Dean loses Iowa Causus!

Remove all ads!

The front-runner Democrat, Howard Dean, lost the Iowa Caucus by a large margin.

Dean opposed the war in Iraq and even the war to destroy the Taliban. He was able to get support of the active ultra-leftists and looked like he was going to get the Democratic Nomination.

However, his support is slipping as more Democrats become aware of these views.

Here are the stats:

• Kerry - Pro War On Terror - 38%
• Edwards - Pro War On Terror - 32%
• Dean - Anti War On Terror - 18%

Clark, the second favorite Democrat, did not participate in the Iowa Caucus.

 

I don't think that the winner of the Iowa caucus has such a great track record of eventually becoming the Party nominee. There are reasons why places like I.O.W.A (Idiots Out Wandering Around) and New Hampshire ("Live Free or mmmph") have their respective primaries first...if they weren't first, they wouldn't matter at all!

Also, bear in mind that Dean was the "front runner" according to the media. Often, the people have a somewhat different idea.

 

I'm not pulling for Dean simply because I don't think he's electable, but let's be straight about something: Howard Dean was and is *not* against the war on terror. Howard Dean was and is against the war on *Iraq* which is decidedly not the same thing. The war on Iraq was and is an enormous waste of manpower and resources
( http://www.theonion.com/4002/top_story.html ) which would have been better spent on the real war on terror. The best part of catching Saddam is that now perhaps the U.S. can concentrate its resources on the people who actually attacked it.

With any luck, Dean's loss in Iowa will open up the door for Wes Clark in NH. And Tal, Bush is vulnerable on a great many fronts, and an awful lot can go wrong for him in the next few months. The economy is picking up, but no new jobs are being created. And it's only a matter of time before the rest of America realizes that trying to have a massive tax cut, two wars, a lagging economy, a moon base and manned flight to mars all at the same is just bad governance. (With any luck, that'll be some time before November.)

 

The biggest thorn in the side of liberals right now are not the conservatives but rather the moderates. Those who loudly proclaim that "If Lieberman(or some other neo-con democrat) is not the democratic candidate then I will vote for Bush!". Candidates here this and get spooked and either start backpeddling or attacking each other and playing into Shrub's hands. The fact is Republicans are scared of Dean and Clark and even Rev. Sharpton. They know that these guys each have the potential to drum up the "angry mob" against Bush for different reasons.

They would love to see someone like Lieberman get the nod so they could slap his whinny butt around a second time.

Meanwhile those of us who did not vote for Gore on principle will not vote for a democrat a second time if they simply offer up someone who is little different than Bush.

Me? Iw as kind of hoping that Sharpton would get the nod. He was the most impressive in the debates. I would vote for Dean or Clark or Edwards or Kerry but Joe and Gep'...? No way.

 

Gonzago probably isn't alone. There was a thread on essentially this not long ago. Part of the reason for his showing was probably this concern.

I was and still am a potential Dean voter. His "speech" last night really was disgusting to me though. Which shows a lot really. I've read his positions as outlined on his site. I've watched the debates. I've looked at his track record as Gov (the good and the bad). I've compared his plans to, say, Clark's tax plan (which I like better but that's like saying I prefer a beating to a flogging)and say, Gephardt's health care plan.

Despite my doing some homework - Dean coming across like WWF wrestler Randy the Macho Man Savage last night really turned me off of Dean. I'd still rather vote for him than Bush (for reasons related to Ashcroft et al. as well as the more well known reasons) but I'd just as soon vote for another candidate.

I've gone from tenatively for Dean to tentatively pulling for "somebody else" to knock off Hulk Hogan, I mean the Macho Man, I mean Howard Dean.

With that said, part of Dean's poor showing was probably the nature of the Iowa caucuses (which lots of folks don't realize operate how they do - not that anyone here doesn't realize that, just lots of folks don't). Another reason is likely because he became so nasty. Then questions of electability plus Edwards getting 3 state newspapers and Kerry being backed by the state gov (sorta, through his popular wife) and that was apparently it for Dean.

If I had to guess, I'd guess Dean to do well in NH but not dominate there like he has been recently. So, his opponents will be 'better than expected.' Then I'm guessing he'll have problems when the big Tuesday rolls around.

It's interesting anyways.

I do have to say with regards to this:

Are you serious? Scared of Sharpton? Rove would probably have a heart attack out of sheer overexcitement if Sharpton won. I'm not sure whether Dean isn't close to the same.

 

Dean seems to be one of those "true" democrats with a policy decisively different from the republicans, these tend to be popular among hardcore democrats and have throughout the years won democratic nominations many times but never won the presidency simply because the American people in general are not very fond of paying taxes for the benefit of all and instead trusting in their individual ability to cover their needs. For a democrat to win he needs to be moderate it seems. I in my foreign ignorance actually thinks Clarke seems to be the one who has the best chance of challenging Bush. Clarke's military background should be more than enough to compete with Bush's machoism and tough talk. Clarke is supposedly a legitimate tough guy.

 

I was and remain a backer of Wes Clark. However, if he does not win the nomination, Kerry or Edwards is a much better choice than Dean. Dean, as has been pointed out, is not electable. Even if he should win the nominations, there's no way he can beat Bush. Let's face it people, do you want a president that runs on a campaign that basically amounts to saying, "Whatever Bush is saying, I'm the exact opposite"? While I'm no Bush fan, there are some positive things he has done while being in office, and as such, being completely against Bush on nearly every level, is a formula for disaster when the general elections come around in November. As I would support a change from Bush, I'm hoping that either Kerry, Clark or Edwards wins the nomination, as I believe any of those three could challenge Bush. Regardless, I feel the only person that is less-electable of the major contenders than Dean is Liebermann. Given the tumultuous times in the Middle East, electing a Jew to the White House would be a terribly bad idea right now. It would be a confirmation to the Islamic radicals that all the stereotypes they hold regarding the ties between Israel and the U.S. are true.

