June 27, 2003
Dean's First Defeat?
Despite the spin analysts are going to see the results of the Moveon Presidential primary as the first defeat for Howard Dean.
Dean got almost 140,000 votes, a healthy plurality of 43.8%. But Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored 76,000, nearly 24%, and with John Kerry’s 14% and the single-digit results for others it was enough to deny Dean an endorsement he clearly wanted.
The big surprise was Kucinich, who doesn't worry about winning and throws more red meat to leftists than Pat Buchanan ever did to conservatives. I have personally talked to several people who I expected to support Dean and who instead said they strongly support Dennis the Menace (as he was once known).
You can spin this as good news. Dean has someone on his left. He has moved noticeably toward the center. He got a hefty plurality.
But he didn't "win," he didn't "meet expectations" (that he would win) and that is what the chattering classes will emphasize. "Dean hasn't locked up the liberals," will be the headline. (Not a bad headline for Dean fans, actually.) Dean has a lot more work to do, on his own.
Consider that a challenge. Dean's campaign still needs to prove it can scale beyond the gays, geeks and gawkers who have already thrown their support his way. He needs to scale in terms of technology, in terms of his appeal, and in terms of his attractiveness as a candidate.
Can he do it? Time will tell.
Posted by Danablankenhorn at June 27, 2003 01:13 PMInteresting take, Dana. I don’t entirely agree or disagree.
First, in a field that large and diverse, I think anyone who got more than 20% should be happy with the message that sends. It means more than 50,000 people took the time to vote for them and will form a likely pool of contributors and volunteers. It means that among political activists, they count.
Personally, I’m supporting Kucinich principally because of his boldness. Of course, I supported McGovern for the same reasons and that didn’t work out too well. ;-)
Dean is a decent candidate and if he takes the nomination, I’ll vote for him despite my Green feelings. But I’m uncomfortable with his balance-the-budget fiscal conservatism at a time when the economy is in an undeclared depression. Desperate times call for bold measures, to temper a cliche, and Kucinich is the ONLY candidate I see who is willing to step out and offer bold, controversial solutions.
Posted by: Dan Shafer (insiter) at June 27, 2003 01:40 PMInteresting perspective, Dana, snatching defeat from the jaws of voctory. ;-)
There is a secondary stat that should make Dean very happy:
He won the list of candidates who you could support no matter what with 86%. Second was Kerry at 75%.
So, it seems not only did Dean win the contest, but he also won the “lesser of all evils” race.
Interesting how the straw polls, online epxeriments and all the other polls the mainstream media say “don’t matter” have Dean winning, yet the networks still call Joe Leiberman a “leader.”
Joey L. got hammered in the MoveOn.org primary. I think that is a good sign of what is to come.
And, yes, Kuchinich is right up there. He is good for the party.
Robbie D
Posted by: Robbie D at June 27, 2003 02:06 PMKucinich is a nutjob… “Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self.” (http://www.newconnexion.net/article/09-02/kucinich.html)
I’m sure he’s a great guy, but I’m not voting for some new-age wacko who’s views (http://ontheissues.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm), are leaning towards authoritarian. Scotty, beam this guy up.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 27, 2003 02:37 PMStephen,
You are right in that Kucinich is not going to win. After all who would elect him to any federal office (wink, wink). But seriously, he’s good for the race - like Al Sharpton - because he can say things others cannot or won’t.
Robbie D.
Posted by: Robbie D at June 27, 2003 04:09 PMCalling Kucinich a nut or lunatic is inaccurate and counterproductive. The country will not be well-served by a repeat of the bitterness between the Gore and Nader camps.
Back on topic, the spin wasn’t coming from the Dean camp. The CNN and AP coverage called it a win, although of course they duly noted that it wasn’t a big enough win to earn the jackpot. And getting a positive item on CNN and AP is a win in itself for any candidate.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at June 27, 2003 09:07 PMCalling Kucinich a “nut job” because he expresses spiritually centered views is an insult to thinking, spirit-minded people everywhere. And it’s simply out of place in what is intended to be an intelligent, reasoned debate on the subject. It’s nothing but a personal attack.
Jerry Brown got tagged with the “Governor Moonbeam” moniker by people who would rather belittle original and thoughtful insight than to try to grapple with it honestly. Yet most of the things he advocated have been proven viable and accurate.
Those who are ahead of their time are often dismissed by those with minds that are perfectly capable of grasping higher truth but whose training is such that they refuse to attempt it.
Let me make this clear. I support Howard Dean. But I do this with my eyes wide open.
Posted by: Dana Blankenhorn at June 28, 2003 04:14 PMDan Shafer said “thinking, spirit-minded people” …
Um, I think that’s a contradiction in terms, is it not?
The quote Stephen points out above is complete and utter nonsense. “The interchangeability of matter and spirit” [what spirit? something that’s completely unknown and unmeasurable, certainly] “means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe” [I didn’t even know the universe had an inner life. You could get the Nobel Prize for proving that.] “becomes the soul-light magic” [the *what*?] “of the innermost life of our self.”
Now, if anyone can work out the twisted logic of that sentence and decipher what he’s actually banging on about, I’ll be most impressed. It’s New Age psycho-spiritual bull, and it clearly shows that Kucinich is not exactly the most skeptical of candidates.
No, let me rephrase that. He’s a sucker. If he can believe this, what else will he believe?
Let’s pull another quote from the same page:
“…you are reminded once again of the merging of stardust and spirit. … There is magic. There is alchemy.”
No there isn’t. No such thing. This isn’t a point you can argue, or debate, or question. There is no such thing as magic. There is no such thing as alchemy. Anyone who can prove otherwise, go prove it and make yourself a million dollars from this guy.
Someone who accepts such rubbish should not be elected to public office.
Posted by: Daniel Walker at June 30, 2003 05:23 AMKucinich stands for peace. He has my vote.
Posted by: Mitch at October 15, 2003 02:19 PM
