Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: How To Beat Howard 23

Journal by pudge

I really think Howard Dean has only a very tiny chance to beat Bush, should he win the nomination. I think there are two candidates would have a much better chance than Dean: Dick Gephardt and John Kerry. I like Kerry better than Gephardt, and think he would appeal to more people, but his campaign is imploding, and that leaves Gephardt, unless Kerry could turn it around real quick.

So if I am a Democrat, and want to win the White House, I want Gephardt to win the nomination. Dean has many flaws: he contradicts himself often, he lacks a high degree of poise and presence, he has very few coherent and detailed plans. Gephardt has none of those problems. Gephardt is direct, consistent, confident, unwavering, and has an abundance of well-thought-out plans. And in addition, he is more moderate on some of the issues that the country is clearly more moderate than Dean on, especially defense and security, and he has a lot more knowledge and experience in international affairs.

Simply put, he has a better chance to beat Bush.

What to do to get Gephardt the nod over Dean? Gephardt must do well in Iowa, preferably winning it outright. He can't win in New Hampshire, not with Dean and Kerry -- both New England politicians -- in the hunt, but he can finish top three. If he does both, then in the next week, Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards should all drop out and support Gephardt. Clark too, if he is willing. Put together, their votes can defeat Dean, especially in South Carolina, and from there it's a monthlong two-man race to Super Tuesday.

It's funny, many Democrats I know think Dean is the best chance for the Democrats. He isn't. You are mistakenly seeing your own admiration for him and thinking the rest of the country will think as you do. Some will, maybe even most Democrats, but the middle -- the people who decide the election -- won't. They will see his fumbling for words and self-contradictions as a sign of dishonesty. They will see his anger as unbecoming. They will see his desire to raise everyone's taxes as irreponsible. They will see his opposition to the war and the Patriot Act as signs of weakness.

The only way Dean can beat Bush is if Bush beats himself, with a horrible economy or big scandal; and while the economy is not a sure bet, you'd be foolish to bet against it, unless it was your only hope. But it isn't your only hope, because there's Gephardt.

Now, I dislike Gephardt. I dislike most of his policies, I dislike his manner, I dislike him. And while many other people will dislike him too (the main reason I would prefer Kerry as a candidate, were I a Democrat), they won't loathe him like will loathe Dean.

Mark my words ... you've been warned ...

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How To Beat Howard More

How To Beat Howard

Comments Filter:
  • I think Gephardt is the Democrats best chance. I don't think even Kerry would hold out against Bush very well. Unless the Republicans just had a terrible candidate, I don't think a New England liberal could really win an election. Even if Gephardt were to win the nomination, I still think it would be a very uphill battle. For one thing, Bush is a more or less likable guy, which is probably what pushed him to victory in 2000 over Gore, who was a bit less likable. Bush doesn't need a huge jump in the economy
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I think it'll probably be a Dean/Clark ticket, because I think those two have the best chance and combo ticket to beat Bush, and I think the rest of the party knows it. They're obscure enough to not be tainted. Yet.

      I just can't see that. I can't see Dean not being tainted from here to Vermont and back again. He is going to be slammed hard, in large part BECAUSE he has no national record. While Gephardt has some baggage, he also has a significant record that you can't argue with. He's proven. Dean is
  • There's a fair amount of talk about how Dean can't win the general election, but I'm not sure this common wisdom is 100% correct.

    Dean was considered a centrist in Vermont. He made his mark in the Presidential primary process by targetting the most core left-wing Democrats, tacking leftmost earliest. For the presidential primary, this is just common shrewdness-- oddly overlooked at least initially by the other Democratic canidates perhaps because of their obligations or tendencies as incumbent senators (
    • But keep in mind, it's almost certain that he wins the primary, he'll be tacking heavily center-ward for the general election.

