|
 |
January 16, 2004 NEW VOTERS....Nick Confessore writes today that Howard Dean is basing his campaign on the idea that he can attract new voters, rather than enlarging his share among people who already vote. He's not impresed:
Not sure you agree? Ask yourself this question: when was the last time a presidential candidate won office primarily by rousing the base and running a red meat ideological campaign? Goldwater and McGovern rather famously got trounced trying this, and among recent winners Reagan appealed to disaffected Democrats, Bush Sr. was a moderate Republican to begin with, Clinton won with "third way" politics, and Bush Jr. presented himself as a compassionate conservative. And it's pretty obvious that Bush is doing the same thing for 2004. Sure, Karl Rove is trying to get the Christian right revved up for November, but take a look at how Bush himself is preparing for the election. A Medicare bill to attract the senior vote. An immigration proposal to appeal to Latinos. A Mars mission to make him look visionary. And all of them designed to take the hard edge off of 2003's divisive war rhetoric and emphasize the "compassionate" side of his conservatism. He understands that he has to appeal to the middle in order to win. Any winning candidate will try to both energize the base and appeal to the middle, and it would be foolish to abandon either of these. Still, while an energetic base helps by contributing time, money, and passion to a campaign, the hard truth is that in the end it doesn't bring many genuinely new voters to the polls (a far different proposition than simply getting your natural base to turn out in larger numbers). Bush is smart enough to know this and tack toward the center for 2004, and we should expect our candidate to do the same. Bottom line: let's not eat our babies. The hard fact is that fervent liberals and Bush haters just don't make up 50% of the electorate, least of all among those disaffected enough that they don't usually vote in the first place. This means we have to win support from a good chunk of the middle that does vote. Unless you want four more years of George W. Bush. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 16, 2004 05:23 PM | TrackBackComments
I agree, and it works for both sides. For 2004, I think it is safe to assume democrats and republicans are both guaranteed 40% to start, and so the rest is fighting for that last 20%. If Dean does not want to actively try to court these people, it's hopeless. Posted by: mark at January 16, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKI agree, good analysis by Kevin here. Does anyone know what, if any,
effect the nakedly political appeal to Latinos has had? The country is
so incredibly polarized now that only a few midwestern states and the
southwest really seem to be up for grabs in the general. If the
southwest is up for grabs, that means the Latino vote. And obviously
Karl "Bald Satan" Rove knows this. Good post Kevin. People are figuring this out and this is why Deans numbers are slipping. Posted by: MJ at January 16, 2004 05:33 PM | PERMALINKWell that makes Nick an idiot or a lying lier. Dean has made it quite clear that he is going to run to the RIGHT of Bush on foreign policy and on fiscal responsibility. So will anyone else that wins the Democratic nomination. Dean is only perceived as appealing to the liberal base, because the liberal base was the first to recognize that invading Iraq was monumentally stupid. And Howard Dean toured the country raising hell about it. Sure Clark opposed Iraq to (and for the record, I've come around to being a Clark supporter) but when Clark was splitting hairs about tactics on CNN, Dean was raising hell. That is the only substantial difference between the political dynamics of Clark & Dean at this point. Posted by: decon at January 16, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKIt has always been my understanding that you first run to the right/left to win the endorsement of your party, e.g.: Bush talking to that racist college in 2000 to ace McCain out), then veer sharply to the center to win the general election. One might argue that Dean is in fact running a 2000 Bush-like campaign. Posted by: Lupin at January 16, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINKTo claim that Ronald Reagan was not a red meat base appealing politician in 1976 and again still in 1980 while seeking his party's nomination is pop political revisionism. Usually Kevin Drum gets it right but not here. Posted by: CMike at January 16, 2004 05:44 PM | PERMALINKThis kind of reverse shilling for Clark is kinda off-putting. Sure, plug your candidate. No need to attempt ugly scare tactics against the other guy's supporters. Posted by: The Big Texan at January 16, 2004 05:45 PM | PERMALINKPlease explain how pointing out the huge flaw in Dean's own campaign logic (expressed by those in the campaign) is somehow a clandestine appeal for Clark? Posted by: Rob at January 16, 2004 05:47 PM | PERMALINKHaving read Nick's story I see he's relying upon a WSJ story about Dean's strategy. Of course the article conveniently quotes Dean & Trippi on growing the base. But as Nedra Pickler would say, the article neglects to mention that Dean also intends to attract independents AND republicans. It really isn't an either or proposition. Dean can grow the base and attract the center. So can Clark. Some of the other candidates might have a problem with doing both. Posted by: decon at January 16, 2004 05:48 PM | PERMALINKAs folks have already mentioned, Reagan does immediately come to mind, red meat wise. Bu then, it's not like Bush will be able to pull off the "compassionate conseravtive" gig this cycle, either, so Bush will pretty much be running a red meat campaign. Re the bigger question about bringing in more voters... God. There go the political pros again, telling us to just stay at home an let "wiser heads" make our decisions for us. Look... Turnout for presidential elections has been 60-mumble percent of registered voters for a while now, yes? And, famously, those who've been voting are locked about 50-50, which really means 30-30. What that means is that even if the non-voting but registered electorate skews rightward, you only need about 5 percentage points of the total pool -- or about 1/8 of the total 40% who haven't been voting -- to make it a 35-30 landslide of the total, or a 54% win on election day. And that's only of registered voters. If one brings in unregistered voters, all bets are off. Honestly, electoral politics in America is a plus-sum game these days. Political pros who try to sell you on the idea that it's zero-sum or minus-sum are basically hoping you just stay at home and let their candidate win. Posted by: Hal O'Brien at January 16, 2004 05:55 PM | PERMALINKThis is not an ugly scare tactic. Come on, we can be a little more thick skinned than that. Having said that, we should really be scared because Dean wants to increase turnout? Really? It doesn't say he wants to do this to the exclusion of swing voters. It might be campaign shtick. They're also genuinely good organizers. Most Dean supporters probably were solid Democratic voters to begin with, but a 2 million strong nagging machine makes a difference on election day. And I really am starting to despise the patronizing, "great unwashed" view of Dean supporters from writers I otherwise respect. (not you Kevin.) Posted by: Katherine at January 16, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKThank you, Lupin and CMike. Campaign 101: run to the extreme in the primary, run to the center in the general. Dean's centrist credentials are well known, and you can bet they'll be put on very public display as soon as he's reasonably assured of winning the nomination. And please, could we not bother with the purist nitpicking? This is politics, FCOL. Posted by: bleh at January 16, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKSigh... Why does anyone take seriously what Dean says about his general election strategy now? Of course he's going to say something about appealing to good Democrats first. Why wouldn't he? And you know what? He'll probably keep saying the same thing in the general, even while reaching out to disaffected GOP and moderates. He's done the same thing in the primaries. Playing to the activist crowd, while at the same time surveys of the DLC show him as quite popular with the members of that group. Almost all of the polls in Iowa and NH show him as popular with "conservative" Dems as anyone else, and occasionally markedly more so. He's not stupid. There's just are a lot of people trying to find stupid things from him to fit their preconceived notions, that's all. Posted by: strannix at January 16, 2004 05:58 PM | PERMALINKIt's possible that Trippi is just shucking and jiving, and when the time comes he'll settle his guy down for the general election. But for now, all I can do is take him at his word. I realize that Reagan strikes most people as a red meat conservative, and he was, but his campaign was all about appealing to Democrats who were tired of Carter. Honest. (And Bush is much the same: he's very conservative, but he campaigned as a moderate.) My point here isn't especially to bash Dean or push Clark, although my sympathies are well known in that regard. It's to urge hardcore Dean supporters not to force their candidate (or other candidates) into a box by insisting on ideological purity. He needs to appeal to the middle and you should urge him to do that. On to November! Posted by: Kevin Drum at January 16, 2004 06:09 PM | PERMALINKYou don't just have to take him at his word. Look at what he's done, for Chrissakes. What do you think all his talk about balanced budgets and "high moral purpose" in foreign policy and "unfunded mandates" and