Assuming your candidate gets the nomination and then loses horribly...

[Selwynn]

Will you have to balls to actually come back and admit you were wrong?

This question goes out especially to those of you how are so absolutely certain that your guy walks on water and will "crush" Bush. If you were proven utterly wrong - would you be gracious about it?

Just wondering. :)

[lcordero]

1. My guy does not walk on water and I refuse to deitify anybody.

[Crunchy Frog]

2. I certainly will

Edited to add that I don't actually have balls, but I will admit that I was wrong about my candidate.

[WindRavenX]

3. I would be shocked if Kerry got his ass handed to him...

...but then again, methinks the question is aimed at Dean backers...
I hope they answer yes. I hated the arrogance of Nader supporters, and I will hate the arrogance of Dean supporters should he lose and they refuse to admit that their canidate was, IMHO, rather weak...
Whoever gets the nominee, and whoever backs him, should be prepared for defeat. The Bush machine is too much..

[booniapolis]

7. and if Kerry "got his ass handed to him"?

Would you admit that he may not have been the best candidate?
The question, in my view, wasn't aimed at Dean supporters. (if it was, I apologise, but let's just be hypothetical for the moment) But would you, and other Kerry supporters, and even supporters of other campaigns, admit that your candidate wasn't the best candidate?
Or would you put it down to other factors or maybe some in-fighting within the party? Or maybe even election fraud?
If I was fanatical about one candidate, and they won the nomination, only to be throughly trounced by Bush, I think it would be quite difficult to admit that the candidate you spent all of those hours fighting for, was actually a bad choice.

[Davo Dinkum]

11. Don't think like that.

WindRavenX said: Whoever gets the nominee, and whoever backs him, should be prepared for defeat. The Bush machine is too much..

That kind of attitude is exactly why mainstream lefties worldwide control nothing. It is because we are defeatist that the right's dominance is so widespread. If we go in not loving our selves, how can anyone else love us?
Don't feel despondent. There are 12 months to go. A lot of twists and turns may happen before the poll. I hope for the sake of the rest of the world (I am an Aussie) that a Democrat defeats W. The West cannot take another 4 years of arrogance and lies from the U.S. and hostility from the rest of the world.

[quinnox]

4. lol, funny

I would be amazed to see more than a couple who would actually admit, "Ok, I was wrong, my candidate turned out to be another McGovern, except it was even worse. We should have nominated someone else."

But as a hypothetical, if Dean is nominated and then gets crushed by Bush, I will say "I told you so", the day after the election.

[stickdog]

5. With or without all the new fraud-made-easy voting machines?

And no reliable exit polling?

Sorry. Now is not the time to strike out looking. Regardless. We tried that in 2002.

[JailForBush]

6. For crying out loud, EVERYONE'S wrong.

Seriously, I've met very few people - even here on DU - who really have it all together. Assuming that the folks who support Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinish or Wesley Clark have discovered a truly good candidate, most are still ignoring LOCAL politics, which is absolutely vital to reform.

And virtually no one has anything to say about public education, one of America's greatest scandals.

In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. Do I "have the balls" to admit I was wrong?

Actually, that question doesn't make any sense to me. If I had known Nader was corrupt, I would have voted for Al Gore - even though he's just as corrupt. But I researched the candidates as best I could, analyzed the campaign, and threw in my lot with Nader.

So how I was supposed to know that Al Gore would be the world's second worst candidate, next to George W. Bush? Moreover, I wouldn't have voted for Nader if Democrats had given me some solid evidence to prove he's corrupt. Instead, they whined, "Vote for us, because we deserve it!"

But most important of all, I didn't put all my eggs in one basket. I was heavily involved in local politics. In fact, I ran for office that same year.

Now, here we are, headed for a repeat performance. Campaign 2002 was a disgrace. I ran for office again this year, but Campaign 2003 was another disgrace, because the Dems and Greens were out to lunch.

Frankly, I think several of this year's Democratic candidates are better than Al Gore, though I'm not sure if any are truly wonderful. I doubt that any of them will "crush" Bush, but how can one make an accurate assessment with all the games that are being played?

As long as no one cares about local politics and the vast majority do little more than wait until next November to vote, it's basically one big crap shoot.

[aquart]

9. The "second worst candidate" won the popular vote.

Had so many people not been prevented from voting or from having their votes counted by sundry illegal tactics, he would have won the necessary states for winning, I'm including Tennessee as well as Florida.

