Electability was a major concern for many in the 2004 primary

[Kaleva]

I was a member of the Dean forum back then and some of you who also were members may recall Kerry supporters, and to a lesser extent, Edwards supporters, coming in to the Dean forum telling us to take our tin foil hats offs and to bail on Dean who had no chance of winning the general and get behind the candidate who was far more electable. The more rude and crude Kerry supporters told us to get our heads out of our asses.

The election was far too important to risk losing as we had a monster in the WH who had stolen the 2000 election and it was very unlikely that the world would survive another 4 years of Bush and his cronies so it was deemed best to support the war hero in order to defeat the war mongering draft dodger that was currently in the WH.

Basically, it's way too early to tell which of the candidates is the more "electable". Events will happen in the next number of months that change what many think today.

If you are currently supporting a candidate who isn't considered the most electable, don't give up and keep fighting for your candidate.

[PatrickforO]

1. Well, yes. I think electability resides with the candidate's effectiveness

at talking about the issues that matter to people.

The rest of it is 'horse racey' stuff propagated by the media to generate higher ratings.

The one most 'ready' to be elected, or perhaps the one America is most 'ready for' will be the one elected.

And, whatever happens, Kaleva, the reality is that there will be high expectations going in for the newly elected Democratic president to actually DO something, with Congress, about healthcare and about climate change.

Also they are going to necessarily have to reverse 2017's giant tax cut for corporations and billionaires for the sake of this nation's fiscal integrity. That's a given, and ALL the candidates need to be talking about this and getting people ready for it.

[emulatorloo]

3. +1

[TryLogic]

16. I agree

[Kurt V.]

52. +1

[Honeycombe8]

63. Voters can only pick a candidate out of the ones running, none of whom will be perfect.

I think it would not have mattered which one of the runners we chose; GWB was, in gambling lingo, favored to win.

You mention Howard Dean. I never thought he had a serious chance, as I recall. And he did fizzle out fairly early.

I ended up supporting Kerry. He wasn't just "electable." He had immense foreign policy experience, and a lot of political experience. In hindsight, he was pretty lackluster to run against GWB, who the Repubs found funny & captivating (go figure). Kerry was serious, but those were serious times.

I really think that people skills and charisma have a lot to do with getting elected, and with being a successful leader. Leaders are leaders because people like them and want to follow them, and trust them to do right by them.

I don't recall that there was a candidate that grabbed me or inspired me, though.

History shows that when there's a war, people tend to rally behind the current President.

We didn't have an Obama in 2004. When he came along, most of the Democrats recognized him as the special candidate he would be. He was truly charismatic.

Kerry made a big mistake in not responding to a late attack on his Vietnam war experience (the unfair Swiftboat attacks). That left the attacks out there, to be assumed to be true. He admits he made a mistake in ignoring those (he was trying to rise above attack ads). Then there was the October surprise: a video by Osama bin Laden...hoping Kerry would be elected or something like that. That was all she wrote, for Kerry.

I don't remember who else was running. Maybe Dennis Kucinich? I think that means that none of the others appealed to me. I do remember Dean, though.

[emulatorloo]

2. Kerry was to the left of Dean

I love Dean, but I supported Kerry because he was further to the left than Governor Dean.

And I was neither rude nor crude.

Please let’s not do strawmen.

[marylandblue]

5. Depends on the issue. Perception was that Dean was on the left.

[emulatorloo]

25. "Perception" isn't always factual though.

[marylandblue]

26. In politics, perception is everything.

[NewJeffCT]

30. agreed

Dean was considered 'radical' for opposing the Iraq war and because VT supported Civil Unions.

[karynnj]

45. but MA had gay marriage - so that does not add anything

Not to mention, Dean was not alone in opposing the Iraq War. Kerry actually spoke out against rushing to war in January 2003. He strongly said that if the US did, it would not be a war of last resort - but a war of choice. That phrase "last resort" is important because it was saying it would not be a "just war".

Not to mention, Dean's comments on talk shows in fall 2003 do not signal that if he were in Congress, he would have voted no.

It should be noted that in the 1990s, he was explicitly for the first Gulf war, while Kerry read anti war poetry in the Senate record.

[NewJeffCT]

49. gay marriage in Mass

was not legalized until May of 2004. Dean was already out of the race by that time.

Vermont civil unions was passed in 2000 and were an issue in 2002 midterms and again in 2004

And, Kerry voted in support of the Iraq War Resolution. Dean was vocally against the war, but was not in Congress.