gun control at the state level is all about? These things, esp. the balanced budget and guns, are hardly manna to the ears of the lefty peacenik base that he's supposedly being pigeonholed into. They're disaffected conservative codewords, and his stump is littered with them. Come on over, it's not so bad, he's saying .... Posted by: strannix at January 16, 2004 06:15 PM | PERMALINKAnd don't forget the Bush has a pretty serious Achilles' heel: His record. Despite all the election-year gimcrackery, it's going to be pretty hard to for him to run away from massive tax cuts for the wealthy, ripping down environmental protections, ripping off senior citizens to benefit HMOs and drug companies, the loss of nearly 3 million jobs, and a host of other initiatives all bearing his signature--and usually backed up with a fundraiser and photo-op for documentation. Posted by: Derelict at January 16, 2004 06:16 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I would tend to agree with you on the matter of ideological purity. Over the past decade, I have noticed that the Republicans have oriented more on a far-right orthodoxy, gradually pushing out traditional moderates (like me) as they move the so-called center further to the right. If the Democrats choose to insist on ideological purity in the primaries, they will lose the general election. The current cycle has generated more interest and excitement than most recent campaigns have seen. While the old "run to the base, then skew to the center" formula might hold in an ordinary year, there is currently a huge, huge spotlight on the Democrats. If the eventualy nominee keeps gaffeing and the political party skews too far to the left, then voters will remember the primary contest come November. --|PW|-- Posted by: pennywit at January 16, 2004 06:19 PM | PERMALINKI think the WSJ, Yglesias, and Confessore have a slight misreading of Dean's strategy. First, I think that he's not looking for totally new voters, but occasional voters who didn't find either Gore or Bush compelling. But I 100% agree, that's not enough. What's really going on is Dean is trying (and doing pretty well) at recruiting new volunteers out of previous voters. It will be up to the volunteers, I think, to locate swing votes. The Democrats, as Confessore points out in his own great Washington Monthly article, have no volunteer structure left outside unions and the black urban political machines, which I deem explains a lot of the terrible erosion of support at the county and state levels. It would almost be a pyrric victory to somehow dislodge Bush and leave the party as weak as before (and I don't think it's possible anyway). Let's be honest: if the economy and the Iraquagmire stay pretty much as they are—and you know Bush and Rove would sell their mothers to keep them from collapsing before the election, the heck with after—I'm not sure which candidate is going to peel enough support from Incumbent Bush to win. (What a depressing thought!) This goes triple for the pro-war Democrats (including Kerry). The candidates other than Dean and Clark are going to have a very hard time making a case for replacing Bush. Dean and Clark might find a reservoir of anti-war Nader voters who'll somehow manage. Remember, the WSJ wants the Democrats to nominate Bush, too. And you know, that's the only way we can get a sure winner, but it's a bad plan. Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at January 16, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKPolitical pros who try to sell you on the idea that it's zero-sum or minus-sum are basically hoping you just stay at home and let their candidate win. Of course it's zero-sum. One candidate wins, and everybody else loses. Do you know what zero-sum means? Posted by: rachelrachel at January 16, 2004 06:22 PM | PERMALINKMark: If you're going for pure, cynical courting of swing voters, I think it's far less than 20%: http://members.cox.net/fweil/NYT000903.html Any democrat still has plenty of time to, like Bush, come up with some set of panders aimed at this small set of people. Posted by: Sean at January 16, 2004 06:23 PM | PERMALINK"To claim that Ronald Reagan was not a red meat base appealing politician in 1976 and again still in 1980 while seeking his party's nomination is pop political revisionism." I disagree. Ronald Reagan was "red meat" in 1976 but by 1980 his message was definitely more populist, in an old-fashioned Southern Democrat way (and guess where his swing support came from). And the country had moved noticeably to the right. But what won it for him was that he appealed across party lines, as Clinton did to a lesser degree. Dean's biggest problem isn't that his core is narrow (I believe it is, which is why I think he's been losing ground of late), or that the press is being especially mean to him (it definitely is, but he is the putative frontrunner and thus a lightning rod), that he's from the Northeast, or that he's portrayed as "angry." It's that his experience just doesn't impress anyone outside of, well, Vermont and the less flexible joints of the left wing. The state has fewer people than Oklahoma City, it's lily-white, its largest city is a village, its largest corporation is, what, Ben and Jerry's?, its largest industry is skiing? Maple sugar? Look, I don't mean to insult Vermont - it's a GREAT state; but it just doesn't impress like California, Texas, NY, which are virtual nations. Forget all the other crap. I think this is key. Of ALL the candidates, Dean seems to most Dems I talk to to be the least qualified to be president, and those I know who were gung ho on him a few months ago have either switched or are contemplating it. Clark, on the other hand, is turning heads among Republicans I work with daily, who see him as a more senior version of John McCain. Clark could build the party in ways that Dean never could, but we have to be willing as Democrats to get over our reluctance to rethink what it means to be a Democrat. Can we have a military man, even one to the left of Dean on almost every issue? Well, could the Republicans make their nominee a joke of a B actor? They got over their supposed purity. I suggest we do too. Posted by: billj at January 16, 2004 06:26 PM | PERMALINKDean has made it quite clear that he is going to run to the RIGHT of Bush on foreign policy and on fiscal responsibility. On the former, he's already established himself as opposing the Iraq war, which Bush supported. This puts him to the left of Bush. And on fiscal responsibility, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class. The piece of the puzzle you're missing is that it's rather rare for a candidate to win without the enthusiastic support of his party's base. Gore almost did it in 2000 (i.e., if you count his popular vote "win" while Nader sucked off the base), but I don't think that's a model we want to try to repeat. Well okay, I guess Gray Davis is another recent example, but likewise a worrisome one. Posted by: wrog at January 16, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINKwell it's sad but I think that this election will be one of the worst turnouts in a while. it's ugly out there. and a lot of conservatives are going to stay home. hitting the bong? no. but they will stay home. Posted by: jason at January 16, 2004 06:33 PM | PERMALINKStart implicating that there will a military draft and those non-voters will come in and clean up for Dean. The idea behind this is that people who don't vote aren't going to suddenly step up and do that for Bush. That's pretty unlikely. On the other hand, there is a way to not only court the middle, including moderate Republicans, but also to court the left, independents, libertarians, Greens, and so on that the Democrats will represent them better, and that they are not being represented at all by Bush. This also involves championing electoral reform and IRV on the Democratic platform and as something the Democrats will address once back in power. It's not rocket science, and it doesn't require Dean. But Dean seems to be the best positioned, and with the best organization, at this point. Posted by: freelixir at January 16, 2004 06:33 PM | PERMALINKBut Dean's not the Democratic presidential candidate yet. Strannix gets it. Dean has already accomplished the hard part and has shown that he has by far the best political instincts of the bunch. A fiscally conservative, moderate Governor of a small rural New England state has fired up a large segment of the Democratic base and, remarkably, has emerged as the frontrunner. This is not just luck. Based on the stands he has taken, Dean actually will have less trouble than others running toward the center (and I think unlike the other campaigns, he has given a lot more thought to how he will position himself and campaign in the general election). And I think Dean (like Clark) has successfully defined his opposition to the war as a matter of judgment and not as an anti-war predisposition More and more, I think it would be a mistake for the Democrats to nominate anyone but Clark or Dean. If we turn this election into a debate over inspection of cargo containers or chemical plant security (as I fear will be the case with Kerry), and ignore the elephant in the room--the war, I fear we will miss an enormous opportunity. Posted by: Ben Brackley at January 16, 2004 06:40 PM | PERMALINKI disagree, and I think you are underrating the incredible savvy so far displayed by the Dean campaign. Every single time they have been underestimated, and they keep making three-pointers. This is the same kind of analysis that was making failed predictions about Dean all last year. If you support Clark because of you are afraid what Rove will do to
our candidate, don't think that Clark's rank will somehow immunize him.