Had so many not sought to vote for a god and not a man, the distribution of votes would have fallen much more favorably to Democrats even with the widespread Republican cheating. No Nader voter actually believed he was voting Republican. He believed he was voting for purity and honor.

Al Gore made mistakes. Not as many as the Nader voters but he did make mistakes. Not because he was "corrupt," as you insultingly insist with no evidence of any kind, but because the big boyscout actually believed in the traditions of this nation, and its courts, and its constitution and it never occurred to him, even after the impeachment, that a bloodless fascist coup could happen here.

Obviously, it never occurred to you, either.

It's a constant revelation that, even with the blood of this nation dripping from their delicate unsullied fingers, Nader voters still manage to sound sanctimonious.

[JailForBush]

10. Uh, some minor corrections...

"Had so many people not been prevented from voting or from having their votes counted by sundry illegal tactics, he would have won the necessary states for winning, I'm including Tennessee as well as Florida."

Absolutely. That's a perfect example of something that people who voted for Nader couldn't have forseen.

"Had so many not sought to vote for a god and not a man<snip>

I certainly never perceived Nader as a God; his education platform was a joke - it sounded like something he copied from the Democrats.

"Al Gore made mistakes. Not as many as the Nader voters but he did make mistakes. Not because he was "corrupt," as you insultingly insist with no evidence of any kind..."

If you want evidence, all you have to do is ask!

Here you go: http://www.geobop.com/education/People/Gore/ And if you want evidence of Ralph Nader's corrupt, just give me a shout. I had to track that down myself, too.

"but because the big boyscout actually believed in the traditions of this nation, and its courts, and its constitution and it never occurred to him, even after the impeachment, that a bloodless fascist coup could happen here."

The "big boyscout"???? Be sure and read about the Eagle Scout's priceless ascent of Mount Rainier.

"Obviously, it never occurred to you, either."

Gee, I guess I was too busy trying to fix a little scandal Democrats have ignored for several generations - public education. But who gives a damn about kids, right?

"It's a constant revelation that, even with the blood of this nation dripping from their delicate unsullied fingers, Nader voters still manage to sound sanctimonious."

I could say the same thing about Democrats.

[karlschneider]

25. If Mr. Gore had been agressive instead of namby-pamby he would have

gotten so many -more- votes, Florida wouldn't have mattered. Of course he was the better CANDIDATE, he was a crappy CAMPAIGNER.

And should have fought harder during the FL debacle before the SC appointment of Bunnypants.

[eileen from OH]

8. WHY?

What purpose would it serve? There can be a bahgillion reasns why a Dem candidate can lose, beginning with a complacent media. Ain't got NUTHIN' to do with "balls" and why in the fuck would I want to concede NOW that I would admit that "I was wrong' if I wasn't?

Dems are too goddam self-introspective. I leave "gracious" to the folks who HAVE to make concession speeches. If we gatther around and SUPPORT the eventual nominee (as I hope we will) then only "balls" needed are the ones that will get out the vote.

I will concede and apologize to no one.

eileen from OH

[mouse7]

12. I don't have to worry about that, unfortunately

Paul Wellstone is gone and Noam Chomsky won't run.

[emanymton]

13. The Majority is Seldom Right

If the people are given a chance to vote, have their vote counted and the numbers show the Democratic Nominee (DN) loses, it does not mean those who support the DN are "wrong." The DN will represent positions and policies that are acceptable to those who vote for them. Should the majority of voters not vote for the DN it does not mean the positions and policies are wrong.

When you are right you are seldom with the majority.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi emanymton!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[xchrom]

14. i don't have a dog

in any of these fights.
and i would be happy to support anybody but lieberman.
but i hate the fanatical ''i hate your candidate'' threads. cause that's all they are.
all of the candidates are human -- they have their good points and bad points -- and outside of lieberman, i'm excited about what all of the candidates have to say about bush.
outside of all that -- i'm hugely conflicted about dem status quo and some of the votes that have resulted from that entrenched mind set, i.e. patriot act and homeland security, etc. i think dems must reform themselves.
so i won't be apologizing.

[bowens43]

15. How would a loss in the general election

prove that the candidate wasn't the best candidate and wasn't the best shot that we had? If the bushies are able to keep the sheep frightened chances are not good for our candidate ,no matter who we chose. I know that the it's going to be a tough battle.

[Skwmom]

16. They'll blame in on the other candidates, the other supporters

etc.