Yes, a lot of people were against the war, but of the candidates running for president in 2003, Dean was the only major one against the war.

[karynnj]

57. Kerry spoke against going to war before it started - essentially calling it immoral

because it was not a last resort. His vote was wrong, but he consistently - starting before the vote explained it was to give Bush the leverage needed to avoid a war, while getting Iraq to agree not to develop WMD.

As I said, Dean spoke in favor of Biden/Lugar which was not the resolution voted on - and his prefered was more likely than either to actually push Bush to go to war -- as it was we all know he did not require pushing.

Kerry's vote was NOT a vote to go to war. The problem was that it gave Bush the ability to say Democrats were with him. However, from Dean's votes at the point in time - he would have voted for the resolution as well.

[NewJeffCT]

59. Doesn't matter

Kerry was perceived as being with Bush and for the war.

In 2008, Clinton was a tiny bit to the left of Obama on most issues but lost because she voted for the same resolution for the war

[karynnj]

89. How do you explain that even in Iowa, Kerry got the majority of votes of those against the war?

Even as Du and Daily Kos preferred others. To me, it says that many understood his explanation.

[JI7]

90. Howard Dean himself endorsed HIllary 4 years later

and again for 2016.

[emulatorloo]

33. Fair enough. Noting that The perception of 2014 primary was thaf Kerry was the stronger candidate

It wasn’t a baseless perception either.

I am not sure why we are refighting the 2004 primary.

At any rate

[karynnj]

41. Perception differed by person -- and factually Kerry had by far the more liberal record

I now live in Burlington VT. Many people who I know - many far to the left of me - pretty much uniformly were mystified by why he was perceived as to the left when he was a very moderate governor of Vermont.

I think what was true was that Trippi identified the path to the nomination as the only viable anti Iraq war candidate. In fact, in fall 2002, on face the nation, Dean was asked about the looming Iraq War. He favored the Biden/Lugar amendment over the IWR (the product of the SFRC which lost out after Gephardt, then the House speaker said he would back the IWR that Lieberman and the Intelligence Committee had written - including the Junior John Edwards.) He also spoke of the ideal resolution he would want if it were up to him. Kerry, on the SRFC, also prefered Biden/Lugar. Dean's own plan would have been worse than either. It essentially called for a deadline for Iraq to comply or he would attack. It should be noted that where Dean's website in 2003/2004 included many many links to transcripts of his appearances -- somehow this was missing.

In fact, the BIG difference was he never had to vote making it easy for him to completely edit his position. Kerry's oped in September 2003 was actually more anti war. Its call to make war the last resort after doing a list of things was echoed in his speech as things that Bush had committed (even publicly in an Ohio speech) to do.

I read Joe Tippi's book - he had the chutzpah to claim that it was Dean's flaws that doomed his strategy. In fact, while I think Kerry was the best choice and that he ran a race that outperfomed models of 2004 results, I think it was more Trippi's extravagances and his pushing Dean as something he wasn't that made Dean, a moderate, competent, decent man, do less well than otherwise.

[marylandblue]

73. Since the 2000 election, I've become very aware of constructed narratives

and how both the media and candidates use them to shape perceptions. In 2004, a narrative grew up around how we needed an "electable" candidate and that such a candidate would have a long distinguished Senate career and be a war hero. Well it just so happened we had a candidate like that and his name was John Kerry. Lucky us, huh?

Many of us are getting that same feeling once again. This time we need a moderate white male candidate from the Rust Belt who was both a Senator and VP. Again we are fortunate to have such a candidate, and behold, he is even leading in the polls, "proving" that he is electable.

This is not to say that either Kerry or Biden are bad candidates. Kerry really could have been our best shot in 2004, but the odds against us were too high. And Biden could be our best shot today. But I'd rather see that argument made directly instead of through the concept of "electability" which seems to serve one particular candidate. If the argument is made directly, then we can talk about each candidate's strengths and weaknesses, instead of excluding all but one from the beginning.

[marylandblue]

4. Yes, I recall that, and especially after 2008, I realized electability was an empty argument.

We should be arguing that the package of a candidate's positions, personality, or demonstrated abilities makes one person the best candidate from several choices. Instead, we end up with only one choice- a moderate white male with a long resume. And anyone who disagrees risks destroying the country.

