Why Dean is called Unelectable by the Media!

[jansu]

I have wondered how a candidate could drop so many points so fast, and another go up in the polls so fast. A very good read! Here is an excerpt from the link.

By David Podvin

On December 1, 2003, Howard Dean was ahead by twenty points in the polls when he appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews and said, “We're going to break up the giant media enterprises.” This pronouncement went far beyond the governor’s previous public musings about possibly re-regulating the communications industry, and amounted to a declaration of war on the corporations that administer the flow of information in the United States.

It was an extraordinarily noble and dangerous thing to do: when he advocated a truly free press, Dr. Dean was provoking the corrupt media conglomerates that control what most Americans see and hear and read, and thereby control what most Americans think.

The media giants quickly responded by crushing his high-flying campaign with the greatest of ease. This time, they didn’t even have to invent a scandal in order to achieve the desired result; merely by chanting the word “unelectable” at maximum volume, the mainstream media maneuvered Democratic voters into switching their support to someone who poses no threat to the status quo.

http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

[Dookus]

1. Damn them...

I heard Ted Koppel and Judy Woodruff were marching Iowa voters at gunpoint to the caucuses, threatening to kill their dogs if they voted for Dean.

The fact of the matter is when it got close to the beginning of the primaries, people started paying attention and picking their candidates. They did so, and continue to do so, with Kerry as their choice, by a very large margin.

I refuse to believe that Dean voters are inherently more intelligent or less manipulable than voters for other candidates.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

4. The fact is that the medai hammered Dean all through January.

http://www.mediatenor.com/US-Election_040209_monthly.pdf

Specifically, see pages 8, 9 and 11.

[Nicholas_J]

22. And spent six months

ignoring his record of performance as Governor. The media largely gave Dean a free ride for the months he was running in the lead, until the info Goepargdt brought up about him made the media look too complicit in supporting Dean.

[stickdog]

23. His RECORD is what makes him ELECTABLE. The media's refusal

to consider his performance is the main reason why he was able to be branded as "unelectable" while 85% of conservative Democrats has flocked to Kerry.

[jansu]

5. When you have a majority of Democrats fighting for ABB,

and you hear that someone is Unelectable and you should find someone who can be elected, people believe this. Why would you pay millions of dollars for advertisments if this did not work?

Then again, you have the White House saying they would love to run against Dean and hate to run against Kerry! Like they would tell you the truth about anything!

I was hoping for something more than a knee jerk reaction from people, those who support not only Dean, but all the other candidates, who I hope will stay in the race until the Convention!

Vote your choice, not the polls!

[disenfranchised]

7. What about the general election...

When the shoe is on the other foot and Bush gets all the positive press while Kerry gets scrutinized, can we complain then?

How many of us freaked out when the media said Bush beat Gore in the debates? Why do we assume anything's changed?

In the weeks before Iowa, 98% of the coverage of Kerry was positive. Some of his biggest campaing contributions came from CNN, Viacom, etc.
It's certainly worth paying attention to and I am not even a Dean supporter.

[Dookus]

8. You're free to complain all you want....

I'm just pointing out that Kerry is winning for one simple reason: People are voting for him in large numbers. It's insulting to imply that their reasons for doing so somehow are less pure than the reasons you vote for your guy.

[otohara]

3. When Dean Said He'd "Break Up Big Media"

I knew right then he was history. Nobody fucks with big media - they declared war on Dean so fast.

I worked in evil radio corporation, these guys are greedy, egotistic power mongers and grossly overpaid. They'd kill to protect their outrageous salaries.

By the time the caucus comes to my state, I won't be able to vote for my hero Howard because he was too honest and naive

[DaisyUCSB]

6. I don't think "the media" has ever called him unelectable

but alot of pundits and others have called him the MOST unelectable or least electable of the serious contenders. And every person in professional politics or acedamia I know(my dad used to be in the bussiness) agrees with them. They aren't big media people. They just see that he has the same tax plan as Mondale essentially, and 0 major foriegn policy experience, and he's from Vermont, and he's sort of a hothead

[GodHelpUsAll2]

9. Exactly when was it

Thay Kerry started posessing "Electability" (which by the way is not even a word)?

[DaisyUCSB]

10. When he turned 35

Every candidate who runs under the banner of a major party in this country posesses electablity. But what politicos and strategists debate who has more and who has less. And all signs point to Dean having less

[GodHelpUsAll2]

12. What signs might those be?

[Dookus]

13. two signs

One, is that Democratic primary voters are going for Kerry heavily. I don't understand the argument that someone who can't win a primary can win the GE.