[Tinoire]

17. Don't forget Nader and the Greens

They'll get the brunt of it because there are no mirrors around.

[Orangepeel]

18. None of our candidates can "crush bush"

It will be difficult no matter who the nominee is. bush has an incumbent's advantage (undeserved, but he has it anyway), an obscene amount of money and a bought-and-paid for media.

I believe that the candidate I support has the best chance to win because he can run both a traditional media intensive campaign and a national grassroots campaign. None of the other candidates will be able to do that and I think it is our ONLY chance to win.

If my candidate gets the nomination and still (heaven forbid) loses, I won't second guess myself. I'll continue to believe that my candidate had the best chance and others would have fared more poorly.

(p.s. I don't have balls, unless you mean tennis)

[rock]

19. How does my candidate losing constitute me being wrong?

It's the voters choice, assuming we count the votes. If we don't then the whole thing is pointless anyway (q.v. election 2000).

[jsw_81]

20. Absolutely

I would admit that I was wrong and then keep very quiet during the '08 primaries.

And I never said (or don't remember saying) that Dean would "crush" Bush, only that he would beat him in a close race.

[Nazgul35]

21. there are several assumptions on your part...

that must be addressed....

Besides, we all know about assumptions too...right?

First, there is this nonsense notion floating around DU that some candidates will win and others won't, and it seems that you are suggesting that those who support the candidate that wins the nomination will somehow owe an apology to those supporters who had the candidate that would've won....

This is bad science! First off, you can not prove a counter factual, which is what this argument is...pure and simple. Second, all the party's nominees who lost and all our party's nominees who won, were our party's nominee!!! there is no variance here....so let it go!

Second, your comment "This question goes out especially to those of you how are so absolutely certain that your guy walks on water and will "crush" Bush." echos an assumption many here share about Dean supporters and their belief that Dean is somehow invincible and destined to win. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact most Dean supporters know the fight we face is a hard one...we were nowhere this time last year, so we know about being told we couldn't win...

In fact, most Dean supporters will tell you that we are not sure we will even win the nomination, let alone the general election...in fact, we are often puzzled by those from other campaigns who suggest that their candidate would do so much better than Dean....I believe it shows either a lack of experience or the very fanaticism that Dean supporters get tagged with...

I understand your question was broad, and I offered up a response from a Dean supporter, but I think your question is to a degree silly. No one should ever apologize for the support for a candidate...those who should apologize would be those members of the party who decide to sit on their hands and do nothing to help us defeat Bush in 2004....

So the question should be....Will you be able to look yourself in the mirror the day after the election next November?

This supporter will never apologize for fighting to help my candidate win against the worst president in US history....sorry!

[Scott Lee]

23. Selwynn is there a point to this post?

I mean, other than you want a chance to stand superior over someone for a mistake?

One would hope that a "progressive" such as yourself would be "above" such shallow emotional positioning, ne?

[mikehiggins]

24. Not really. I'm afraid we're doomed to lose anyway.

I support Clark because I think he has the best chance of beating Bush but even with him as our candidate I think all sorts of things will have to break our way for the general voting public to turn away from the "Invisible Airman" and take a chance on someone else.

If we do lose, which I think likely, I'll be sorry for America but not for trying my best.

And for those of you who think realism is negativism, I remind you that one of the greatest military victories of all time was won by the Spartans. Everyone of them died at Thermopolye but they broke the spirit of the Persian army.

Fighting to the last gasp in a lost cause can sometimes motivate the survivors for the next battle, which would have to be in 2002.

[oasis]

26. If Dean gets trounced you can expect to see a lot of new screen names.

[MIMStigator]

30. LOL

eom

[Melinda]

27. Since my guy doesn't walk on water, I'll still be here :-)

[robbedvoter]

28. I have no intention of losing!

He's running for president, and he is not used to losing.  And if he gets the nomination, he'll go up and down this country and beat on President Bush like a drum.  He'll do 2,000 yards every morning; he'll rappel down any cliff he needs to; he will shake off any small-arms fire as if it were a swarm of gnats.  And he'll get better at the game each and every day.
He hates to lose.  And he doesn't run from fights.
And even if he's never played the game, he's never a beginner at anything.
Dismissed."

[Skittles]

29. HAVE THE BALLS?

What the F*** is THAT supposed to mean? And if you are inferring that MALE BODY PARTS are required for COURAGE, please STOP IT.