Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Renew Deal

(81,802 posts)
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:11 PM Mar 2012

Is Santorum doing what Howard Dean couldn't do?

There is some resemblance between Dean in 2004 and Santorum in 2012. There were issues with the Democratic candidates in 2004, and Kerry was the only candidate left. Dean could never get over the top (for a number of reasons). The 2012 republicans resemble the 2004 Dems, but the difference is that Kerry was able to put the competition away. Romney cannot. I think Santorum is doing what Dean wished he could do in 2004.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is Santorum doing what Howard Dean couldn't do? (Original Post) Renew Deal Mar 2012 OP
ewww DJ13 Mar 2012 #1
It's more like a squirt. Guy Whitey Corngood Mar 2012 #2
Even worse... EWWWWWW! DJ13 Mar 2012 #10
The mouthpieces trying to claim that 2012 Republican primary is like 2004 Dems are fullofshit. blm Mar 2012 #3
Thanks blm. I was going to post something like that and got interrupted. Mass Mar 2012 #4
Have other people been talking about this? Renew Deal Mar 2012 #5
Exactly - and love your saying so karynnj Mar 2012 #15
I think Howard Dean's mistake was giving the volunteers too much latitude. LoZoccolo Mar 2012 #6
I agree with that - but, I would submit that Dean allowed it because he never expected blm Mar 2012 #12
No. Here's why. Proud Public Servant Mar 2012 #7
Those are all good points Renew Deal Mar 2012 #8
Santorum is there because of Foster Friess Enrique Mar 2012 #9
I disagree Renew Deal Mar 2012 #11
Getting back to thread to share one last point - the ONLY similarity between 04 and 12 is that blm Mar 2012 #13
It really does look that way karynnj Mar 2012 #17
There is really little similarity between 2004 and 2012 karynnj Mar 2012 #14
That's like comparing a fine wine (Dean) to Mad Dog 20/20 (Santorum) LynneSin Mar 2012 #16
You might be right! n/t guardian Mar 2012 #18
there is no similarity , Kerry was a great candidate who ran a great campaign without spending JI7 Mar 2012 #19
John KErry was NOT the "only candidate left" , he BEAT all of the other candidates JI7 Mar 2012 #20

blm

(112,920 posts)
3. The mouthpieces trying to claim that 2012 Republican primary is like 2004 Dems are fullofshit.
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:15 PM
Mar 2012

More of that easy faux equivalency used for the dumbed down audience.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
15. Exactly - and love your saying so
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 03:02 PM
Mar 2012

It is interesting that they are using Romney to reassert that, like Romney, Kerry could not connect. The fact is that Kerry won the nomination starting with little media or party support - and less money than Dean. He won precisely by winning over people one to one in Iowa. Kerry would not have been the nominee if he couldn't connect.

Not to mention, the media gave Kerry less support than any major party candidate in my life time - and I'm old. I can't remember an election where none of the networks did a puff piece biography that made the Presidency seem reasonable - and they even did this for Bush in 2000! Kerry's biography is almost too rich with heroics and principled stands. In addition, and something that was actually more cruel was the way they distorted Teresa. In spite of reading everything and supporting Kerry more than any other candidate, I still find obscure articles that show the depths of Teresa's accomplishments - such as being the philanthropist that enlisted her peers to coordinate their funding to revive Pittsburgh in the 1990s (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQgwNr-lnLvj0VT-OQFehl6LIehQD9A4FSC00 ) and her funding pilot healthcare and education programs ( http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/newsmaker-interview-jeffrey-lewis ) It is very hard to believe that the media so distorted this very lovely, accomplished woman.
There were very few times where the media actually allowed her to speak - and when she did, she was very engaging. ( as here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=628737n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox ) It is completely shocking that she was defined as negative in comparison with Laura.

Not to mention, as people, look at the story of Seamus, the dog vs the story of Licorice, the hamster. It might be harder to find two more different people. (or you can contrast not pulling strings and serving in Vietnam - and spending a few years trying to convert the French Catholics to Mormonism.)

 

LoZoccolo

(29,393 posts)
6. I think Howard Dean's mistake was giving the volunteers too much latitude.
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:24 PM
Mar 2012

I say this as one of them; people can go back and find that I was a Howard Dean supporter.

It was an experiment in giving the volunteers a lot of power (remember that he had said "you have the power" during the announcement) but it led to two things in my opinion:

1. People layered their own agenda and style on top of his, and he wasn't able to define himself. (Someone on DU actually bemoaned the fact that I said this was a problem, and that I held the idea that a campaign is about the candidate's views and not your own.)
2. There actually seemed to be too many people involved, and they didn't realize that sometimes less contact, and less aggressive contact, could actually be better; it's like they didn't get quality over quantity, and people were poorly trained, probably because there were too many to control (which maybe melds with the first point). I had heard of people hiding and pretending that they weren't home when the people in the orange hats were on their street in Iowa.

blm

(112,920 posts)
12. I agree with that - but, I would submit that Dean allowed it because he never expected
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 01:18 PM
Mar 2012

to actually be the nominee and probably thought it would be good for the party in the long run. And, I'd say he was right, because we saw he actually WAS a good organizer when he took the reins at DNC in 2005.

