Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Clark split the vote?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Beatrix Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:06 PM
Original message
Did Clark split the vote?
I was not paying a whole lot of attention to the "whys" of how a candidate did in the primaries.

I am wondering though - is there any reason to believe that Clark entering the race split the vote? In other words - had he not entered, would another candidate other than Kerry (maybe Dean) be the nominee? Or did Clark not really have much of an effect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clark wasn't even running in Iowa when Kerry
slammed Dean. How can you blame it on him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Clark did not hurt Dean IMO
If he hurt anyone, it was John Edwards.

But of course you could say that Edwards hurt Clark.

Dems were very fortunate to have so many good candidates.

If, as I read today, Dean plans to do for the Dems what Newt did for the Repubs, he has my utmost gratitude. Of course, I was already grateful that he led the way in standing up to Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I'm sure there was some split with Edwards
Esp among people who were afraid a "Massachusetts liberal" couldn't win. Fwiw, they probably wouldn't have voted for a "Vermont liberal" either.

Also among those few Southerners who just wouldn't vote for a Yankee, altho that too applies to Dean.

But there was also some split with Kerry, among the vets for example, and the people for whom foreign policy experience was important.

So I just don't think you can say Clark split the vote, any more than you can say Edwards did. Or Dean, or Kerry, or any of the others for that matter. There was some overlap between any two you want to pair off--none of their positions on the issues were all that different.

I agree, tho, that Clark's run had little or no impact on Dean's loss to Kerry, in NH or later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
84. But some of Clark's aide participated in the slamming of Dean
even though Clark was not running in Iowa. Clark was a dirty trickster along with Kerry and Gephardt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. Oh, please
There was plenty of slamming and trickery going on in New Hampshire, including from the Dean camp. Dean slammed Clark, as well, and everybody else in the race. It's just politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, Clark didn't participate in the Iowa primary
And that victory sealed Dean's fate, because New Hampshire had been a Kerry stronghold at first, then he dropped down in the NH polls when he failed to catch fire elsewhere. After Iowa, New Hampshire came back on board for Kerry and with that 1-2 punch, Democrats across the country jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.

There is some school of thought that says if Clark had run in Iowa he would have done better than expected and may have run second to Kerry. But there's little chance he would have won Iowa. So, bottom line, I think that it was always going to be Dean or Kerry, and with the White House salivating to run against Dean many Dems got scared of him. Questions about whether Dean's wife would be an active first lady hurt, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Everyone who was running "split the vote".
Dean and Kucinich were "splitting the vote" also. You can throw in Graham if you want. There are quite a few Kucinich supporters who were pretty upset that Dean kept neglecting to mention Kucinich when Dean tried calling himself the only anti war candidate. Clark also split the Veterans vote with Kerry. And the Southerners vote with Edwards. Lieberman tried to split the New Englander votes with Kerry and Dean. And so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. I doubt it would have been Dean
because Dean's campaign had a downward spiral right after the IA caucuses...He never was able to recover after that, and while he ended up second in a few states, they were far behind, it's hard to say whether he would have had a better showing had Clark not entered the race.

Clark drew many Kerry and Edwards supporters as well. It can be argued that most moderates were split between Edwards, Clark, and Kerry. I knew right after IA, that Clark would be hurt the most by Kerry and EDwards' strong showing in IA.

Ultimately Clark ended up second in many states the week or two following NH. He won OK. Edwards also did well in several states (he won SC), and I don't recall which states he was second in (other than his impressive showing in WI).

