Why Dean can win next November

[unfrigginreal]

11/09/03

DAVID REINHARD

Let us not be fooled by misguided conventional wisdom. Dean is a threat and Republicans better not ignore him."

The latest press release from the "Dean for President" campaign? Fresh political insight from the lefties at The Nation magazine? Michael Moore or Al Franken's recent rantings?

No, this is the considered judgment of two respected Republican pollsters -- Bob Moore and Hans Kaiser -- from Portland's Moore Information. Their Oct. 6 memo should be a welcome read (www.moore-info.com) when Dean visits here Tuesday.

"Howard Dean can win because he believes in what he is saying, because he can semi-legitimately spin his record as governor into one of fiscal conservatism, and because he comes across as if he actually cares about people . . ." they wrote, continuing a bit later: "The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle."

<snip>

Moore says he's never had more reaction to a memo. Tellingly, almost all Republicans -- fellow pollsters and clients -- thought the memo was dead-on. And they were dead serious.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml


Link to the actual memo:

http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm

[ALago1]

1. Dean definitely can win

However, the Republicans better realize that any Democratic candidate can give Bush a run for his money because, frankly, he's doing a terrible job running the country on all fronts.

[Cha]

2. I thought you were saying ...

"Why Dean can win next November"

This is interesting news...but not surprising! Anybody but those with an agenda can see Dean is capable of winning!

[Rowdyboy]

3. Dean obviously can win...

He's shown an incredible ability to motivate, organize and evolve. He is not my first choice; he's my second. However, I have no doubt that if Howard Dean is the Democratic nominee with the vp of his choice, he will run an excellent race. He may not win, but it won't be because he doesn't deserve to win by virtue of his education, experience, or abilities.

Dean is the real deal.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

4. Nice, Rowdyboy...

Thanks for the sentiment.

It's good to see the Dean and Clark people forging a tentative alliance of sorts in recent days. As a Dean supporter, I have great respect for the type of campaign that Clark is running, he is doing the smart thing by focusing his attacks on Bush.

Of course if he comes out tomorrow and slams Dean, all bets are off. :)

I've come to believe that Dean and Clark are the only candidates that can beat Bush. I think Kerry Gep and Edwards should also be able to beat him and each would be a VAST improvement, but I think the general public isn't going to pay much attention or give much credence to this race unless we fight it in an entirely different way with an entirely different candidate (like Dean or Clark).

[depakid]

5. Well I'll be dipped in dog$**+

The Oregonian's two-bit right wing propagandist and I actually agree on something. Usually, he's so off base and disingenuous that I never bother reading his column. Maybe there's been a bit of a shake up at Newhouse Publishing- who recently had two senior editors at their Business Journal quit after the publisher killed a story about one of the few non-profits that has actually thrived during the Bush years. The editors quoted higher ups at the Publisher stating "we don't run stories about extremists groups."

(the story was about Planned Parenthood).

[depakid]

6. I should add

that memo hack Rheinhard borrows so extensively from is almost about six weeks old.... dated sometime back in September. Typical. The guy's always been kind of "slow" in the original ideas department.

[Alt2War]

7. From Dean to Jackson: How to Revitalize the Democratic Party (and save the

this was posted by Chris Bowers at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/9/11440/7514


Part One: The Apparent Problem

With the expected retirement of several US Senate "blue dogs" in the coming election cycle, the breakup of the New Deal coalition is, at the national level, almost complete. Now, the remnants of FDR's near-Super Majority exist almost entirely at the local level, in state legislatures such as MS and OK. Considering this state of affairs, it has become more difficult than ever for a Southern Democrat to either win the Democratic nomination or, if they do somehow manage to win the nomination, win any southern states in the general election. Trying to win the south has become more difficult than ever for Democrats not from the region.


Of course, this problem has been evident for some time now. When it became clear in the early 1980's that this problem was not going to go away, the Democratic Leadership Council rose to power within the Democratic Party by developing a strategy that would allow Democrats to win the Presidency. Essentially, this strategy had three main points:

Develop a conservative to moderate economic agenda that would appeal to business leaders, in order to bring in new donations to the party and draw even (or at least come close) with Republican presidential nominees in terms of fundraising.


Present a moderate image on issues such as crime in order to appeal to more swing voters.

Support a southerner for the party's presidential nomination in order to make the south, the most important area of the Republican base, competitive.

As frustrating as it may have been to progressives, this was an excellent strategy for winning the Presidency, and it led to the Democratic nominee receiving more votes than the Republican nominee in three straight elections. However, as early as 1994, it became clear that there were some very dangerous flaws to this strategy. First, while it was excellent at winning the Presidency, it caused series problems for the party in almost every other state and local election. Second, by 2000, it became clear that it was a temporary solution to a chronic problem.