[Wounded Bear]

12. Yeah, I consider electability to be largely a red herring argument...

Too early to worry too much about polls and it's all a lot of hype slung by the mediabots to bolster ratings.

After all, we have one of the least electable people in history squatting in the White House right now. Of course "electability" is one of those typically amorphous terms that are used to divide and segment the electorate.

[TryLogic]

15. I agree

[crazytown]

79. I've never quite recovered from Mondale v Hart.

Hart was no Clinton, Obama or even Kerry but Mondale was stone cold unelectable. Watching the primaries was seeing a slow motion train wreck.

Reagan would have in 1984 no matter what, but having Fritz as the Democratic standard bearer was excruciating.

[Indygram]

6. I was lurking during that time and still believe Dean would have won

And by God, Kerry bored me to tears.

I'm feeling the same way about Biden being pushed right now. I totally get it, but I don't think he is the one most likely to win anymore. At first I really wanted him to get in because, like everyone else, I thought he was the safe bet. I defended him on the whole hugging, touching shoulders thing. Then he came out with the non-apology and that bothered me. Then the not enough time nonsense regarding policy caused a head tilt. The final straw for me was when he started this crap of trying to win over Trump voters by being an ass towards other Democrats in a completely unprovoked and uncalled for manner. He has reminded me why I never cared for him any of the other times he ran. I love him in those Obama/Joe memes but as a candidate...not so much.

[zipplewrath]

7. Sorta with you

I don't have any skin in this game yet, but I'm old enough to remember all the other times Joe ran, and I just don't see it. We are, as a party, getting ready to have a duel between two old white guys to figure out who runs against the other old white guy. That seems to run contrary to everything we've seen in at least the last two years. And Joe seems to be opening up the last playbook that says run against Trump, not run FOR something.

But I'm just sittin' back and watching.

[Indygram]

8. I agree with that CNN poll on the matchup with Trump

I think Beto is the strongest candidate to win. He has the charisma and energy, he works his tail off! He is progressive enough to not lose the left but can sell his policy positions in a way that doesn't scare off the moderates. He really inspires, motivates and energizes young people and he is running on unity, bringing the country together with common goals, shared purpose and by not leaving anyone out and really listening to voters everywhere. He has the widest appeal.

[zipplewrath]

9. Not sold yet

Of course, I'm not sold on anyone yet.

[karynnj]

46. You likely did not see much of Kerry beyond the convention and the debates

The media did not do a puff piece biography on his life -- nor did they cover his excellent policy speeches. His speech on climate change/environment was to me one of the best speeches that I ever heard.

[Indygram]

62. Kerry had the charisma of a rock

The candidate with the most charisma always wins, even more since 24 hour cable news became the norm. Trump is disgusting, but he is extremely charismatic. If Democrats don't nominate someone MORE charismatic than Trump they will lose. Look at every presidential race since 1980. Beto is the best bet.

[karynnj]

64. You might be surprised that Beto is being compared to Kerry on twitter

Tall, lanky and athletic (I agree they are similar on these things, but they were not why I chose Kerry) Kerry was eloquent enough that his words in 1971 are instantly recognizable and still moving. Kerry has plenty of charisma and that might be why the media tightly controlled his access to the media. Kerry won the nominations for LT Governor and Senator against the media/party favorite - something pretty unusual in Massachusetts. He also VERY easily won the 2004 nomination when in Iowa he had little party or media support - unlike Dean and Edwards. He then did better than pundits would have expected of any Democrat in late 2003.

Incidentally, the Democrats comparing Kerry and Beto noted the similarities, but noted that Beto lacks Kerry's military heroism and his many accomplishments.

People do not agree on who is charismatic, but I have been to several Kerry speeches and he never failed to move the crowd. I get that you think Beto is fascinating and the solution. I saw the ONE poll that showed him doing best against Trump. However, given that DU is more progressive and younger than average, it is telling that he has not gained traction here.

[Indygram]

67. Those people clearly are not actually watching Beto, then

Charisma has nothing to do with whether you like someone or not. It's not something that is a case by case or personal basis. A person has it or they don't. Trump has charisma. Hitler had charisma. Obama has charisma. Robert Kennedy had charisma. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had charisma. Charisma can be positive and good or it can be negative and bad...all depending on the energy of the charismatic person. Charisma is the ability to inspire and motivate people to devote themselves to your cause, good or bad. Kerry didn't have it. There is one person running for the nomination who has a powerful good, pure and positive charisma. He is running at the most important time for us to act to save the planet and he has a Climate Plan that he can sell and get people to support. Not only is Beto the most electable...he's also exactly who America needs. The world needs him too. I just hope Democrats are collectively smart enough to not blow it and nominate a person they only support because of his association with a prior president and not because of his own record or policies. That would be tragic.