So, my guess is, had Clark not entered Edwards may have had a slightly better chance, though it's also possible that Kerry simply would have performed even better in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nope.
Clark was never a major player.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Graceless posts get tedious
Clark defeated Edwards, for example, I believe in 5 states in which they both competed. Clark almost knocked Kerry out of the race in New Hampshire where he began pulling away many of Kerry's supporters. That was part of why Kerry moved almost all of his operations to Iowa. I don't want to rehash the primaries yet again. I don't feel a need to argue about who was a more major player where when and why than anyone else. However saying that Clark was never "a major player" is in my opinion foolish. By that logic I suppose one can say only Dean and Kerry were ever major players, because only those two men were ever seriously perceived as the favorite to take the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You see it your way and I see it mine.
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 06:47 PM by Cuban_Liberal
The only major players were Edwards and Kerry. Everyone else was, to a greater or lesser degree, an 'also ran'. As for graceless, may I direct your attention to some of the incredibly nasty anti-Edwards posts that keep getting posted here on a daily basis, Tom? I won't name names, because calling out is against the rules, but we BOTH know who the 'dependable' posters of those are--- and they're not Kucinich, Dean, Lieberman, Gephardt, Sharpton or Braun supporters...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. On review
My opinion of your opinion has not changed, however calling it graceless was not helpful. You have your opinion, and we obviously do disagree. Had Clark not been able to raise over 12 million in the last quarter of 2003 the Democrats might have handed the nomination to Dean, not so much because of direct voter sentiments, but because even more party insiders would have thrown their support behind Dean to get on the wagon they thought was winning. Reference NJ's Gov. suddenly delivering virtually all of his State's Super Delegates to Dean after Gore endorsed Dean. Much attention has been given to Dean's rebel candidate approach, but his insider game almost won the prize. Both Edwards and Kerry were polling quite poorly back then.

Yes where passions tend to be inflamed, it is usually between Edwards and Clark supporters, because that is where the only ongoing competition remains, vis a vis the VP nod. None of the other realistic VP choices have much of a following here at DU. I try to stay clear of throwing darts. On first read I thought your post needlessly provocative, viewed in that light. But seen outside that light, it isn't. Just plain wrong (that's a joke CL).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. No blood, no foul.
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. By that standard
Edwards was an "also-ran" too. He never won a state outside of the one he was born in. He NEVER had a chance of beating Kerry. No one did after Iowa.

Btw, who posts the "nasty" anti-Clark posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 07:26 PM by Cuban_Liberal
That's a Biblical phrase a very few fanatical Clark supporters would do well to bear in mind when posting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. The only major player was Kerry, after Iowa
Clark was in 13 races and Edwards in 30, I think. In the races they both ran, there were more candidates when Clark was running than when Edwards finished up. In states like California and New York, where Clark would have done well, Edwards did only about 20%, so I guess the would-have-been Clark votes went straight to Kerry. Clark was the national security vote and he split that with Kerry. After Dean dropped out and it was a Kerry-Edwards race, Edwards only did well in Georgia and Ohio, 30% or 40%, and these were two states with open primaries with all their complications. Edwards was never particularly "major."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Hmmm...
Then why does he have almost 600 votes, and Clark not 100?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Clark was in 13 races; Edwards was in 30
The vote was split among more candidates when Clark was running than when Edwards remained running. Clark's biggest delegate states were yet to come when he dropped out. But I'm repeating myself.

By "votes" do you mean delegates? Edwards has closer to 500, but the important number is Kerry's of more than 2100. That's "major" - everybody else is minor, including Edwards, was my point above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. No, it's closer to 600.
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 08:52 PM by Cuban_Liberal
567, to be exact. You're right, Clark DID drop out--- because his campaign was going NOWHERE, unlike Edwards'....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. LOL! Edwards' campaign was not going anywhere
he just didn't know when to quit. It was getting ridiculous...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. It went one helluva lot further than anyone but Kerry's.
Didn't it? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. No, it didn't.
Neither Clark nor Edwards had a chance after Feb. 10. The only difference is that Clark realized this while Edwards didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Sorry, but that ignores reality.
Clark flat out sucked, and someone in his campaign had enough sense to realize that most Democrats thought so, too, and told him so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
54. That's simply not true.
It might be your OPINION but that doesn't make it so. Clark had a rough start. He had to learn the whole thing from scratch. But he is a quick study. He was getting better and better. By January, he was very good on the stump - his crowds were growing bigger and bigger. He lost because he skipped Iowa. He didn't have a chance to compete against the media frenzy after the Iowa "surprise".

