Trippi: "Down from Mt." Lessons learned from Jimmy Carter, Must Read.

[KoKo]

(Snip)
I want to talk a little bit about what you need to understand about the political system here. You guys don't understand…there's one thing I want you to understand. A guy named Jimmy Carter became president of United States, and it might surprise you to know this, but right after he became president and left around in there, the party pulled together this thing called the Hunt Commission. And the Hunt Commission's whole thing was to make damn sure that never happened again. Whatever this Jimmy Carter thing was, this guy who came out of nowhere, never bowed to the hierarchy of the Democratic party on his way to the White House, never really sort of went to the five thousand powerful people you were supposed to go to and bow to them and say, "Help me get this." He got there without any of them. And what they decided to do is, "We need to devise a system that will prevent that from happening." And this cycle…they devised this calendar on purpose. This thing, this cycle of these primaries coming faster and faster and faster and all of it being over very quickly was all designed as part of the retooling. They kept retooling it every cycle. "How do we make sure that no insurgent can possibly ever get this party's nomination?" And this system was designed to do that. And that meant that your only hope, your best hope for getting the nomination if you were an insurgent was to do everything you could to win Iowa or New Hampshire or both. If you failed to do that…this system was designed so that an establishment front runner like Kerry or Mondale or any of those guys would be rolling as soon as they got out of Iowa or New Hampshire and the nomination would be over in a week or two. And the only way that you could stop that from happening is to get big enough and strong. We are talking about insurgent here. This is like Gary Hart. Remember Gary Hart in 1984? I know this may be boring to you guys, but you need to understand this. '84: Gary Hart stumbles into Iowa, a nobody. He has got minus a hundred thousand dollars in the bank, a staff of seventeen he hasn't paid for two months. He gets 15% of the vote in Iowa, getting second, and that starts him down this road where he becomes famous. They moved up this cycle so fast this time on purpose to even prevent that, that your only hope was to become so strong and so formidable as an insurgent that you could knock out…you had to be able to knock them out in Iowa and New Hampshire, because if you did that then the system worked for you and not the establishment. That's what the Dean campaign had to do.

And you know, we did a pretty damn good job of it. We took all of us together -- and Howard Dean -- got to a place that according to the party rules it was impossible to get to. It should have been impossible for us to get to where we were three weeks before Iowa, to be ahead in every poll, to have more money than everybody. And how did that happen? And the reason is because there's no way to do that without the party apparatus and the party money and the institutions being for you. Well back then almost no institution in this party...it was all done with people, the American people --.hundreds of thousands of them -- all using the tools that were built over the Internet. That's was happened.

http://www.itconversations.com/transcript.php?id=80

[Casablanca]

1. Trippi gets it, but didn't when he left the Dean campaign ...

He played into the scarlet-letter media treatment in a big way when he left the campaign, and he had to have known it.

All been said here before, I know, but it riles me when somebody as smart as Trippi does something so detrimental to what he's worked so hard for.

[KoKo]

3. Much of Trippi sounds like some kind of "sour grapes" until you see that

he's describing his experience in Politics....and it ain't great..

I picked the Carter part, because I was part of "activism for Carter," and have experience about how he was trashed when he became President, but also his "populist road" to get into the Presidency.

[jeter]

2. I DO NOT accept this

The calendar didn't hurt Dean.

It hurt everyone who wasn't the frontrunner. The calendar was looking good for Dean in the beginning.

That's why he put so much focus on New Hampshire and Iowa. When he led in those states, the party was nervous. For the exact same reason.

Dean would have gotten all the momentum and would be nearly unstoppable to beat.

The problem was that DEAN LOST Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean lost Iowa more than a week before the famous "scream speech." He lost it because he forgot the reason he became the front runner in the first place. Because he presented himself as an alternative to George W. Bush. That was what the Democrats desperately wanted. Someone OTHER than Bush and his policies to support.

Kerry came into Iowa more or less as a high-risk gamble. He was trailing in New Hampshire - a must win state for him. No Massachusettes candidate had ever lost the New Hampshire Primary. He began campaigning on three themes: first, his war record and ability to stand up to Bush in the election on foriegn affairs; second, his policy proposals (which are better than the rest) and his record in the Senate; and finally, with an excellent ground operation that understood Iowan voters were looking for someone other than Dean and managed to connect with and eventually recieve the support from those voters.

Kerry's victory in Iowa changed the entire political equation.

Since either Gephardt or Dean were expected to win this first caucus. Had Gephardt won, he may have gotten a small bump - but his campaign would have gone no where. He would be where Edwards is right now.