[JI7]

68. i like Beto but the way you talk about him is kind of embarrassing

Trump does not have charisma. he is just gross and appeals to equally gross people. Clinton got millions more votes than he did.

[marylandblue]

74. I say Trump has "dark charisma." People love or hate him, but he is hard to ignore.

[Indygram]

76. Exactly...you really simplified it, but to you, me and most here...it's dark charisma

But to those who support him they think he's the greatest thing they've ever seen. This is why it's even more important that Democrats nominate someone with positive and powerful charisma. That's what it's going to take to win.

[marylandblue]

77. Well okay, but I don't believe that charisma is an objective quality

and I also don't believe that only O'Rourke has it.

[Indygram]

78. You are right, he's not the only one who has it...

I believe he has the most, though.

[Indygram]

75. I'm honest, sometimes to a fault, and often blunt

Some people who have responded to my comments regarding charisma do not seem to fully understand what charisma is. They are trying to associate it only with whether or not they find the person appealing. Merriam-Webster defines charisma as: a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (such as a political leader). Trump is absolutely disgusting. The reason that so many people ignore how utterly disgusting he is comes down to the fact that he is charismatic. If he weren't then so many people would not continue to make excuses for him. Charisma is NOT always positive and good...it can be evil...like Trump and Hitler or a cult leader like David Koresh or Jim Jones.

Just because someone is charismatic it doesn't mean that all people will be influenced and affected by that person. I will use Trump as an example. Anyone who already had a negative view of Trump would not get sucked in by him. Firm Democrats who were never going to listen to him openly would never get sucked in by him. None of those people would be susceptible to his charisma. This is what people mean when they say that charisma is in the eye of the beholder. That's not quite accurate though. Trump is still charismatic, but whether or not a person is influenced by it is what varies from person to person. In regards to Clinton...I voted for her. She is brilliant and a lot like Elizabeth Warren in that she is a policy wonk. She would have been a great president. She is easy to like, can be very funny, too. She isn't really what I'd consider charismatic, though. Someone can be charming and pleasant, have energy, etc and still not have that "it" factor.

[kcr]

92. The problem with pulling out a dictionary

Is that they aren't all the same. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/charisma

Charisma is subjective. You don't personally consider Warren charismatic, but I'd argue her appearance on SheThePeople, for example, showed plenty of charisma. She didn't get a standing ovation for nothing.

[karynnj]

69. Your opinion

If Beto had has much charisma as you say he would be Senator at this time and polling much higher than he is.

[barbtries]

10. i intend to do just that.

Howard Dean would have been a fine president. Years later i looked at the video of the "Dean scream" and was shocked that his candidacy was derailed over that. total bullshit.

[TryLogic]

14. I agree.

[JI7]

18. it wasn't. he lost Iowa before the dean scream

he didn't just lose to Kerry. he lost to Edwards also .

[barbtries]

22. weren't there a lot of primaries to go at that point?

what am i missing.

[JI7]

24. yes, but he was losing new Hampshire also and most of his support was from higher income whites

so he wasn't going to do well in many of those states coming up after that.

[brooklynite]

53. You're missing the fact that he was a bad candidate...

...with poor field organization in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[barbtries]

55. so his campaign wasn't good enough.

thanks for the info

[emulatorloo]

31. He had already lost Iowa before the Dean Scream. His candidacy was derailed by Kerry's superior

ground game in the early primary states.

[CentralMass]

61. I wasn't a supporter but that was crap.

[MH1]

84. Do you remember "Gore claimed he invented the Internet" ha ha ha ha ha .... EXCEPT

of course Gore never claimed that. Sheesh.

I guess that's when I woke up to how fucked we were as a country.

[barbtries]

86. and it's worse now, so much worse.

but yeah, right wing bullshit propaganda gets a lot of mileage around here.

[JI7]

11. lol, that's not what happened. du was mostly Dean and Clark supporters

Last edited Tue May 7, 2019, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

every candidate claims to be electable. but overall Kerry didn't have much support on du.

Clark supporters were making the bigger case for electability.

