Return of the DEAN Scream!

RMNIXON · 02-09-2008, 08:00 PM

Poor Chairman is worried:

Race Against Time

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says the longer his party goes without a presidential nominee, the worse off it will be.

Dean told a New York TV station, "The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario… I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement."

Dean did not specify what kind of arrangement he was referring to. Such arrangements are what the political conventions used to be all about.

FOXNews.com - Howard Dean's Worst-Case Scenario - Brit Hume | Special Report

motivez · 02-09-2008, 08:03 PM

It's not a good idea for the Democrats to not have a nominee with McCain is pretty much all but settled on.. if it gets nasty at the convention, either candidates supporters are going to be extremely angry and feel like the nomination was taken away from the one they support

That leads to a fractured base and lower turnout on election day, which is only 8? weeks afterward..

RMNIXON · 02-09-2008, 08:15 PM

And it is not even about politics as much as it is about personality and the power brokers in the party. I don't envy Democrats with this problem. Hillary is very stubborn. I don't see her as a possible VP. And if Obama looks like he is slighted it will get ugly fast.

As I post 1055 Clinton 998 Obama!

SoFlaJDM · 02-09-2008, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not a good idea for the Democrats to not have a nominee with McCain is pretty much all but settled on.. if it gets nasty at the convention, either candidates supporters are going to be extremely angry and feel like the nomination was taken away from the one they support

That leads to a fractured base and lower turnout on election day, which is only 8? weeks afterward..

did you miss the debate? they will definitely keep it civil. they know what's best for the party and they know better than to get into petty arguments about technicalities on meaningless issues... that's not what democrats do, and that's why most of america is voting that way in november

garbagemanlb · 02-09-2008, 08:54 PM

I frankly don't put much hope in Clinton giving up even if it means the destruction of the party in the 08 elections.

SoFlaJDM · 02-10-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And it is not even about politics as much as it is about personality and the power brokers in the party. I don't envy Democrats with this problem. Hillary is very stubborn. I don't see her as a possible VP. And if Obama looks like he is slighted it will get ugly fast.

As I post 1055 Clinton 998 Obama!

i'm excited that you post this because the outcome of every prediction you've made this election has been the EXACT opposite of what you've said

i can only take this as good news

RMNIXON · 02-10-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

did you miss the debate? they will definitely keep it civil. they know what's best for the party and they know better than to get into petty arguments about technicalities on meaningless issues... that's not what democrats do, and that's why most of america is voting that way in november

You have got to be kidding? Did you miss that whole spat over Nevada Votes? The only reason the Clinton personal attack machinery has backed off is because it did not work. They are still licking their wounds!

You post as if there are no politicians with personal ruthless ambition in your party!

As for how people will vote in Novemeber I really don't know? But with all the Democrat confidence and premature predictions for 2004 I am not that worried.

SoFlaJDM · 02-10-2008, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

As for how people will vote in Novemeber I really don't know?

just check your trusty polls

Dumpy Dooby · 02-17-2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

just check your trusty polls

Right now Clinton is losing all of the polls to both McCain and Obama.

Simius · 02-18-2008, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Right now Clinton is losing all of the polls to both McCain and Obama.

I saw a poll on Foxnews where clinton was up by 1% against McCain... but that is well within the margin of error. Don't know who ran that poll though.

AVengeance · 02-18-2008, 03:56 PM

Democrats don't have a white male to choose from. It must be a little confusing to the racist sexist majority out there.

That said, I really don't think it puts the party in disarray. McCain isn't "settled on", he was appointed and annointed by the world elite, without permission from conservative Republicans. Has he really gotten a majority of votes (>50%) anywhere? Seems like most of the races are close. True conservatives see him as just another lib.

Simius · 02-18-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Democrats don't have a white male to choose from. It must be a little confusing to the racist sexist majority out there.

That said, I really don't think it puts the party in disarray. McCain isn't "settled on", he was appointed and annointed by the world elite, without permission from conservative Republicans. Has he really gotten a majority of votes (>50%) anywhere? Seems like most of the races are close. True conservatives see him as just another lib.

What are you talking about? Edwards was in the race and lost to both a woman and a black man. Where is this racist sexist majority you are talking about?

McCain wasn't anointed. He has gotten so many votes already it is inevitable. Unless by "world elite" you mean the majority of the Republican party. In which case, yes, the world elite chose him.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-18-2008, 06:21 PM

CNN polls are suggesting that Obama has more of the white vote than Clinton. The reason being that men (including white men) would rather vote for Obama than Clinton.

So it looks like the Democrats are more sexist than racist.

Simius · 02-18-2008, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

CNN polls are suggesting that Obama has more of the white vote than Clinton. The reason being that men (including white men) would rather vote for Obama than Clinton.

So it looks like the Democrats are more sexist than racist.

You know. If Obama and Clinton were clones, with the only difference being skin color and gender, you might have a point. But let's face it, they are very different in how they articulate their message and their positions, although similar (especially from the eyes of someone on the right or a libertarian) are different in many ways.

I'm not sure if you are just kidding, but this seems like a pretty silly point, imo.