Reply #103: Thank you for all of that hard work in gathering data to

[FrenchieCat]

attempt to prove your point.

When I add up the primary race results calculated in terms of total percentages for each candidate, when combining all of the states (where both Clark and Dean contested---using Dean, because I believe that he had the most grassroots support) the math shows that your assertion that Clark did not have such a large "Base" is without merit. In addition, your labeling is confusing and unclear.

First up, the math (excluding Iowa since Clark did not compete there): According to my calculations, Wes Clark received 12.58% combined of votes cast from New Hamphire until Virginia, and Howard Dean received 12.33% of votes cast....yet Howard Dean had a bigger "base?" sort of speak.

Further, I don't know what "Base" means to you. There are activists, supporters, and just plain folks....who all vote. Is the base the people actively supporting a candidate by going on the Internet, or are they the ones working in the field, or both...or just those that voted, or what?

Howard Dean I believe had the largest numbers of active supporters. Wesley Clark had the second highest numbers of active supporters. This conclusion is gotten by way of measuring Internet traffic data of each supporter's site around the time of the primaries, Donations figures and meet-up attendance figures.

However, John Kerry had the highest number of votes....because his votes came not so much from "supporters" or "activists", but from just plain folks who watch a lot of Teevee and voted the way the media told them they should vote (more or less).

So I will thank you for the backhanded compliment when you said that Clark's base was passionate and very dedicated, very well organized and worked very hard, as it's still doing now, but I'm sorry, imo, it was not that large." I agree...but don't know what you really mean by "not that large". What is large and what isn't. John Kerry had a smaller "base" than both Clark and Dean, but still came out on top.

I think that considering that Clark got into the race in Mid September of 2003, I think that Clark did damn good with the amount of support he did generate. We are talking about people activating in a very short period.....the majority in less than two months time. By the time the infamous "DU is being invaded by Clarkies" posts you so proudly display were occurring, Clark had been in the race less than 2 months. Are you saying that all Clark supporters should have located DU prior to Clark announcing to show that they were true Democrats or what? Are you saying that Clark's support wasn't supposed to build over time? It should have all been set in stone by September 17th when he announced?

Also remember that not all who vote on DU polls for Clark are "Clark Supporters" per se. Some may just prefer Clark although they don't actively work to garnet support for him.

and the last thing....when you throw in the DLC thingie like you did....wasn't Howard Dean DLC? Clark does not and has never belonged to the DLC....so what was that about?