Dean supporters were focused on money being raised .

and Kerry did a lot of campaigning and had a well thought out campaign in the closing days. the firefighters union had endorsed Kerry and were a huge part of his campaign. the firefighters along with Kerry's Vietnam War Buddies including the endorsement of the Republican whose life Kerry saved did a lot to energize his campaign.

He also focused on the base and won minority groups and working class whites while dean and Edwards mostly did well with higher income whites. it wasn't until 2008 where there was more focus on the demographics that voted and what candidates needed to win but it was still what Kerry did to help him win.

his campaign just had the most energy and positive feeling and I believe the same will happen this time with someone other than Biden.

nobody votes just because someone claims to be electable. they have to come off that way also by running a good campaign.

[emulatorloo]

32. Well said n/t

[TryLogic]

13. The best candidate is most likely the most electable candidate.

The best candidate is the one who will work to do what most needs to be done... and who comes across well enough to attract those who experience the election as a popularity contest.

Numerous other characteristics, of course... not naive, good history, etc.

It is about hiring someone who will do a good job.

[thesquanderer]

17. I think the most charismatic is the most electable.

Obama certainly had it. As did Bill Clinton.

Kerry did not. Dean probably had more.

Hillary did not. Bernie probably had more.

[TryLogic]

19. I don't trust the stories I hear about Trump being most afraid of Biden.

That could be manipulation aimed at those who over emphasize electibility.

I am going to be extremely skeptical of everything I hear from every source that is not well documented.

The source I trust most is Rachel.

[emulatorloo]

34. Trump doesn't play 3-Dimensional chess.

[Ford_Prefect]

35. Some of the folks who enabled him do. Never believe Trump on any subject. Never believe his enablers

or any Trump mouthpiece unless they are under oath...and then ask them 3 times if it is true.

The problem with comments like the "Trump is afraid of..." is you cannot tell who wrote it or whose POV it represents, any more than you can tell for certain who wrote the last tweet.

[emulatorloo]

65. Which ones play 3-dimensional chess? Kellyanne? She of the bowling green massacre?

Donald Jr? Jay-rod? Trump’s pet Nazi? The dumbass ex Texas Governor? The sleepy brain doctor?

I guess I am not seeing the braintrust you are seeing.

[Ford_Prefect]

66. Some can be found at the political branch of Koch industries, several must reside close to Vlad,

and some of them funnel their agendas through various people like Miller, De Vos, and others. The Trump White House on at least one level is a puppet show empowering Right-wing agendas. The people who put him in power only wanted a president who would sign the legislation they planned to rush forwards through the GOP Congress. Much of what he says is intended to distract and disturb the press and us. Only McConnell knows what the whole picture really is.

Yes, Trump has his own terrible desires and agendas as we have seen in his endless tweets. He is primarily a frontman who is so incompetent at the job of President he has almost lost it. He is also a dangerous tyrant who whose goal appears to be using the power of the office to make as much money as he can for himself, his various family members, and some of the richest people on the planet.

[Locrian]

20. electability 2004 vs 2016 vs 2020

agree with you and want to comment that we all need to realize it will be 2020

2020 will be a freaking free for all shitstorm. Think 2016 on acid. The covert and likely OVERT campaigns to malign, lie, steal, intimidate will be in triplicate force. And the candidates will all have to deal with this and the new environment: I'm not sure what "electablbility" will mean, but I don't think it will be "comfortable" and "nice" or whatever in regards to "return" to some idealized past form of (obama? clinton? dunno). I think electable will only be pointing a STRONG way forward to the future and new hope - because boy do we need that with climate change, income disparity, etc.


The disinformation, shit stirring, etc will be like NOTHING we have ever seen, even by 2016 standards.

Folks - get ready for a massive amount of disruption and chaos. The intent will be to intimidate, divide and conquer, sow dissent and bad feelings, etc. Be ready.

[INdemo]

21. Had Dean been the nominee he would have won in 2004( Dean was/is a fighter)

because when they stole 140,000 votes in Ohio thanks to SOS Blackwell Dean (and Karl Rove) he would have fought like hell to prove it .....now Kerry just seemed to pass it off as "nothing we can do about it" and I was a Kerry backer.
Howard Dean has proven many times over that he would have won but the scream speech was overplayed and I think Karl Rove wanted his Bushy to run against Kerry ,,the Liberal

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. I was very disappointed with Democrats complete submission to the MSM

If any of them had half the gusto of Dean himself, they'd have laughed off the concerns that one of their top candidates was a bit too happy about a district win, on stage to his supporters. What a ridiculous thing to give up on. Maybe it was a case of that every other prominent Democrat was helping other candidates and didn't want to say or do anything, because keeping silent helped their own candidate. I would hope not though. I wanted some of the leaders to stand up and laugh in their faces, maybe make a joke about it. And make a joke about the media's concern trolling. That was one tragedy that Republicans only had to sit back and watch.