I see the results from the Iowa caucuses as a great victory for the democratic party. Best case scenario for me would have been either Edwards or Kerry winning, which is exactly what happened. One thing I would support greatly is if all the state caucuses occurred on the same date. I live in Maryland, and so by the time our chance comes up, the field will have narrowed considerably. In fact, there might only be one choice when our turn to make our "decision" comes up, as all the other contenders may have dropped out already.

 

Well, Dean represents the anger that some of us are feeling as a result of Shrub and his policies. But that anger went a bit over the top in Dean's speech last night, which, as Laches pointed out, was terrible. I don't think Iowa is really that big a deal and Dean wasted a lot of time there. Clark is a good alternative and he is focused on New Hampshire, which is where Dean should have remained during Iowa. The real test for Dean will be New Hampshire. Now he has to win big. But personally I'm still with him, although now somewhat cautious.

The latest tracking polls that I have seen show that barely half of Americans believe that Shrub should be reelected, but that the Dems don't have a better alternative. But once a candidate is chosen, and the issues and debates become more focused, Shrub will have a tough time, especially if Iraq goes poorly and the economy remains sluggish.

As for the "War on Terror," there is no such thing. It is a meaningless slogan, designed to further a political agenda rather than it is at preventing "terror," whatever that means. If, what those proponents of such an imagined policy really mean, is a policy of national security, then yes, security is much tighter at airports, and bridges and tunnels and nuclear plants, etc. But should that have always been the case anyway? The Patriot Acts, again are political tools, which can be turned on just about anyone that the regime labels a "danger to national seucurity." It gives the executive branch of government the ability to act outside of the justice system, which is an attack on the Constitution and the "due process of law" as well as the balance of powers.

The Dems are in trouble with this whole issue because the party leadership went along with the War in Iraq, the War on Terror and the Patriot Acts. Now, it is hard for them to backtrack on them. But outsiders such as Dean and Clark are much cleaner on these issues. Clark can really stick it to Shrub on the issues of national security and foreign policy, IMO. Dean will have to get himself a little more under control if he wants to have his chance, but he still has the opportunity to prove himself in New Hampshire.

 

Too many "clarifications" have had to be issued from Dean's campaign headquarters. He's afflicted with foot-in-mouth disease. It might not be a bad idea to put him on the ticket, though. He's energized an awful lot of people.

Wes has unimpeachable military credentials, unimpeachable patriotic credentials, *and* an economics background. But he's only now finding his feet as a politician. If he can clean that up in the next couple months, he's my man.

The administration afraid of Sharpton? Are you serious? Sharpton is a spoiler, nothing more.

My ideal ticket: Wes Clark and Oprah Winfrey.

 

The Dems are in a bit of a mess right now, and are faced with this conundrum that Tal brings to light:

If you oppose Bush on every issue you lose the moderate votes, which are absolutely essential to win an election. On the other hand, the more similar you are to Bush, the less likely people are going to believe a change will help.

So, the key here is to pick your fights, and go only for the ones you can win. This is where Dean failed. He even opposed the war in Afghanistan which was immensely popular with the U.S. public.

Bottom line: If you want Dean to be president, then the caucus was an unfortunate turn of events. However, if you are of the opinion that any Democrat in the White House is a better alternative to what we presently have, then the Iowa caucus was a success. Personally, I favor whichever canidate has the best chance to beat Bush, and for me, the answer to that question is definitely not Dean.

 

I found an interesting tidbit in the newspaper (IBD) today, and it sheds light on Dean's poor showing in Iowa, and a larger problem for the Dems.

The Iraq war is a non-issue. In a poll of six issues, Americans ranked their importance as follows: economy, national security, health care, job market, Iraq war, and civil liberties. Even among those who oppose the war, the Iraq war was last in their priorities for the upcoming election. In every sub-category, the economy was #1 (except among those planning to vote for Bush, it's national security by a nose).

If the Dems want the White House, it's not going to be won by agreeing/disagreeing with Bush on national security or the war--it's going to be by attacking his handling of the economy.

 

I was discussing this with my family earlier and we decided that the ticket with the best chance to beat Bush was an Edwards-Clark ticket. It has only two real weaknesses, the first being the likeliness that this ticket would exist, and the second being that it would be very easy to attack the lack of political experience between the two.

However, Edwards has what I call the "JFK Effect", where a young, boyish looking man gains support. He also is from the South, which is important considering where presidents have been from in the past, especially Democrats. He also is very charismatic, far more so than Bush.

Clark has an edge over Bush in foreign policy and can compete in National Security. Despite the arguments I have heard about Clark being a closet Republican, I don't think so. Most of those arguments rely on the fact that he praised Bush. However, I heard the same people attacking Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt for being pro-War. Clark will also win the veterans; I don't think Bush can compete with him among them.

I think Dean's speech earlier was an attempt to regain his angry, anti-establishment attitude, which he lost before the primary. That hurt him. I also think that he went too far with that speech.

What will happen? My predictions are that, in NH, Kerry will not have as much of a lead and Edwards will be strong but come in second. But....who knows?

 

I was travelling today so I spent some quality time in the car. Probably the funniest thing I heard was on the Howard Stern Show. He was playing Dean's ramblings with AC/DC's TNT in the background. It was amazing how much Dean sounded like the lead singer.

Being from MA I was stunned that Kerry won. He may be our senator, but I've always considered him a bit of an idiot without any personality.