Is Bernie Sanders the Howard Dean of 2016?

[brooklynite]

I previously generated some controversy by opinion that the Sanders campaign might be paralleling the Ron Paul campaign of 2012. Despite my presentation, a number of people seem to feel I was suggesting that Sanders had similarities to Paul in terms of policies. So let me suggest an alternative framework: Howard Dean.

1. A "real" Democrat (from the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party&quot

2. A popular candidate for disaffected liberal voters

3. Able to draw large, enthusiastic crowds in the year before Primary voting started:



4. Unable to translate those crowds into actual voters come the Iowa Caucus (3rd place; 18%)

5. Came in 5th (5%) in the South Carolina primary (less liberal electorate?)

And before someone tells us about how the MSM "destroyed" Dean through the "Dean Scream", reminder that the Iowa collapse came first.

So how is Sanders different?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. They established that in the media that he's not

Howard Dean says says it's not the same.

[brooklynite]

2. Care to elaborate on your cryptic response?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

61. What Howard Dean said: his was different

Dean, who backs Clinton, dismissed comparisons between his campaign and Sanders’ bid. Aside from their shared home state and plain-spoken styles, there’s not much there, he said. His campaign was about pushing his party to the left, on the war in Iraq as well as healthcare and economic issues. “I was really running against the Democratic Party and Bernie is not -- the Democratic Party has become much more populist.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bernie-sanders-gun-control-20150629-story.html#page=2


He's also said this on TV msnbc etc.

[brooklynite]

62. Could you people please get your act together?

I was previously told that Dean was actually a Centrist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=424160

It would help if you folks could come up with one definition.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. LA Times reported it

[brooklynite]

65. The MSM that you don't trust?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. MSNBC is TV

and Howard said it.

[Capt. Obvious]

71. It's so hard to find good help these days

[karynnj]

73. Dean was a centrist with Trippi as a campaign manager

Running on anger against the war in Iraq. On many issues, especially the environment, Kerry was to his left.

[Bellower]

46. He folded at the end.

I was a Deaniac, and even made a lot of effort, but at the end, he disappointed me. He made it up for it by winning the '06 and the '08 elections as the Chairman of the DNC, and should have remained there during the Obama years. I think Dean still is bitter about not getting any Cabinet positions from Obama as a reward. Dean would have been better off holding off his endorsement of Clinton until the debates are underway.. I consider his endorsement a premature one since his fellow Vermonter is on his way to meeting Clinton in a debate, then securing the nomination after winning it with the people's powered campaign that Dean once had, but has much greater following than in 2004. Social media has already been Bernie's forte, and has handled it admirably.

Bernie for President, 2016.

[hrmjustin]

3. Don't know but i take him seriously.

[JI7]

4. dean actually was leading at times

Maybe bill Bradley might be a better comparison

[brooklynite]

5. Bradley was never the choice of "real Democrats"

[Stardust]

50. What's that supposed to mean?

[99th_Monkey]

6. Bernie Sanders does NOT "go negative" which Dean apparently did before he tanked

"Days before the Iowa Caucuses were held, negative campaigning by Dean and Gephardt took a late toll on the two campaigns in Iowa as well as nationally. This, along with the resurgence of John Kerry and the emergence of John Edwards as major contenders in Iowa, put the Gephardt and Dean campaigns on edge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2004

[wyldwolf]

33. yet

[Bellower]

47. Trust me, he won't.

And that's because the truth has power. There is absolutely no reason to go negative for Bernie. That's what is attracting real voters and people.

[wyldwolf]

49. Tad Devine: implicit negative messages aimed at Clinton will certainly be "embedded" in Sanders' ads

In the campaign against Clinton, Devine notes, "There will be a lot of implicit negative. But it won't look negative. It won't feel negative."



Negative is negative.

[LordGlenconner]

69. Bernie doesn't need to go negative

his supporters, on this site, and others, do his dirty work for him.

