Reply #2: I DO NOT accept this [View All]

[jeter]

The calendar didn't hurt Dean.

It hurt everyone who wasn't the frontrunner. The calendar was looking good for Dean in the beginning.

That's why he put so much focus on New Hampshire and Iowa. When he led in those states, the party was nervous. For the exact same reason.

Dean would have gotten all the momentum and would be nearly unstoppable to beat.

The problem was that DEAN LOST Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean lost Iowa more than a week before the famous "scream speech." He lost it because he forgot the reason he became the front runner in the first place. Because he presented himself as an alternative to George W. Bush. That was what the Democrats desperately wanted. Someone OTHER than Bush and his policies to support.

Kerry came into Iowa more or less as a high-risk gamble. He was trailing in New Hampshire - a must win state for him. No Massachusettes candidate had ever lost the New Hampshire Primary. He began campaigning on three themes: first, his war record and ability to stand up to Bush in the election on foriegn affairs; second, his policy proposals (which are better than the rest) and his record in the Senate; and finally, with an excellent ground operation that understood Iowan voters were looking for someone other than Dean and managed to connect with and eventually recieve the support from those voters.

Kerry's victory in Iowa changed the entire political equation.

Since either Gephardt or Dean were expected to win this first caucus. Had Gephardt won, he may have gotten a small bump - but his campaign would have gone no where. He would be where Edwards is right now.

Dean would still have all the momentum in New Hampshire had he finished even second to Gephardt. Kerry buried in Iowa would have no where to go. New Hampshire voters would have been looking to Clark to stand up to Dean (for those Democrats that were so terrified of his candidacy). Clark had been moving up in the polls that week as well in NH. He trailed Dean by less than 10% one week BEFORE Iowa (and the scream).

But Kerry's victory in Iowa destroyed three candidacies:

First, Richard Gephardt. The orignial frontrunner in Iowa. Gephardt NEEDED to win there. His fourth place showing could not pass any measurement of victory. His loss ended his campaign.

Second, Wesley Clark. Clark had made the unwise decision to stay out of Iowa - believing as almost everyone else did that either Dean or Gephardt would win. He focused his attentions on New Hampshire. But when Kerry won - his boost was tailor made for New Hampshire. Coming from next door Massachusettes, Kerry had the institutional support and name recognition. The image of Kerry winning in Iowa was enough for New Hampshirites to take a second look. Clark's surge the week before suffered badly.

Third, Howard Dean. When Dean finished a distant third in Iowa - he could barely claim any more victory than Gephardt. But he still had a chance in New Hampshire. But it would not be easy.

Dean decided that his best bet was to juxtapose himself with Kerry. To argue that Kerry was a "Washington Democrat" and had supported Bush on the war and other issues. He could not be trusted to stand up to Bush now. But Dean's rhetoric seemed to be saying that Democrats should use their vote TO PUNISH DEMOCRATS rather than punishing BUSH himself. Kerry ran mostly the same in New Hampshire. His war record. His Senate record. His war buddies. His plan for the future.

New Hampshire went for Kerry. After that no one could stop him. Kerry caught the perfect storm. Dean could not rationalize his candidacy. Clark could not rationalize his candidacy. Gephardt was out. Lieberman, Kucinich and Sharpton never had a chance. The only alternative became Edwards by virtue of elimination.

Edwards came in a close second in Iowa. He would later win the South Carolina primary. And came within less than one percent of winning in Oklahoma. And finished second in most other primaries. Not a stellar performance. But a decent one considering the Kerry tidal wave.

So it effectively became: Kerry vs. Edwards. But Edwards had one serious problem. Dean and Clark were still in the race. So if an anybody-but-Kerry movement was to be formed, the three divided the votes.

Then polls came out showing Kerry beating Bush. The first time a named Democrat defeated the President in a head-to-head match up. The issues: the necessity of war in Iraq, the economy (job losses and deficit), and health insurance began to swing in the favor of Democrats. Kerry seemed to be in the best position to argue all three.

The Democratic Party rallied. Kerry became unstoppable.

That's what happened. It wasn't a conspiracy. Dean was the frontrunner based on three assumptions:

first, his huge lead in the first two contests.

second, his gigantic war chest.

third, his organizational abilities nationwide.

His lead evaporated when he began buying into the Dean cult instead of understanding what got him there in the first place. He had driven the nomination battle from the beginning. He opposed the war. He proposed Health Insurance. He recognized that there were a silent majority of Americans that do not watch or appear on Hannity and Colmes or Rush Limbaugh's Radio Show that don't approve of Bush's handling of the country. He provided an alternative vision and was rewarded with a huge bounce. But then he believed just showing up someplace and not saying anything particularly important would give him the nomination. The other candidates caught on to Dean's strategy and employed it for themselves. That's not unusual - or even unethical. Jeez, most candidates had similar positions or opinions. Even Dean isn't as liberal as he makes himself out to be. But when Kerry and Clark began to surge (in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively) Dean freaked out. He began running a campaign AGAINST the Democrats. He argued that HE and ONLY HE could stand up to Bush. He had bought into the whole myth the Dean campaign created for itself. Democrats disagreed with him and he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Since Dean himself put so much value on Iowa and New Hampshire, it should not surprise anyone that he spent the VAST MAJORITY of his campaign funds in those two states. When he left New Hampshire still looking for his first victory 35 of his 40 million were gone. His gigantic war chest looked down right ordinary. Also, his much vaunted organization proved worthless in Iowa and New Hampshire. After losing those two states he simply had no where to go.

Then there is the speech. I don't think the speech had a negative effect on him anywhere outside of Washington. Except for one thing, in that speech he predicted he would win:

South Carolina, New Hampshire, California, New York, Texas.

He promised: Massachuesettes, Arkansas, Ohio, Conneticut and others too.

Well he hasn't won any of them.

The air is now out of the Dean campaign. Money problems, staff shake ups. These are the actions of losing candidates. Kerry looks more and more like a winner. Democrats seemed to have decided on him.

It's time Dean people realize that this is what happened to their candidate. It wasn't a conspiracy by the DNC. Sure they didn't want Dean as their nominee, but understood that he might be. They wouldn't sabatoge the general to bring Dean down - especially since up to a week before Iowa, Dean seemed unbeatable.

It wasn't the media. Yes, they went after Dean. But they go after everyone. Kerry is now getting the Dean treatment. Let's hope he doesn't disintegrate the way Dean did.

It wasn't the Republicans. They were relishing the possibility of running against Dean.

It was Dean. It happens. He was just too much of an amateur.

So it's time for people to put away the conspiracy theories and understand that sometimes people lose elections.