He will be pilloried, no matter who the nominee is. Dean is a moderate with a solid record of accomplishments to run on. He's the only candidate who had the stones and leadership to stick up to Bush, even when those positions were unpopular. Events vindicate his positions day by day. He exhibits real leadership, and he will win in November, with more than $200 million in small contributions and a revitalized Democratic party behind him. He inspires people, but more importantly, he is motivating legions of people who have NEVER been involved in politics. When you contribute time or money to a candidate, you vote -- and these people are doing both. The trouble with "conventional wisdom" is that it's so conventional, it misses big shifts -- and this is one of them. Posted by: aaron at January 16, 2004 06:46 PM | PERMALINKbut it just doesn't impress like California, Texas, NY, which are virtual nations. Texas: Not going for Dean. Dean's making a play for all voters. You can't depend on new voters alone to win an election. However, swing voters are an extremely tiny part of an electorate. What you can do is depend on new voters to act as a footsoldier army to get people to the polls. I'll say this, for the record (oh, heck, this is in blog comments-- noone's going to remember this) -- if a record number of voters turn out for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa (in 1988, the last contested caucuses, it was 125,000), then Dean is proved right. His candidacy can drawn new voters -- who aren't particularly liberal -- to the polls. If he can't, a large premise (but not the only premise) of his campaign is dead in the water. Heck, half of Clark's strategy depends on the premise that Dean's supporters will work their butts off to get him elected. How's that much different? Posted by: Constantine at January 16, 2004 06:50 PM | PERMALINKThere's a "free rider" problem in growing the market rather than trying to seize market share. Any ratcheting up that Dean does to inspire more Democrats to turn out is likely to inspire an equal number of conservatives to turn out to oppose him. The mistake is to assume that because voter turnout is higher at higher income levels, new voters are lower income and therefore Democratic. But the parties are not divided economically as clearly as they used to be. There are a lot of high-income liberals on the coasts, and there are a lot of moderate income conservatives. Many of these untapped voters are in fact of the Reagan Democrat demographic. Dean's stance on guns is fine with them, but he's all wrong on the rest of the issues. And if he appeals to them to put economics ahead of culture, it ain't going to work. That being said, if Dean loses the nomination to a centrist candidate, the VP choice will have to be Dean or somelse else anti-war to prevent his supporters from staying home. Posted by: Rick (Centrist Coalition) at January 16, 2004 06:52 PM | PERMALINKBut none of the Democratic candidates have coattails. No matter who's the nominee the 2005 Congrss will very likely still be controlled by Republicans. And if a Democrat wins the White House they'll be angry Republicans.. Posted by: fyreflye at January 16, 2004 06:54 PM | PERMALINKSure, you appeal to both your base and the middle. The problem was that the Dems have historically ended up appealing to neither and folks have voted Dem not out of passion but because the alternative was worse. Today, Dean and Clark have done extremely well appealing to the base. At some point, they will need to do exactly what Bush did in 2000 which is send out the message that the base will always be attended to while using rhetoric that attracts others. No hurry, tho. Because the more they appeal to the base at this point, the more excitement and publicity they get. Then, when they go to the middle they'll get publicity again. So... rather than appeal to the middle, the trick is to be clear, principled, and confident in your positions. Then broaden the rhetoric from there after the maximum amount of base has been energized. You can't tack to the middle too early or your campaign will seem enervated. Dean knows that. Clark knows that. DNC and DLC, hopefully, will catch on before it is too late. Posted by: tristero at January 16, 2004 06:55 PM | PERMALINKfyreflye: they're already angry Republicans. Posted by: aaron at January 16, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINK"Democrats not registered to vote..." How the heck does one become a Democrat (or a Republican) if one isn't registered to vote? I mena, what's the bloody point? Posted by: charles austin at January 16, 2004 07:15 PM | PERMALINKrachelrachel: you're misinterpreting zero-sum here, and ironically made it pretty clear that you DON'T know what zero-sum means. In terms of votes elections are most definitely NOT zero-sum. In terms of candidates...well that interpretation is just silly. We all know only one candidate wins. Posted by: aaron at January 16, 2004 07:16 PM | PERMALINKAnyone who thinks Dean is running as a liberal/leftwinger hasn't been paying attention to anything but the attack ads. The only major difference Dean and the others is that he is outspoken and is willing to take risks to say what everybody's been thinking but has been too afraid of being called a traitor to say out loud. He's a blunt-talking centrist who doesn't mind everybody knowing that he doesn't what BushCo has been doing to this country's ideals. Clark has some of these traits, too, though I haven't gotten the sense he's as through-and-through committed to political change as Dean. As for the rest, there are things to like about them all, but they are steeped in business-as-usual in terms of tactics, and I don't think they'll get the bulk of the populace very excited. -l. Posted by: LauraJMixon at January 16, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINKTurning out the base is good, but depending on non-voters is suicide. Half the people in this country wouldn't vote if they gave out ice cream at the polls. Posted by: yetanothermike at January 16, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINKJosh Micah Marshall recently quipped about the co-opting of the phrase: "The Vital Center" from a Schlesinger book. So apologies to Schlesinger...but I am going to run trade with that phrase again. The Vital Center is where the is is. Does anybody win without it? (No--I mean really win.) I suppose you must be a centrist--a balancer to understand this...but...we balancers seem to intuitively know that democracy needs both parties. Intuitively we sense that the melting of ideas at the center is the best way to transit our country into the future. That's why I am voting for Clark, should he get your nomination. As someone here wrote: "Not only is Clark a better Democrat than Bush will ever be, but he is also a better Republican than Bush will ever be." Dean calling Clark a Republican was actually a key Ah-ha moment for
many of us. We Republicans are not inherently evil as many of you seem
to believe. Some of us still actually believe in a private God, a united
Country, and a fiscally responsibile budget. Ronald Reagan was "red meat" in 1976 but by 1980 his message was more populist...