Two is the fact that current polls show Kerry beating Bush handily. Edwards and Dean lose to Bush. Are polls proof of anything? Nope. But they're evidence. Or signs, if you will.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

15. What I wonder is

How a blanket statement that "someone who can't win a primary can't win the GE" is made when the primaries aren't even close to being over. Clinton lost several of the primary states. Was he "unelectable" too? Whether you are for Edwards, Dean, Sharpton or whoever you have (or are suppose to have) the right to voice your opinion with your vote. It appears that most would prefer that only a select few be able to make the decision for the entire country. There is NO ONE out there that can say absolutely what every voter of every state will do. You can predict, but you simply can not say for sure.

[Dookus]

16. No, I cannot say for sure

but I have seen no evidence that the 16 primaries or caucuses that have occurred to date are somehow statistical anomalies, and that the remaining states would vote heavily for another candidate.

Nothing in the current polling I've seen comes even close to indicating that.

Yes, Bill Clinton lost some early primaries. But he didn't lose the first 16.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

18. So......

there is no "evidence" is it safe to assume that the general consensus is, it's fair to take the right to voice preference to the 80% who have yet to vote? Even if nothing changes from today? Maybe it is already over and Kerry is it. If so, it will still be come summer. I personally think it is a big mistake to ignore 80%. Especially at such a critical time when every vote is needed to to boot the current administration out the door. If anything, I would have thought what happened in Florida in 2000 would have been a big sign at how upset people get when they feel they are cheated out of their voice. And to add insult to injury, all those people who have been stewing in Florida for over 3 years are being shut out once again. But this time it's not by the Republicans, it's the very party that is depending on them to vote Bush out of office. Is this not a reasonable concern?

[Dookus]

24. If your concern is that you may not get to vote in a primary

in any meaningful way, you are free to move to Iowa or New Hampshire.

MOST primary races are locked up long before the last primary. This year is no exception.

I live in California, and my primary vote usually doesn't carry much weight. If that were my main concern, I'd move to Dubuque.

None of which changes my point, though, that I see no evidence that the remaining voters would vote terribly differently than the ones that already have.

It is rare, if not unprecedented, for any candidate to win 14 of the first 16 races in a contested primary. Voters are overwhelmingly choosing Kerry as their candidate. My guy dropped out before I get a chance to vote, too. That's the nature of primaries.

[stickdog]

34. But NO contested primary season has EVER been wrapped up in a month

before, now has it?

So, why oh why are you in such a big hurry for the media to start attacking Kerry -- which they will do the very next day after Dean withdraws from the race?

[Dookus]

38. I'm in a hurry for no such thing

your blanket assertion notwithstanding.

I AM in a hurry to start focusing on beating Bush, and NOT having Dean drop his lame grenades against the candidate who is going to be the nominee.

I'd also like to see the money being spent fighting primaries be used against Bush.

[stickdog]

41. Your "plan" can only backfire. Dean is still a story. He keeps the focus

squarely on the Democratic agenda, even if he's just a sacrificial member of the advance troops.

Plus the media won't dare jump on Kerry with both feet so long as Dean is any threat in this race whatsoever.

Knocking Dean out now would the EXACT worst thing that could possibly happen to Kerry's chances in the general election, assuming that Kerry was to go on an win the nomination.

[DaisyUCSB]

17. Primary winnability is not parallel at all to GE electability

If you don't buy the "argument" that someone who can't win a primary can win a GE then you must beleive that McCain would have been a much weaker candidate than Bush, which is obviously not the case.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

19. Good Point

[Dookus]

26. winning primaries is ONE

sign. Kerry is winning them at an astounding rate and by huge margins, which shows that Democrats will support him.

He is also defeating Bush in the polls right now. No other candidate is. That's another sign pointing to Kerry's ability to beat Bush.

I don't think it's obvious that McCain would've been a more formidable candidate than Bush. He is not popular within his own party, and would've received less organizational and financial support from the hard right. Bush got that in spades.

Can you point me to polls showing McCain beating Gore if he were the nominee?

[DaisyUCSB]

29. McCain has an appeal to the center like no other

He probably would have gotten the reform party endorsement and he would have clobbered Gore, no I don't have any polls about it. But it's just common sense. The right settles for the lesser of 2 evils alot more than the left does. Tons of democrats would have voted for McCain, way more than they did for Reagan.