And I think he'd have done much better than Kerry as well. He was charismatic, bright, and like you said, a fighter.

[BlueWI]

58. Agreed.

Both Gore and Kerry were too eager to give in and not fully challenge the results.

[karynnj]

71. Kerry was a much stronger candidate than Dean

You forget things like Dean complaining in one debate when several candidates attacked his responses, as is typical for the front runner, that he was not a pin cushion. How do you think he would have stood up to the right wing attacks that would have happened had he been the nominee.

Kerry would have pulled off an unlikely upset had there been adequate voting machines in Ohio cities.

[MarcA]

27. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Pushed by those who want it so

and many voters do indeed follow along. The Democratic debates
and other events will give a clearer picture by year's end.

[WeekiWater]

28. Did a little searching.

This was just as rough of a place back then. Some interesting opinions.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x62909

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x51761

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x93138

[still_one]

29. Dean lost because the illustrious media intentionally misrepresented him as not a stable person

because of the Dean "yell"

it wasn't because he wasn't electable, it was because the media decided to push the LIE that Dean was unstable.

They also pushed the LIE that Iraq had WMDs

[karynnj]

70. Why did he lose Iowa by 20 percent to Kerry before the scream happened

He was the national media's expected winner there. Yet Kerry got 38 percent to his 18 percent. Had there been no scream story, the story would have been his stunning loss.

[crazytown]

80. How did Edwards got 32% from nowhere?

Answer: ground game. How well your caucus ground game plays out is not a good way to choose a candidate.

[karynnj]

82. Edwards got 30%

It also was not completely out of nowhere. The Des Moines Register saw the decline in Gephardt's and Dean's numbers and the growing support of Kerry and Edwards.

This was NOT reflected in national polls. In a thread speaking of "electable", the truth is that the national press wrote off Kerry - and THAT impacted his pre Iowa national numbers. In fact, in the various speculations I read from December 2003 and January 2004, the big question is whether he would drop out after Iowa or wait to drop out after NH. It is no surprise given that coverage that in one December 2003 poll, he was behind Sharpton! Where three news magazines had Dean covers on the same August 2003 week, even when the New Republic had FIVE endorsements written by their staff -- there was none for Kerry.

What the caucus ground game meant in Iowa for Kerry in 2004 was retail politics. Kerry, Massachusetts officials, Kerry's MA vets that backed him for years and Kerry's Vietnam shipmates met people face to face and convinced them to vote for Kerry.

I can't imagine a better way to test a candidate than to actually meet him or her, ask tough questions on issues that matter to you and actually assess if this is a person you could trust.

An Iowan I met spoke of how there was one big difference between the Kerry campaign, which he volunteered on, and others in that and other years. It was not unusual for a voter to be seen as a definite supporter of a candidate than a few weeks be seen as supporting an opponent. In 2004, while Kerry was initially slow to get people behind him - once they did, they were very very likely to stay.

[crazytown]

83. C'mon

the power dynamics inside the caucus room are not ‘retail politics’, Edward people received proper instructions on how to caucus, Dean’s kids were clueless.

[karynnj]

85. Joe Trippi had run campaigns in Iowa before

and the Dean voters had information on what they should do. In fact, CSPAN had a fascinating tape of two very different caucus locations.

Not to mention, as I said the frequent Des Moines Register polling showed that starting in late December 2003 Dean's support peaked and started to dissipate. Part of this was because of some very negative ads that both Gephardt and Dean ran against each other. By the way, his support simultaneously fell in NH at the same time in polls.

Nationally, one thing that helped Kerry the weekend before the caucuses was that the Republican marine that he saved in Vietnam had called the campaign and asked if he could help. The campaign immediately got him to Iowa and - without warning Kerry - brought him to a campaign event. This resulted into a two or three minute TV c lip that could not have been better scripted by Hollywood. Very heartwarming. Sadly, for Dean, this clip was shown with a Dean clip where he yelled at a 70 ish heckler to "sit down".

