Dean seems like the kind of guy who'd run as an Independent if he doesn't

get nominated by the Democrats.

Say Edwards or Kerry gets nominated, would people here vote for one of those guys or would they vote for Dean if he were running as a third party candidate?

no John Anderson.

Actually, can any of us say we know John Anderson well enough to make an argument that someone is no John Anderson. What is a John Anderson?

compared to him in the past.

Isn't he that country singer with the nasally voice who sang "Swingin'" and "Straight Tequila Night"? :-)

And yeah, I'm just kidding. I know he's the 1980 Pres. candidate who was a Republican but ran as an Independent but (I believe) took more votes from the Democrat Carter than the Repug Ray-gun.

For the last five or six presidential races, including Regan-Carter, there are statistics comparing each candidate against every other candidate in pairs. Ie, Raygu v Anderson, Raygun v Carter, Carter v Anderson. In every race except one (and including Clinton's two vicotories) the winner of the election also won all these head to head matchups. This is called the the Condorcet voting method analysis.

The one time the condorcet winner wasn't the actual winner was Bush 2000. Gore was the Condorcet winner (but Nader did well in the Condorcet matchups).

Incidentally, Clinton, although never getting over 50% was the Condorcet winner in his individual matchups by a very wide margin.

I'm a Dean supporter, but we need to have a country to vote in when all is said and done. Another 4 of Shrub, and we'll be beyond repair for a loooong time to come.

was not elected the first time and use it to run for two more terms.

First of all, I think the chances of Dean running as an independent if he does not get the nomination are about the same as the chances of us carrying Idaho in the general election. That being said, someone else posed this possibility the other night, and i reluctantly came to the same conclusion - if Dean were running against another Democrat in the general, I would have to vote for the Democrat. It would be hard, though, because part of the reason I have put so much time into this campaign is because I wonder if I will ever have the opportunity again to work for a candidate I like so much - it will probably be a long time. But I am not big on people who lose primaries running as independents (for the most part - there are some exceptions, like incumbent state senators in Vermont in 2000 who rans as independents after their own party turned on them for voting for civil unions). And I would have to vote for the Democrat, because the Democrat would be the only one with a prayer of beating Bush.

has been stubbornly repeated despite Dean's clear statements that he'll support whoever gets nominated? :eyes:

Dean has said repeatedly that he will back the Democratic nominee and that "anyone of them is better than what we have now." Also, most people who support Dean have said on many threads over many months that they will also support whoever gets the Democratic nomination.

But nice try.

But nice try.

Nope, a really lame try. :-)

And I suppose some of the things contributing to that feeling are the Draft Gore and Draft Clark crowds -- the notion of drafting a candidate for 2004 seems to be treated with more credibility than it deserves (like a lot of Democrats would actually vote for a guy who doesn't seem sufficiently interested to run -- didn't we go through this with Cuomo?). Also, I sense that Dean's appeal is based more on anger than any of the other candidacies and I just think that, if Dean didn't get the nomination, all those angry Dean supporters would either push for a draft of Dean, or become pawns in someone else's attempt to draft Dean.

I think that in some ways, even though people may not realize they're doing it, all the money and power that supports Bush tends to influence people in subtle and not so subtle ways and that that money and power tends to get what it wants. So, say AOL-Time Warner and Bechtel and Disney and American Express, and GE all think that the best way to help Bush would be to encourage a left-wing third party candidacy, and say the Greens aren't enough to accomplish their ends (they weren't in 2000, considering that Bush actually had to steal FL and get the Supremes involved), they might try to, subtley stoke a movement for Dean to run as a third party candidate which people will confuse with an actual, organic desire for a Dean third party run, and that Dean might take it up, not realizing that the sentiment behind the movement wasn't genuine and was motivated on a macro level by a desire to keep Bush in office.

So, like I said, it's just a feeling I have motivated by many disparate, thin strands of facts. I certainly don't think it's not worth discussing simply becaus Dean, at an early stage in campaigning, implied he wouldn't do it. (Isn't he changing his mind about a few other things he said he wouldn't do at an earlier stage?)

Dean ALTHOUGH HE'S SAID IN THE PAST THAT HE WOULDN'T RUN ANS AN I., has run against the Democratic Party more than any other candidate. In that sense, he has intentionally or unintentionally laid the growndwork for a third party candidacy. What I'm saying, is that it would sort of logically follow from his campaign and therefore not be that great of a risk.