From all I've seen and heard since then, I don't think Dean ever truly minded that Kerry came out on top.

Proud Public Servant

(2,097 posts)
7. No. Here's why.
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:28 PM
Mar 2012

1) The 2004 Democratic party was not split into warring factions the way the GOP now is. Factions, sure -- the Dems always are -- but they didn't hold each other in open contempt the way we're now seeing in the GOP.

2) The Dem establisnment still had firm control of the party in 2004, in a way that the GOP does not now.

3) Dean's strength -- and his lasting contribution to the party -- is that he brought new voters in, animated Dem-voting constituencies whose support had been perfuctory, and changed in a lasting way the manner in which the party works; Santorum has done and will do none of these things.

The current GOP election simply doesn't have a Dem analogue. It does have GOP analogues, though; if anything, Santorum is not Dean in 2004 but McCain in 2000, stubbornly dogging the Establishment-annointed candidate.

Renew Deal

(81,802 posts)
8. Those are all good points
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:30 PM
Mar 2012

McCain dropped out after Super Tuesday when he lost a lot of big states and won little. Santorum is still winning.

Enrique

(27,461 posts)
9. Santorum is there because of Foster Friess
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:30 PM
Mar 2012

without Friess's money, Santorum would be a dim memory of some really dumb guy that used to be in the Senate.

Renew Deal

(81,802 posts)
11. I disagree
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 12:43 PM
Mar 2012

If this was about money it would have been over already. It's about ideology and Romney being a terrible candidate.

blm

(112,920 posts)
13. Getting back to thread to share one last point - the ONLY similarity between 04 and 12 is that
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 02:19 PM
Mar 2012

Bushes and their machine are looking at 2012 and operating behind the scenes no differently than Clintons and their machine operated in 2004. Jeb2016 = Hillary2008.

You will see feeble Bush hands 'helping' out the 2012 nominee as earnestly as Clinton hands 'helped' in 2004. Except that Clinton threw in his summer book tour as an added bonus, using many high profile interviews to declare his unwavering support of Bush's military leadership in Iraq.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
14. There is really little similarity between 2004 and 2012
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 02:37 PM
Mar 2012

The dynamics of Dean and Kerry are extremely different than Romney and his opponents - and the differences are not limited to Kerry having the smoothest, overwhelming nomination victory in any open election. He won every state except OK, SC and NC and VT that both went for their favorite sons after they were out of the race.

Other differences are that, like Hillary, Romney was the party and media favorite that Kerry never really was before he won primaries. Kerry won Iowa because of face to face retail politics. Dean had more money, more super delegate support - including Gore and Harkin - and much more media support. Before Iowa, it was hard to find much written about Kerry - and much found questioned when he would drop out. Dean was NOT the "little guy" in Iowa. He was not "Santorum" with little money, little party support and little media support.

Dean was the frontrunner for nearly 6 months before Iowa. Dean imploded before the Iowa caucuses - losing support in both Iowa (to Kerry and Edwards) and NH (mostly to Clark).

Romney is entirely unlike Kerry - other than in obvious superficial ways. Where Romney was on the fringe of his party and has tried to rewrite that, Kerry had Kennedy's support because he was a social justice, pro civil rights, pro women's rights, liberal. In fact, his record was more liberal than Dean's was.

Not to mention, Kerry was the winner because he was the "only candidate left" - he was the winner because he beat all the other candidates - and eventually they dropped out seeing no way to win.

LynneSin

(95,337 posts)
16. That's like comparing a fine wine (Dean) to Mad Dog 20/20 (Santorum)
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 03:03 PM
Mar 2012

Sure they both have grapes as their main ingredient but any other comparison pretty much ends there!

JI7

(89,182 posts)
19. there is no similarity , Kerry was a great candidate who ran a great campaign without spending
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 03:46 PM
Mar 2012

so much money as Romney is doing now.

in 2004 even after Kerry had so many big wins and he easily won many southern places like Tennessee the whore media still refused to call him a front runner as they are doing with Romney now.

JI7

(89,182 posts)
20. John KErry was NOT the "only candidate left" , he BEAT all of the other candidates
Wed Mar 14, 2012, 03:56 PM
Mar 2012

unlike Romney who has all the big endorsements and money and other shit, Kerry had to work for his shit. his support started from long time friends who worked the ground. not wealthy assholes like those who are funding Romney's pac. but unions, his military buddies, and people lke myself.

i know many people like ti gnore the truth about that campaign because it makes them feel better about their candidate that lost. just like people can pretend that mcccain had a chance if he didn't pick sarah palin.

unlike Romney where the more people see and hear him the less they like him, John Kerry was the opposite , the more people saw and heard him the more he got. and he didn't need to do shit like "who let the dogs out, i like grits yall etc'. he did it all by speaking in the same accent , style etc he naturally speaks to everyone. regardless of their income, race, religion etc.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is Santorum doing what Ho...