YOU ignore reality if you think that "I have a speech" Edwards had any chance to beat Kerry after Feb. 10.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #54
66. The Crowds In NH Were So Big . . .
people had to wait outside because many of his campaign appearances had too many people show up, and the fire marshall had to step in. Even in late campaign appearances (Feb.- Racine, Wi., for example) there were campaign stops where more than 1,000 people came to hear Wes (I have video), a national treasure. No, he didn't win NH, and if memory serves, I think Dean was 3rd. Wes was a strong candidate. A bit too scary to the RWingers, so he had to be stopped. (Operation Ignore) The RWer's didn't do that to Edwards, for whatever reason - at least they didn't to the extent they did to Clark.

P.S. By the way, as I mentioned in a recent post, I was an early supporter of Edwards, until Clark came along that is. I was almost disappointed to switch, because I really liked Edwards, but Clark was just too strong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #66
73. Campaigns pick places that are smaller then they think they'll need...
...because the overflow is good for cameras and nespaper stories.

Also, Edwards was ignored by the media. There was a study cited here at DU which showed that at one point he was the third least covered candidate.

For the first half-dozen debates, DU'ers would time the candidate's and Edwards ALWAYS was in the bottom three. He routinesly got less than five minutes along with Mosley-Braun and Kucinich, while Dean, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt would get over 9 minutes.

Furthermore, there were many media studies right up to december which showed that Dean would get more media coverage than ALL the other candidates COMBINED! (agein, with Edwards at the bottom three of the rest of the field).

I just don't know how you could say that Edwards had an advantage over Clark with media coverage.

And, in fact, I think it's noteworthy that Edwards finished where he did, given the coverage he received.

It was clear that there was something about him that didn't need to be mediated by the press and people really responded to it when they started cutting through national coverage in the last three days before a primary, which was routinely when he made his biggest gains in the polls. Had he started with better national coverage, he wouldn't have had to come from so far behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #73
80. OK, Clark Sucked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. Edwards had the media advantage over Clark WHEN IT MATTERED THE MOST
That is after Iowa. Show me a single study that shows that Clark had more coverage than Edwards AFTER Iowa. Oh, you can't. CASE OVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. No use trying to make any sense, Sopianae
No use at all. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Took the words right outta my mouth.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
63. 534, actually
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. I believe that number represents only pledged delegates.
Edwards also has the support of 33 super delegates, IIRC.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. I see, thank you nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Remind me again how many states Edwards won?
That would be: one. That happens to be how many Clark won, as well.

Kerry demolished the field.

No one else was a major player. No one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Edwards won two states, has 567 delegates and over 3 million votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument!
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 08:46 PM by Cuban_Liberal
We must ignore Clark's dropping out, his pathetic delegate count, his disatrous political acumen, his lackluster debate style and his questionable Democratic credentials and worship at the feet of this savior of the Democratic Party, or did you not get the memo? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Yeah, his questionable Democratic credentials. That's why he's heading
fundraisers and has been at four times as many fundraisers and events on Kerry's behalf than Edwards has.

Look, I have nothing against Edwards, but acting like he was some political juggernaut is silly. Even when he was the only first-tier candidate left in the race other than Kerry, he couldn't even dent Kerry's momentum. No amount of grandstanding or historical revisionism on your part is going to change the fact that he had no more impact on this process than Clark did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Ah, yes, I forgot NC, which he won 2 months after withdrawing.
Oh, boy. 2 states out of 50. Yeah, he's a major player, all right.

Look, I have nothing against Edwards. But, it's bullshit to claim that he was a "major player" and that Clark wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cuban_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. And Clark won AR how many months after he withdrew?
Oops, silly me, I forgot--- he DIDN'T! Trying to make an argument that Clark was somehow Edwards' political equal is absurd: Edwards beat Clark like a red-headed stepchild!

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. A lot of good it did him.
Gee, he beat Carol Moseley-Braun, too! And Al Sharpton.

OH MY GOD! THE MAN IS JUST A POLITICAL JUGGERNAUT!! HOW COULD KERRY POSSIBLY HAVE STOPPED HIM??!?

Give me a break. Edwards was just another minor bump in the road for Kerry. He was no more "successful" than any of the other also-rans. No one cares who ended up second except for the people who still hold bitter grudges against the other candidates, Kerry included.