[zoeyfong]

44. Primaries are about strategizing, the GE is about us vs. them.

It is not true that the candidate who wins a party primary is necessarily the strongest candidate in the GE. Primaries are about strategizing for the upcoming GE; in the GE it's just us vs. them. That's a very different choice. Regarding Kerry presently doing better against bush than the other dems, lets face it, the people answering those polls know next to nothing about kerry other than that he is a vietnam vet. Even a kerry supporter has got to admit that kerry has received very little criticism from the media, and the bush attack machine is just starting to set in on him. If the intern story is any indication of things to come, kerry can only go down in the polls from here on out, and i just don't think he has what it takes to fight back against the attacks that are bound to come.

[Darth_Kitten]

11. same tax plan as Mondale?

that's hard to believe, and who are people in academia to turn up their noses at someone because he's from Vermont? :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

14. hilarious

So the punditocracy and other exponents of establishment opinion think a guy who speaks his mind and raises his money in little chunks is (relatively) "unelectable." Shocking.

People "in professional politics" are the problem. You can see that by the behavior of hypocrites and saboteurs like Chris Lahane and Grossman. I know academics, studied political science in college, have written academic works. As a class professional intellectuals are more conventionally-minded and more likely than average to believe the official bullshit on everything, because they can internalize it so much more effectively, and because their jobs so often require them to propagate the official line.

Of course the media sabotaged Dean. What was going on when Ted Koppel led off a debate with the question, "who hear thinks Gov. Dean can win the election against George Bush?" Only Dean raised his hand. This was a disgraceful performance by the other candidates, all of whom should have directly revolted and told Koppel that any Democratic nominee would kick Bush out handily. But that is also human nature at work. You would have seen a similar result if he had asked the question about another candidate. I doubt Dean would have raised his hand to defend Kerry's electability! But why did Koppel target Dean? Why was this the most pressing question? Who decided that Dean's electability was the issue, instead of the candidates' stands on actual policy issues? And why did all of the other media focus their coverage of the debate on this shameful moment?

What do you think was going on?

Kucinich to his credit later openly challenged Koppel's manipulative handling of the debate. And the next day, ABC pulled its reporter covering the Kucinich campaign. What do you think was going on?

The media have obviously sabotaged and spun so as to produce the results we now have. They manufactured the Kerry "surge." They manufactured the "angry Dean" image, and gave it its negative connotation. (Why was an "angry" Perot once given a free ride? Why was the anger interpreted as mental instability, instead of righteous indignation?)

I don't really care what they were saying in December, back when they were suckering Dean. Of significance is what they did in the two weeks around Iowa - when it counted. They gave him no chance whatsoever to fight the onslaught. That should tell you what you need to know.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

20. Wow

That was great. Let's not forget the debate when Koppel stated Kucinich was having money trouble and Sharpton wasn't getting any donations and Braun was in debt so when can we expect one of you to drop out of the race? That was another moment of disgrace.

[jansu]

21. One of the best answers!

Is the true record of his getting out? I just read about his fighting everyone in Vermont to get better schools and not raising taxes to do it. He raised property taxes, BUT, only on the people who did not live in the state full time, those who had vacation property. Those who lived there, were given "homestead/grandfather claims" and so the taxes did not apply to them. Brilliant! He did it to make sure that all the children from all over the state had the same quality education as those in the "golden areas", where property taxes paid more into the school district, because of the more costly homes. This is the type of fighting we need! Someone who will take on the special interests.

[ozone_man]

27. You're absolutely right.

What a jerk that Ted Koppel was, shameful. He and the rest of the media effectively assassinated Dean. It's a sad statement on the ease with which Americans can be manipulated.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

28. It's pointless

Unless you are willing to have a full blown mean and nasty flame war. It's a sad sad day in America when civil discussion, true debate, genuine concern and loyalty are of no importance. It's all about money and power these days anything else is trivial and unimportant.

[stickdog]

33. And they don't see that he's strongest of all the Dem candidates on

Bush's record deficits and job losses, Bush's Iraqi quagmire, universal healthcare, corporate reform, media reregulation and campaign finance reform -- all winning issues!

Meanwhile, Kerry's best issues against Bush are patriotism and safety -- both losing issues.

[DaisyUCSB]

40. I think it's laughable to say Dean is the strongest on corporate reform

that mantle goes to Edwards. Or the Iraqi "quagmire" when he has no relevant foriegn policy experience.(other than Vacations and trade with Canada)

All of the other issues you labeled him as strongest on are issues that Edwards and Kerry have been involved in in the senate directly affecting 280 million people, not 606 thousand

[tritsofme]

25. Because he is!

He is called unelectable because he has yet to even win the approval of one state of Democratic voters!

