turning conventional wisdom on its head Re: DEAN

[CTLawGuy]

with empirical facts. Perhaps "Dean-is-unelectable" believers would like to explain away these phenomena.

CW 1. People with military records are more electable than those with non-military records.

- 2002 Max Cleland, hero, military vet, had 3 limbs blown off in vietnam war, loses to chickenhawk jackass Saxby Shameless, who wins a SOUTHERN state by questioning, of all things, Cleland's patriotism. Remember also Cleland voted for war, tax cuts and patriot act. Note, this was also after sept. 11th so you cannot use that excuse.


- 2000 AWOL chickenhawk George W. Bush "defeats" vietnam vet Al Gore. Furthermore, he kicks gore's ass all over the "millitary conscious" south, even winning Gores home state of TN.

-1996 "Draft Dodger" Bill Clinton defeats WWII vet Bob Dole.


- 1992 "Draft Dodger" Bill Clinton defeats WWII veteran incumbent president George H. W. Bush.

- 1984 Chickenhawk Ronald Reagan Sweeps the south (he doesnt just win a little bit, he kills Mondale)

-1980 Chickenhawk Ronald Reagan defeats Naval Academy Graduate Jimmy Carter, largely by turning the South against its favorite son.

-1972 WWII vet, George McGovern, who flew "flew 35 combat missions as a B-24 bomber pilot in Europe, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross," (http://www.mcgovernlibrary.com/george.htm) loses 49 of 50 states to Richard Nixon, who wins on a questionable promise to end the war no less!

CW 2. The South will never trust someone from another region..
(note that Bush NEVER claims to be a southerner. he claims himself as a Texan.)

- 2000 Bush sweeps the south from favorite son Al Gore, even taking gore's home state of TN

- 1996 Dole, from Kansas, wins six of ten southern states from favorite son Bill Clinton (note, I dont consider MO, TX, WV, or FL to be southern states)

-1992 Texan and Connecticutter George Bush wins 5 of 10 southern states from Gore and Clinton.

- 1988 Texan GHW bush sweeps the south

- 1984 Californian Ronald Reagan sweeps the south

- 1980 Californian Ronald Reagan takes 9 of 10 southern states from favorite son Jimmy Carter.

CW 3. You need foreign policy EXPERIENCE to be electable. (I dont want to hear about 9/11, there was such a thing as the COLD WAR, and terrorists attacked the US both in 1993 and 1995. Don't try to tell me nobody worried about threats to the US before 9/11)

- 2002 Senator Tim Hutchinson, memeber of the Veterans affars committe and the senate armed services committee loses the Southern state of AR to "never even picked up a military rifle" Attorney General Mark Pryor

- 2000 GOVERNOR ( read: no foreign policy experience) Bush "defeats" Vice president of the united states and senator Al Gore.

- 1992 Bill "no foreign policy experience" Clinton beats sitting president George bush. Clinton wins half the 10 southern states despite George bush successfully orchestrating a war against Iraq.

-1980 Ronald "on the job training" Reagan defeats sitting president jimmy carter during Cold War. Russia has ICBMs pointed at many US cities, this is public knowledge.

-1976 Jimmy "never dealt with a foreign leader" Cater defeats sitting president Gerald Ford. Cold war is raging at the time.


Well naysayers, I am waiting for your refutations :-)

[hedda_foil]

1. Superb rebuttal, darboy.

As usual, the inane "conventional wisdom" promulgated by pundits and inside-the-beltway politicos is dead wrong.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Dean would/will crush Bush.

Bookmark it.

[CTLawGuy]

3. you know it boys and girls!!!

still waiting for the first volley from the Dean haters... hope you guys stand with me!

[depakid]

4. Empirical facts and analysis will not sway closed minds

It's unfortunate, but it's true.

People have grown accustomed to lazy thinking and readily accept conventional wisdom and memes as reflecting fact. This is not a new phenominon, but it has definately gotten worse during my lifetime- possibly a reflection of the deterioration in our educational system and the mass media's race to find the lowest common denominator. Either way, you won't find too many people swayed by evidence anymore when they've developed strong emotional preconceptions.

Kristoff's recent article (like many of his musings) is a classic example of this- someone stuck "inside the box," a prisoner of past experience, unable to grasp new and innovative ways of looking at things or interpreting data. I think his affliction affects quite a few posters here in many camps, though one camp in particular seems to have the most difficulty showing flexibility in their thinking or making even minor concessions when their arguments are clearly untenable.

It's kind of sad, really- because that sort of mindset usually isn't very persuasive, is sometimes insulting, and all too often counterproductive to their intentions.

Just a few thoughts, not accusations....

[loyalsister]

8. Linguistics

It was predicted that we might get into this kind of mess on a large scale with constant exposure to "fraudulant" language if it were allowed to solidify in our minds....

"Generally speaking, animals tend to learn cumulatively through experience. This selective process does not always operate in the case of human beings. The old are sometimes wise, but more often they are stuffed above the average with superstitions, misconceptions, and irrational dogmas.......
Why is this? One may hazard to guess that the erroneous identifications in human beings are pickled and preserved in words and so not subject to the constant check of the environment. We are not permitted to misinterpret the environment indefinitely."

This comes from a book called "The Tyranny Of Words." It's an interesting analysis of the influence of language on intellect. It's an idea that sort of overlaps with yours ad the one mentioned above.

[LeftCoast]

5. Excellent post!

Very good and worth a :kick:

:)

[sandnsea]

6. 9/11 n/t

[pruner]

7. the cluephone is ringing…

[CTLawGuy]

9. please read...

my many references to how 9/11 is invalid as an excuse. IE cold war and russian ICBMs. Thank you!

