Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (22117)	12/30/2003 8:05:12 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793656

"Dean says his supporters "'are certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.' Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was 'not transferable anymore' and that endorsements, including his own, 'don't guarantee anything.'" I believe Dean is being correct. Many of the contributors from the internet are voters who are against the war and perhaps new voters. I doubt some portion will come to the polls to vote for other than DEAN.

To: LindyBill who wrote (22117)	12/30/2003 10:13:06 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793656

<<Dean says his supporters "'are certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician.' Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was 'not transferable anymore' and that endorsements, including his own, 'don't guarantee anything.'">> He's playing the defection card. Bill, how are we to know that? That's a straight question. How are we to know. How are we to know when any politician means just what he said and when he is sending a different message? What he said is, best I can tell, an accurate observation. He has energized a lot of folks who probably won't be inspired to vote at all if he isn't on the ballot, even if he endorses the nominee and asks his supporters to support him. He may have meant exactly what he said. Or it might have been a veiled threat to defect as Sharpton and McAuliffe inferred. So how do we know which it is? Are you concluding the latter because Dean wouldn't have stated the obvious if there weren't a hidden message? Are you concluding the latter because you just have a low opinion of human nature, or maybe Dean's nature? [Those are just a couple of things that came quickly to mind and not mean to be a full array of possible explanations.] On what are your basing your assessment?