Candidates have to act in character. Even if it would be better in the abstract to adopt some position or another, if it doesn't fit in with the character a candidate projects, it would simply confuse the voters. It would make no sense for, say, Edward Kennedy to decide to run as independent since he is a symbol of the Democratic party. I don't think it would make any sense at all for Kerry to run as Ind. It would for, say McKinney, because part of her persona is now a woman who's own party stabbed her in the back.

Bottom line, it wouldn't be out of character for Dean to go I., which might contribute to a strategic decision to do so NOTWITHSTANDING HIS PREVIOUS STATMENTS THAT HE WOULDN'T DO IT.

(Hey, we're just having a conversation here. No need for ascerbic to get so dogmatic...it's almost like ascerbic is scared of something.)

Dean has NOT run against the Democratic Party. He has awakened the Democratic Party with a real infusion of energy at the grassroots level and (thankfully) put the DLC in thier place.

Dean has criticized the Democratic Party many many times. Most recently, didn't he say that Democrats will lie to get elected, or something like that?

He may be awakening some people within the Democratic party (while clearly making others mad), but he's doing that by criticizing the Democratic Party itself, and many Democrats in the process.

This is undeniable.

Most recently, didn't he say that Democrats will lie to get elected, or something like that?

Of course, DU rules don't allow using the proper and accurate noun here...

Just be honest. What was it that Dean said recently about Democrats saying anything to win? Who was he talking about?

with Dean. However, I know many Dean supporters who want nothing more than Bush out of the white house and they will be supporting the Democratic nominee--whoever he is. This has been expressed many times on DU as well.

run as an independent and will absolutely support any Democratic nominee

...because Edwards or Kerry won't get nominated.

(I'm leaving out Liebarman 'cause there's no way he'd get nominated.)

I think that the prospect of another four years of Bush is enough to make anyone change their thinking. It changed Michael Moore's perspective.

could possibly create a mood in the public and in Dean's mind that it would be a sensible thing to run as a third party candidate. Maybe it would become apparent that the Green Party weren't going to push anyone. Dean might think, well, Gore still could have won had the votes be counted in FL, and he might think that wasn't going to happen again. Dean might do some polling which suggests that his support is coming from people who might not vote if he isn't in the race. Also, I understand that Dean, for some unexplainable reason, gets a lot of money from AOL-Time Warner (or was it Viacom?) -- maybe even more money will come rolling in that he couldn't spend any other way than if he continued his run.

There are a hundred factors which might override "selfishness", presuming that unselfishness were even a relevant personality trait in this situation.

Face it, there have been three or four major candidates in the last 4 or 5 elections, and it makes a lot of sense for DUers to be asking themselves who's the other one or two candidates will be who round out the slate for 2004.

ie, he will not run as an indie if he doesn't get the nom; and go off on a tangent because you don't like the guy...

Most recently, he's thinking about changing his position on financing his campaign, no?

Has he changed his position on raising the retirement age?

Did he change his opinion on what would justify attacking Iraq?

I don't know what would make this issue any different from any other reversible postion.

…
KING: New York City, as we go to some calls for Governor Howard Dean, hello.

CALLER: Hi. Governor Dean, I have been so impressed by you ever since I saw you on "Meet the Press." And I'm going to my first Dean meeting this week. And my question for you is that many Democrats believe that if not for Ralph Nader staying in the election that we wouldn't have George Bush as a president.

So my question to you is, if you do not get the Democratic nomination, will you still run on the independent ticket?

DEAN: No, I will not.

CALLER: If so, how will that impact the upcoming race?

DEAN: I will not run as independent. I will support the nominee. It is essential that George Bush not be re-elected for the future of this country. It is essential for our economy. It's essential, so we can regain the respect we had around the world. And I will under no circumstances run as a third party and independent. I will back the nominee. I hope I am the nominee because I can bring about half those votes that voted for Ralph Nader back into the party. That's how we are going to win. And I think at this point there is no other evidence that any of the other candidates can do that and I think that's why I'm the most likely to beat George Bush.
…
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/04/lkl.00.html

This wouldn't be the only campaign issue upon which Dean would reverse himself if he did it.

Look, I'm not debating whether Dean would do it. Start a different discussion if you want to talk about that. I'm asking, if he did do it, what would YOU do?

