It's extremely petty and bizzare that a show of passion derailed Howard dean's pres ambitions

[dora_da_destroyer]

Chris Matthews started talking about people getting killed in Central Park.

Ended his own career only for Biden to still win special type of dumbass

 

[Pressure]

This is complete nonsense.






Played 633 times in 4 days by the national news alone. So every news station in the country covered a completely meaningless non-issue incessantly for 4 straight days but you want to reduce it to "just the Chappelle Show".


The only reason Chappelle could do it as a skit 2 years later was because it was such a massively overplayed moment. If the moment was irrelevant, then why the fukk would a skit comic be talking about a random moment for a 3rd-place primary candidate years after the fact?

He was the front runner going into Iowa and it was his concession speech. It had a funny moment, prior to social media. Of course it was played all over TV.

But he was already on a downward trajectory.

Howard Dean was an insurgent candidate who was surging in the polls only to get blown out in Iowa and placed second in New Hampshire.

But don't take my word for it, just listen to his own words:

And there’s the misperception that the "scream" — rather than Dean’s third-place finish — doomed the campaign.

"We took third that day," said Joe Trippi, who was Dean’s campaign manager. "We had three weeks of gaffes and mistakes that caused us to take third."

"What did in our candidacy was ourselves," Dean told NBC News.

20 years later people only care about this moment because of Chappelle show.

 

[Pressure]

So what tanked his campaign then

His own campaign blames a poorly ran campaign that led to a bad finish in Iowa as tanking it.

And there’s the misperception that the "scream" — rather than Dean’s third-place finish — doomed the campaign.

"We took third that day," said Joe Trippi, who was Dean’s campaign manager. "We had three weeks of gaffes and mistakes that caused us to take third."

"What did in our candidacy was ourselves," Dean told NBC News.

 

[Jalether]

His own campaign blames a poorly ran campaign that led to a bad finish in Iowa as tanking it.

Do you honestly believe the incident played absolutely no role in his failure.

A number of factors can lead to a failure.

 

[Pressure]

Do you honestly believe the incident played absolutely no role in his failure.

A number of factors can lead to a failure.

No, because his chances of winning were always slim.

As an insurgent candidate he needed to show well early and he did not. It's that simple.

Dean continued to fundraise well after the incident, but never won. Then the money stopped.

 

[Robbie3000]

Do you honestly believe the incident played absolutely no role in his failure.

A number of factors can lead to a failure.

Its so obvious, but some people are just contrarians and will argue till the cows come home.

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

The point of contention was that it tanked his campaign. My position is and remains his campaign was already tanking before his speech, thus his negative campaign ads and eventual third place finish.

And the only reason anyone is still talking about it is because of Chappelle show.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but your initial post definitely seemed to insinuate that your primary point of contention was that this wasn't a big deal, not that he wasn't going to win the primary anyway.

There were fukking Li'l Jon meme remixes floating around Kazaa, Limeware, and other mp3 sharing sites with Dean screaming the cities names and adlibbing (I probably still have some of them somewhere). This incident was HUGE. I was teaching in HS at the time and kids were aware of this shyt, BEFORE Chappelle. It's pure revisionist history to suggest this was some kind of inconsequential blip that came and went.

And whether or not he would have won the primary because of it is ultimately irrelevant to OP's point; That some goofy display of passion has more negative relevance to voters and pundits than actual war crimes being committed or open racism.

 

[Pressure]

And whether or not he would have won the primary because of it is ultimately irrelevant to OP's point; That some goofy display of passion has more negative relevance to voters and pundits than actual war crimes being committed or open racism.

Nothing suggests that voters opinions on Dean swayed because of the memes.

He performed better in the contest immediately following the memes and coverage than he did before.



And no the title of OP IS THAT the memes are what sunk his campaign. If you want to beat the dead horse over media coverage during elections go for it, but pick a better premise and don't make the faulty conclusion that it's the media fault he performed poorly when he and his own campaign say they performed poorly because they ran a poor campaign.

 

[mastermind]

He performed better in the contest immediately following the memes and coverage than he did before.

It was the New Hampshire primary and Dean was the former governor of Vermont.

You are very wrong on this topic.

And no the title of OP IS THAT the memes are what sunk his campaign.

Because it did.

Dean wasn't going to win and this shyt did sink his campaign. Both can be true.

 

[Pressure]

It was the New Hampshire primary and Dean was the former governor of Vermont.