Part Two: The Real Problem (4.00 / 21)

While the Democratic shift in policy engineered by the DLC vastly increased the chances of Democrats winning the next general election (for the DLC it is always the next general election that matters), it also succeed in enacting legislation that significantly reduced the size and political clout of pro-Democratic demographic groups and activist institutions. In a very real sense, it was an abandonment of the material basis of sixty years for Democratic strength in favor of a temporary and moderated image.
While supporting increasingly freer trade policies may have resulted in some significant campaign contributions from Wall Street, once such policies were enacted they have helped to significantly reduce to size of organized labor. This may have helped Bill Clinton, but it significantly weakened down ticket Democrats as voter registration drives, GOTV efforts, and other forms of potential political support for Democrats on behalf of organized labor were reduced. Increasing enforcement of the War on Drugs may have made a Democratic nominee look tough on crime to swing voters, but it has also resulted in increasing voter disenfranchisement for drug-related felony convictions among African Americans to over 10% (from less than 2% in 1978). Decreasing the size of the most fervently pro-Democratic voting block has been an absolute disaster for down ticket Democrats.

During this same period of time, pro-Republican organizations and demographic groups greatly increased in size and in level or organization. The Christian coalition, an organization that did not exist during the 1970's, arose to become the most powerful activist organization in the country. At their peak, they distributed 70 million pieces of literature, raised $20M, and made several million GOTV phone calls and house visits every year. The military industrial complex greatly increased in size, eventually becoming the largest component of government spending outside of Social Security. Eventually, nearly 2,000,000 people were in the armed forces, the vast majority of whom vote Republican. While the DLC was winning presidential elections and enacting policies to reduce the clout of their activist base and the size of their most loyal constituency, Republicans were doing exactly the opposite. For the sake of imagine and increased campaign donations, the Democratic Party saw the material structure of this country shift decidedly to the Republicans.

In 1986, Democrats had a 100-seat majority in the House. In 1988, Democrats held a 14-seat majority in the Senate. In 1986, Democrats held an 18-seat majority in Governorships, and held control of 12 more state legislatures than Republicans. Now, Republicans hold majorities in all of these areas.

Many people attribute this shift to Republicans creating a well-controlled image, including the construction of a Mighty Wurlitzer. Certainly, image and the Wurlitzer have played an important role, but this role has been greatly overestimated. The primary cause for the decline of Democrats across the country has been the weakening of pro-Democratic activist institutions and the strengthening of pro-Republican institutions. Equally important has been the reduction in political clout among pro-Democratic demographic groups such as African-Americans and the strengthening of the political clout of pro-republican demographic groups such as armed services personnel. The conservative shift in this country was accomplished through material shifts in activist organization and demographic patterns.

There are three disturbing points about this shift that must be understood if the scope of the problem facing Democrats and the American left is to be fully appreciated:

It was caused largely through the enactment of legislative policies. Further, these policies were passed through an alliance of Republicans and, distressingly, moderate / conservative Democrats.
The shift to the right remains largely unchecked and continues to shift the center of American politics further and further to the right. Many people argued in 2000 that Gore was running to the right of Richard Nixon. While this was somewhat hyperbolic, it was also somewhat true.
Many Democrats continue to support new policies that would exacerbate the material problem for Democrats even further. Bush's faith-based initiative would greatly strengthen the institutional power of the religious right. His tax cuts further empower the wealthy and increase the income gap in this country. He was increased defense spending and wishes to increase it even further, thus providing even more power to the pro-republican military industrial complex. If he gets another term, expect him to attempt to significantly or entirely privatize Social Security. In other words, things can get far, far worse before they get better.


Many people here have probably read my posts on these topics before, and thus are familiar with my catch phrase: "It's not the image, stupid!" Frustrated by the philosophies espoused even by most liberals these days, during the final two years I spent as a teacher, one of my main goals was to show my students that materiality plays an important role in constructing much of our society. The world is not all about image and ideas. It is my goal on this board to demonstrate to as many people as I can that the way to revitalize the Democratic party goes far deeper than presenting a presidential nominee who has a favorable image to swing voters. Instead, we need to build new activist organizations, find new sources of funding, revitalize older activist institutions, empower pro-Democratic demographic groups and, eventually, pass legislation that will make many of these changes permanent. If the material structures of this country do not shift to the left and we focus solely on controlling our image, along with the rest of the country, we are fucked.