And I all the circumstances I can think of that would have to change for Dean to run as an independant are very very extreme and very very unlikely cases.

and, not that I think I need to reference those two threads just to have this discussion, but I certainly think those two threads (suggesting Dean, like many human beings, changes his mind as circumstances chance) at least suggests that we don't have to discount my premise, and that it's worth asking the question.

Again, I'm not asking 'what would Dean do?" I'm aksing "what would YOU do?"

If Dean ran as an Independant -- and I understand that there is a strong tradition among Vermonters doing this -- would you vote for him? How would you feel about the situation? What do you think would happen?

There will almost inevitable be third party candidates (especially if it helps Bush, I think). Who do you think will be the third party candidates, if not Dean?

From everything I've seen on Dean, he is the type who would run as an independent if he didn't get the nomination. He may have said he wouldn't in the past, but I think he has become so full of himself that he just might try it. He seems to go with whatever strikes him at the time. He has reversed himself several times. I'm going to hope he won't, but I definitely wouldn't rule it out.

The guy has been a Democratic governor for 11 years and a Democratic Lt. Governor before that and a Democratic State Senator before that.

He believes Bush needs to go and he believes that any Democrat running for president right now would be better for America than Bush.

Dean didn't run on Vermont's Progressive Party ticket. He won't run on the Green Party ticket or the Reform PArty ticket or the Bull Moose Party ticket, etc. etc.

...Dean has already addressed this. More divisive bullshit. Way to pump up your candidate. Try telling us about the positives of your guy (or gal). Heck, you might even get a few people to take a closer look.

But this thread is just an attempt to put a GD style broadbrush two-line bash post into the P&C forum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

never happen in a million years.

I think it could possibly happen. Whatever. I guess I'll go back a check the rules for posting at DU. Was there a 'high probability' requirement? Or maybe there's a requirement that you can't post anythign that contradicts something Howard Dean has said.

You all remind my of the Soup Nazi. "No discussion for you today!"

...that I won't be basing my opinion of him on you. And we're OH SO SORRY that no one wants to have a "discussion" with you on the question you pose. Will Edwards run as an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination? Will he be a spoiler? Will some of his supporters whine and bitch like lil babies until someone pays attention to them? Who knows, why don't you go ask the Soup Nazi.

How the hell is it that you aren't in my iglist?

I think I gave a pretty good explanation why I think this is a possibility.

All I want to know is, if Dean ran as an I., would his supporters vote for him or vote for the Dem.

Why is this such a dangerous question to ask?

Is there a fear that this is where his candidacy would be leading as a fall-back position, but, if people realized it, they wouldn't vote for him in the primaries? (And I'll admit that I don't believe that's the case.)

Or is it just that some Dean supporters are so thin-skinned that any question which they don't understand, they presume is a criticism, and their only mode of response is to personally attack the person who asked the question?

That's some thin skin you have

Is "attack and then attack the reaction to the attack" number 2? For me it's been so long that I don't quite remember...

- "yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap..."
- "Oh shut up already!"
- "That's some thin skin you have."
:eyes:

last post which you ignored so that you could accuse me of pre-school tactics. Easier to latch on to that one small part of my post than address the more serious questions that follow.

I call that DU'er Technique for Diverting Attention From Issues You Don't Want To Address By Latching on to Inconsequential Part Because You Don't Have Anything Intelligent to Say.

I guess I did ask a dangerous question

- "Are you a doodiehead? Is your daddy a doodiehead? Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap..."
- "Oh shut up already!"
- "A-ha, you're afraid to answer because my questions are so dangerous!"
:eyes:

Why such vitriolic responses to the question. CMT below suggest one reply: this has been discussed before.

Why resort to personal attack? Why's that neccessary?

and they post to it in baby talk?

I'm more than happy to go back and forth with you, 'cause I'm pretty convinced that my contribution to this discussion is interesting, and I find it slightly amusing responding to all the cliched responses from people who find the question I asked dangerous.

Then again, I've seen a thousand times your mode of argument, and it can get boring fast. If you don't want to tell me what you'd do if Dean ran as an I., then why don't you just stop posting to this thread. There's a really nice "What would you do if Edwards..." parody thread, and you might want to contribute to that one instead. If you kept it kicked up, you might help create the illusion that it's of any consequence. You could even post something like "ROTFLMAO" to help perpetuate the illusion that it's funny.