[pdsimdars]

36. "electabiliy" is the strawman that the establishment always throws up about inspirational candidates

Don't debate with the issues but change the conversation to "electability" and then don't get elected with the boring, business as usual, establishment candidate.
whoever the candidate is, we'll all support them, but let's get some inspiration and aspiration. We need BIG change to keep our democracy and our planet.

[oasis]

37. Rethuglican, Ken Blackwell, Ohio Sec. of State was in charge of

fixing the 2004 election for Bush. He knew just how to deal with those "rude and crude Kerry supporters" and, for that matter, the entire Democratic Party.

[Kaleva]

38. Something Kerry never challenged

[oasis]

40. That had nothing to do with Kerry's "electability". I'm

sure you would agree.

[Kaleva]

43. The end result was that "electibility" didn't translate into being elected.

[oasis]

44. And Blackwell would've backed off if Dean had been our nominee.

I get it now.

[Kaleva]

47. No, it's just that "electibility" as an arguement goes nowhere

History shows that in the past 20 years, going with the most electable candidate often doesn't lead to a win in November.

[karynnj]

72. Kerry never had proof that more people who voted in Ohio voted for him

A few weeks after the election, after the campaign looked at everything Can Kerry put out a statement that spoke of how the Republicans suppressed the votes by not having enough voting machines in the inner city. He also listed various irregularities that likely cost votes. However, the conclusion was that there were not more votes to count. John Kerry detailed many problems when Barbara Boxer sponsored a bill to renew the Rosa Parks voting act.

Consider no one could have made more of an issue with voter suppression than Stacy Abrams and in her case, partly thanks to years of that being her issue, she had more proof that the then SoS, now Governor, suppressed the vote than he did. Yet, he is the Governor.

[brooklynite]

39. Dean's problem wasn't his ability to win the General, it was his ability to win the Primary

Complain all you want to about the "Dean Scream"; he had already shown an inability to convert large rally crowds into actual voters.

[Kaleva]

42. The point is that electibility doesn't always translate to victory in November or even in a primary

Your comment:

"Complain all you want to about the "Dean Scream";"

I have never done such a thing.

[delisen]

48. Good advice.I expect more than one candidate will be electable

[Kaleva]

50. Several, as it appears right now, have a legitimate shot at winning

[saidsimplesimon]

51. Oh do I remember the stolen 2000 election, still burns my ah ruffles

If you are currently supporting a candidate who isn't considered the most electable, don't give up and keep fighting for your candidate.

[Kaleva]

54. That's all I'm saying

If one is supporting a candidate who isn't currently considered the most "electable", don't let that discourage you.

[saidsimplesimon]

56. Thanks Kaleva, we agree.

[DesertRat]

60. Well said. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

81. I was a huge Howard Dean fan - still am - I was devastated when he lost the 2004 Iowa Caucus...

I met Howard Dean two times, and was on a conference call with him the third time when I worked with local progressives to get the endorsement of Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson. I jumped on the Dean Bus in early 2003 and rode it until the wheels came off. I remember the baseball bat, the Summer of Dean, his rise in the polls and the sudden crash.

Howard Dean was a flawed candidate that tapped into the anger of so many on the left over Iraq and rode that wave to unexpected success. But it was not enough to mask the real criticisms about his campaign - specifically its very mediocre field operations and, most worrisome, the utter lack of campaign strategy.

Dean lost Iowa after leading for a bulk of the latter-half of the campaign due to stalled momentum, an ugly, drag 'em out war that proved unnecessary with Dick Gephardt, and a very poorly run ground game that bused in Deanics from other states to help coordinate the caucus - which failed since many weren't well versed on the caucus system.

What happened in Iowa proved to me, sadly, that Dean was NOT capable of going up against Bush and winning. Sure, on ideas, he was a good candidate. But ideas don't win elections - ground games and campaign infrastructure does.

This is why the primary process is so important. It's so expansive that it will likely weed out the candidates who don't have what it takes to go out and be competitive in a general election campaign. There's no reason to believe Dean's campaign malfunctions would have just vanished had he won the nomination - no more than, say, Mitt Romney's in 2008 when he faltered similarly.

