How Dean Could Win . . .

[tritsofme]

By William Kristol (actual PNAC member and neocon extraordinare)
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27

For the next 11 months, Republicans, conservatives and Bush campaign operatives should, on arising, immediately following their morning prayers, repeat that score aloud 10 times. Underdogs do sometimes win. Howard Dean could beat President Bush. Saying you're not overconfident (as the OU players repeatedly did) is no substitute for really not being overconfident. And if Bush loses next November, it's over. There's no BCS computer to give him another shot at the national championship in the Sugar Bowl.

Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.

But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.

And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?
/snip/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47806-2003Dec8.html

Seems like the cons are waking up to reality. I think bush* is much more vulnerable than anybody thinks right now.

[poskonig]

1. This violates rule #3 to some extent.

eom

[dave29]

2. DO NOT LET THIS FOOL YOU

They are lowering expectations of Bush. This is what they always do. Rove is a master. It's time we held our President to higher standards. We cannot let them get away with lowering the expectations, when his performance couldn't have been much lower than it has been.

4. Lowering expectations

This does seem like one of their ploys.
However writing/admitting stuff like this
"Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation,"

is not helping their cause.
Just as in the Democratic party, I think there are some very interesting splits happening in the Republican party. I heard a "fiscal conservative" Republican bagging on the pork in the omnibus bill for example, basically siding with the opposition,

[BootinUp]

3. My Analysis

Yes the dems have won the popular vote the last three times, last one being ridiculously close. The problem is that this does not translate necessarily into an electoral college win. And playing the state map game this early in the race is a little futile.

Instead I am looking at this from the perspective of where Dean is currently getting his support, according to the latest Gallup poll:

Dean Leads Among Liberals, Holds His Own Among Moderates
Candidate Support Among All Democrats, Compared by Ideology


Liberal Moderate Conservative

% % %

Dean 40 17 11

Clark 11 19 17

(I am only showing Dean and Clark, but you see the rest at http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031209.asp

Gallups analysis:

The latest results show Dean with especially strong support among Democrats who identify as liberals. He leads Clark, his next closest challenger, by 29 points (40% vs. 11%) among this group. Among moderate Democrats, Clark and Dean are closely matched for the lead. Among the relatively small group of Democrats who identify as conservatives, Gephardt holds a statistically significant lead over Dean and Lieberman. Dean garners just 11% of the conservative vote.


My Analysis:

Clearly Dean is going to have a tougher time picking up independents (farther right then conservatives above) than Clark. We need some of these votes! These are the votes Clark can and will get. And Clark has liberal policies to please any supporter of Dean. The problem is that the liberal wing of the democratic Party doesn't trust a general.

Is the fired up rhetoric of Dean going to attract moderates and independents the swing vote? Is Dean going to get any Red States, it is too soon to tell, but Dean should be forced through a little more primary fire before being handed the nomination on the strength of Iowa and New Hampshire, this is a necessary process!

Cheers and ABB in 2004

[DFLforever]

5. A question

Are you saying that all or many independents are further right than conservative Dems? My experience is that many independents just don't like the 2 main political parties and often don't much care for politics or professional polticians, either. The ones I've known tend to be more moderate than conservative, and frequently liberal on the social issues.


edit: typo

[BootinUp]

10. Honestly I am not sure

I should have said swing votes (all three D,I, R) I still think the data applies to my argument. And my final point is what matters. The primary process is important to answer these questions. I don't think it should be shorcut.

[mmonk]

6. he could win

with the right southern running mate. Not since JFK has a non southern Dem won the general election (and he had Johnson as a running mate).

[bobthedrummer]

7. A Dean/Clark ticket would be strongest IMO.

Don't laugh-win back the country that way.

[mmonk]

8. not laughing

though I don't think VP's do much other than break tie votes. I would like Clark engaged in bringing back multilateralism and repairing ties.

[bobthedrummer]

9. That would be nice. Why not as part of Dean ticket?

?

[mmonk]

11. better that than nothing

because I think Clark has alot to offer in help to repair the international standing Bush has damaged. That's one of the reasons I support him for president, but not the only one.

[bobthedrummer]

12. The VP is President of the Senate.

Clark would be a great counter to Defense bills with his background IMO.
And he could mend international relations too.

[mmonk]

13. That's what I meant about breaking tie votes.

Don't know how his duties if he were VP would lend themselves in the international arena though.

[bobthedrummer]

14. This administration has caused so much damage to alliances

that it will take decades to repair IMO so there is much work for next administration to do at all levels.

[Snellius]

15. The right may also be afraid of a pyrrhic victory

Even if Dean doesn't win, just the fact that Bush would be aggressively attacked from a genuinely populist direction must strike fear in the privileged hearts of the Republicans. Even if he loses, Dean could do a lot of damage to the already discredited neocon ideology: exposing the lie of fiscal conservatism, the cynical manipulation of "compassion", the imperialist foreign policy, etc. Dean's message may not be the most clever but it's direct, blunt, uncompromising, and easy to understand.