Will he run for president or seek re-election to the senate? By waiting so long to make up his mind he is endangering Democratic chances to hold the seat in North Carolina and if we lose it we probably won't be able to win back the Senate.

Now if Edwards stays in the presidential race but doesn't win the nomination will he run for the senate? will the state appreciate that since his election in 1998 he has been either promoting himself for Vice President (2000) or President (2004)? Or is he going to get out of the Senate race too late for another Democrat to successfully organize and run.

The likelihood that Dean will run as an Independent is very low (and given his statements it is non-existent)--but that John Edwards may cost the Democratic Party his Senate seat because he is waiting too long to decide if he wants to serve North Carolina in the Senate is much more likely.

possibility of a third-party Dean candidacy if he doesn't get the nomination.

I guess, if you want to turn tables and not be so blatant about it, you could talk about the possibility of a third party Edwards candidacy. If you do that, I direct you to my post 10 which sort of suggests a way to work through an argument that it might happen.

everyone is telling you that Dean is not going to run as an Independent based on his record as a loyal Democrat and what he has said. I never said Edwards was going to run as an Independent--he certainly will not--any more than Dean will. Your questioning Dean's loyalty as a Democrat and what I'm saying is that Edwards could end up costing Democrats a Senate seat is much more likely than Dean ever running as an Independent.

I'M NOT ASKING "DO YOU THINK DEAN WOULD RUN AS AN I.?" I'M ASKING "WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF HE DID RUN AS AN I?"

It's not outside the realm of possibility. I'll tell you right now, if Edwards did, I probably wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't vote for him as a Green either. It just would make so little sense that I'm sure it would be a wasted vote. If Alec Baldwin ran as Green or third party candidate as Governor of NY and McCall had been the Dem nominee, I can see how that might make sense, and I'd vote for Baldwin. You see how I'm framing this question. I think there's a way to talk about this issue that contributes to our understanding of politics.

HE IS NOT GOING TO RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT!! AND IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR ON MANY THREADS THAT MOST OF HIS SUPPORTERS WILL VOTE FOR WHOEVER THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IS. :)

I was asking a new question. I note that you're the first person to point out that this was discussed before (could be wrong though...can't check posts while I'm writing one). Had yours been the first post, I probably would have just said, 'Thanks. That's what I wanted to know." But I'd also be interested in discussing the elements that lead up to a candidate deciding to run as an I., and I suspect that many of those elements are present in the Dean candidacy (NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING DEAN HAS SAID ABOUT RUNNING AS AN I.) In fact, he probably has to respond to the question BECAUSE his candidacy lends itself so logically to a third party run.

And, like I also said, there will inevitably be third party candidates. Nader? Nah. He carries too much baggage from 2000, whether deserved or undeserved.

If you use Perot as the model, it might be some wealthy businessman whose industry is being ignored by Bush. Hitech? Hmmm.

If Edwards is the nominee I would enthusiastically support him.

because it is so far into the realm of the hypothetical.
waste of time.
Dean is as committed to getting Bush out of office as any of us (I should hope) and he's NOT a narcissistic dope who would run as a 3rd-party candidate just for his own glory and stubbornness. He's said he will support the Demo candidate and is NOT going to "change his mind." Those few examples you use are all evolving policy stands, not his party affiliation.

about the personality of his supporters. However, I do think -- for reasons which haven't been refuted -- that Dean's campaign lends itself to a third party run. He's from VT, land of Independants; he attacks the Democratic Party more than anyone else; he attracts many voters who probably wouldn't be voting for anyone if not for Dean's participation...etc.

Also, we have some recent examples of Dean going back on things he claimed he wouldn't do. I don't see how running as an Ind. falls into a significantly different category.

thats why the Washington Post has recently begun to notice that Dean has changes his stance on a number of issues:

As he transitions from insurgent to the man to beat in the Democratic primary, Dean is modifying or switching his positions on several political issues. In recent weeks, Dean, the former Vermont governor, has softened his support for lifting the trade embargo on Cuba -- an important issue in voter-rich Florida -- and suggested he might opt out of the public campaign finance system he endorsed weeks earlier.

Dean also has backed off his support for raising the age at which senior citizens can collect their full Social Security benefits, a change that would save the government money by trimming monthly payments to thousands of older Americans. Dean initially denied he ever supported raising the retirement age, but later admitted he did.