If that's not unelectable, then I don't know what is.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

30. So what happens

If Kerry cinches the nomination, goes in to the GE and ALL those people who didn't get to vote at all or did vote and are annoyed at the DNC for publicly calling the primaries over decides to vote 3rd party or not vote at all. What I am trying to say is not being absorbed. What I am saying is, it is risky at best to shut out 80% of your base then EXPECT them to do as they are told in the GE. We are living in very volatile times and the country is mad as hell. Kerry is currently only getting roughly under 50% of the vote in the primaries. Those are registered democrats/Independents in most states. If he can't get anymore than that in the GE because the DNC has pissed off the rest of it's base then we are toast in the GE. In essence, we will have defeated ourselves. And it amazes me that no one else is even thinking about this.

[stickdog]

35. He's been elected in every race he's run in. And considering the 24/7 heat

he's taken for the last 6 weeks, I'd say he's the toughest, most electable candidate I've ever seen.

Nobody's taken this kind of heat since they drummed Jimmy Carter out of town!

[batman]

36. So you bought it too?

just like all the others who voted for the electable candidate instead of the candidate that had their passion. polls show that people chose kerry just because they felt he could beat bush. not because they agree with his positions.

Mr Dean is electable, but the media told you otherwise.

[blujig]

31. The Media lost the election for Gore!

I think the media has buyers remorse about Bush. Joe Lieberman's "unelectable" mantra during the debates in Iowa hurt Dean. I hope all the candidates stick around for a while. It keeps the party's adrenalin pumping.

[newyawker99]

50. Hi blujig!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Tweed]

32. Dean can't beat other Democrats, how will he be able to beat Bush?

Explain?

[stickdog]

37. Kerry stole Dean's message and put it into a media endorsed, pundit

approved, ostensibly "more electable" (less candid) package.

Kerry has the dual advantages of consistent support among both the media and Democratic party insiders and rainmakers.

But Dean's RECORD (rather than just rhetoric) gives him far more credibly to attack Bush on the biggest failings of his term:

record deficits
record job losses
horrible health-care legislation
out of control government growth
the Iraqi quagmire

Kerry's position vis a vis Bush is far less compelling on any of these winning issues.

Kerry's biggest advantage over Bush is the fact that he went to Vietnam over 30 years ago. And -- surprise, surprise, surprise -- the media (and the DLC) suddenly find this story of interest after 4 years!

What a coincidence!

[batman]

39. have you seen this?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/16/mgrind.day.monday/index.html

its all adding up for me.

[loyalsister]

46. Looks good

I think that could be GREAT for the party! And I can't wait for the day that they have to credit him for taking back Congress!!

[zoeyfong]

45. True. Dean had to tell Kerry that bush wasn't a good president.

[DebJ]

42. because Republicans and Independents also vote in the general

election, until we can figure out how to stop that <G> just kidding.
A Republican is just an uneducated Democrat.

[zoeyfong]

43. Nobody who is a member of any power establishment wants Dean.

Of course there is the fact that the aristocracy stands to lose more under Dean than Kerry. Dean would really shake things up; kerry can be counted on not to rock the boat. The sad thing is that people are such herd animals that it is almost essential to get control of the media before there can be any substantial change in this country; it is the only way to create 'popular wisdom' regarding which policies and politicians 'everybody else' is suporting.

[TexasSissy]

47. What matters is that Dean was deemed unelectable by the voters.

Or at least not as electable as Kerry or Edwards or Clark. Dean made a lot of gaffs and got too sensitive and unprofessional about the attacks against him.

I was a Clark supporter, and sad to say, Clark showed the same lack of finesse. Neither were ready for prime time, so to speak. Dean is probably a great governor, and there he should remain. Clark is great at leading, but not at politics (yet). Both have a lot to offer in public service and politics, but just not at the highest level of government in the U.S. That takes a special finesse (not to mention votes!)

[argonne]

48. Exactly! n/t

[stickdog]

51. Which voters? We have 35 states and all the big states except MI to go.

[LWolf]

49. That's crystal clear.

I wish all of those Dean supporters had seen it before it was focused on Dean.

I didn't hear people decrying media manipulation when it was, and is, happening to Dennis Kucinich.

Media coverage needs to be equal and objective for all, if what passes for the democratic process in this nation is to have a shred of credibility.