The 1980 confluence of Edward Kennedy's intra-party challenge, the inflation and unemployment rates and the Iranian hostage crisis led to the repudiation of Carter in 1980. Reagan's appeal to working class white men was the populism of a bygone era; in 1980, that appeal was something different. Jesse Helms was not a populist; he was a popular bigot. Trickle-Down Populism is an oxymoron. No one is going to beat George W. Bush in 2004. He is going to be re-elected or repudiated. Posted by: CMike at January 16, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKSeveral observations. First, the electorate isn't stagnant. Every presidential election there is a new cohort of voters, and several, most in the upper age brackets, who have died. The new cohort this time was born between 1982-1986 (Millenials). I detect more political involvement and idealism on their part than in Gen X. Many of them are attracted to Dean, the older ones were also attracted to McCain. They respond to the straight talker. Meanwhile, New-Dealers are leaving the electorate. That may be bad for the Dems, but I don't think seniors in general like Bush that much. Second, Dean's fiscal conservatism, which is already fairly well-known, plays well with rural voters (who also like his unscripted, straight talking), Gex X libertarian types, and disaffected traditional conservatives who feel the GOP has left them, being now the party of the big-spending income transferers and the hard right religious folks. He is already in the center. He may just be the one who can pry the Dems away from their traditional special interest mentality. Third, in terms of swing state voters, Dean talks about common sense education reforms not slavish dedication to standardized testing, expanding health care for the uninsured and children, fair taxation and spending the money at home not on more dangerous foreign adventures. I think that resonates in places where they are losing jobs and benefits and seeing the environment decay. Fourth, "running to the right on foreign policy" means stressing over and over that Bush pulled people and money out of Afghanistan and the foght againsdt Al-Qaeda in favor of an ill-thought out war of choice in Iraq based on the PNAC Plan that has destabilized the region and cost us thousands of casualties and over 100 Bill. Meanwhile the effort to stop terrorism is hit and miss and we are in danger of losing Afghanistan and even Pakistan. Dean manifestly isn't anti war but anti the Iraq war the way it was done. Fifth, there may not be 51% of the people who hate Bush, but there are manifestly over 50% who think things are going in the wrong direction and we have our priorties backwards. A full 60% would rather shelve the tax cuts rather than cut spending more. They are beginning to see what Bushism is costing them in terms of local govt and services. Finally, as many have mentioned, Bush can't run as a compassionate
conservative this time, not given his record. Rove is expecting that
jobs will pick up between March and June (no evidence of that and the
economy will have slowed in the 4th Q) and we will have a triumphal
return of the troops from Iraq (but Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani has other
views on the transition that may derail than plan). He is expecting
that the Rep base will ignore the deficits because Cheney says they
don't matter, and that everyone else can be bought off by more
bait-and-switch "positive ideas" like going to the moon and Mars. Whaddya want? Tax-and-spend democrats? ...or cut-and-charge republicans? Look, whoever it is that's running the administration they are NOT republicans! They have no idea when a balanced budget or fiscal conservatism is supposed to look like. --ventura county, ca Posted by: Darryl Pearce at January 16, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I fervently disagree. If it's not time to line 'em up against the wall, it's close to that time. Republicans got both houses of congress, the whitehouse, and five ninths of the supreme court not by being centrists but by pushing hard their extremist agenda. Though their side is better organized they are fewer in numbers and the mealy-mouthed middle will go with whomever is talking and walking toughest. Whether it's Dean, Clark, or whomever he or she better come out swinging and it's time we did the same or we can kiss goodbye the America that made our country the kingpin of the 20th century. Posted by: dennisS at January 16, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINKUmmm, Rachel, once upon a time conservatives opposed foreign entanglements that weren't clearly related to America's strategic self-interest. So people who oppose the Iraq war will be, by nature of their opposition to this war, be running to Bush's right. But what I actually said is that Dean, and any other Democrat that might win the nomination, will run to Bush's right on foreign policy. That's entails a little more than Iraq. And there is ample room to run to Bush's right on this. More spending for securing loose nukes, homeland security, veterans benefits, etc.... Bush's record is that of a hippy peacenik on these specific issues and Dean and/or Clark will make him pay by outflanking him to the right. They'll have to fight a barrel of mudslinging lying liers to do it. But it can be done. Posted by: decon at January 16, 2004 07:55 PM | PERMALINKRachel: Elections are "zero-sum" if and only if 100% of the eligible voters turn out. It is only then that one vote for any given candidate is a vote that cannot be matched. But, as I said, we're in a time where that isn't even true of registered voters, let alone the total eligible electorate. 40% of registered voters consistently don't vote. If you bring them into the equation (and into the voting booth), the pie gets bigger. The trouble is, most campaigns don't operate on bringing voters to the booth. Rather, they try to limit participation to competing cores of "true believers". Quick check: Campaign spending keeps rising, yes? Yet participation keeps falling, yes? That means one of two things: Either political pros have no idea of either the value of money or of how to inspire voters -- tempting, I'll grant -- or, what they're buying is the silence of the electorate, through turning voters off so thoroughly from the process they refuse to come out... Again, with the exception of committed folks who will pinch their noses and vote anyway. Trippi, from day one, has been at least talking about trying to reverse this trend. For which I give him much kudos. Posted by: Hal O'Brien at January 16, 2004 07:58 PM | PERMALINKOuch. I think you're missing one big thing, as a Clark supporter...Clark will have the exact same problem Dean will have, for the most part. Both are very outspoken about their opposition to Bush. They don't hold anything back. Both are very blunt, and quick to defend their position. (Like it or not, Clark is just as "angry" as Dean. Although I like that, and I suspect it's a good thing). When the media talks about Dean being "too liberal", that's kind of code talk for Dean being too uppity and too willing to tell Bush to shove his lies right up his ass. He's too confrontational. Clark has done the same thing on multiple occasions. (Why he's my #2 choice by far.) Clark has been mostly ignored, for the most part. However, as the spotlight comes on him (wait until next week..) Clark can get possibly even more testy than Dean. The CW is that Bush is too personally likable to run a campaign against him like that. That attacking him personally will do no good. It's our job to change that. Not through mudslinging, but the facts. Dean HAS the right idea. Especially if you think coattails are important. By getting together a large grassroots coalition, to flood the zone, so to speak. It'll give the Democrats a WHOLE lot more traction to make their policy cases, the ones we can win. And frankly, if the apathy can't be ended, what's the point? I'm thinking if you can energize the youth base, and appeal to independent, pragmatic thought you can blow the CW out of the water..and have a watershed year. (One that's desperatly needed. I don't think a close victory is going do very much..) Posted by: Karmakin at January 16, 2004 08:05 PM | PERMALINK And everybody who mentioned that the Democrats will be running to the right on Iraq is right. It's the conservative position that nation building is bad. And the lack of presence of any WMDs makes it strictly a liberal affair. (One I could support if Bush wasn't so much of a fuck-up..) Posted by: Karmakin at January 16, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINKWe're arguing this ten months before the election, as usual. I have no particular opinion about Dean's plan. The opponents may be right. I am neutral between Dean and Clark. Look at the long term. It is a fact that participation has been steadily declining for some time. It's also a truism that the better turnout is and the more participation there is, the better the Democrats do. So the decline in participation should be looked upon as a serious problem which we should do something about. Instead the Democratic pros just point to the trend and say "That's the way things are. Deal with it". Beyond the fact that there might be votes out there which could help us, there are also people out there who aren't being represented, and many of them are natural Democrats. I'm thinking above all of the working poor. And in fact, politically things haven't been going well for the working poor, and the Democrats don't always seem to care much. One cause of this was several years back when the Democrats pioneered the use of "party-building" soft money for the campaign of the moment. This was normally sunk in big media buys (fattening up our bitter enemies there) and party-building was neglected. Short term gain, long-term loss. Continuing the 20-year-old swing-voter strategy is a recipe for a continued slide to the right (which many Democrats think is just fine, of course) and also a generally dwindling party. A continual strategy of splitting the difference can hardly lead to anything more than small and transient gains -- a nickel here, a dime there. Say what you will about Norquist, Rove, and Gingrich, they're enterprising and venturesome and think long-term. The Democrats have no ideas except to go for the swing voter. Every two years they seem to wake up, lock the left wing in the closet, pick up their same old swing-voter sales kit, and hit the bricks to try to wheedle out another slim victory. Sometimes it works, sometime it doesn't. Do the Democrats ever try to figure out something new and better? Do they ever think long-term? Win or lose, can't we expect the party to go back to sleep again this fall? And two years ago we'll have this same argument again. Something like fifty percent of the voters don't vote. Just ten percent of that fifty percent could change the landscape. Isn't it a sign of hopeless passivity if the only thing anyone can ever think to say about that 50% is "They'll never vote anyway, and if they did they'd vote against us"? I've never heard a Democratic pro say anything other than that. Posted by: Zizka at January 16, 2004 08:23 PM | PERMALINKA Linn County, IA Dean precinct captain reported 111 pledges to caucus for Dean. 57 had never caucused before. 