      Unsuccessfully. This is a fine strategy, but if it is the strategy, it's already been a failure in several ways. He's already categorically blasted the war effort, the Patriot Act, and the tax cut. He said he would raise taxes on all income tax payers, except for the very few who didn't get a tax cut last year. He said he will get universal health care coverage. He can't tack
      • Pudge! Never underestimate your enemy! Or the ability of politicians to morph among political positions!
        • "the war effort"- Dean *has* blasted the war effort but that is not a policy; that's a play on liberal sentiments. "We shouldn't have gone to war!" may feed into liberal anger, but when you want to tap more mainstream sentiments, you take a stance saying "well, we shouldn't have gotten into the war but now that we have, I think we should put more troops in Iraq to stabilize things there and then w
        • "We shouldn't have gone to war!" may feed into liberal anger, but when you want to tap more mainstream sentiments, you take a stance saying "well, we shouldn't have gotten into the war but now that we have, I think we should put more troops in Iraq to stabilize things there and then withdraw as quickly as possible." Boom, mainstream position.

          But that misses the point: he has been categorically against everything about this war, including its purpose. Most Americans are FOR the purpose of the war, just di
    • I don't see that independent voters or even conservatives have a particular hatred for Dean as asserted.

      As a center-right, registered Republican -- Dean is the only candidate that I could imagine being enthusiastic about it given a different set of political views. (Unless I subscribed to the respective lunacies of Sharpton or Kucinich.) Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, uhhh, the other guys who are running -- they all strike me as ambitious white men with good hair whose only reason for being in politics is tha

  • You're right, of course. Doesn't matter. Dean will win the primary, and he'll lose the general election in a landslide the likes of which we've never seen.

    If Gore were half as smart as we pretend he is, he'd have seen that too. Dean can't win, whether or not the war is bad. If he'd backed one of the candidates with a prayer in the general election, and then worked to persuade others to do the same thing for the same reason, we'd have a shot. We need a Karl Rove criminal mastermind type. We'll never get one
    • Hmmm, possible vast left wing conspiracy idea:

      Gore hasn't left the Clinton camp, and is actually working to make sure the dems do not take the 2004 election cycle.

      Right now Bush is quite popular and the economy is doing decent, war in Iraq isn't going bad and in the next year cleanup looks like all that is left. Bush is not unassailable by any means, but will be a tough cookie to beat.

      So, as I said before, Gore still is a Clintonite and wants to spoil this 2004 for the dems, and hope that 2004-08 Bush h
      • Yes, and the Clintons have been doing fundraising for themselves already, I've heard. I would not be too surprised if this is the strategy, but it seems unlikely. But yeah, Hillary would have a much better chance to be President -- ever -- if Bush won in 2004.
      • Lieberman represents none of the liberal ideals that I care about. As much as I hate GW, I hate Lieberman just the same. IMHO, Lieberman would utterly fail at motivating his liberal base to walk to the polls. On the upside, I could vote for a third party candidate and not feel like my vote was wasted. On the downside, there's no third party candidate I can think of that I've ever liked either.
    • Doom and gloom everywhere for me.

      Heh, to me, you sounded positive and cheery!

  • They will see his fumbling for words and self-contradictions as a sign of dishonesty. They will see his anger as unbecoming.

    Bush is a terrible speaker and has been shown to be dishonest a number of times. Plus, his anger gets the best of him quite often.

    However, Bush is pro-war and VERY conservative. Even the middle love him because he is a "strong leader."

    I personally am depressed by the upcoming election. I will vote for whoever is against Bush on the democratic side. Hopefully there is a silent

    • Bush is a terrible speaker and has been shown to be dishonest a number of times. Plus, his anger gets the best of him quite often.

      However, Bush is pro-war and VERY conservative. Even the middle love him because he is a "strong leader."

      Yes, I don't mean to say those things on their own make him a poor choice. Bush is excused because he has other things people like. So you can say Bush is forgiven because he is likable; I don't think Dean has the same sort of charisma, etc.

      I personally am depressed by

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Close