I got over Clark losing months ago. Perhaps some day, you'll get over Edwards' loss, as well. Good luck.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Read this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Why? It's irrelevant.
Is that article going to get Edwards elected President?

Geez, people. Get over it. He lost. Got it? He lost. Kerry is our nominee, and no one gives a shit about who ended up second.

Except, of course, for you and CL and four other people on earth.

I sincerely hope that some day you can get over the primaries. The rest of us got over them months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. If you're a democrat who cares about winning, I think there's a lesson
in that article that is worth thinking about.

Not one Edwards supporter at DU is arguing that he didn't lose. That's not the point. Edwards supporters just want Dems to have the best chance of holding the WH for the next 16 years.

Why are you so mad that people care about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
50. Edwards never beat Clark
Clark was running against Kerry, not Edwards. Kerry beat Clark and Kerry beat Edwards. Like a red-headed stepchild, whatever the fuck that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Amazing....
It's amazing how people can still be bitter, angry, and resentful about a primary that's been over for months.

No wonder it's so difficult to get some kind of consensus behind Kerry. There are people still trying to convince us to vote for Edwards for President in 2004! Uh, never mind that he's kind of out of the race.

Hmm, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye. Perhaps they think Edwards is going to run on a third-party ticket. Yeah, that must be it. Otherwise, all of this arguing about how distant his second-place finish was would be pretty pointless now, wouldn't it?

Should we start a rumor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Yeah!
Let's start a rumor. This is all fantasyland, anyway. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. No kidding.
Especially the "we need a 16-year plan" crap. The ultimate in fantasy politicking.

Let's just win THIS one first, please!!

No one picks a VP based on whether or not he/she would make a good president in 8 years. They pick a VP to pick up a swing state or two and to help play good cop/bad cop in the campaign!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #57
70. I disagree with that assessment
You're telling me you wouldn't want to have a Democrat in office for 16 years? I mean, that's certainly not the ONLY factor involved, but if all things were equal between choosing a candidate like Edwards who will still be able to run himself in 8 years and, say, Gephardt, who would probably be too old, well guess which one is the better option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
58. He WASN'T on the ballot in AR!
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 09:44 PM by Sopianae
Clark actually meant it when he dropped out. :eyes:
Almost all of his supporters went to Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Including Clark
Clark has personally been more vocal and more visible in his support of Kerry than ANY of the other candidates.

Probably more than all of the others combined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
62. Clark was removed from the ballot in AR
Because he withdrew a long enough time before the vote there for his name to be withdrawn. You knew that, didn't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. I like this table:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Hmm, looks like Kerry won.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Never said he didn't. Who else's name do you see there...repeatedly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. What does it matter? Is that table going to get Edwards elected?
Hmm, that would be no.

The primaries were over months ago. Let me suggest that you join the rest of the world and put them behind you. This political grandstanding and historical revisionism for a candidate that won a whopping two states is a little silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. It could help Democrates hold the WH for the next 16 years.
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 09:29 PM by AP
And, godforbid, if Kerry loses it suggests a game plan for the next race.

You have a problem with Democrats winning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. Oh, please.
Knock off the "with us or against us" bullshit, please. That is a tactic must better suited to the other party and not worthy of the party to which you claim to belong.

That article has exactly zero to do with a discussion about Clark's and Edwards' relative contributions to THIS primary race. They both lost - it's that simple. Pretending that Edwards was some political juggernaut because he won a whopping two states is ludicrous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
64. He also beat Kerry in 3 states
Took second to Clark in OK by less than 2/5ths of a percent
Took fourth to Clark in NH by less than 2/5ths of a percent
Took third to Lieberman in Delaware by 26 votes
Won South Carolina by 15.5 points
Won rural white votes in Georgia with an affirmative action platform
Took serious crossover votes in WI
Improved more in the course of the primary than anyone else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. Open Primaries
It's hard using them as evidence of your conclusions. Edwards won 74% of the Republican vote in the Georgia Democratic primary. 64% of those "satisfied" and 69% "enthusiastic" over George W. Bush by the exit polling voted for Edwards. We don't know for sure they would vote for Bush in the GE, but there is no good reason to think they would "crossover" to Edwards, either. Open Primaries in Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Missouri, states where Edwards also took second, and South Carolina where he won. Open primaries are historically used by Repugs for mischief voting, this we know. Even if these voters sincerely voted for Edwards, why are they so downright happy with Bush? And if they are so downright happy with Bush, why on earth would they not have voted for him? These are questions that make your argument shaky.

