Howard Deans legacy as DNC chairman...
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
Yes, but like me and Bill have been saying, that doesn't matter.
You could, hypothetically, have a 12, 15% disparity in the popular vote and have the "loser" win the election, because he won a small margin in key states.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Bear with me and be patient. How can it not matter if a 2% swing could have changed the result of the election?
Because that 2% swing can be distributed in a huge number of ways that could either change or not change the result of the election.
If that 2% swing was in, say, New York, California, and Texas, it would have not changed the results at all.
Plus, a 2% change in certain states could shift even a "blowout" election. There could be a very large popular vote margin, but just a few million votes in very specific areas would shift the election. Not every election is "close"
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Oh yeah, I understand that, and I understand there are many more permutations where it could swing 2% and NOT affect the outcome, I'm just making the point that it COULD affect it, if the swing was distributed in very specific ways.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
in a 2 party system a 9 point spread is a blowout.
I wouldn't quite call it a blowout. BUT, on the national level a spread of ~8% is in the "near blowout" category given how w/ the size of the national electorate (vs. the a Congressional district on San Francisco or rural Alabama) you have a heavy, heavy, regression to the mean.
Overall, its an interesting question. I think Dean did well in that the Dems didn't just give up in states they had, in recent history, done poorly in. That said, I'm curious to what degree the vote for Obama was depressed because of his race (maybe not at all... maybe he got MORE votes for being black from certain demographics, maybe he got LESS from others....). Point is that this is truly the first election where the race of the candidates differed. Hard to know, obviously, how to account for that.
Overall, its an interesting question. I think Dean did well in that the Dems didn't just give up in states they had, in recent history, done poorly in. That said, I'm curious to what degree the vote for Obama was depressed because of his race (maybe not at all... maybe he got MORE votes for being black from certain demographics, maybe he got LESS from others....). Point is that this is truly the first election where the race of the candidates differed. Hard to know, obviously, how to account for that.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
It isn't completely a 2 party systems either. Some of us voted Libertarian.
We've also had plenty of black candidates before, from really minor parties.
We've also had plenty of black candidates before, from really minor parties.
Yep yep, but, like it or not (I don't), its a de facto 2-party system, with noted exceptions, but even the exceptions are oddities and rarities.
Sorry, I tend to speak a more pragmatic language (maybe pragmatic's not the best word) rather than a literal one. Yes, there have been other black candidates. But he is the first legitimate (meaning has a chance) one.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I also question exactly how much Dean and the DNC actually helped the Obama campaign to begin with. I think that credit for running a good platform and message needs to go to Obama and his staff.....not Dean.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
The recent presidential election was not a historic blowout along the lines of Reagan's second or Johnson's, which I agree is somewhat uprising given the unpopularity of the previous president. This can mostly be attributed to John McCain, who, while he did not run an exceedingly good campaign, was probably the Republican candidate with the most popular appeal.
However, Dean did an incredible job as chairman of the Democratic Party. Under his watch, the Democrats gained 12 seats in the Senate, along with Sanders and Lieberman. They gained 52 seats in the House of Representatives, in addition to seven governorships. If someone wants to look up state legislatures, they can knock themselves out with that. My point is that the Democrats have had two excellent cycles under Dean, and are well set up for the the up-coming elections, particularly in the Senate.
However, Dean did an incredible job as chairman of the Democratic Party. Under his watch, the Democrats gained 12 seats in the Senate, along with Sanders and Lieberman. They gained 52 seats in the House of Representatives, in addition to seven governorships. If someone wants to look up state legislatures, they can knock themselves out with that. My point is that the Democrats have had two excellent cycles under Dean, and are well set up for the the up-coming elections, particularly in the Senate.
I think the 50 state focus can directly be attributed to Dean's vision.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Fixed that for you.
Seriously Mobboss? We both know that Dean poured a ton of money into states like Virginia and New Mexico, where Democrats have traditionally feared to tread. Bush was certainly an influencing factor, but to blame him entirely for Republican losses in the last two cycles is ridiculous. Dean deserves major credit for gambling on a 50 state strategy, which has produced so many obvious dividends. Unfortunately he's not to close with the White House, possibly due to his very cool relationship with Rahm Emanuel.
