Bigger primary implosion: Dean or Giuliani?

H

HornsInTheHouse

500+ Posts
The Howard Dean and Rudy Giuliani fiascoes in the primaries may not be exactly the same but I see some similarities. Both supposedly had a ton of momentum going into the primary they put all their efforts into. Both finished third place is that primary and never had a chance later. Both had the fund raising advantage in their parties. The biggest difference is that Giuliani imploded largely because of an unorthodox strategy of ignoring the first states for a single large one weeks later. Dean did what all the Democrats were doing, campaign heavily in Iowa.
 
Yeah, Dean had a spectacular fall. Guilliani just committed election suicide by removing himself from the media cycles. If you wanted to compare the fall from front runner to also ran, then McCain '00 is much more similar.
 
Giuliani will be a case study for all future politicians of what NOT to do.

Dean just yelled over a large crowd and the microphone (made for recording in noisy areas) killed his candidacy.
 
Howard Dean was a good speaker who also understood the use of the internet. Those were his presidential qualifications. Period.

Gulliani had a face known round the world and could have pulled the Republican party into the main stream of American politics. He could have pulled off the "big tent" BS. People really didnt care that he was a serial adulterer. That he had more than a few mobbed up friends. Or that he looted the NYC treasury. In big cities, things like that are the norm.

In the modern era (TV), we have tended not to elect qualified people, but rather people that are at least 6'0" and aren't bald. Or people that look you in the eye, lie to you (RR & WJC), and you know they are lying to you, but you want so much for it to be the truth, that we just smile and nod our heads (didnt trade arms for hostages, trees cause air pollution, ketchup is a vegatable, i did not have sex with that woman, i did not cross the road to kill vince foster and cheat on my wife).

Howard Dean has done an incredible job as head of the DNC. But whether he deserves it or not, Gulliani will be in the history books. And not for the fact that his career implosion is almost impossible to comprehend.

Flame on.
vince.gif
 
Dead stirred some things up, but at no point did he have a shot in hell at being the nominee. Imagine if Ron Paul had been much more successful in Iowa and New Hampshire. He would have become a darling of the press, get a lot of blog buzz to only fall flat on his face later on in the campaign.

Guiliani had more than just a legit shot at becoming the nominee.


Dean's campaign was doomed from the start. Guiliani's campaign was his to lose.

So the answer is Guiliani and anyone who says Dean is just plain wrong.
 
I think the corporate press and right wing press brought Dean down. He was not towing the free market mantra, viewed as a threat to the "establishment", and the press felt the obligation to knock him down. The DNC may have played a role thinking he was unelectable in a general election.

Rudy polled bad in Iowa and NH. He decided to put his eggs in FL. Now we see it as a big mistake in hindsight.

Dean's was a greater implosion.
 
Giuliani, and it is not even close. He not only was leading to get the nomination, he was leading all candidates to become POTUS.

As stated, Dean was never even close to the nomination – he had a big night in a neighboring state.

Was Dean’s fall more rapid, yes. But Giuliani was the bigger pratfall considering where he was.

And throw Thompson in there as well.
 
Giuliani - he never sniffed the nomination after being widely heralded as the Republican front runner.

Dean's candidacy was a cross between Ron Paul and Obama. He had a lot of enthusiasm, but the Party wasn't ready his loudmouth chirping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top