[Bjorn Against]

7. Is Hillary Clinton the Hillary Clinton of 2008?

I seem to remember another candidate who looked strong going into the primaries and then failed to get enough votes.

[brooklynite]

9. The Hillary Clinton of 2008 would be a great candidate in 2016...

...because Sanders isn't the Barack Obama of 2016.

Of course the Hillary Clinton of 2016 is actually doing BETTER than the Hillary Clinton of 2008.

2008:



2016:

[PatrickforO]

26. I think both of these line graphs were/are alarming for Clinton.

Look first at the top one. Notice that Obama began his nonstop and steep upward trend in July of 2007 and his trend line crossed Clinton's around April 2008.

Now, look at the 2015 chart. You can see the same thing happening. Clinton has suffered a mild downward trend since around March of 2014. She had a bit of upswing in March 2015 followed by an even steeper downward trend. Then look at Sanders' line. It began an upward trend around August 2014 when he was still flirting with the idea of running, but look at the steep upward trend beginning in March of this year.

All that we need to do is lengthen the line graph to the right, and then add trend lines that project out maybe six or eight months, and it looks like Sanders may pass Clinton at roughly the same time in the 2016 primary season, or a bit earlier, as Obama passed her back in 2008.

If you're a Clinton fan, this is not good news and these line graphs are a bit discouraging.

Of course, I must disclose that I'm a Bernie supporter, and so am feeling pretty good about these trends. Particularly since Bernie's crowds keep growing as people hear his message - which a majority of Americans support. Plus, Bernie hasn't 'evolved' on stuff. He's been this way 30 or 40 years, calling for and working for the same things - the things that most Americans also want. Common sense stuff. Bernie is what he is.

So, while I will definitely support Clinton in the general election if she winds up with the nomination, I will be supporting Bernie through the primaries in the hope that he will be the Democratic nominee in 2016. Good luck to both sides, I say, and DEFINITELY good luck to the Dems in the general.

[brooklynite]

40. Except that in 2008, Clinton was under 50%, so there was enough room for Obama to grow...

...with Clinton holding at 60%, Sanders can only grow to 40%.

I think they call that "math".

[peacebird]

52. She is trending down every month, Bernie is trending up every month.

[Bellower]

54. Except your math is incorrect.

June he was at 15%, July he is now at 33%. And I do not use national poll trends because they are ridiculously low in RV's/LV's (average is 450 people asked currently - I would be satisified with at least .05% of the total population asked. We have 350 million + Americans, and we're just picking what appears to be one grain of sand in a beach to ask on the polls.

Clinton's campaign has already warned everyone not to trust the polls.

Their internals are dire, and they're just started trying to plug one of many many many leaks on their large boat.

[Agschmid]

55. I'm pretty sure no one on DU to a stats class...

Good lord.

[brooklynite]

58. I'm not disputing that Sanders is going up...it's that Clinton isn't going down...

[stillwaiting]

83. She's going down in the states that are introduced to Bernie Sanders.

And, that is a trend that will spread Nationwide.

Will it be enough to beat HRC? I don't know, but I sure do hope it will.

[wyldwolf]

34. Yep. In short, Clinton is performing better that 2008 and Sanders is no Barack Obama

[AgingAmerican]

43. She self destructed in 08

All Obama had to do was shake his head in disgust.

[Bellower]

48. See Bernie's trend?

It's becoming a sharp upward turn.

Clinton, on the other hand, is pointing downwards.

If you see the Iowa polls, you will see the same.

[morningfog]

8. I don't think any comparisons get us very far.

He's not Paul, not Kucinich, not Jimmy Carter, not Obama, not McGovern, not Bill Bradley, not Dean.

There are just too many variables and too much that is unique about this primary. No incumbent. A favorite leading by wide margins, who lost 8 years ago and who is the most viable woman presidential candidate ever.

A lot has changed in 8 years, including political discussion and organization on the internet. And more importantly, the ability of candidates to instantly respond via social media. This will be the first "twitter race."

