Why Dean is a threat to the status quo

[killbotfactory]

It all has to do with his fund raising prowess during the primaries. Millions of dollars, out raising everyone, primarily from small donors and average people. This really did shake people up, and was one of the more impressive aspects of his campaign before it all came crashing down, in part because of the threat it raised to the system.

In the course of a few months, power-brokers in Washington and the beltway saw average people strike a blow to their influence. They saw a threat to their power. When you have a politician funded by a bunch of small donors, they become less influenced by the fundamentally corrupt campaign finance system. Big business and other interests who can't get as many favors promised to them for contributions, etc.

Do you think they those interests want that to happen? Of course not. That's part of the reason the anti-Dean movement is so gung-ho about stopping him. They don't want to see the democrats weened off their own special interests. They like having the power to influence votes and other such dealings in our gov't, and the Dean represents a fundamental a threat to there way of business.

Of course, they won't be blatant about this. They'll just send the word down the grapevine in their usual manner and we'll be subjected to all the rumor mongering and "too liberal!" "hot head!" "he's CUHRAYZEEE!" bullcrap we were subject to during the election season. Ultimately, I don't think most politicians want to be corrupted by our system, but before Dean there was no other way to play ball and raise enough money to be significant in politics.

It's all a good old-fashioned power-struggle.

[Larkspur]

1. I agree with you on that

Dean's prowess as a small donor fundraiser champion was due in large part to his message, which was so eloquently put in his formal announcement speech "The Great American Restoration," and to his fearlessness at defending and promoting core Democratic principles against Bush-lite Dems as well as Repukes.

If the Democratic Party wants a brighter future, it will have to ween itself off it's addiction to corrupt corporate donors and rely more on small donors.

[Voltaire]

2. He is a threat to the status quo simply because of 4 little words

YOU HAVE THE POWER!!!

Politicians of both parties HATE the idea that this is representative government of, by, and for the PEOPLE!

When you get the great unwashed to realize they have the power, politicians are in deep shit. No matter what party they are in.

[killbotfactory]

3. And the puppet masters will do anything...

to keep their strings from being cut.

Almost every politician who looks like he's not going to play their game gets treated like a pariah by these corrupt bastards.

[AP]

4. The amount of money he raised was not so great compared to

what Kerry raised after everyone else dropped out through traditional sources. Dean raised maybe 25 million throught the internet. I think Kerry ended up rasing about 300 million overall. In the first two months after everyone else dropped out, Kerry raised as much as everyone else combined, IIRC.

Furthermore, all that money still couldn't make up for not having a message that worked well in NH and IA on a retail level.

[killbotfactory]

5. Gee, really?

The defacto nominee raised more money than a single candidate in the primaries? Shocking.

Part of the reason Dean lost is that he became frontrunner and everyone dogpiled on him. It wasn't his message, people liked his message, it was the negative ads which stoked democratic fears that he was unelectable and other such nonsense.

[KittyWampus]

13. Everyone Dogpiled On Dean? Po' Little Dean The Victim. It's Not Like

it's politics or anything.

Oh, Wait... it IS POLITICS.

And many of the negative ads came from none other than Dean.

[killbotfactory]

15. What is your problem?

Explaining why I think something went down the way it did is not the same as complaining about it.

[Tamyrlin79]

6. Wrong.

Point 1: It was 50 million.
Point 2: Kerry is not comparable. Indeed, with Dean as nominee, the dems could have (theoretically) raised 400 or 500 million. You don't know what would have happened. If you wish to compare Kerry, compare his PRIMARY fundraising to his NOMINATION fundraising. Then, based on that extrapolate what Dean MIGHT have raised had the primary proportions held true in the general. Then you might can make a comparison. As of now, its apples and oranges.
Point 3: Dean's message DID work. Even rightwingers down here in deep south Mississippi were saying they would vote for Dean. The problem was the campaign's organization, the media, and powers that be, not the message.

[AP]

10. Point 1: he didn't raise all 50 mil on the internet.

I was estimating that about half of it came from the internet effort.

[Tinoire]

7. Yes but Kerry raised a lot from organizations

people like Rupert Murdoch dumped a ton of money into Kerry during the primaries. Ands so did the Telecommunications industry.

Dean's money primarily came from (don't quote me on the figures) small individual donations (I think the average was $50-$75) which reminded me of people forking over their lunch money. I think that to raise that much in so many small contributions was no small feat.

Even though I didn't support it, I was really awed by the Dean machine for that- the passion that so many ordinary people showed- the rebirth of the belief that they could change things and the determination to do so.

I'd be interested to see what figures Kerry raised vs Dean, and what the average individual contribution was, if anyone has it readily handy without going to too much trouble.

[killbotfactory]

8. Right here

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

% from Donors of $2,000+
Kerry, John - 36%
Dean, Howard - 11%

% from Donors of $200 or less
Kerry, John - 31%
Dean, Howard - 61% <-- there lies the threat

[Tinoire]

9. I agree with you about therein lies the threat

Holding them by the pursestrings and they don't like that.