Dean would still have all the momentum in New Hampshire had he finished even second to Gephardt. Kerry buried in Iowa would have no where to go. New Hampshire voters would have been looking to Clark to stand up to Dean (for those Democrats that were so terrified of his candidacy). Clark had been moving up in the polls that week as well in NH. He trailed Dean by less than 10% one week BEFORE Iowa (and the scream).

But Kerry's victory in Iowa destroyed three candidacies:

First, Richard Gephardt. The orignial frontrunner in Iowa. Gephardt NEEDED to win there. His fourth place showing could not pass any measurement of victory. His loss ended his campaign.

Second, Wesley Clark. Clark had made the unwise decision to stay out of Iowa - believing as almost everyone else did that either Dean or Gephardt would win. He focused his attentions on New Hampshire. But when Kerry won - his boost was tailor made for New Hampshire. Coming from next door Massachusettes, Kerry had the institutional support and name recognition. The image of Kerry winning in Iowa was enough for New Hampshirites to take a second look. Clark's surge the week before suffered badly.

Third, Howard Dean. When Dean finished a distant third in Iowa - he could barely claim any more victory than Gephardt. But he still had a chance in New Hampshire. But it would not be easy.

Dean decided that his best bet was to juxtapose himself with Kerry. To argue that Kerry was a "Washington Democrat" and had supported Bush on the war and other issues. He could not be trusted to stand up to Bush now. But Dean's rhetoric seemed to be saying that Democrats should use their vote TO PUNISH DEMOCRATS rather than punishing BUSH himself. Kerry ran mostly the same in New Hampshire. His war record. His Senate record. His war buddies. His plan for the future.

New Hampshire went for Kerry. After that no one could stop him. Kerry caught the perfect storm. Dean could not rationalize his candidacy. Clark could not rationalize his candidacy. Gephardt was out. Lieberman, Kucinich and Sharpton never had a chance. The only alternative became Edwards by virtue of elimination.

Edwards came in a close second in Iowa. He would later win the South Carolina primary. And came within less than one percent of winning in Oklahoma. And finished second in most other primaries. Not a stellar performance. But a decent one considering the Kerry tidal wave.

So it effectively became: Kerry vs. Edwards. But Edwards had one serious problem. Dean and Clark were still in the race. So if an anybody-but-Kerry movement was to be formed, the three divided the votes.

Then polls came out showing Kerry beating Bush. The first time a named Democrat defeated the President in a head-to-head match up. The issues: the necessity of war in Iraq, the economy (job losses and deficit), and health insurance began to swing in the favor of Democrats. Kerry seemed to be in the best position to argue all three.

The Democratic Party rallied. Kerry became unstoppable.

That's what happened. It wasn't a conspiracy. Dean was the frontrunner based on three assumptions:

first, his huge lead in the first two contests.

second, his gigantic war chest.

third, his organizational abilities nationwide.

His lead evaporated when he began buying into the Dean cult instead of understanding what got him there in the first place. He had driven the nomination battle from the beginning. He opposed the war. He proposed Health Insurance. He recognized that there were a silent majority of Americans that do not watch or appear on Hannity and Colmes or Rush Limbaugh's Radio Show that don't approve of Bush's handling of the country. He provided an alternative vision and was rewarded with a huge bounce. But then he believed just showing up someplace and not saying anything particularly important would give him the nomination. The other candidates caught on to Dean's strategy and employed it for themselves. That's not unusual - or even unethical. Jeez, most candidates had similar positions or opinions. Even Dean isn't as liberal as he makes himself out to be. But when Kerry and Clark began to surge (in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively) Dean freaked out. He began running a campaign AGAINST the Democrats. He argued that HE and ONLY HE could stand up to Bush. He had bought into the whole myth the Dean campaign created for itself. Democrats disagreed with him and he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Since Dean himself put so much value on Iowa and New Hampshire, it should not surprise anyone that he spent the VAST MAJORITY of his campaign funds in those two states. When he left New Hampshire still looking for his first victory 35 of his 40 million were gone. His gigantic war chest looked down right ordinary. Also, his much vaunted organization proved worthless in Iowa and New Hampshire. After losing those two states he simply had no where to go.

Then there is the speech. I don't think the speech had a negative effect on him anywhere outside of Washington. Except for one thing, in that speech he predicted he would win:

South Carolina, New Hampshire, California, New York, Texas.

He promised: Massachuesettes, Arkansas, Ohio, Conneticut and others too.

Well he hasn't won any of them.

The air is now out of the Dean campaign. Money problems, staff shake ups. These are the actions of losing candidates. Kerry looks more and more like a winner. Democrats seemed to have decided on him.

It's time Dean people realize that this is what happened to their candidate. It wasn't a conspiracy by the DNC. Sure they didn't want Dean as their nominee, but understood that he might be. They wouldn't sabatoge the general to bring Dean down - especially since up to a week before Iowa, Dean seemed unbeatable.

