Dean '08?

The POD is that Howard Dean resigns the Democratic National Committee Chairmanship in December 2006, and in January 2007 announces that he will run for POTUS again in 2008. What will happen?
 
ASB - No properly PC uber-liberal could possibly be seen as pre-empting Obama. That was acceptable for a dynastic centralist like Hillary who considered the nomination her due for putting up with Bubba or for a clueless egotistic poseur like Edwards, but not for the good doctor Dean.
 
Dean is not an 'uber-liberal' by any stretch. He's a DLC Democrat who turned more to the left to secure himself a position to run on in the primaries. He was endorsed by the fracking NRA when he ran for Governor for chrissakes.
 

Thanos6

Banned
ASB - No properly PC uber-liberal could possibly be seen as pre-empting Obama. That was acceptable for a dynastic centralist like Hillary who considered the nomination her due for putting up with Bubba or for a clueless egotistic poseur like Edwards, but not for the good doctor Dean.

Actually, plenty of "uber-liberals" did; Kucinich especially comes to mind.

(He had little to no chance of actually winning, but he did try)
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Still it's too bad that he wasn't the nominee in 2004, at least he was exciting unlike John Kerry who was a total dullard. I think that Dean could have won, that a Dean/Edwards ticket would have been unbeatable.
 
Dean is not an 'uber-liberal' by any stretch. He's a DLC Democrat who turned more to the left to secure himself a position to run on in the primaries. He was endorsed by the fracking NRA when he ran for Governor for chrissakes.

He is perceived as 'uber-liberal' whether or not this is true. In fact, I have seen several liberals on this forum, disgruntled with how "centrist" Obama has become, extol his virtues as a true Democrat. Nevertheless, considering this is 2008 and most Democrats will have a difficult time losing the general election, it is his position in the primary that matters, not the perception of the general populace.

His challenge there won't so much be the Dean Scream, which really was overstated by the media in a way that even I think was a bit unfair. Rather it will be the fact that Democrats tend to deny a second chance to those who have fallen short in the past. This particularly holds up in 2008, when the base was looking for something new, to provide a clean change from the Bush years - hence the rejection of the slimy overexposed Edwards, and distrusted insider Clinton, in favor of the unknown but promising Obama.
 
He takes some WWC votes from Clinton and Edwards, some white liberals from Obama. Hillary might do worse in Iowa, and if she comes fourth then she'll have to quit.
 
He takes some WWC votes from Clinton and Edwards, some white liberals from Obama. Hillary might do worse in Iowa, and if she comes fourth then she'll have to quit.
Frabjous day! Perhaps she'd stay in the Senate? And perhaps the Republicans could nominate someone who doesn't have a scandal-plagued record for VP!
 
She'd stay in the Senate and retire in 2018 most likely. Granted that her fans won't have such a steep withdrawal curve as the 'Nistas when she doesn't run in 2016, but still rather amusing to watch. But another outcome is that Dean takes more from Edwards as the fellow populist and Hillary comes out ahead in either PV, delegates, or both, in front of Obama. Obama's momentum is killed: black voters don't see him as a viable candidate (which only happened when he won Iowa) and 55-60% of black voters stick with Clinton, who ekes out a victory in SC and romps to the nomination, picking Evan Bayh for VP.
 
Pretty good analysis RB. i was involved in the Clinton campaign. Bayh was high on her list but so was Obama and Webb from Virgina.
 
Obama was never considered according to Game Change, and I see no reason to doubt the veracity of that one given their respective personalities and campaign events. The other one was Ted Strickland, but being in office for 18 months would not be helpful, hence Bayh.
 
Obama was considered. I know. Books don't know everything. But people who worked in campaigns don't talk about everything. Moot point. Obama won.
 
Does anyone care about this any more? I mean, anyone?

And hell, if it does get brought up again, then the Democrats can play this in response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uphij88fzK8

The Democrats can play that all they like. The thing is, the Dean Scream did tarnish Dean's potential as a candidate. Context doesn't matter. The media and political campaigns use these sorts of things because they leave a lasting impression against a candidate, no matter if context justifies it, or not.
 
Top