[polpilot]

10. Sticking with 67% popular vote for Dean in '04.

Don't post historical data on this one. Politics is 'time sensitive' and 'a picture in time'. Dean's campaign is BRILLIANT and surpasses everyone's expectations. We're in uncharted waters on this election and these guys are miracle workers.

Dean '04...

[CTLawGuy]

11. hey pol!

I love your enthusiastic posts! I know that overall politics and political outcomes are NOT PREDICTABLE. that is why I posted this historical data to refute the people who think Dean cannot win.

I think he will win because he will make Democrats and independents excited to vote and will bring new people to the polls. hell, he is already bring new people into the activist community.

[polpilot]

13. Dean is the PERFECT CANDIDATE for these political times. PERFECT.

I have never seen a campaign run this brilliantly EVER. They continue to astound me and I believe when Dean gets his nightly exposure after The Iowa Blowout that all bets are off. My 'enthusiastic posts' haven't deviated since Howard was an * or a ' 1 percenter' and the
exciting thing about this candidate is that he can weather many hits and come back stronger. I can't recall a stronger candidate.

"The Spartans are not wont to ask how many the enemy are, but where they are. -Agis II, 450 B.C.

Dean '04...

[DebJ]

12. we don't need foreign policy experience, we need foreign policy savy

I think we can best get that from those who have a rounded education... our Founding Fathers were scientists, farmers, businessmen, and above all, Philosophers who spent a great deal of time discussing what was best for the future of the country and of mankind, spent a lot of time defining "What is honor, what is life, what is an honorable life?"
Some of them were actually pretty bad politicians....I think many of them would never make it in a televised debate. Tom Jefferson spoke very softly and was often very reclusive. John Adams liked to think of himself as honest and forthright, which he was, in a very 'unpolitic' way that offended a lot of people (boy I'd love to see that honesty today).
We don't need EXPERIENCE. We need people in foreign policy who will LISTEN to the rest of the world, not BULLY them.
Ben Franklin succeeded in his diplomatic efforts because he LISTENED, because he let other countries believe that he believed their concerns and opinions mattered, too.
Dean's medical degree is the closest thing to a broader education in our possibilities that I am aware of. What about other candidates?

[Qutzupalotl]

20. Good question.

Clark comes to mind as someone with broader interests. They tell me he speaks four languages (though I haven't heard which ones). I think learning languages broadens perspective, since you can't do that without taking in new idiomatic expressions...things that make you go, "Hmm, okay. I can see how this relates."

His military background no doubt included reading "The Art of War". This has a lot of applications to foreign policy, especially when negotiating. Clark is also said to be a gifted mimic; his ability to "become" his opponent, to think and act as he would, is said to have contributed to his military successes, particularly vs. Milosevic.

He was also a professor of economics at West Point, which bodes well for the kinds of decisions he would make as president.

On edit: Put 'em together, Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean, and you have a winning ticket!

[slinkerwink]

14. excellent post!

;-)

[CTLawGuy]

15. hmm

maybe I should post this in GD...

or maybe there's just no response to it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. Because you preclude mention of 9/11

which precludes any heavy emphasis on defense which clears the way for it to be O.K. to pretend that a guy who went skiing on a medical deferrment to avoid war can win.

[CTLawGuy]

19. what about "draft dodger" Bill clinton

who beat 2 WWII vets?? One just a year after the Oklahoma City Bombing.

and how do you explain Max Cleland's loss in 2002?

[stickdog]

24. You are right. The deserter who allowed 9/11 to happen on his

watch and then dragged us into a quagmire in Iraq on false pretenses is surely the better choice.

[paulk]

17. obviously you believe 9/11 will have no effect

or that we have troops engaged in two theatres. Some of your "examples" border on the absurd -

I don't believe having been in the military will be that much of an issue, although Howard Dean is vulnerable because of his ski-adventures.

Foreign policy experience will be an issue in the coming election. It has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.

[CTLawGuy]

18. two works for both of you

COLD WAR.....

Dont try to tell me no one cared about national defense when they elected a non-military guy (twice) with no foreign policy experience while Russia had ICBMs pointed at our cities.

Don't tell me 9/11 was the first time anyone cared about national defense, cause that's BS.

[paulk]

21. Cold war...

we're not in a COLD war right now - we're in a HOT war.

BIG DIFFERENCE - and I'm not talking about 9/11 - I'm talking about the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of which are going to get a LOT worse next year. And it's not going to be about military experience - I'm not arguing that. It's going to be about foreign policy experience - of which Dean has none.

[CTLawGuy]

22. there was a cold war

it lasted from 1945 -1991 and a couple presidents with no foreign policy experience were elected (Cater, Reagan)

and we've been in HOT situations before and trusted presidents without FP experience.

[killbotfactory]

23. Also: BUSH IS WEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY

The only reason people think otherwise is because no one's had the balls to challenge him on it.

OBL - Still at large
SADDAM - Still at large
WMD - Gone fishing...
AFGHANISTAN DEMOCRACY - Still waiting...
IRAQ DEMOCRACY - Still waiting...
END OF OCCUPATION - Uh... ???
END OF GUERILLA WAR - Uh... ???
COST OF IRAQ DEBACLE - Priceless...

Bush rushed to war based on lies and distortions, snubbed his nose at the world community, and only prepared for the best case scenario after the major fighting stopped. That is TOTALLY F***ING IRRESPONSIBLE and an abuse on our troops and national security.

BUSH - WEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY

And his foriegn policy is a disgrace.