Kerry won NH, Dean lost, fair and square, and by a large margin.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

There have been many attempts in this forum, and in real life, to spin the New Hampshire primary results.

According to Joe Lieberman, for example, his 5th place showing was really "a three way tie.... for third place!" -- I bet I'm not the only one here who laughed upon hearing that.

John Edwards used the phrase 'incredible momentum' to describe dropping from second place in Iowa to fourth place in New Hampshire.

Here's how Howard Dean characterized his twelve point loss in New Hampshire -- after spending roughly double the amount spent by the winner:

"Last night, the people of New Hampshire gave our campaign new momentum.

Last night, we proved the pundits and the pollsters wrong. "
(source: Dean campaign email)

The only problem is, his campaign actually lost momentum and the polls all predicted Dean would lose. So Dean's statements are factually incorrect. (Nothing new there, I suppose.)

Here at DU, I've seen attempts to minimize the impact of NH by saying that CNN showed bias in the way it rounded the results -- as if one half of one percent is significant when the margin of victory is in double digits.

Others take the racial approach, faulting the results as being from a 'white' state.

Others, blame dirty tricks, even going so far as to label putting up campaign signs as a dirty trick.



I can understand why people do this -- but I must respectfully reaffirm my right to point out that my candidate won.

Supporters of other candidates -- now is the time to step up and work harder, donate more time and money, if you really believe in your candidate. But it does the voters of New Hampshire, the Democratic party, and the democratic process a disservice, to claim any kind of invalidity to the New Hampshire results.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[George_Bonanza]

2. Conspiracy theories are absolutely ridiculous

Firstly, if the evil establishment that apparently hates Dean so much (even though he was DLC while governor and only adopted his anti-DLC schtick very recently) wanted him blown out of the water, then how come guys like Gore and Harkin, among others, were allowed to trumpet Dean as the favourite for the nomination? Surely, such a force that could overthrow such a sure-victory for Dean would have enough power to reel in some of their biggest names.

Secondly, why is it that now, Iowans and New Hampshirites are morons? They were apparently the smartest people when they lifted Dean high and above guys like Kerry and Clark. Suddenly, ever since the people (that's right, regular people like us) made their voices heard, they're manipulated, idiotic, and spineless. Some people are so narrow-minded that they cannot fathom why people would actually like a candidate that is not their favourite.

The people of Iowa and NH are NOT stupid. They've been following this race closely for months since it's their burden to set the tone for the rest of America. The fact is that Dean lost out on every one of his so-called power groups. He lost among gun-owners, young people, Internet users, and even anti-war people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. It's like 2 + 2 = 5 thinking

[Sandpiper]

3. Nothing against Howard Dean

But the only people he's been a victim of are the voters of IA and NH. And it's not like he lost by a little in either one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. And now his plan is to not compete.

[polpilot]

4. Have you sent the DLC their check yet.? The DLC were pro-war too,

weren't they? I support your right to vote DLC establishment pro-war.

Dean '04... Not the DLC's establishment candidate

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Did you know that Dean was a DLC member?

You have to actually be in elected office to be member, so he isn't one anymore.

Apparently Dean has won you over with his anti-DLC rhetoric, but that rhetoric is dishonest and hypocritical.

[molly]

10. Howard Dean did it to himself - he was playing to the wrong

audience.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. What do you mean?

[Guaranteed]

7. Considering that Dean's "unelectable" and "crazy," I think it's

pretty amazing that he got 26% of the vote.

Wonder how Kerry would have done if the media had sad something bad about him, even once.

[NV1962]

9. NH *is* irrelevant to voters in AZ, SC and MO (for example)

By as much as 80%! Source? The latest LATimes/CNN poll.

In the vein of your closing remark, it does the voters of Arizona, South Carolina, Missouri and the other "February 3rd" primaries, the Democratic party, and the democratic process a disservice, to deny the irrelevance of voter preferences in another state.

Personally, I think it's more useful (not to say "important") to draw the appropriate conclusions from what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire, and see how those fit in other states.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. I'm not denying the irrelevance of any primary.

It is the supporters of the losing candidates who do that.

Kerry is a winner!

[PVnRT]

11. You're right, the primaries should be declared over

Kerry won New Hampshire, no need to let anyone else vote!

[Dutch]

18. honestly, how disingenuous.

As if the original poster ever implied anything of the sort. The point - which was well made - is that the supporters of losing candidates need to recognise that the Democrats of Iowa and New Hampshire (who by and large are not the ultra-suggestible cretins some posters seem to be implying) have made their choice, so stop bellyaching or trying to spin the result and get on with competing in the forthcoming primaries. I really struggle to see how any reasonable progressive can disagree with that.

[David Dunham]

12. Dean Is Fading Fast

[NNN0LHI]

13. It is all a plot. I knew it all along n/t

[Skip Intro]

15. Yeah, the 700+ replays of the media manipulated "scream" Had no effect

In the week before NH, Dean's "scream" speech, which was later acknowledged to be misleading by none other than Dianne Sawyer, had no effect. It was all anyone on tv or here at DU or on radio could talk about, but it had no effect.

The after midnight robocalls to NH voters impersonating Dean's campaign had no effect. Why, only a bunch of sore losers would even bring up such a thing. That was ethical and honorable behavior by whoever was behind it. How dare we use the term dirty trick - its no worse than putting up a roadside sign. And it had no effect.


Weeks before in Iowa, an anti-Dean ad appears featuring osama bin laden. Unknown though, is who put the ad up. All competing campaigns, including Kerry's, denied involvement. We still don't know who was behind it. But it had no effect.

The NH polls days before the vote had Dean way way down, and falling. And I think anyone who had withered the media's hatchet job yet came in second could claim some vindication and validation and momentum.


These things aren't conspiracy theory, they are actual events that took place. But, of course, they had no effect.

Yeah, Dean lost NH. Was it fair and square? I respectfully affirm my right to say no 'effin way.

But don't mind me, I'm just spinning.

As a side note, some might see an irony in someone who supports a pro-invasion/anti-invasion, anti-special interest/biggest recipient of special interest $$(washington post) candidate saying " So Dean's statements are factually incorrect. (Nothing new there, I suppose.)"

:eyes:

[Hep]

17. The lazy philosophy wins fair and square

Play to the apathy of the american people and watch them elect you.

I'm finally figuring out what this political stuff is all about. Tell people they can have what they want without working or fighting for it. Watch them vote for you in droves! Let's hear it for mindnumbing complacency!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. If you don't want things to be decided by voting, what's your alternative?

[Hep]

21. My alternative to shallow, ignorant, complacent voters

Is well informed voters. Why do you disagree exactly?

[TexasSissy]

20. This is true. (By a non-Kerry, non-Dean supporter). The voters

spoke quite loudly.