Actually, Kerry improved most in the course of the primary than anyone else. It was a goddamned miracle, if one he earned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Racenut20 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. From Southern Clark supporter
I would not vote for a Mass liberal in the primary
I would not vote for a Vermont liberal in the primary
But I will not vote for a Maine/Texan/Wherever anytime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CalebHayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. If Clark runs in Iowa we would have Edwards as our nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sopianae Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Had Clark run in Iowa we would have Clark as our nominee. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. There is no reason on this earth
To think Edwards was ever going to be the nominee. So you will have to explain your thinking a bit more fully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boxster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
60. Agreed. It's merely wishful thinking.
Kerry had momentum that obviously wasn't showing in the polls. As much as I like and supported (and support for VP!) Wes, I don't think he was going to stop Kerry either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CalebHayes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
89. Clark would have split the vote....
Edited on Tue Jun-08-04 07:12 PM by cqhayes
of the people that think that we need a vet on the ticket with Kerry and Edwards would have won. simple really... in my mind at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
19. I think he was supposed to split the antiwar vote in NH with Dean, but
Dean didn't make it out of IA.

I guess he took some of the southern vote from Edwards in TN and VA, but I don't think Edwards would have done better than 2d place without Clark in the race. I think he might have won OK, and gotten more delegates, but I still think he would have come in second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontecitoDem Donating Member (542 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. Huh?
he was "supposed to" split the anti-war vote? Are you saying that Clark was directed by someone else to run and for some reason other than winning? Where do you come up with this?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I don't think he ran to win. I think he ran for two reasons:
to show voters that you can be pro-military and a Dem, and to take out Dean.

I think the fact that he seemed so rudderless when Dean was gone proves the second theory. And I'm not the only person who noticed that Dean organized his campaign around Dean.

Also, I think if Clark were running to win, he would have joined the race much earlier. That he joined at all suggests that he entered the race to achieve goals that were smaller than winning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontecitoDem Donating Member (542 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
40. Well, I'll say this
you have a lot of confidence in your own opinions, even without much to back them up. (Just because someone else has said what you are saying isn't really compelling evidence to me.)

I met Clark, and I can tell you from my perspective he was running to win. I don't believe someone like General Clark ever does anything without winning in mind. He got in late for lots of reasons, and if you had followed his campaign you could recite them all by heart.

You have proven yourself as a die-hard Edwards supporter, and perhaps he'll be our VP and I'm sure he'll be great at it. But you don't make Edwards stand taller by cutting down Clark unfairly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. You're criticizing the entire intellectual underpinnings of DU.
Edited on Mon Jun-07-04 09:25 PM by AP
Opinion without backing it up with much more than hoping other people have the same frame of reference and are being as honest as you're trying to be.

So I won't take that insult personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MontecitoDem Donating Member (542 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Ha! You got me there
:pals:

I'm sure I've offered an unsubstantiated opinion or two myself!

just get my back up with all the bashing going on between Clark and Edwards people. Yikes, another month of this at least!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
30. no, Kerry would have won anyways
the fact is that people thought clark would take away support that would otherwise have gone to kerry because of the military experience. but as AP pointed out, kerry marketed his service in a way to appeal to those who aren't into military or war also so he had wide appeal there.it's interesting to point out that while the biggest fight for the longest time was between dean and kerry (because of new hampshire) and much of it focused on iwr, that many who voted for kerry did not see him as pro war as some of the others who voted for iwr.

he is also a great campaigner. as he won not because of big media, but because of his campaigning in iowa meeting directly with people and answering any and all questions they had.

