January 19, 2004
Who Da Thunk It?
I’ve been asking myself that question over the past 48 hours as the Kerry-Edwards steam engine kept gaining speed. One of my first posts to this blog recommended Eugene Burdick’s “The Ninth Wave,” one of the best political novels ever written. One of my favorite scenes concerns a discussion over how most elections are won: by the undecideds. That appears to be the case tonight in Iowa (r.r.).
A huge turnout in gatherings across the state spelled victory for John Kerry and John Edwards tonight. Dean’s third place showing is actually quite impressive when you realize no one had heard of him a year or so ago but the expectation albatross is tough to carry. (No pun intended.) And Gephardt sounded like a man who’s pulling out of the race.
Here's my take -- Dean and Gephardt started to get on everyone's nerves. It's not quite that simple I know but that's no reason to overlook it. Kerry and Edwards were there ready to pick up the defectors. It could be that the bashing Dean has taken from all sides took its real toll tonight. And from the start, Gephardt sounded exactly like he did in the 1988 campaign. I worked advance for the Dukakis/Bentsen campaign and every time I heard Gephardt speak, it was deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say.
I haven't decided which candidate I support -- I have A.B.B. Syndrome (not ADD, although sometimes I wonder). That's Anyone But Bush. That doesn't detract from any of the candidates. But I don't want another four years of George W. Bush in the White House. And the person who has the strongest chance of making that happen will have my vote. My hope is that the attacks stop. The remaining candidates must focus on the reasons why they should hold the highest office in the land. What happened tonight in Iowa may or may not impact the rest of the primary race. After all, third place finishers have ended up with the nomination numerous times in history. But for reasons I can't yet explain, the results give me a confidence that the process works. Imperfect as it is, somehow it works.
Posted by 9thwave at January 19, 2004 11:55 PMOn July 11th, I wrote in my blog that Howard Dean can’t win (because of his “antiwar” position) and narrowed the field down to Kerry and Edwards. Since then, I’ve dismissed Kerry and Edwards, and wrote (on WatchBlog) that Dean’s war position didn’t matter. Now it looks like I was right the first time.
It’s been a wild ride.
Posted by: Woody Mena at January 20, 2004 12:24 AM9thWave said, “And the person who has the strongest chance of making that happen will have my vote.”
I think that is the essential factor in how the Iowa caucuses came out the way they did. Folks are looking for the most likely candidate to evict Bush. Clark wasn’t there, so Kerry’s war record and experience gave him a definite edge I think, and Edwards was mostly positive and that resonated with voters possibly interpreted as ability to reach centrists of the party.
It is very likely Clark & Kerry will take places 1 and 2 in N.H. in my foggy crystal ball. Dean 3rd and Edwards 4th - nice guys finish last don’t you know?
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2004 10:10 AMFor me, a relevant question arises, one that perhaps connects back to why Democrats have been politically marginalized in the first place: what is a stronger influence on the electorate- demographics, or a candidate’s personality? Which should we let become the primary influence on our decisions?
Dean appeals to me because he doesn’t seem to be manufactured, like so many of the other democratic candidates. He doesn’t merely think he’s a democrat, he feels he’s one, and I think that’s important. Like my old professor once said, a difference, to be a difference, has to make a difference.
In other words, if you want people to believe that Democrats are better than Republicans, first you have to convince them that electing democrats will actually result in a substantial difference in how the government’s run. Clinton’s problem, as successful as he was, was that he blurred the line. Bush’s problem now, and what we can take advantage of, is that his policies have obviously differentiated themselves from what would have happened had a Democrat been elected president. I’m sure even conservative readers of this comment will agree with me that different decisions would have been made, had Gore been elected. We need to pound it into people’s heads that the nightmares of the last three years has been, in some part, a direct result of Bush’s stubborn insistence on certain policy decisions.
But we also need to assure people that we aren’t just Crypto-Republicans. We need to back off of Supply-side economics, distinguish our position on taxes from theirs, repudiate the Bush doctrine and provide an active, substantial substitute in policy, and above all things cut the pork and the unnecessary spending.
While doing this, we need to do one more thing: shake this image of Democrats and liberals as wet blankets. Being a Democrat should be as heroic and inspirational of a calling as being a Independent or a Republican.
And last, but not least, we need to be aggressive not in slinging mud at Bush, but at punching holes in the stonewalls, the propaganda, and the lies and half-truths of the administration. We need to be civil towards the man, but make him look like an idiot anyways for his policy positions.
Where he has bounced all over the place on goals and the justifications for his policies, we need to call him on it, to expose the scatter-brained, shallow approach he’s taken. Where he has lied, we need to put him on the spot about it. Where he has been ignorant or incompetent, we need the information and the word of experts to highlight that. Bush has given us plenty of opportunities to exploit. It would be a shame for us, his political rivals not to take advantage of that.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 20, 2004 11:35 AMHoward Dean is not ready for primetime. The apologies,clarifications, and contradictions in policy make him unelectable. No national secutity experiance and governing a state the size of lower manhattan is not going to make it. His ranting and raving after he lost was one of the most absurd performances of any candidate. He is finished as a major contender. He will lose N.H. after this recent debacle in Iowa.
Posted by: William Meyers at January 20, 2004 02:02 PMI agree, William. He looked like someone who cracks under stress - a fatal quality in these times.
I’m sure if it was in his shoes, I’d look crazy to, but I’m smart enough not to run for president.
Posted by: Woody Mena at January 20, 2004 02:21 PM“One of my favorite scenes concerns a discussion over how most elections are won: by the undecideds.”
This is one of those interesting recursive problems. In order to get to the point where the undecideds can win you an election, you have to nail down the more loyal base. But while doing that you can’t scare off the undecideds. I suspect that in this instance, Dean has an exceptionally strong and large and loyal base. But in creating that he may have done too many things which turn off the undecideds in the middle. If he does not win the nomination, though I still think it is somewhat likely, the real question for the Democratic party will be the transerability of Dean’s exceptionally large and loyal base.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at January 20, 2004 02:31 PM>Dean’s exceptionally large and loyal base.
Not in Iowa…
Posted by: Woody Mena at January 21, 2004 12:20 AM