Some things continue, some change. You can never step in the same river twice. This is the first and only race for the 2016 democratic presidential nomination.

[Sheepshank]

57. Totally 100% agree

Sure, there are some hit and miss similarities, but since there and way too many variable that are not in common, I don't think these elections can be compared closely to any other. There just isn't a direct parallel.

[HooptieWagon]

10. Dean was a fine candidate.

Democrats panicked over his anti-war stance, and nominated Kerry.

[madfloridian]

11. I have a couple of links for you. About Iowa and delegates and Edwards and Kucinich.

There were some folks we know well involved as well, but it did not help Dean.

Would he have lost Iowa otherwise? Maybe.

But both are good sources.

https://books.google.com/books?id=N5MbWWz9sGcC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=kucinich+delegates+iowa+switch&source=bl&ots=RH9Bse4Lk0&sig=-iotfnWIpr522PPHd206bUOkvy0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=40qXVf3fOYmagwTE5oDQCg&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=kucinich%20delegates%20iowa%20switch&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Democratic_caucuses,_2004

Actually even those of us squarely in the Dean camp knew that he was basically a centrist. However we trusted him to be strong enough to beat George Bush when others could not. Especially if they played the game too cautiously...which they did.

Bernie Sanders is exactly what you see...he's been the same for decades. It's giving many of us heart to hear someone just the damn triangulating and just speak the truth.

We are going to lose again if we don't have someone speaking clearly and powerfully. Those powered by big money won't do that.

[brooklynite]

12. Ah! The "No True Scotsman" argument...

"even those of us squarely in the Dean camp knew that he was basically a centrist..."

Funny; not the way I remember the discussions going here...

[madfloridian]

13. I remember the anger and hatred and bitterness about everything.

I also remember that it was often said by many of us in his campaign that he had governed VT as a conservative.

I also see the same kind of things cropping up now. I think we all need to remember that no one is entitled to or in line for the presidency...you runs and you takes your chances.

[madfloridian]

21. Actually it was look how caucuses work when deals are made to shut out a candidate...

[Sheepshank]

56. Yep...deals made to shut out candidates

http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

[wyldwolf]

35. 'Deaniacs' thought he was the liberal saviour

[karynnj]

81. he still would have lost

First of all not all the Kuchinich supporters followed his advice and went to Edwards. There was fascinating coverage on c span of the caucus. The fact is there were not that many Kuchinich supporters.

The biggest difference they could have made would have been in districts where Dean lacked the 15 percent threshold and the Kuchinich people would get him over the threshold. There is no way that this could gain him enough to overtake Kerry, who got 38 percent to his 18. It is even hard to believe that the Kuchinich people switching from Edwards to Dean would shift enough to make Dean second. Edwards was at 30 percent.

[onehandle]

14. Dean was a stronger and more well known candidate.

Who has already endorsed Hillary and will work to get her elected.

Wait... What was the question?

[Thinkingabout]

15. The vetting period for Sanders is still on going. More information about his voting

Record will be getting known and decisions will be based on some of his votes. There are still some issues he has not clarified.

[dsc]

16. Dean got sunk by Saddam being captured which made our electorate much less anti war

than it was when he drew those crowds. He also was hurt by Kucinich allying with Edwards allowing Edwards to get 2nd and pushing Dean to third. That said, I think the reason Dean did so poorly in South Carolina wasn't a more conservative electorate it was a more diverse electorate. Sanders could wind up doing better than Dean did in both Iowa and South Carolina but I still don't see him knocking off Hillary.

[virtualobserver]

17. The real question, is Hillary Clinton the John Kerry of 2004.....?

and the Hillary Clinton of 2008?

voted for the Iraq War, removing that liability from the Repubs
funded by the ultra rich, therefore unable to call out the Repubs on the fact that money is corrupting politics.

But to answer your question

1,2 and 3 are the same to be sure.

But Bernie hasn't blown any leads, he is rising.
So 4 and 5 are imaginary

But the Hillary Clinton of 2008 was the frontrunner
who blew an actual 2 to 1 lead.

So who should we really be worried about?
Bernie is creating a grass roots movement that is growing.

If Bernie is such a lousy candidate, then life should be worry
free for the supporters of his opponents.

[Indepatriot]

18. Chicken Dinner!

Let's see...establishment East Coast Democrat..check
Used dirty tricks to try and sink opponent....check.
Hawk...check.
Less than stellar speaker...check.
Failed to connect with the Middle Class....check.
Lost an election that should have been a cakewalk...check.

No doubt about it. Hillary is the John Kerry of 2016. We owe it to our children to make sure we don't get similar results.

Sandernistas, get off the couch and volunteer! HRC has the $$$ and The Machine, WE have The People.

[karynnj]

78. kerry did not use dirty tricks and is an exceptional

Speaker when he is heard. In fact, it was his eloquence that first brought him attention. 2004 was never going to be a cake walk. Bush was at 60 percent in December 2003. Not to mention, he would have won if there were enough voting machines in Ohio.

[Indepatriot]

82. I worked my butt off for Kerry, but he's BORING to listen to, and, as is the norm, he and the

Democratic Establishment did all they could to torpedo Dean. Kerry was a fool to not take on the Swift Boaters, and to not raise hell about Ohio. An honorable man who would've been a fine president, but a LOUSY campaigner. Should have beat shrub like a drum.

[karynnj]

84. kerry did take on the sbvt

He responded in a speech to the firefighters that was labeled as his response but the media failed to cover it. His team put out a long detailed memo lists provable lies and errors that was about 60 pages long. (Note this was exactly how Obama dealt with the Corso book on him)

In addition, there never was a "kerry story" they disputed. They disputed the official NAVY record. Kerry put the entire record except medical records on line and made the medical records available to media. Anyone could read the glowing fitness reports completely covering the almost 4 years he served if they wanted.

In addition they showed the funding of the group was by big Bush funders. They caught B/C distributing flyers.

They showed that the vast majority of the SBVT were never in the same place at the same time as Kerry. They caught many in lies. What you ignore was this was a character assassination that the media condoned. They also completely distorted the wonderful Teresa.

As to Ohio, you cab not count votes not cast due to voter supppression.

[Live and Learn]

28. +1 nt

[karynnj]

76. kerry was better on not taking PAC money than most

He rejected it for every Senate race. He and Wellstone sponsored a campaign finance bill before the weaker McCain Feingold. In addition, he had less money in Iowa and NH than Dean did even after loaning his campaign money.

As to the IWR vote it was wrong, but he did speak out against rushing to war in Jan 2003 when most others stayed silent. The fact is that Trippi was able to change the view on JK and argued Dean was the only major candidate against the war. In fact, his comments in fall 2002 were that he would support Biden Lugar. He also suggested a worse resolution with a specific point where if Iraq were not complying, there was approval to go to war.

Note that Dean was one of the Democrats who in recent times has not been happy with Kerry negotiating with Iran.Dean also supported the first Gulf War, where JK voted no and read anti war poetry on the floor of the Senate.

Kerry was to Dean's left and his history was not that of a warmonger and many of listened and saw that. As to his vote hurting in the general, he got a higher percent of the vote than the percent against the war. In fact I know votes he lost because he called it not a war of last resort meaning it was not a just war.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. 1. Sanders is a Liberal

Last edited Sat Jul 4, 2015, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

while Dean isn't a neoliberal-nut Democrat, he's just a moderate Dem. Sanders is a full-throated Liberal whose views mirror those of most Americans.

2. The Zeitgeist is much different. When Dean ran, the 99% had only a vague feeling that we were getting hosed. By 2008 we were pretty sure, and voted for change but instead got President Obama. Now the 99% are damned well convinced that their lives are being stolen by a small group of scoundrels and their paid help in DC, we want it to stop NOW, and we will eschew self-proclaimed Liberals who have either no real track record, or have a track record that's quite different from Liberal.