the only way someone else would have been the candidate was if kerry had not ran . and in that case it would probably be edwards who would have ended up winning the nomination based on the primary results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. I agree with that (and not just because you cite me!)
Run the primaries over 100 times and 100 times you'll come up with the same outcome: a Kerry win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmokramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-07-04 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
61. The only one who hurt Dean was Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #61
68. As a Dean supporter, I basically agree.
I think that 'The Scream' was overplayed, but I don't think that had nearly as much effect on Dean's candidacy as many would like to think it did. While I personally adored Howard Dean (and still do), it's crystal clear that the Democratic electorate did not, overall, and that's why he (and Gephardt, Clark, Kucinich, et al) lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmokramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. I agree that it was very over-played.
And I agree that each candidate is responsible for his own failings/success. It is nice to see a Dean supporter not blaming anyone.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
72. Clark was moot after Iowa.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
74. He was plant hurt Sharpton's chances
Do I have any proof? The fact that it word is proof enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Pardon?
I have no idea what you just said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #75
77. I said that Clark ran
specifically for the purpose of hurting Sharpton's chances. The DLC/PNAC/Bonesman alliance will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. The fact that you do not believe it proves just how effective the media whores have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. I can't believe I never saw that! lol
Thanks for the eye opener! I promise to remain more vigilant in the future :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #77
81. I didn't say I didn't believe it
I am most certain that if Wesley Clark had not entered the race, Al Sharpton would be facing George W. Bush in November. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
76. Clark's short lived run for the presidency was mostly
comic relief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. Where to start?
Why the need to belittle anyone, that's where I want to start. What's the point? What do you hope to accomplish with a post like that? Why do you bother writing it in the first place? Have you written a similar post about Bob Graham, or Dick Gephardt for example? Would you have written a post like that about Al Gore in 1988?

OK, that was for starters. Prior to running for President, Wesley Clark was a retired General little known to most Americans. Sure he did some commentary for CNN (which I suspect might have been part of an effort on his part to get some minimal exposure to help him be able to run for President). Lots of ex Generals do commentary for News networks. How many are very well known to the public? Now Wesley Clark appears on Meet the Press. He speaks for Kerry at State Democratic Party Conventions. He delivers the Democratic Party radio response to George Bush. He is in the top two choices for VP in CNN and MSNBC's VP sweepstakes polls. Why is that? It's because of his run for President. Wesley Clark's Presidential campaign considerably elevated his stature with both the public and Democratic Party leaders.

Wesley Clark raised considerably more money than John Kerry or John Edwards while he was still running. The average size of donations to his campaign was smaller than to anyone other than Howard Dean. In other words, it wasn't fat cats that gave Wes Clark his funding. It was average Americans attracted to his campaign and his ideas. Even with a late start, even with a hobbled together campaign staff, even without benefit of all the free media coverage given to those candidates who competed in Iowa, and the momentum some got by doing well in Iowa, Wes Clark lost NH only to Politicians from NH's neighboring states. And in following weeks he won a primary and came in second in others. Unlike Dean, Edwards, and Kucinich, Clark folded his campaign as soon as he realized he would not win the nomination. That's a joke? I call that wisdom, and service to the Party. Clark led the way in closing ranks behind Kerry, and our party is well served heading into November by the unity we are able to display behind our nominee.

Notice that I wrote this post without having to tear down any of the other Democrats who ran for President? Why is it so difficult for some others to do that around here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. I didn't tear any Democrats down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. I guess that's a matter of opinion. We differ. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. I'm with you, Tom
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #83
90. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #83
93. So what are you saying then?
Are you implying Clark is a Republican?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
87. No. There was no "Clark effect." No reason for Kerry to be
concerned about Clark in any way or harbor a grudge.

Clark didn't even run in IA, which is what set Kerry up for the big wins that followed.

Edwards had more of an effect on Kerry than anyone else (well, Dean had an effect on how Kerry spent his $$$$, but Edwards had an effect on teh % that Kerry won nominations by). But nothing for Kerry to be upset by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still_Loves_John Donating Member (688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-08-04 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
88. There were nine candidates...
...so I think its safe to say the vote was split.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Feb 07th 2025, 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC