Required reading for Dean supporters

[phirili]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_09.html#002190

(November 10, 2003 -- 11:49 PM EDT // link // print)
Okay, have to say it. I’m still not convinced. Everyone I know seems to think that Howard Dean is close to having the Democratic nomination all wrapped up. AFSCME’s apparent endorsement, for instance, seems premised almost entirely on the perception
that Dean’s going to be the winner.

But I just don’t see it.

I’m not saying there’s another candidate who I’d say is more likely to win. I just think Dean’s strength is overstated.

A few points and then we’ll follow up with other posts later.

First: Every primary and caucus this year distributes delegates proportionally. You get 30% of the vote and you get 30% of the delegates. So winning a primary by a couple points in a big field isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be.

Second: I continue to think that Dean’s style of candidacy only has a real purchase on a portion of the Democratic primary electorate. And I think he has most of those people already. Yes, this is a standard criticism of Dean: he’s the candidate of the Starbucks crowd (not that that’s a criticism: I write about half of my posts from the neighborhood Starbucks) and so forth. And the endorsements of SEIU and AFSCME are supposed to change that --- giving his candidacy a broader demographic sweep.

But I remain unconvinced. I’m not sure Dean can break out of the very energized and mobilized constituency he already has. And that’s what strong showings out of Iowa and New Hampshire are supposed to accomplish.

Third: Our models for primary campaigns are based on frontrunners who are supported, by and large, by the party establishment. That’s not the case here. And that makes a difference. So there's an asterisk by his frontrunnerdom.

Fourth: Dean clearly now has the biggest constituency. It’s activated, mobilized and it’s big. But he’s in a large field. I think there’s a much larger slice of the Democratic primary electorate that doesn’t want him than the one that does. And as the field narrows, that will become the salient fact. (Isn't #4 kind of like #2? Okay, maybe a bit.)

Fifth: Electability, another salient fact.

Now, many things I write on TPM, I write with great confidence. This isn’t one of those cases. For a host of reasons I find this primary campaign very hard to get a handle on. And it’s quite apparent to me that I could have this all wrong. What I'm telling you is just what my gut tells me.

-- Josh Marshall

[paulsbc]

1. his strength

is underestimated, especially by the Republicans. He is the nominee barring some major snafu on his part, and will be a strong challenge to Bush, winning if the economy and/or Iraq do not improve greatly...

[plindner]

2. Josh is a Clark supporter

I read him all the time, and like his viewpoints. However he is pretty firmly in the Clark camp. Remember, we all have biases -- he has his, and I have mine.

At least he didn't dredge up that lame McGovern meme....

[deutsey]

3. I imagine Margaret Carlson regrets

saying that Dean's star was fading back in May or June.

I'm not saying that this gut report doesn't have merit, it's just been a fact so far that Dean's campaign has confounded the pundits.

[slinkerwink]

4. Clinton, at first, was NOT supported by the party establishment

and the party establishment supported Harkin and Tsongas instead.....so what you're saying really has no relevance here. I am not a Starbucks groupie-----ask any Deaniacs on the Dean blog if they meet up in Starbucks, and you'll hear a resounding NO!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Clinton was indeed a party favorite

and being a media darling didn't hurt either.

[slinkerwink]

7. he wasn't at first

remember that....

[Larkspur]

5. Josh also supported the Iraq War after previously opposing it

Like Kerry and Friedman, he is eating crow, but unlike those 2, he isn't as obsessed with defending his position on that issue.

America is on the verge of a paradigm shift in American politics, and Howard Dean is the catalyst. He's the only one of the 9 Dem Prez candidates who sees it and has developed a successful strategy to engineer that paradigm shift in the Democrats favor.

[Jacobin]

8. He supported the invasion?

That explains it.

[Metrix]

9. Have to agree with Marshall

Of the top five candidates, I only see Bush being afraid to debate Kerry and Clark. No doubt the rest would win a debate against Bush, but someone has to graphically demonstrate Bush's weakness to the uncommitted electorate. I don't know much about Dean, but I've watched all the debates, and I've yet to see him effectively score against even his fellow candidates.

So far I fear that even if Dean is elected, which I think is far from certain, he could turn out to be a president like Carter -- too inexperienced, too easily rolled. By the end of Carter's term even I was experiencing a fatigue factor with him. Being a good person doesn't necessarily make you a good president. We have to elect a known quantity. Too much is at stake.

[AWD]

10. How much were you paid to bash Dean today?

...per your own accusation that DUers are paid to bash Kerry.

[Metrix]

12. Josh Marshall is paid to bash Dean?

.

[ryharrin]

11. I've already read it.

Disagree completely. He's looking at it from an insider's perspective. His second, third, fourth, and fifth ideas are particularly silly. The fifth isn't even an idea, its an assertion he calls a fact.

[ibegurpard]

13. Yes...the elusive "electability"

a mask for a person's opinion when they want to sound particularly convincing.

[trapper914]

14. They said Reagan wasn't electable either

eom

[Eloriel]

15. I find your thread title enormously insulting

I've read your TPM excerpt, and all the posts in this thread. They were a HUGE waste of time. Hereafter, please let ME figure out what I consider "required reading." Believe me, an blogger with an overblown opinion of his own opinions doesn't cut it.

Eloriel