John Kerry was likely the most electable Democrat and proved as much by winning the nomination. It's impossible to say for sure, of course, but that's why I just go back to the primary - Dean didn't lose Iowa because people became overly concerned of his electability. This is why Dean lost Iowa:

The results from our caucus reflected the results of the 1,992 other caucuses in the state in one respect: Kerry got twice as many delegates as Howard Dean, four to two (with John Edwards picking up four as well). There were lots of new and first-time caucus participants, so many that the organizers ran out of forms to register them. But they weren’t the new voters the Dean campaign wanted. George Davey, the precinct captain for the Dean campaign, said he was hoping for 25 to 50 Dean voters between the ages of 18 and 25, but only one showed up. “I think if we could blame [Dean’s loss] on anyone, blame it on the 18- to 25-year-olds, because they were nonexistent,” he said.

Davey, who is 37, also said Dean needed to be less negative toward his opponents. And another Dean volunteer, Toby Sackton, a 57-year-old from Boston, complained that Dean’s television ads weren’t any good. “We saw three ads, one by Kerry, one by Edwards, and one by Dean. Dean’s was by far the worst,” he said. “It was an ad aimed at getting the supporters out,” not appealing to voters who didn’t already like Dean.

I think there’s something to Sackton’s complaint. I heard four or five Dean radio ads on my drive to the caucus, all with the same message: Dean had the courage to stand up to President Bush on the war while the other major candidates folded. Dean’s saturation TV ads focused on nefarious “corporations” and “special interests” and “Washington insiders,” rather than the things I’d seen Dean use on the stump (in addition to his stance on the war) to appeal to voters who hadn’t heard of him already: his Vermont record of balanced budgets, health care, and the state’s “Success by Six” program for children.

In his final days in Iowa, Dean’s campaign was about his campaign. To the extent issues were at stake at all, Dean’s message focused on the past—Do you want a candidate who was against the war, as Dean put it in Davenport, “not now, but then”?—while John Kerry focused on a future consideration—Do you want a candidate who will raise your taxes? Beyond the war, Dean hit three notes: What his opponents said and did in 2002 and 2001, the fact that he’s raised lots of money in small donations over the Internet, and tiresome bromides about the special interests/corporations/Washington insiders. It’s a high-tech version of Al Gore’s “people vs. the powerful” campaign. That’s not good enough.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/01/why-dean-s-campaign-flopped-in-iowa.html

Dean banked on younger voters, who didn't show. Dean banked on a negative message in the final week of the Caucus and it backfired. Dean lacked the organization in Iowa to work the caucus system - something Obama did perfectly in 2008 and something Hillary essentially borrowed in 2016 that helped her significantly.

That tells me Dean was not ready for a general election campaign. Kerry was - to the extent we could have ever hoped. He just faced a really nasty press and a country not ready to flip to the Democrats in a time of war. There's a lot of revisionist history about 2004 but the facts are clear - Bush spent most of 2004 above 50% in approval, Iraq, while more unpopular than in 2003, was still generally perceived as more popular than not and the economy, which had faltered due to the early 00s recession, was bouncing back strongly. In fact, 2004 was the best year for jobs creation since 1999. That was going to be a tough election for any Democrat to win.

And Kerry nearly did it anyway.

[Kaleva]

87. The Dean campaign's ground game left a lot to be desired.

From the posts I read made by Dean supporters who went to Iowa to volunteer, it was amateur hour. People reported they went to a campaign field office only to find no one in charge and they were left to free lance. The locals were getting pissed because Dean volunteers kept knocking on their doors, not knowing that other volunteers had already been there. Sometimes several times.

[Drunken Irishman]

88. Yes. Dean's campaign never grew into front-runner status...

They ran a guerrilla, upstart campaign that didn't transition into the role of front-runner. It was disorganized and chaotic all around, which led to, as you say, Dean volunteers hitting up the same place multiple times, which turned off a lot of voters.

Joe Trippi did a phenomenal job building a grassroots campaign but they really needed to make an adjustment in late 2003 and bring in someone with more seasoned, and professional experience. After the Iowa and New Hampshire losses, Trippi resigned and was replaced with Roy Neel, who was really close with Gore and Clinton. While a move like that would have initially been seen with skeptical eyes, since it was someone so closely tied with the party insiders Dean opposed, it would've helped organize the campaign heading into the crucial months. Instead, Tippi got 'em there but couldn't deliver.

In many ways, Dean's campaign was a near mirror-image of Eugene McCarthy's from 1968.

[Renew Deal]

91. Kerry was a flawed candidate

People found him completely uninspiring. I fear that we will make the same mistake again. People are looking for the safe choice without looking at the future.