Part Three: The Solution, from Dean... (4.00 / 19)

Many people throughout the Democratic Party feel that Howard Dean is not a pragmatic choice to be the nominee. To a large extent, they base their argument on the three DLC principles of winning the Presidency. To bring this into perspective, it would be useful to examine Howard Dean in light of each of the DLC's three main pillars of winning the Presidency as a Democrat:


Dean does not have an economic policy that appeals to large donors. As much as Dean was a centrist in the past and in his record, it is true that during this primary season he is sounding like a protectionist who wants to vastly increase taxes on the rich. However, this point in winning the nomination is irrelevant to Dean, since he has discovered a way to raise money almost entirely separate from large corporate donors. Thus, Wall Street can think whatever it wants about his candidacy, because he doesn't need their money anyway. He is, after all, the biggest fundraiser in Democratic Party history.


Regardless of whether or not Dean is a centrist, on key issues, such as the war in Iraq, middle class tax cuts and civil unions, he does not present a moderated image that would appeal to swing voters. I'll concede this point.


He's not from the south, and of all the states in the region, he would probably only be competitive in FL, if even there. I'll concede this point as well, except that I think he would have a shot a FL.
So, while Dean has solved the first problem the DLC's general election plan itself set out to solve, it is entirely possible that by solving that problem he created a significant image problem with swing voters. That is to say, he would not have raised the money he did had he always presented a moderate image. Considering the way he has been covered by the media, I think this charge is fair. It would be very difficult for Dean to start looking moderate after the way he has portrayed himself during the primaries.


However, whatever Dean has surrendered in political image (and image can always change), he has gained far more in terms of political materiality. He has discovered a way to shake loose tens of millions of dollars and tens of millions of volunteer hours that, before his candidacy, the Democratic Party never even knew existed. These advances in material organization, aided in no small way by dkos and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, have the potential to become a permanent activist and fundraising counterweight to the yet still rising tide of Republican activism and fundraising. If the people working for Dean stay active in democratic politics, then Dean's candidacy will already have done more good for the Party and for the American left than even Bill Clinton ever did.

Although his activist organization probably makes him unbeatable in he primaries, win or lose what Dean has revealed is just the tip of the iceberg. Already, almost $10M has been raised online by Democratic candidates other than Dean (Bush hasn't even raised $1.5M online yet), and either activist groups such as MoveOn and even the Democratic Party itself have raised another several million online. If Dean becomes the nominees, I have no reason to doubt that dean will come close to $100M in online donations--maybe even more. Further, if he becomes the nominee, his new organization could potentially garner him over one billion hours in volunteer help.

There is no reason this new material shift has to stop with Dean, and I see little reason to imagine that it will. Even if he does not become the nominee, many, if not most, of the people in his campaign have a taste for the power of grassroots activism now, and it is not something easy to give up. Dean's campaign appears to be the end of the material, activist shift that over the past twenty-five years has been entirely in favor of the Republicans. The gains Dean has made are long term, and blow anything he has lost in terms of image out of the water.

For an example of Dean's material strength and the degree to which such strengths can triumph over image, one needs to look no further than the current campaign. Dean's material strength is so profound that he seems to rise relative to the other candidates no matter how many or big his misstatements and other image problems may be. This is something that has visibly frustrated many supporters of other candidates, as they puzzle over why Dean's image problems haven't seemed to damage his campaign one bit. To me, the reason is simple: material strengths always overwhelm strengths in image.



However, no matter how strong his organization is now, assuming that he wins the nomination, in the general election Dean will be going up against the Mighty Wurlitzer. Even though his material strengths will be even stronger by next summer, the image-controlling foe he will face, the Mighty Wurlitzer, will be exponentially more difficult than what he currently is up against in the primaries. This problem is exasperated even further because, as I already conceded, Dean will have more problems in the south than would a southern candidate, such as Clark or Edwards, and he will have more difficulty presenting an appealing image to "swing" voters than would Clark, Edwards, Lieberman and possibly Kerry. This would suggest then the best bet for Dean, should he become the nominee, would be to combine his material advantages with the advantages in image offered by either Clark or Edwards (and Clark might offer some significant material advantage as well). In fact, I believe Dean/Clark, Dean/Edwards and Clark/Dean are the three most popular tickets among posters on this board.


However, in the same way that I feel shifting from material strength to strength in image has damaged the party in the past when it comes to choosing a nominee, I feel that the selection of a vice-presidential candidate must be based upon the degree to which a candidate is able to improve both the short and long term material position of the party. This rules out Edwards, and while it does not rule out Clark I feel that there is an even stronger candidate whose organizational strength and long-term, pragmatic vision for progressive politics in this country make him the clear number one choice for any Democratic ticket this year. I am thinking of Jesse Jackson Jr.