[geek tragedy]

23. are you the appointed spokesperson for 99/100 Americans?

Who are these "99%?" I would love it if 99% were in Bernie's camp, but that generally only happens in places like North Korea.


Because Bernie's candidacy is not a "to hell with Obama and to hell with Clinton" campaign.

It's about his vision of the country, his ideas, his way of solving the morass we're stuck in.

He is very much different than Clinton and Obama. He's better on the issues than they are. But people are not supporting him in order to reject Clinton or to repudiate Obama.

They're supporting him because of who he is.

Most of Bernie's supporters are and will be supportive of President Obama.

Most of them support Bernie because he's Bernie, not because he's "Not Hillary."

You yourself may be embracing him as your second choice anti-Clinton since Draft Warren faceplanted, but most of Bernie's supporters support him simply because he believes what we believe and doesn't bullshit anyone.

[DeeDeeNY]

32. Exactly

Good analysis.

[HooptieWagon]

53. Spot on. nt

[Admiral Loinpresser]

70. +1 n/t

[Bonobo]

20. It is a more fair comparison than your last one.

Perhaps it is similar.

Perhaps the country is in a different place.

If Hillary can evolve so much, imagine the evolution of 100 million people!

[geek tragedy]

22. For one, Bernie can learn from the mistakes Dean made.

For another, Dean was the front runner and thus drew attacks from the rest of the fairly large field.

Dean was an angry candidate appealing to anger against Bush over Iraq.

Bernie is running on a broad economic platform.

He's not the anti-anything. He has a positive agenda.

[AgingAmerican]

24. First they ignore you

...then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[SheilaT]

25. In some very important ways, yes.

Howard Dean ran, according to him, to change the dialogue. He had absolutely no expectation of getting very far in his campaign, and was very surprised that he did so. I'm basing this on seeing him and talking to him at various events in the first part of his campaign.

But I think Bernie, unlike Howard, is absolutely committed to winning the nomination and the Presidency. He's not in it just to change the conversation. He's in it to win. I will point out that I have not, at this point, met the man or had any conversations with him, so I'm just reporting what I think is true based upon what I see in the media.

[Live and Learn]

27. Dean only lost because the DNC was determined to bring him down at any cost.

As were some even here at DU. Dean's loss was not his but ours.

And it was in a very large part due to Democrats being unwilling to defend what was obviously an unfair attack about virtually nothing. What exactly did he do wrong? Say 'Yee hah'? Seriously?

And sadly many on DU fell for and defended the pathetic attack.

I sincerely hope that the electorate isn't stupid enough to fall for such a ridiculous media trick again!

[karynnj]

79. he didn't lose because he did anything wrong or

Because of the scream which happened after he lost badly in Iowa. He had 18 percent to Kerry's 38.

[Depaysement]

29. Unions

That's how Bill got elected Mayor and pissed off the entitled über class in New York City.

[BeyondGeography]

30. Electability concerns make this an apt parallel, imo

People mainly wanted to beat Bush, and many were never comfortable with the idea that Howard could do it.

The antiwar fervor never really ebbed, but there was a major concern that Dean wouldn't measure up on national security in a general election and that dogged him throughout (plus his aggressive deficit reduction plan, which didn't rule out tax increases on the middle class). National security and electability is why Wesley Clark jumped in and got a lot of support initially. It's also a big reason why Kerry soared past everyone as the caucus approached, but his support for IWR dogged him throughout as well.

Electability is also why many of us are not getting excited about Sanders. If there's a lesson from Dean, Hillary (or another challenger) will have to hit him on an issue or a statement to finish him off early. Also, like Dean, I don't see him responding to pressure well.

[DanTex]

31. A fair comparison, but Dean was more viable, particularly in the GE, than Sanders IMO.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. How is he different to something that hasn't happened yet?

How is that not a trolling question?

How about you wait until we see results from New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina before you start asking 'How he's not different' on things that haven't even happened yet this cycle?