It wasn't the media. Yes, they went after Dean. But they go after everyone. Kerry is now getting the Dean treatment. Let's hope he doesn't disintegrate the way Dean did.

It wasn't the Republicans. They were relishing the possibility of running against Dean.

It was Dean. It happens. He was just too much of an amateur.

So it's time for people to put away the conspiracy theories and understand that sometimes people lose elections.

[KoKo]

4. You have an interesting read.......and thanks for that. But, it goes

deeper. So your post and doing some research on Dems and the Carter Campaign would all meld together into a very interesting article on what happened to the Democratic Party!

Thanks for the time you spent on your post..and I understand exactly what you say.....but DIG MORE......there's more there that would work into an excellent DU Front Page Article......

However, I stand in the "Conspiracy Camp." Because I lived through alot of STUFF in my life and know that neither the Dems or Repugs are innocent in the last 40 + years of our Political History.

:-)'s

[Casablanca]

11. Agreed, there's a lot more to this ...

Sorry jeter, but Dean didn't engineer the circular firing squad debates for himself. All of the Dem candidates all but put Bush on the back burner to go after Dean. Their tactic couldn't have been more obvious.

The result was that Dean was polarized by their efforts to be the anti-Democratic Party Dem candidate, along with Dean's accurate criticism of the party. You say that Dean forgot to be anti-Bush and became anti-Dem Party, when it was the Dem Party that forgot to be anti-Bush and became anti-Dean. How was Dean supposed to work with that?

Dean, as usual, is putting it accurately - he didn't kiss the glove, and he wasn't beholden to the Dem Party hierarchy. Voters in Iowa could have made that the politically expedient move, but they chose not to. Trippi's explanation of this seems pretty sound to me - last question of the Q&A on http://www.itconversations.com/transcript.php?id=72.

[jeter]

15. Casablanca, obviously

The other candidates wanted to "stop" Dean. Why does this surprise you? If Dean wins the nomination, then the others lose right? Who wants to lose?

An enemy of my enemy is my friend. There's nothing new about that.

Sharpton and Kucinich even took on Dean. Are you saying that these two men are DLC hacks?

No they were Dean's opponents. Dean may have been in the lead, but he hadn't won anything one week before Iowa.

That his opponents were challenging his status as front runner should not be any surprise.

[w4rma]

5. Nah. What Trippi is saying has , it is my understanding, been confirmed

by folks on the establisment side, also. Trippi's not saying anything radical or new here. He's just explaining, in his own words, what this system is meant to do.

[KoKo]

6. Yes......that's my read of it also....but we should have learned better

since Carter....wouldn't one think? Unless the whole point (which Trippi alludes to) is that we Dems NEVER CORRECTED what happened to Carter.

Until we do that...no matter how many "new campaign innovations" we come up with (like the internet) the Committe of 500 (and we all know they are out there) will sabotage our efforts because as we grow "more savey" they grow "More Powerful" because they have the REAL MONEY...and we just have "EFFORT."

I'm looking for "Little David" to defeat "Mighty Goliath" and really it will not be in the foreseeable future, given the way things are going.

:-(.....but gotta keep trying and assessing the information as it comes in..bit by bit.

[dionysus]

8. so once again, Dean supports have bought into a 'Cult'

thanks for the positive portrayal! BTW, my official Dean Cult Robe(tm) and sash are at the drycleaners, and my Dean Sacrificial Dagger (tm) is in the dishwasher...

[jeter]

9. I didn't say you bought into a cult.

I'm saying Dean ran it like one.

[lurk_no_more]

13. Great post

A bit long but well worth the read and on the mark.

:yourock:




And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[Doomsayer13]

14. great analysis

I agree wholeheartedly. When a loss occurs, it's all to easy to blame something distant and abstract, like the meida, or the DNC insiders. In the end, it was Democrats who went to the polls and put Kerry in the front-runner's spot. The media portrayal was harsh, but Dean did a lot of it to himself.

[Armstead]

7. Kick

Worth reading.

[Casablanca]

10. Kick - crucial read, Q&A link too. nt

[Octafish]

12. So if Trippi knew all that going in, why did Dean lose?

... in Iowa and New Hampshire. After all, the process is front-loaded to benefit the front-runner. That was Dean Dean Dean for most of the last six months. Perhaps more people in Iowa and New Hampshire prefered another candidate. They should know better than those in other states where the candidates, as a group and individually, haven't spent as much time. Thus, Trippi's ad buy or no ad buy, have less to do with the outcome as the candidate. That's the key.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. Jimmy Carter was a member of the CFR and Trilateral Commission

He was *hardly* an outsider.

I thought the primary schedule and delegate system was to make sure Jesse Jackson could never win the primary like he almost did in '88.