During the 1980's and 1990's Jesse Jackson Jr. was a field organizer for his father's Rainbow Coalition. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition employed a political strategy based entirely in material organization and increasing the size pro-Democratic voter constituencies. In a very real sense, Jesse Jackson's strategy during his 1984 and 1988 campaigns for the nomination was the exact opposite of the DLC's. While the DLC moved to change their image to appeal to swing voters, the south, and big donors, Jackson ran a campaign in which the basic strategy was to change the electorate itself. Through a massive grassroots organization and voter registration drive, in 1988 Jackson almost won the nomination despite being woefully under-funded. Even though he lost, however, through his voter registration drives he succeeded, however briefly, in shifting the politics of the country at least somewhat to the left. In particular, due to his efforts in the south, it is entirely possible that Jackson made the Mary Landrieu's and Blanche Lincoln's of the party possible.

By adding the extremely capable, energetic, forward thinking, well-connected and well-organized Jesse Jackson Jr. to the ticket could potentially solve many of the problems currently facing the Dean campaign and the Democratic Party itself, including the shrinking voting clout of African-Americans. Conversely, the Dean campaign has discovered a way to solve the biggest problem that plagued Jackson's run for President in the 1980's: a way to raise large amounts of money without caving in to the demands of big-money donors. A Dean-Jackson ticket would be an organizational juggernaught that, win or lose, would significantly improve the material strength of the Democratic Party across the nation for years to come. It would bring in tens, if not hundreds, of millions of new dollars to the party while simultaneously lessen the need to bow to corporate interests. It would bring in millions of new voters who previously had never registered. It would create billions of new volunteer hours of the party. In short, win or lose a dean-Jackson ticket would shift the center of politics in the country to the left and make future gains for Democrats all the more possible.



Part five: Conclusion and other problems
I should point out that while Jackson's organizational prowess is the main reason I think he should be added to the ticket, it is by no means the only reason. Of equal importance is that among all federally elected officials under the age of 50 (Jackson is 38), he has what is the clearest, most detailed and thoughtful plan for a progressive American future. He proposes a series of constitutional amendments that would enshrine the liberal vision for this country, universal health care, full employment, equal education funding, adequate housing, a clean environment and true civil rights, as the law of the land. He would end the corporate hold on power in this country, and structure trade agreements and labor laws that would greatly increase the power of unions and guarantee that more Americans have, as the AFL says, Job with Justice. He would end the war on drugs and put a stop to the insanity that has come to plague our criminal justice system, has put more than 3 million people in jail, and which serves as little more than a thinly veiled War on Minority Youth. It is truly remarkable stuff.

Of course, right now it is impossible to achieve most of these goals. The political climate and political structure of the nation must be shifted to a position where such a vision is possible. Through its unprecedented activist strength, a Dean/Jackson ticket would be the beginning of a material shift in this country that would eventually make such a vision a realistic political possibility. Eight years of a Dean/Jackson America would make it even more possible, bringing a leftward material shift all across the country that would be felt in Congress and at the state and local levels.

Such a ticket would undoubtedly have image problems that would make many "swing" voters uncomfortable and possibly take every southern state except Florida out of play. However, it would not be defenseless on the "image" front. Both Dean and Jackson are excellent speakers, even if Dean's interview presence leaves much to be desired. Both are tireless campaigners, and would be able to run circles around bush in terms of campaign appearances and overall energy. Both have pulled out upset wins in the past as well. Further, in a party where white men make up only about 20-25% of the base, it would be about friggin' time that we had only our second non-all white male ticket. Hell, the civil rights appeal might make more Americans feel like being American again.

Of course, Jackson is a congressman, which means he would be running for re-election while also running for vice-president. Also, when anyone hears Jackson's name they will instantly think of his father. While in the late 1990's Jackson Sr. had an approval rating that was roughly 3-1 positive, ever since his sex scandal his unfavorables have outnumbered his favorables. Do the Democrats really need another sex scandal looming over the ticket? Perhaps some Dean / Clark / Edwards combination would be superior even if it does not hold the same long-term benefit. We really do need to dump bush right now.

Overall, however, I feel that not only would a Dean/Jackson ticket be better for the long-term health of the party, it would also have the most short-term success. The raw organizational, grassroots, material power of such a ticket cannot be matched by any other potential combination. By drawing together the two greatest Democratic Party grassroots efforts of the past twenty years, whatever problems it has on the image front, it will more than compensate for them organizationally.

Anyway, that is my long-winded $.02. I hope you enjoyed it.

Work like hell and organize. Dean / Jackson in 2004!



this was posted by http://www.dailykos.com/user/uid:123>Chris Bowers at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/9/11440/7514

[schultzee]

8. Yes, he can if we can make Diebold have an honest audit

trail. I believe the only way bu$h will win is if he steals the election and Diebold will do that for him.