Thread: A few words from Howard Dean

Originally Posted by TennesseeRain

Really? Is that why Democrats started winning elections when he took the reigns?

I'd take Howard Dean over Michael Steele any day of the week.

It's not exactly an act of political genius for a party to gain seats in a mid term election. And Barack Obama would have won the 2008 election no matter who was DNC chair.

Originally Posted by TennesseeRain

Are you admitting that Rush is the leader of the Republican Party?

What does that even mean? Was there some election for king of Republicans that Limbaugh won?

Originally Posted by Romulus

Unofficially, yes. Didn't you read the news last year? Even Cheney said so. Cheney Wants Rush Limbaugh as Republican Leader | ChattahBox News Blog
Many Republicans have scoffed at the notion that talk show host Rush Limbaugh has become the de facto leader of the Republican party and yet, any Republican who dares to criticize Rush, is pressured either by their conservative constituents, to apologize days later for their transgressions, or they cave into Limbaugh’s attacks against them on his radio show, which has millions of listeners.

Not even unofficially. During the 2008 GOP primary, Limbaugh was anti-McCain. "If McCain or Huckabee Gets the Nomination, It Will Destroy GOP." Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Somehow McCain managed to get the nomination despite "the leader of the party" Limbaugh opposing him.
And polling shows otherwise.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona is the most influential player in the Republican Party, according to a new Harris Poll out Thursday.
Sixty-four percent of the 2,276 adults surveyed nationwide said McCain is influential in steering the direction of the Republican Party, a 14-percentage-point edge over his closest rivals: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and radio host Rush Limbaugh, both of whom were rated as influential by 50 percent all of those polled.
Even among just the Republican polled, McCain ran away from the field, getting picked by 68 percent. Only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was also picked as influential by at least 60 percent of Republicans.
Among just Republicans, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was selected as the third most influential, getting picked by 59 percent. Gingrich placed fourth with 57 percent, while Limbaugh and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani tied for fifth with 56 percent.

Originally Posted by TennesseeRain

You're right. But, that's because McCain picked Palin. I can't decided if I should write him a thank-you note or kick him in the shins for bringing that woman into the national spotlight.

McCain lost the election when the financial markets went into meltdown in September of 09. The incumbent party was just not going to win with those kinds of economic indicators. Which is not to say that Barack Obama didn't run a great campaign. But McCain didn't have a chance no matter who he picked for VP.

Originally Posted by Rassales

I don't think it was that immoderate scream that did in Dean's campaign, but it was emblematic of his tactics. Going into Iowa, the media had made Dean look like the inevitable nominee, but out on the street his overconfident campaigners were actually offending people with their arrogant rhetoric--an arrogance that reflected Dean himself. And Iowans rejected him, soundly. That forced everyone to reconsider their opinions of his opponents and pick one of them.

Notice how both Dean and Steele are bomb throwers? Every so often they throw out some red meat for loyal supporters, usually a leg shank from some opponent. They say what actual pols seeking election can't say for fear of alienating those on the fence. Probably the perfect job for both those characters--though Dean does it better.

There was also a feeling that Dean heavily appealed to a segment of the Democratic base but was unelectable in the general. And that John Kerry was the most "electable" of the Democratic candidates that year. I have a theory that it's a mistake for a party to nominate someone because he's the most "electable".
Bob Dole in 1996 and John Kerry in 2004. And come to think of it, John McCain in 2008. They had good resumes in the Senate with impressive war records running against guys with, let's just say, not exactly heroic military careers. And they got their party nomination because they were "electable". And obviously both lost. My theory is that when a party nominates a guy because he's electable, that party is sending a message to the general electorate. "We aren't interested in selling you ideas or an agenda to make the country better. We just want to beat the other guys." And the voters reject that.