moderate', 'safe', 'pragmatic', and ultimately cynical candidates have any chance of beating Bush by becoming more like him.

[Bombtrack]

17. Dean is a DLC democrat, once again

Most of the rest of what you said is based on that false (I'm the real democrat/they aren't) wedge that Dean has based his campaign on, and therefor is too BS-ridden to get to much into, although I hope you'll read my first post in this thread, and if you have any contention with any of the history I put forth, feel free to opine

[jonnyblitz]

24. why do they hate him if he is one then?

serious question.

[Bombtrack]

25. for dozens of reasons

he's a blowhard and he constantly lies and misleads people about his opponents, and his own positions. He would likely lose against Bush, and he, it appears to me, doesn't care as much about the fact that he's there dream candidate because of his dozens of huge flaws as much as his own (likely short-lived) glory.

He's also a huge hypocrite about what and is pathologicl about negative claims he makes about his opponents that he himself is among the worst at

[jonnyblitz]

32. so its about his personality traits (bad in your view) and not

his ideology. Thanks for responding.

[Bombtrack]

33. well that to. I don't like his regressive record in Vermont

and I also don't really want my income taxes raised, considering I should be in the middle class myself shortly after college, and also my parents taxes being raised would also not be beneficial

however those things don't matter as much because I know with certaintly that he would lose barring some huge miracle for him, which would most likely involve something very bad happening in the country, which I don't want to root for and won't root for

[Cheswick2.0]

28. You are wrong about 2000

Most of what you said is right on key. However in 2000 Gore moved left. The only people who thought he was too far right were those listening to Nader tell lies about it.

[ldoolin]

18. Those others couldn't excite the grassroots energy needed to win

Mondale, McGovern, and Dukakis lost because they ran campaigns that were monumental snores. I don't mean to throw dirt on them because they were all good people, but that's just the facts. It had nothing to do with ideology. Mondale was an old school Truman type New Deal liberal, McGovern more of a JFK type and nowhere near as far to the left as the conservative media like to paint him, and Dukakis was as centrist as they come. All would have been very electable if they had run in the right year and had shown an ability to stir up grassroots excitement.

Dean has already shown the ability to excite grassroots support that is almost unprecedented. People are excited about his campaign. I haven't seen anything like this since maybe Jesee Ventura's upset victory in Minnesota, or Paul Wellstone's first win in the same state. Successful election campaigns are those where the candidate motivates people to get excited about the campaign, donate money, do the ground work needed to win an election, and get out the vote. Howard Dean has already shown this ability.

Reagan was "unelectable", "too far right", and the Repuke establishment feared a Reagan candidacy because they thought he would lose badly. He won. Paul Wellstone was a political outsider with no money, feared by the Minnesota Democratic establishment as being "too far left" and "unelectable". He won. Jesse Ventura was considered a "vanity candidate" and a joke, treated by the media as comic relief instead of a serious candidate. He won. What made the difference in all three of these races was an ability on the part of those candidates to motivate supporters.

[Zomby Woof]

30. the problem with Dean's support

Is that it doesn't transcend the alleged "grassroots". He has NO APPEAL outside his very rabid and devoted following. None. Dean creates a big snooze or a "huh?" outside of his throngs of overheated devotees.

"Undecided" beats Dean in every poll where Bush isn't already beating him. It's disgraceful, because ANY Dem should beat Bush, but Dean manages to trump that formula. Nominating Dean will be the Hindenburg at the polls come November.

[msanger]

43. if dean has no appeal, what about the other eight?

If Dean has no appeal outside his following, how come he is leading in all the national polls? That must mean that the other eight are really really terrible, since they are behind somebody as bad as Dean.

Is that what you are saying?

[RetroLounge]

49. "Undecided" beats Dean in every poll "

and Dean beats everyone else, hence, by the transitive property of politics (and simple math), undecided beats the other too. I guess the other 8 create even bigger snoozes, too. And that would make them MORE disgraceful.

Now try making your point again. We'll wait.

Oh, the humanity!