39 had to be registered to vote. I forgot the number under 30 - but I think it was something like 25. None of the current Democratic presidential candidates are electable (in my opinion) including Dean, unless the electorate is expanded. So I hope someone figures out how to do it. Posted by: dorsano at January 16, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINKYou left out the punch line: "And only Gen. Wesley Clark can do that." One small, niggling point: No base, no win. Hard to get the Dem base to vote for 1) a military candidate who is not a minority 2)a man who we can see video of saying Bush is great (from Jan 2002!!). Dems/Americans aren't scared enough to install a freaking general into the Presidency. We aren't that Israelized yet. Even the Republicans had doubts and arguments about Ike, a WW2 hero/icon, who was not some noname guy with little charisma. Posted by: Kirby at January 16, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINKHeck, half of Clark's strategy depends on the premise that Dean's supporters will work their butts off to get him elected. How's that much different?Absolutely true, and I have never seen it so succinctly put! And you know, I think that's a very good plan! Dean calling Clark a Republican was actually a key Ah-ha moment for many of us.I've blogged at Dean's repeatedly that this is an unbelievably stupid way to attack Clark. If he really is a Republican who's moved left, great, let's welcome him with open arms and figure his campaign can encourage others to do likewise. You know, one generation ago, Dean would have been a liberal Republican, himself. (I can see other ways for Dean to criticize Clark; e.g. labor and environmental issues.) Many other good comments upthread. Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at January 16, 2004 08:50 PM | PERMALINKKirby, Are you organizing your precinct? From what I hear, Republicans have taken organization up a notch this cycle - and, except for some of the unions, they are better at it to begin with than Democrats. Posted by: dorsano at January 16, 2004 08:54 PM | PERMALINKJust my quick two cents: Dean is actually running as a centrist candidate. The only thing that makes him appear even remotely "radical" is his stern criticism's of Bush's Iraq war decision. The mistakes that Democrats tend to make is to run tepid "centrist" campaigns that come across as little more than me-too-isms, and to take for granted that their liberal support base will come out and vote. Newsflash: people like me (I'm ideologically more similar to Kucinich than Dean) often either end up staying home or voting for third party candidates (in the past I've taken the latter approach fairly consistently) when it's clear that Democrat Party candidates are ignoring us. I don't think we can afford for that to happen this year. The stakes are way too high. I have to give Dean (and also Clark) props for recognizing this, and while they may be running centrist campaigns, their campaigns have teeth. Posted by: James at January 16, 2004 08:57 PM | PERMALINKI wasn't a Democrat before I started volunteering for Dean so I might be in the minority (but I wouldn't count it). I won't volunteer for any of the other Democratic presidential candidates. (I may not even vote) I smell Lehane at work and that's more than enough to remind me of the importance of spending time with my family. Posted by: dorsano at January 16, 2004 09:02 PM | PERMALINKKevin, your last post (in comments) missed something. Reagan ran to the center in the general, but he ran so far to the looney right in the primaries that I was shocked that even the Repugnuts nominated him (sorry, "Republicans for Clark"--like I believe that one). Why on earth would you take any campaign manager at face value? Do they implant a naivity chip in California? Does that explain the Gropinator? But even granting you that, you (along w/ most of this thread) are forgetting that this is 51 elections. I don't give a fuck what Mississippi or Rhode Island thinks. It simply doesn't matter in electoral terms. Now, what 2000 new voters in New Hampshire or Nevada are up to, well, that I care about. I'll care about the rest after Bush loses. And I'm not sure at all who the best candidate (in electoral terms) is. I don't think anybody else is either. I'm supporting Dean, will happily campaign for Clark, will happily vote for Kerry, Gephardt, or Edwards. I'll vote for Lieberman too, but losing half the base is one thing I'm pretty sure will make us lose the election. His nomination, though, would have the saluatory effect of consigning Al Frum and TNR to the ashheap they so deserve. All this is just posturing, by you, me, and everyone else here. If you're right that the convention will be brokered, we'll lose--but with the "right" candidate (I so liked the Mondale & Dukakis campaigns). If the voters decide, well, they ain't listening to this, or CNN pundits, or NPR. That's fine, I'll support their choice. But we won't win by appearing to be thinking about nothing other than winning. And you know that. Posted by: robert young at January 16, 2004 09:08 PM | PERMALINKKirby, Clark has more charisma than did Ike. Have you watched the tapes? Maybe I'm just really old, but Eisenhower didn't win on charm. I thought we all knew that. Sigh, I'm really old. Posted by: robert young at January 16, 2004 09:13 PM | PERMALINKTrippi's strategy to re-energize and reform the Democratic party is the best thing in the long term interests of the party and the nation. It will not matter who is elected President, unless Congress is changed. Otherwise, the only thing a Democratic President can do is Veto stuff and bring the gov't to a halt. In the next campaign the Repugs would just run against the do nothing democrat President. As every posting here indicates, the center has shifted way toooo far to the right. We need to tug it back a little. I have travelled all over this country and know for a fact that the most Americans are way more Liberal than GWB and the Republican right. The only way to do this is to bring in some of the 50% that NEVER vote, don't even know who is running? Ever see those man on the street interviews on Leno where people can not name who the VP is? Those people need to be brought in. They are the ones watching Friends, and all the other liberal sit-coms on TV. How many conservative sit-coms do you see? This is where the masses are in my opinion. So far Dean is the only one with a remote chance of doing so - look at his web sites - Dykes for Dean, Greens for Dean, Punks for Dean (huge untapped youth vote), etc, etc, etc. Clark is not doing this. He can still win, but his win will be a squeaker, it will NOT be a "transformational" win. He will be the mirror image of Ike, who was a Republican President swimming in a sea of Democrats. Also, Clark is a one dimensional candidate (military - strong on Defense). If Rove could smear Cleland as soft on terror, he can just as easily smear Clark (He almost started WWIII in Kosovo, etc. Trot out all the ex-Repug Generals who HATE Clark and impugn his character. Voters won't know who to believe and will stick with safe bet of incumbent. One you remove the aura around Clark of his military advantage, he collapses like a house of cards. He has minimal gravitas on Domestic issues. He is peddling the same Vodoo as all the other Washington candidates are ( "you can have everything and still have Middle class tax cuts - not fiscally possible if you examine the numbers). Remember Bush I called this Vodoo Economics as I recall (but lost to Reagan who is a much better candidate). Imagine asking Bush II in a debate if he disagrees with his Father and Reagan who both increased taxes when confronted with large deficits? What's he gonna say?? Dean stands for principle. All the others are politicians (Clark is being handled by the Clinton people and being told what to say per the DLC playbook). I could be completely wrong, but I know I am not. What a great country! Posted by: Young Turk at January 16, 2004 09:16 PM | PERMALINK"Anyone who thinks Dean is running as a liberal/leftwinger hasn't been paying attention to anything but the attack ads." Dean quote: "I am the candidate from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." That wasn't an attack ad unless you think it was attempted suicide. Lieberman can't win the primary and is the only candidate who could win the general. Gephardt is second but has too much anti-free trade baggage. Kerry is walking dead. Someone should push him over. Lieberman is the "third way" candidate who could appeal to moderates who don't like Bush. I don't think antiwar wins the election. Maybe if there is a catastrophe in Iraq but some Democrats are hoping for that so much , even that would not help. Did you see the Indymedia version of the Time cover ? That stuff will show up in the fall campaign. Posted by: Mike K at January 16, 2004 09:16 PM | PERMALINK"All this is just posturing" I'm not posturing Robert. I promised Harkin that if Democrats nominated Dean, I'd knock on doors, phone bank, canvas, lit drop from now until Nov. But watching this campaign from the "inside" has made me even more disgusted with politics than I was before. I've been at this since March of 2003 and after March 2004 - I'll take a break. Whether I rejoin the fight after that depends on who the nominee is. You're correct that no one is "listening" to this blog - anyone who wants to win better contact their local DFL office now. Posted by: dorsano at January 16, 2004 09:20 PM | PERMALINK"Lieberman can't win the primary and is the only candidate who could win the general." Lieberman lost the first time around. He has as much chance of winning as George Bush has of being a compasionate conservative. Posted by: dorsano at January 16, 2004 09:28 PM | PERMALINKJesus Christ Kevin. I am sick of your FUD. You're just like JMM when it comes to Dean bashing, albeit each one of you support different candidates who really don't stand a better chance. It would be good if for one day you actually WENT to Iowa and New Hampshire and saw with your own eyes what takes place there. Your information is just as good as any other pundit's who watches CNN all day. People fail to realize what Dean has done for the democratic party and American politics up till now. You're one of them - clueless and misinformed. Posted by: Jack Bauer at January 16, 2004 09:34 PM | PERMALINKMike_K: "I don't think antiwar wins the election. " Keep this in mind: Last time, the military mostly voted for Bush. This time... Well, it depends who you ask. If you ask an officer, there is no morale problem. If you ask an NCO or elisted rank soldier... Stand back, and wait for the fire breathing. :) I think every soldier (and every family member) who's been over in what they call "The Box" for a year-plus is going to vote against Bush. I think every family kicked out of housing at Fairchild AFB is going to vote against Bush. I think the entire crew of the Abraham Lincoln, who had to postpone being reunited with their families after the longest carrier deployment in history, is going to vote against Bush. I think when the Army Times runs an article about Administration cuts in pay and benefits titled, "An Act of 'Betrayal'", they mean it. I swear, I keep expecting to see a bumper sticker that says, "Dear Mr. President: I'm a soldier... and I vote!" Put it to you this way. A joke I heard from an NCO buddy of mine in the Army: Q: What's the difference between Dubya and Jane Fonda? A: Hey, at least Jane went to Vietnam! If you know anything at all about Army attitudes toward Ms. Fonda, you'll get an inkling of how deeply the Poor Bloody Infantry is disgusted with Mr. Bush this time. Posted by: Hal O'Brien at January 16, 2004 09:43 PM | PERMALINKI really don't think that Lieberman is as strong a candidate among centrists, and especially Southerners and small-town people, as people say. He might be "right" on the issues, but a lot of people don't vote on the issues. Bush gets lots of points for his macho swagger and Lieberman is less than worthless in countering that. Posted by: Zizka at January 16, 2004 09:46 PM | PERMALINKDean is really expanding the Democratic Party! Now there is a site called - Asian American Pacific Islanders for Dean!! Can these guys vote! Go Samoa! Posted by: Young Turk at January 16, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINK"Clark could build the party in ways that Dean never could, but we have to be willing as Democrats to get over our reluctance to rethink what it means to be a Democrat. Can we have a military man, even one to the left of Dean on almost every issue? " what way is that? more wishy-washy moderate hawk southerners? Look,
at some point, you run out of that pool, it's the natural GOP base. You
have to reach those spooky areas like the northeast and southwest and
rust belt too, and speak to them. We aren't the party of hawks, and we
don't want to be. Military men are fine, how about someone who is a
proven Democrat first though...need to say a little more than strong on
defense, middle class tax cuts, and "pro-health" and "pro-education,"
sorry, that just doesn't cut it for inspiring anybody I know. Bush
could and did say the same things. Mike K: Dean quote: "I am the candidate from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." That wasn't an attack ad unless you think it was attempted suicide. Mike, Mike, Mike: "attempted suicide"? I think you're forgetting that the Democrats won the popular vote and the electoral college in 2000. The only way Bush managed to get the Presidency was via the Supreme Court - and even there he only won by one vote. You've been listening to your Ann Coulter doll too much. Face it, Mike: there are more people out there who vote Democrat than who vote Republican - in Florida, that was true even after Katherine Harris had illegally stripped 57 000 Democrats of their right to vote. It's true we're in trouble if Bush & Co have repeated the tactics that got Bush close enough in Florida to pull a "win" from the Supreme Court: such as deliberate removal of black/Hispanic voters from the electoral rolls and having voting machines set up (as they were in Florida) so that in majority-black districts people who make a mistake in their vote don't get to see their ballot paper again - and now they know they got away with it in Florida, they've had a couple of years to work out new strategies for use in other states. But the Democratic majority is such that these strategies will only work if the election is fairly close to 50/50 - and neither Al Gore nor George W. Bush were inspiring candidates. I'd be happy if either Dean or Clark won the primaries. A little happier if Dean won, because I think Dean's made it clear he will be the better President. But the important thing, once the primaries are done with, is to make sure Bush is evicted from the White House and the Presidency he stole 4 years earlier and has so thoroughly messed up.
The "middle." Where's the middle? Halfway between corporatist Democrats and corporatist Republicans? Halfway to Bush? Half the lies? All this talk about politics as usual ignores the fact of the completely unusual condition of our democracy. Bush will almost certainly win in November. He will have virtually unlimited money. He has the weight of both houses of congress whose members will make any deal and tell any lie. He has the judiciary who will make decisions which prevent the public from learning about his corruption. He has the press who will cover his tracks and relentlessly attack and obscure any voice that could do him harm. He has the power of his office to manufacture and manipulate events in his favor. He has Diebold and electronic voting and operatives everywhere who will use every available means to prevent an honest election. He has the devil's greed and his worshipper's fear infecting the world with Bush values. The fix is already in. Any candidate who listens to the conventional wisdom being espoused in this thread will succumb to defeat at the hands of the unconventional weapons at Bush's disposal. The old rules don't apply because they have made new ones which eliminate any chance of a fair contest. There is no democracy without truth. Almost no one knows the truth. Even among these columns most hide from it. The extent to which Dean or possibly Clark understand this reality is the size of the chance we have; and it certainly doesn't become widely known by "moving to the middle." I spoke to this a couple of weeks ago when I wrote here: "That's because the left half is divided into those who see the opposition as just another Republican administration still firmly within bounds of democratic principles (albeit, possibly slightly more conservative than usual) and those of us who believe we are dealing with a completely new beast which ferociously threatens not only the tenuous freedom we have enjoyed in this country but also the very survival of the planet." More recently and more eloquently (if perhaps less ominously), Paul Krugman wrote in his Jan. 16 column: "The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren't." If we pretend this is just another election in which we give our best shot at convincing voters that Democratic policies will better serve their interests, we are doomed -- not to defeat, simply doomed. The Bush administration is guilty of the highest crimes. Their unending lies have betrayed the trust of the American people and the world. They have stolen and killed in the manner of the most highly organized criminals. Only by convincing the majority of these facts can we shake off our parasitic rulers. That cannot be done in the climate of an ordinary election. The scale of it must be grand: A major motion picture with top stars in wide release and with free admission that graphically explains the truth; a 24 hour cable network that does nothing but expose Bush lies around the clock; an impeachment that calls witnesses and charges them to tell the truth under threat of imprisonment. A massive and constant and urgent message must be sent across the land. But what are the chances any of these things will happen? Don't tell me. But unless they do or some similar miracle occurs, we will have Bush yet again at this time next year. But we won't have our country. Most will finally understand that following four more years. Too late. Posted by: jayarbee at January 16, 2004 11:56 PM | PERMALINK"You left out the punch line: "And only Gen. Wesley Clark can do that." One small, niggling point: No base, no win. Hard to get the Dem base to vote for 1) a military candidate who is not a minority 2)a man who we can see video of saying Bush is great (from Jan 2002!!)."