One of the things that impressed me about Dean is that he too knows that, recognizes it and makes sure that he represents the people supporting him by giving them their money's worth.

I don't know how naturally the positions Dean is espousing now come to him but I've gedrudgingly had to give in to the Dean supporters and admit that yes he does listen to them and yes he does represent them.

Either way you cut it, it's a threat because the bottom line is that Dean gives the people representation for their money. In other words, he does his damn job instead of taking the money and running.

Thanks for posting those figures. When I get home tonight, I'll try to see if I can find my reference on what the average individual contribution was because it was so small it shocked me. 61% gave $200 or less... Do the math on how many people that was if the average contribution was, say, $50. In a real Democracy, it would be President Dean today.

[Jacobin]

11. He's not a PNACer. That's the main difference

THAT is why old line Dems don't like him.

[killbotfactory]

12. That doesn't help

People who aren't corrupt/idiots have the tendency to shy away from the PNAC agenda.

[KittyWampus]

14. That's Like Saying Anyone Who Doesn't Favor Dean Is A PNAC'er

faulty logic and it sounds looney.

[killbotfactory]

17. There are a lot of dems who embraced the PNAC agenda

And a lot of them were quite vocal of their anti-Dean feelings because Dean didn't toe the line on the war.

[Jacobin]

23. Thank you

At bottom, Dean's positions are quite middle of the road and are not foreign to moderate dem positions. The only significant thing he is different on is conquering the middle east.

[Jacobin]

22. What's 'looney' about it?

Hillary and Kerry voted to give Smirky the power to invade Iraq.

Most dems who are against Dean are PNACers and support the invasion of Iraq (some quibble and say it "wasn't done right")

Dean does not support the invasion of the M.E.

[KittyWampus]

24. Dean's Position On Saddam Was No Different Than The Other Democrats

and he only gradually evolved.

The Media made Dean the anti-war candidate and some on the left were so desperate for an "anti-war" candidate they swallowed it... despite Dean's actual words, policies etc.

And since being percieved as anti-war gave Dean traction... he went with it.

This was proven time and again during the primaries... I am not going to rehash it once more. Dean's OWN WORDS prove the point. He wasn't "Anti-War" until it was politically expedient for him to be.

Most Democrats who are against Dean as Chair are most certainly NOT PNAC'ers unless you have some actual proof that they agree the United States should take over the world by force.

It seems more realistic that some DNC members might just be FOR someone other than Dean.

In the end, there is very little difference between Howard Dean and every other Democrat.

Dean's record as Governor and his performance during the Primaries illustrates this quite well.

[killbotfactory]

25. Oh knock it off

Dean was against the Iraq invasion. He listed criteria under which he could support a war, and those criteria were never met. Enough of this "he was the same!" bullcrap.

[KittyWampus]

16. Dean Is Less The Agent Of Change You Make Him Out To Be

it boils down to a some of his supporters bascially projecting their own fantasies and desires onto him.

Edit- Dean certainly does seem to understand the money making potential of the internet... no wonder he jumped on that.

The seed money he got from the Koch Brothers up in Vermont wouldn't have carried him that far.

On second thought, maybe it hinges on Trippi... wasn't he the one who got the whole grassroots/milk the internet thing going.

[killbotfactory]

18. The proof is in the numbers

Twice the percentage of small donars than any other candidates. You don't think the major players looked at the numbers, saw his rise in the polls, and didn't take him as a threat? Nonsense.

[killbotfactory]

19. Seriously, did Dean kick your mother in the teeth?

Why the vendetta against him?

Dean was probably just as surprised as his supporters that the small donor thing was working, and saw the potential for weening the democrats off of the powerbrokers. The way the system is set up in America, it's inevitable that politicians have to go whoring special interest groups and the like for votes. Even if you don't like the positions Dean holds, fundamentally he is pro-democracy and anti-corruption and has found a way to reform the process without having to face congress and the multiple interest who are determined to block reform.

[KittyWampus]

20. Well, I Agree That He Found An Invaluable Method. It'd Be Great To

use that method especially the way Dean wants to---- which is get money to candidates in all 50 states and on all levels of government.

I agree Dean might do a terrific job as Chair... but not that he's all that different from many other insider/establishment Democrats.

[suziedemocrat]

21. Exactly - Dean (power to the people) is very scary indeed!

Even to good Democrats like Carville. Dean was a force of good who got shot down unfairly - IMHO. I supported Kerry as an "Anybody But Bush" candidate - but I LOVED Dean. I blame the media for running the "scream speech" over and over. But - maybe Dean wasn't really ready for Prime time - but he sure energized the party who thought the way to win was to cave on every issue. Dean showed the Democrats the way! He showed the Democrats the will of the people - and it scared them.

Kerry should have learned more from Dean. Even though I still think Kerry might have been the rightful winner of the last election - I was disappointed he didn't go after Bush in a more ruthless way. They should have had ads with Bush making a statement - then show what a lie it was. They could have had a series of these - maybe 6 or so - with maybe 30 or so blatant lies. I couldn't believe what a lame campaign Kerry ran.