[Zomby Woof]

50. I am aware that undecided beats all

Wow, you sure get excited over my replies, lol. I appreciate the attention, really I do. ;-)

My point in bringing that up is:

It shows that as long as undecided beats all, the field is still open, and Dean is not the inevitable candidate. Those undecided voters won't necessarily go with the frontrunner, especially if they ever got wind of the blog over on Dean's website. But seriously, they may not. There is plenty of precedent for the frontrunner to go down in flames by March.

Dean has a big mouth with a foot to match. The more exposure he gets, the more likely he is to keep tasting his foot. I am counting on it.

[mzmolly]

19. Except he's appealing to the South too..so he's even betta!

Dean will win, it's in the air folks! WE DECIDE WHO WINS. Unless diebold is an issue of course, then it doesn't matter who runs.

[mazzarro]

21. Give this crap a rest fellas!

Dean should be criticized on his positions on issues of relevance to this election and these asinine comparisons to Mcgovern, Mondale, etc should laid to the wayside. It is getting on my f***king nerves.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

27. Evidence?

In what way is Dean like those other people?

[Zomby Woof]

29. the Dems were unified in those elections

The nation, however, was unified against them.

Those elections you cited had no major third party candidates, and no major rifts within the party either. The Dems lost for reasons having to do with failed appeal to middle America and swing voters buying into the repub propaganda more.

Dean is not a good Dem like those 3 you cited. But he would lose just as bad if he gets the nod. The bloodbath of 2002 is just a preview of bad things to come, and Dean will be the surest way to seal its fate.

[hedda_foil]

34. Wrong.

1972 -- Dems were anything but unified. Think Nixon's southern strategy. Think Dixiecrats. Think antiwar. Think George Wallace. Think Eagleton. Read your history or stick to the Lounge.

1980 -- Dems were totally dispirited with a strong 3rd party insurrection going on during and after the primaries ... very unlike Dean's. Carter had acted as if he had suffered a nervous breakdown during the hostage crisis, remaining shut up inside the WH and barely communicating for months on end. That had a lot to do with Reagan beating him in 1980. In '84, Mondale was a good man but colorless and tainted by the image of "weakness" caused by Carter's not-yet-forgotten withdrawl into his shell. As Carter's VP, he was not able to present himself as forceful and exciting (because he wasn't).

1988 -- Dukakis? Oh please. Dukakis was a very bland centrist who ran a hideous campaign. The Willie Horton stuff wouldn't have stuck if Dukakis had been a stronger campaigner. It wouldn't stick to Dean for a minute.

None of this applies. And btw, I voted for all these guys, knowing full well they were weak candiates and ineffectual campaigners. Nothing at all like Dean.

[andym]

42. Not addressing the premise

The premise was that the candidates did not get good support from the party.

1972: You are correct about McGovern. Democrats not unifed.

1984: Mondale did get very good party support. He lost due to the nonpartisan swing voters.

1988: Dukakis also got good party support. Btw, while Dukakis was a technocrat, he was not a centrist, he was a liberal (especially by today's standards). How many of our candidates even belong to the ACLU? Dukakis did/does.

You try to make the point that they were ineffectual campaigners, but
note that they did all ran great primary campaigns.(Of course Nixon helped McGovern out by sabatoging Muskie) Dukakis was able to overcome the first batch of "Willie Horton" charges in the primary (Al Gore's famous negative campaigning), though they did hurt him in the GE.

McGovern ran a poor GE campaign. Mondale and Dukakis ran good GE campaigns. But Reagan was too strong a candidate for Mondale. And Dukakis was defeated by an impressive negative campaign from Bush I inspired by Atwater. Of the 3, Dukakis did the best in the electoral college as well.

[Julien Sorel]

45. Wrongerer.

1972 Nixon's Southern strategy did nothing more than make the map resemble what it is now. The Dixiecrats of those days are Republicans today. Using that as an example of Democratic 'division' is absurd, since those people weren't really Democrats to begin with. Eagleton? Exactly how did Eagleton cause division? He was dropped from the ticket. George Wallace? Exactly how did Wallace cause disunity from his wheelchair?