Not enough dead people to make the war a big issue. Posted by: Matt Young at January 17, 2004 02:24 AM | PERMALINKjayarbee: Thank you. Your doomsday rant has clearly shown me the tinfoil-leftists will almost surely go ape shit when Bush wins. I enjoy every second of it and urge you to continue espousing your paranoid delusions to others in order to shift centrist voters away from the wacky Democrats and their conspiracy entertainers, such as you and Dean. I was suprised at not seeing a Bush=Hitler reference though. :)
I think this whining (sorry, Kevin) about the middle is BS. People should be angry at Bush, and I think that, from looking at the polls of what people think about various issues, if they knew what was going on, they would be angry. Posted by: MattB at January 17, 2004 05:37 AM | PERMALINK"Does anybody win without it? (No--I mean really win." Then Bush would have no chance, really. "Dean calling Clark a Republican was actually a key Ah-ha moment for many of us. We Republicans are not inherently evil as many of you seem to believe. Some of us still actually believe in a private God, a united Country, and a fiscally responsibile budget." Yeah, which is why I really don't understand why any "Republican" votes for Bush -- except those who really hate gays and want Scalia to be chief justice of a SCOTUS composed of Scalia-clones. Again: If the middle really mattered, in real terms (not slogans), Bush wouldn't stand a chance. Get real. Posted by: MattB at January 17, 2004 06:34 AM | PERMALINKI don't understand why Democrats are so quick to throw up their hands and say "We're gonna lose." I mean, I go down thru this list of comments and I see so many people that are utterly disgusted with Bush saying that Bush can't lose. Well, if you have that kind of attitude, of course Bush can't lose. You don't see any Republicans saying that Bush can't win. Dems have to get out there and say "Dean/Clark/etc. can't lose." (And actually mean it!) The cards may be stacked in Bush's favor but that just means we'll have to beat him using his rules. It's possible. How did Bush get elected in the first place? He would say ANYTHING to ANYONE. The Dems will win as soon as they realize this. Then, once in office, you can change your message and do what you originally set out to do, just like Bush did. His entire 2000 campaign was loaded with distortions. As soon as he got in office, his real agenda came out. Yes, it's sleazy. Yes, it's dirty. But he won using that plan and he's going to use that plan again. He'll say ANYTHING to ANYONE. The Dem campaign has to lose it's moral compass. But it only has to lose it for the campaign. Once in office, we could do whatever we wanted. Posted by: Jesse at January 17, 2004 07:17 AM | PERMALINKIs Dean running a "red meat ideological campaign"? Let's see, anti-gun control. Balanced budget hawkishness, an incremental approach to expanding health care, etc. Read Krugman's Thursday column: there's almost no daylight among the candidates on ideological grounds, Kevin! Posted by: Dan Perreten at January 17, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKAre you familiar with the works of David Hume? This post is essentially premised on the assumption that that which has never happened before cannot happen now. Perhaps that's the way to bet, but it's hardly guaranteed. Al Gore consistently polled higher whenever his rhetoric went left. And he won the 2000 election. And one of the voting blocs that helped Bush come close enough to pretend he won, the US Military vote, especially in Florida, is disgusted, disaffected, and unlikely to return to Bush for another disaffected honeymoon. Posted by: Ulrika O'Brien at January 17, 2004 08:37 AM | PERMALINKThe 'swing voters' in the last campaign went to Ralph. Posted by: chitex at January 17, 2004 08:53 AM | PERMALINKI don't understand why Democrats are so quick to throw up their hands and say "We're gonna lose." I certainly don't think Democrats must lose, in fact I believe we have a very good chance, but it is sobering to think of how big the obstacles to winning are. To begin with, Bush IS the incumbent, and by itself that makes the task harder than otherwise. Beyond this, it is many ways impressive how little damage has been done to Bush despite, for example, his flagrant lies and deceptions about Iraq and WMD. Obviously, it's taken its toll, but how can such a President maintain approval ratings over 50%? I find it simply breathtaking, and a sign of the difficulty of ousting him. And there is the liberal/conservative dichotomy. To this day, there are far more self-identified conservatives than liberals in the US. Bush can run as a "compassionate conservative". But no Democrat would dare run describing himself as, say, a "hardheaded liberal": "hardheaded" would never be enough to draw the electoral poison out of "liberal". While policy for policy the electorate seems to be at least as much inclined toward Democratic positions as those of the Republicans, in terms of the rhetoric and imagery of Presidential elections, virtually all of the advantages seem to accrue to the Republicans. And I think this is also why the Democrats are only more emphatic than the Republicans to find a way to appeal to the middle: it is far easier for the right to caricature a Democratic candidate as a flaky extremist than it is for the left to do the same with a Republican candidate. Posted by: frankly0 at January 17, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINKWhen I read this I cringed. Kevin Drum is right. This ain't gonna win the election. The Dean people are really making me nervous with this type of strategy. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at January 17, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKOne other observation about Kevin's post that bugged me: the snarky remark toward the end about "fervent liberals and Bush haters" seemed unfair. I see a lot of anger from a variety of ideological positions, including liberal, moderate, and conservative, and anger that I would offer has a legitimate basis (i.e., directed toward policies of various sorts that have real or perceived harmful consequences). Anger and hatred are not necessarily the same thing. I tend to view anger as a survival mechanism: one that alerts us that something in the environment is wrong: it's an emotion that causes the organism to "wake up" and respond as necessary. Hatred, otoh, is a response that blinds the individual instead. The "hate Bush" meme might have carried some weight if there were some objective sense that Bush had been doing many of the right things to govern, or at bare minimum had been a decent care-taker president (the latter was what I had expected when he first took office), and if his opponents were being as strident as they are currently, and/or were spreading the sorts of urban myths about Bush that say were being spread about Clinton and Gore. It hasn't panned out that way. Instead, we have a president that has by any objective measure put our country at greater than necessary security risk by taking a "lone cowboy" approach to foreign policy and by stretching the military to its breaking point; has threatened important facets of our Constitution, has turned a surplus budget into a record deficit budget, and has presided over a substantial net loss of jobs. I can see the anger as a reasonable response under those circumstances. Heck, my parents are fairly die-hard conservatives and they are very upset with what Bush has done during his term; I've had conversations with them these past few years that I would have never expected otherwise. They're worried. That they and I coming from different ideological angles can see essentially the same thing is telling. Mi dos centavos. Posted by: James at January 17, 2004 02:51 PM | PERMALINKI don't know if it's been said, since I'm going to read the comments after I post this, but a few of the comments already have me compelled to say this. First, there is no reason to believe that an enlargement of voters, in terms of bringing out non-voters, means that this will be balanced in any sense to both parties. What the hell kind of point is that? It's the organization with the enthusiasm and wherewithal to get the formerly cynical or apolitical to care enough about the election to get out there. Pretty much only grassroots, personal contact would be effective in making this happen. That this would then go in the favor of the incumbent, this russling up of the previously inattentive or cynical, seems