While it's not unusual for politicians to flip-flop, massage or tailor their positions to placate politically important audiences, Dean is inviting greater scrutiny and criticism by running as a truth-teller who doesn't bend to prevailing political winds, campaign strategists said.

With Dean pulling ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls, and surging nationally, several rival campaigns are gearing up to hammer him for switching positions over the years for what they consider purely political reasons. They hope to dilute Dean's appeal as the anti-politician in the crowd .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2314-2003Aug29.html

Not only did Dean change his stance about Social Security, but he lied about having not said so at first and then had to apologize for doing so later.

Dean brought the issue of Health Care as a critical issue into the national limelight again, but again, begins waffling on the issue by stating that he does not want to make changes to the existing ststem and is going to do things incrementally. Just as he stated in Vermont.
Vermont never got the universal health system Dean had began promising in Vermont, and later actually promising by 2002 in the 2000 elections.

He has lied about Edwards position oon Iraq and had to aoplogize as well.

The old saying fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me is applicable in Deans case.

He has been caught lying twice. Why shouldnt one assume he would be likely to lie about something else?

Edwards,isn't that desperate to become president, he has his reasons for waiting late to announce if he is going to run in North Carolina... please explain why you think ...Edwards would turn on the Democratic nomination....never in this life time.:P

That's the point.

:P

He nearly lost his seat in 2000 due to a progressive run at him. He won 50 to 37 to 10 to others. Had he gotten less than 50 the Republican Vermont House would have picked his opponent.

You don't need to be the victim of a third party run to understand the consequences, and I'm sure Anderson, Bucchanan, Nader, etc., all understood the risks.

a convincing argument to the ones who don't think he is? Why do you need a convincing argument to get over that "he seems" feeling?

M'kay?

if he doesn't get the nomination. I will bet you $30,000 or more he doesn't. Now, Sharpton seems like the only one who would do that but I would place my bet that Sharpton doesn't. But I have a little feeling, not a strong one that a DLC Democrat will run if Dean gets the nomination because the DLC will not back him for President.

isn't a separate party. It's totally entrenched in the party. If Dean got the nomination, you wouldn't see a third party candidate different from the kind that have run before (Nader, Buchanan). Where would you place a DLC republican on a spectrum with Dean as the nominee. Dean is business friendly, so why run a moderate?

Actually, I get the impression that Dean would not get the Black vote out, and, if he got the nomination, Sharpton (or McKinney as a Green) would HAVE to run just to get the black vote out for all the congressional and state races. If Dean ran withouth enough black support, it would a huge risk to all the other black candidates running for office. They could be decimated.

So, yes, if Dean is nominated, I'd definitely look for a third party candidate running heavily on the issue of race.

Dean and the black vote. He is working hard to adress this. Hiring mosely browns campaign manager might be a good start I dont know. He is definately working on the hispanic vote. Speaking fluid spanish will be a huge help for him there.

A large portion of his platform is based on Equal rights for all. This should help bring a lot of the minority vote into his camp.

Its early yet and hard to tell really at this point but i dont think it will be a problem for him. I could be wrong we will see

He's not going to win either way.

He won't win either way.

It doesn't take a genius to see that.

He wont do it. He has said time and again he wont. But if he did I would likely go for him before the dem candidate. If it was say lieberman I would definately vote for howard.

What would you do in that situation?

I love anagrams! Remember that Osama bin Laden is an anagram of Dial-a Bonesman! (Wish I remembered who here came up with that so I could give credit. I came up with WHO DA NADER 2oo4 myself.) :evilgrin:

Simple No... who wants to throw a way a vote , in time like these

Although I'm not too confident about his abilities to beat Bush and ramrod his agenda through Congress, he truly has the defeat of George Bush at heart.

But based on the fact that they only had a vague idea of who Dean was, I think that they were just confusing Vermont politicians. :D

third party candidacies are a waste of time.

There is no way Dean will go independent. Many of his convictions involve reforming the party from the inside. He has also said that if he doesn't win the nomination he will support the democratic nominee. He won't sell out.


Peace :kick:

Dean has said REPEATEDLY that he would enthusiastically support whoever gets the nomination. He's said the most important thing is to beat Bush. How you get from there to your idea he'd run as an independent is....an interesting discussion about motivations waiting to happen.

Dean/Clark/Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt/ABB-2004