1980 I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Carter's 'nervous breakdown.' He was absorbed by the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afrghanistan, and tried to use it to his advantage with what was called a 'rose garden' strategy -- he stayed involved with the issues, trying to make it look like he was too busy with the country's business to campaign. The 'strong third party insurrection' is equally absurd, as that would be the John Anderson campaign, and Anderson was a Republican running as an independant who hade opposed Reagan in the Republican primaries.. How on earth could that cause disunity among the Democrats??????


The rest of your little bit of history is equally either complete bullshit or questionable to the point where it's absurd to loudly proclaim someone 'wrong' and then lay down such foul crap, but I'm going to stop now out of disgust.

[Zomby Woof]

51. I know my history

Got my degree in it and taught it along with U.S government thank you very much. :P I LOVE your condescending remark about the Lounge. Believe me, GD (either of them) isn't exactly home to discourse any higher or better. It's rather self-serving to think posting in this forum makes you a better or brighter person, isn't it? ;-)

Wallace was of the American Party, not the Democrats, which he abandoned eventually. The Democrats as they were, were about as unified as they were going to get. Strong unity has never been the party's best quality. The 1920 and 1924 conventions were bloodbaths, and they lost to Harding and Coolidge respectively, for crying out loud. In the 40's, FDR faced a challenge from the Socialists (making Henry Wallace his VP was a masterstroke, and imagine how different things would be if he hadn't made Truman his subsequent VP, but the moderates of the day urged the switch, since reelection was not the sure thing it once was for FDR), and of course, the southern split in the 60's.

Carter won in 1976 based on getting the disillusioned middle from post-Watergate America. I remember quite vividly Ted Kennedy's attempt at grabbing the nomination in 1980, but the hostage crisis and the economy did him in more than that split - which of course was also a result of those same two issues - a vicious cycle. But when Mondale lost in 1984 because he was still too associated with Carter, although he DID have a chance after that first debate with Reagan, where some signs of Alzheimer's kicked in. Mondale was favored, briefly. So that wasn't a lack of Dem unity. Just Reagan working his Hollywood tricks with some help from Roger Ailes.

I agree with you about Dukakis, but a lack of enthusiasm for him doesn't translate into a lack of unity. You just can't force unity OR enthusiasm, which too many Dean supporters seem to try to be doing.

So I use "unity" loosely, but the myth needs to be exposed that some of us refusing to rally around Dean is not sign of imminent defeat.

By the way, it is much more fun in here these days than in the Lounge, so I think I'll stay. ;-)

[zulchzulu]

35. Here are the similarities

McGovern was the anti-war candidate.

Mondale said we needed to raise taxes on the middle class.

Dukakis was a short governor from a New England state with a temper.

Dean is indeed a bit of all three. Add some Goldwater and a light peppering of Adlai Stevenson to taste.

Conclusion: All got their butts kicked in the elections they were in.

[dolstein]

37. And do you know WHY the party failed to rally around them?

Because the party wasn't nearly as liberal as they were. And even people like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis succeeded in driving millions of moderates from the party, it still isn't as liberal as Howard Dean is.

Sorry, but if you want a nominee the party can rally around, why not chose a candidate who actually reflects the views of most Democrats, and not simply the hard core liberal activists?

[Kanola]

39. Only someone from the DLC would say something like this

You are unfamiliar with the Dean campaign. Dean is unpredented in the grassroots appeal that he has garnered. Only the DLC establishment and repugs want to keep him from being elected.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[andym]

41. Premise is only half right

McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis did deserve to be President and each of them is more liberal than most of the candidates running today.

But the main reason they lost is that they could not convince those outside of their base to vote for them. It's true the party didn't give 100% to McGovern, but both Mondale and Dukakis got great party support.
It just didn't help them enough.

[GalleryGod]

46. I was THERE. Ed Muskie,Birch Bayh,and Gary Hart would've all done better.

Nobody in "the Party" abandoned these guys..The Duke was aloof,warm as ice:scared: ...Fritz was saddled with Carter baggage abd the unwise Ferraro choice:crazy: and McG was "Acid,Amnesty & Abortion" and the "$1,000 Give-Away":silly:

[Myra]

48. That's a really good question skjpm

Once we see Dean's contradictions on so many critical issues, and
his tendency to be disturbingly flippant, we should know enough not
to go with him.