The farther we go, the more nonsensical your posts get.

[madokie]

38. Comic relief

is what they are becoming to me

[madokie]

37. Bernie Sanders

is the Jimmy Carter of '76 or the Bill Clinton of '92 or the Barack Obama of '08

Thats who Bernie Sander is, if you must put him in a who is that is

What makes you think that the people at his rallies aren't going to vote for him and more than likely take others with them?

[KingCharlemagne]

39. Is Hillary the Thomas E. Dewey of 2016? Please allow me

to enumerate the ways.

Nah, on second thought, a picture is worth a thosand words:

[brooklynite]

41. Once again, an example of something different with no explanation as to its relevance...

[KingCharlemagne]

42. We'll see how relevant it is when the Democratic Convention takes place in 2016. My guess

is someone's going to be eating some serious crow and it will not be I.

[AgingAmerican]

44. Why not just say Bernie is not right wing enough for you?

Instead of saying he is Dean or Kucinich or McGovern, etc, etc, etc? Isn't that what you are really saying? That he is too liberal, AKA not right wing enough, for you?

[brooklynite]

59. As with Ron Paul, I'm not arguing about Sanders' policies...

...I'm arguing about the capabilities of his political strategy. I've said before I have no objection to any of his policies; I just don't see a way he gets elected to implement them.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. So Ron Paul's policies are OK by you?

Tell me you didn't just write that.

[brooklynite]

66. Of course not...

As I said in my OP (which you apparently chose to ignore), the reference to Ron Paul was his political strategy of saying whatever he wanted at large rallies and then not being able to translate rally turnout into votes.

[AgingAmerican]

68. Oh...

So now you switch to "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul?"

You are very transparent...

lol

[appalachiablue]

60. Thank you. Does this never end? I don't think so.

[polichick]

45. In the sense that corporate "Dems" want to take him down, he is.

[arcane1]

51. He's the Bernie Sanders of 2016 n/t

[karynnj]

72. Dean in 2004 AND HRC in 2008 had very dissapointing results

In Iowa. Both had more media and more super delegates than their opponents going into Iowa. Both also had more money.

From what I heard from people in iowa, Kerry's win was because he was willing to answer people's questions for hours. In a way, he benefited from this being something he did often in MA. VT like MA expects it's elected officials to meet them and answer their questions and Bernie has done this all the time.

This was not a HRC strong point in 2008 and some things like wearing sunglasses at the Chipotle ' s on her van trip and speaking to no one other than her aide suggest that this is still not her style.

[brooklynite]

74. ...except Clinton went on to win NH in 2008...

...and currently has a HIGHER lead in IA than NH.

[karynnj]

75. barely even though even a few weeks earlier

She polled 20 points ahead. Here, the risk is that if Bernie wins Iowa he could well get sufficient lift to win NH.

It is easy to come up with analogs that favor your choice. It is significant that you have done so when two months ago, the situation she was in was unique for an open election.

2004 is not one I would choose,, because going into Iowa no one was anywhere near as dominant as Clinton. But given you did my point is that there are more similarities to wherr Kerry was at that point than to Dean for Ssnders.

[JoePhilly]

77. A noble effort.

At one time, you could discuss "politics" on DU. You could discuss political strategy.

No longer.

Now ... because you have not come to the conclusion that Bernie will be the next President, you have attacked him, and all who support him.

Its ironic that some of those attacking you the most in this thread are the same folks who scream about the cult of personality in reference to Obama.

Bernie is a long shot candidate. That's just a fact. But some of them can't handle that reality.

And they certainly can't think about how they overcome that reality politically.

And so clearly ... YOU are the bad guy.

[Quixote1818]

80. The time is right for an authentic candidate. It wasn't the right time when Dean was running

People are fed up with candidates connected to Wall Street. They thought they were going to get someone authentic with Obama and it didn't materialize so this time the public is looking for a candidate with a track record of being authentic. The public is ripe for it now.