counterintuitive, especially in an anti-incumbent mood and with the anti-incumbent campaign with by far the strongest grassroots organization and reasons to care (i.e. change). The centrists need to figure this out. Posted by: freelixir at January 17, 2004 04:54 PM | PERMALINKIn other words, there really is no "free rider" problem, since bringing out more voters isn't a general phenomenon, but a specifically motivated one. Posted by: freelixir at January 17, 2004 05:16 PM | PERMALINKFirst of all, this Dean Clark stuff is kinda silly. If you can stick a butter knife between their positions on just about anything, I would be surprised. Clark people seem to be counting on his biography to appeal to swing voters, which is just as unproven strategy as Dean's is. There are two problems the Democrats face, and Dean appears to be addressing them: differenation and poor base support. It wasn't too long ago when the CW was that the Dems lost in 2002 becasue they were wishy-washy. They werwe ishy-washy becasue of an attempt to appeal to the middle by aping Bush on several important issues, notably the war and national security. There was more to 2002, of course, but that was a part of it. Dean is taking car of the differenation part of the problem, not so much in policy but in rhetoric. Much as, I might add, Clark is doing. That has inspired a portion of the Dem base, and probably brought in more energetic support from that base than any other candidate. It also probably sets up the capgn pretty well for the general. it doesn't mean anything right now what the WSJ or Confessorre thinks the strategy is: the simple fact of the matter is that if the Dem nominee ran a campaing like the one in 2002, he gets creamed. Dean has taken one route out of that mes, and the primaries are the first stage of it. Clark has taken a similiar tack, but with a bit less reliance on new voters. Maybe this can work, maybe it cannot, but I haven't seen any other candidate propose an alternative. Posted by: kevin at January 17, 2004 05:54 PM | PERMALINK"I realize that Reagan strikes most people as a red meat conservative, and he was, but his campaign was all about appealing to Democrats who were tired of Carter. Honest. (And Bush is much the same: he's very conservative, but he campaigned as a moderate.)" Bullshit. Reagan, symbolically, began his campaign seeking out the cro-mag southern white working class vote with it's coded appeal. Stories of welfare mothers further worked in his favor. His announcement got a pass(as did chimpco's little Bob Jone's visit), but imagine of a Democrat announced their candidacy at...oh, I don't know...a CCC meeting, maybe? Plus, every night voters were treated to a little red box on their newscast detailing how many days hostages were being held by Iranians. What would the public mood be right now if every night a running tally of dead in Iraq was played in a little red box for the duration of every newscast? Not to mention that Carter was not the most forceful of candidates. And he was the sort of centrist that the DLC looooves, but funny they don't mention him much. Funny they don't ream Zell as much as Dean, either. "I suppose you must be a centrist--a balancer to understand this...but...we balancers seem to intuitively know that democracy needs both parties. Intuitively we sense that the melting of ideas at the center is the best way to transit our country into the future." And normally I'd agree with you. Balance is a good thing, compromise is a good thing, the center is a good thing. But we don't have any of that anymore. Nice condescending tone, though. "Just my quick two cents: Dean is actually running as a centrist candidate. The only thing that makes him appear even remotely "radical" is his stern criticism's of Bush's Iraq war decision. The mistakes that Democrats tend to make is to run tepid "centrist" campaigns that come across as little more than me-too-isms," Exactly. His policies are centrist and would be home to any DLC-type crony. Its a matter of tone, though. The DLC doesn't want any candidate that could conceivably be considered an 'embarassment' to a southern Senator, plain and simple. And since Dean was loudly against the war from the get go while the zellouts ran like cowards to appease their cromags that just had to bomb the crap outta something to get even, well.... "....It's to urge hardcore Dean supporters not to force their candidate (or other candidates) into a box by insisting on ideological purity. He needs to appeal to the middle and you should urge him to do that." Uh, he IS doing so. That is if you don't fall into the GOP propoganda that all the Democrats are such big, nasty meanies for criticizing the emporer and constantly repeating the Bush hater propoganda. Look, reactionary politics is when you continually roll over and play dead, just as the Dems have done since 2000. It doesn't fool anyone, as witnessed by 2002, you just end up looking like bigger wimps by trying to get a war off the table so you can get to social security. "Kirby, Clark has more charisma than did Ike." Uh, maybe more charisma. But comparisons of what Ike accomplished in WWII to what Clark accomplished are frankly laughably grasping at straws. Ike was so powerful/popular that if he woulda declared as a Dem, Truman woulda stepped aside to endorse him....as did many of FDR's old New Dealer's that urged him to run as a Dem. Posted by: jdw at January 17, 2004 08:09 PM | PERMALINKFaux and Fiends and their ilk are painting Dean as someone who can not control his temper. I read here that Clark can also become testy. However, this can work both ways. I think that it may be possible to push Bush's buttons in such a way that he might lose it and really lash out. I think that this could hurt his "nice guy" image with people other than the Repug base. This of course requireas that he actually allows anyone to ask him a question in public, Note how quick he scooted off the stage after the Mars proclamation. The question would have to be one that would not appear to be nasty but would still really get under his skin. I seem to recall he got a little testy about cocaine questions in 2000. Does anyone have any ideas? Posted by: ____league at January 17, 2004 08:32 PM | PERMALINKI would think that one must first secure the base before reaching out to the amorphous "middle" ... that "middle" will only respond to you positively once it knows where you're coming from. How can you tell with any sense of confidence what a candidate stands for, if that candidate's feet are planted firmly in mid-air? Thaty has been the problem with the Democrats. In the 2002 gubernatorial election here in Hawaii, the Democratic candidate -- Mazie Hirono -- literally ran away from her base, refusing to commit to anything that Democrats considered important, in trying to reach out that so-called "middle." The result: Republican candidate Linda Lingle won by almost 20,000 votes -- even though she received some 2,000 votes less than she did in 1998, when she lost to Gov. Ben Cayetano! How did that happen? Well, almost 40,000 Democrats either stayed home or left the ballot blank, because Hirono really gave them no really good reason to turn out. "Give voters a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who talks like a Republican," President Harry Truman once mused, "and they'll vote for the Republican every time." Bottom line: This ain't 1972 or 1984, and Howard Dean ain't George McGovern or Walter Mondale. So let's can it with the talk about who's unelectable and who isn't. If Dean is truly "unelectable," that sure doesn't say much for the so-called establishment candidates like John Kerry and Dick Gephardt, who foster that line of reasoning even though both trail Dean badly in various state polls across the country. Posted by: Oahu Guy at January 19, 2004 12:03 AM | PERMALINKYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. http://rheumatoid-arthritis-treatment.bcure.com/ CoedNeedcash.com Coed Need Cash CoedsNeedCash.com Coeds Need Cash Coeds Need Cash Gallery Coeds Need Cash Pics Coeds Need Cash Trailers Posted by: cumfiesta at June 30, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Always enjoy reading your blog. Thanks! Posted by: disc makers at August 11, 2004 11:44 PM | PERMALINKSpot on, as usual. Thanks! Posted by: storage area networks (SAN) at August 18, 2004 08:36 PM | PERMALINK8106 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 07:09 PM | PERMALINK2465 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