You are very wrong on this topic.


Because it did.

Dean wasn't going to win and this shyt did sink his campaign. Both can be true.

Like Kerry wasn't from Mass

The point is he made gains after the gaffe suggesting statements over its harm are overstated.

Polling after the Iowa Caucuses consistently showed Governor Dean behind Senator Kerry by a wide margin in the run up to the New Hampshire Primary. A poll released from Franklin Pierce College showed Kerry leading by as much as 30%–16%. However, after a substantial effort by Dean on the campaign trail, the final poll conducted by Marist College showed Kerry leading 36%–27%.

Y'all hate reality.

 

[Pressure]

The irony of shouting about media coverage in this thread and talking about Sanders isn't lost on me, largely because the 2004 election and 2020 election had some pretty strong parallels on voter behavior.

Kerry’s Broad Base, Dean’s High Negatives

Howard Dean achieved his main objective in New Hampshire he survived to fight another day. But exit polls from Tuesday’s primary underscored the former Vermont governor’s vulnerabilities. Four-in-ten voters in Dean’s neighboring state expressed an unfavorable view of him. He managed to hold on to his liberal base more successfully than in Iowa, but his heavy reliance on liberal support will become a liability as the campaign now heads to more conservative states in the South and West.

The results in New Hampshire underscored one of the major themes in this campaign: the importance Democratic voters place on defeating President Bush. A surprisingly high percentage of New Hampshire voters (33%) backed their candidate because they thought he could defeat Bush, rather than because they agreed with him on major issues. Sen. John Kerry dominated among those who rated electability as more important; he drew a solid majority among this group (56%), to 16% for Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and 14% for Dean. Kerry also held his own against Dean among the larger group of voters who said that issues matter more (29% each).

 

[mastermind]

Like Kerry wasn't from Mass

what are you saying?

I said DEan is from New Hampshire so he finished high due to locality. Your post said that there was proof voters didn't care about the scream, when my only point is he finished high there due to locality.

Y'all hate reality.

Your earlier post said that Dave Chappelle made the scream a thing, when that skit premiered two years later and you saying we hate reality?

Discussing anything with you is like talking to a Q person. Just move the discussion to something else because you don't like what people are saying.

 

[Pressure]

what are you saying?

I said DEan is from New Hampshire so he finished high due to locality. Your post said that there was proof voters didn't care about the scream, when my only point is he finished high there due to locality.



Your earlier post said that Dave Chappelle made the scream a thing, when that skit premiered two years later and you saying we hate reality?

Discussing anything with you is like talking to a Q person. Just move the discussion to something else because you don't like consistency.

Howard Dean is not from New Hampshire. He's from NY AND he served in Vermont. Why are you lying?


We're not moving the conversation anywhere. My initial position is that his campaign is the reason he tanked, not memes. And we have an entire history of elections since then that show memes aren't swaying elections like that.

So once I say he didn't tank because of his outburst, but because he just wasn't a good enough candidate and then show data that supports that you get upset.

I have yet to see one piece of data presented that shows his favorables changing due to the coverage.

 

[Pressure]

HOWARD DEAN'S CAMPAIGN TANKED BECAUSE IT FOCUSED HEAVILY ON WINNING OVER LIBERALS AND NOT MODERATE AND CONSERVATIVE DEMS.

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

Nothing suggests that voters opinions on Dean swayed because of the memes.

He performed better in the contest immediately following the memes and coverage than he did before.



And no the title of OP IS THAT the memes are what sunk his campaign. If you want to beat the dead horse over media coverage during elections go for it, but pick a better premise and don't make the faulty conclusion that it's the media fault he performed poorly when he and his own campaign say they performed poorly because they ran a poor campaign.

This is highly debatable. His polling numbers on "electability" nosedived after The Scream. Now, you could view it from the standpoint of his loss in Iowa being the major reason for that, or the scream being what caused those numbers to fall, or a combination of factors. But to say nothing suggests it didn't have an effect would be pretty assinine.

If the voters increasingly think you're not going to get elected because you've been painted as a raving lunatic non-stop or because you just lost the Iowa caucus is hard to parse, but you're acting as if the argument itself should just be dismissed and your perception is reality. The fact that you've spent the majority of this thread also pretending as if the event itself was some one-time below the fold headline that came and went when that obviously wasn't the case should tell you that maybe your perception is skewed.