FYI: an e-mail from a friend of mine

[radfringe]

received this e-mail from a friend of mine, who is a political scientist - here's how he see's the primaries...


Friends,

Here’s some info (and commentary) about the Democratic campaign. Just so you know where I’m coming from: 1) as a political scientist who has spent the past 23 years studying presidential primaries, I can (humbly) say that I understand the process better than the reporters who cover it; 2) as a human being, I believe that George W. Bush is the worst president in our lifetimes, in terms of foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, environment, civil liberties, etc. I believe that the number one priority in 2004 is to defeat George W. Bush. So I plan to enthusiastically support whoever the Democratic nominee is. But first, we need to choose who that will be.

A very brief glimpse at each of the major candidates (I’m not including Kuchinich and Sharpton who have effectively no chance of being nominated):

Howard Dean: former Governor of Vermont, currently the frontrunner for the nomination, perceived as liberal largely because his campaign has focused on his opposition to the war in Iraq, appeals to anti-war
liberals.

Wes Clark: retired general, from Arkansas, expert on foreign and
military affairs, opposes the war in Iraq in part because it weakens our ability to fight Al Quida, appeals to independents.

Joe Lieberman: Senator from Connecticut, moderate, supports the war in Iraq, appeals to moderates.

John Edwards: Senator from North Carolina, the best campaigner of the
bunch, clearly articulates what’s wrong with the Bush economy and how to fix it, appeals to Southerners.

John Kerry: Senator from Massachusetts, Viet Nam veteran who later was a leader of Viet Nam Vets Against the War, wealthy enough to partly finance his own campaign, appeals to some liberals and vets.

Dick Gephardt: Representative from Missouri, formerly the Democratic
leader of the House of Representatives, more experience in campaigns and government than any of the others, appeals to labor and MidWesterners.

Recent national polls show Dean in first place and Clark second.
However most people have not yet tuned in to the campaign very much.

Because the primaries (and caucuses) occur over a period of several
months, the early ones have a strong impact on the later ones. Usually the first two contests (Iowa, Jan.19, and New Hampshire Jan.27) are the most important. (This year, I believe that South Carolina, one week after NH, will also be important.) Typically the field starts with 5-9 candidates but winnows down to only 2 or 3 soon after New Hampshire. (Historically, the eventual nominee is always among the top 3 in Iowa and among the top 2 in New Hampshire.)

The Iowa caucuses will be held tomorrow evening, starting around 7:30
Eastern Time. The polls show Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards tied in Iowa (Clark and Lieberman are skipping Iowa). However, polls of caucuses are not reliable so who knows what will happen. Whatever
happens will influence the votes in New Hampshire.

Right now Dean is leading (34%) with Clark second (25%) and Kerry third (13%), but that’s likely to change after Iowa votes. Gephardt and Dean are expected to do well in Iowa so anything other than a first place finish would lower their vote in New Hampshire (primary voters don’t like voting for losers”).

Kerry and Edwards are not expected to do as well in Iowa so a first or second place finish would raise their vote in New Hampshire
(primary voters like voting for “winners”).

After Iowa and New Hampshire there will be a set of primaries on Feb.3:

South Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota
and Delaware. Of these, South Carolina is especially important because it’s the first Southern state. (Southern support is important since Democrats have a hard time winning the presidency without it. Think Clinton, Carter, LBJ vs Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern.) I expect that after Feb.3 there’ll be 2, possibly 3, candidates left. There are a few contests later in February, but the main event is Super-Tuesday on March 2, when California, New York, Ohio, Georgia and a number of other states will vote.

As I see it, the policy differences among the Democrats are relatively minor when compared to George Bush’s policies. (Lieberman and Kuchinich are exceptions to this but even Lieberman is far better than Bush in almost every way.) Dean is perceived as very liberal and Clark, with his military background, may seem conservative, but a recent New York Times analysis of their positions shows them to be almost identical on the issues.

I do see differences in their ability to defeat Bush. Winning the
presidential election in November means energizing the Democratic base, appealing to moderates, independents and “swing” voters, being
competitive in the South, and running a strong professional campaign.

Each of the candidates has some strengths and some weaknesses in terms of defeating Bush.

Dean is a good campaigner with enthusiastic supporters but he’s from New England (not a critical region) and the Republicans will depict him as a radical.

Kerry is a vet but he’s also from New England.

Edwards is a very good campaigner, he’s from the South, but he looks young.

Gephardt has lots of campaign experience, knows the issues well but he seems to represent an earlier era.

Lieberman appeals to moderates but he’s from New England and he’s not a campaigner.

Clark is Southern, appeals to independents, as a retired
general he can criticize Bush’s foreign/military policies without
seeming weak or unpatriotic, but he has almost no campaign experience.

So, briefly, that’s where we stand now. I’ll try to send an update soon.

[radfringe]

1. kick (n/t)

[Lexingtonian]

2. So: Dean & Clark?

It's a very reasonable analysis. But others have posted assessment from their poli sci professor friends that were sharper in their assertions, explanations, and prognostications. (I believe "Magic Rat" posted one about ten days ago- his fellow thought that Dean would flame out in or just after IA and NH, with the rest being a Kerry/Clark run.)

I read this analysis as going with Dean and Clark as the most likely final two of Democratic Survivor. Do you think that's the case?

[radfringe]

3. my personal opinion

(and not an endorsement of any candidate)...

I think the top 3 going into Super Tuesday will be Dean, Clark and Kerry

Dean and Clark at or near a statistical tie, with Kerry a close third.

Edwards will "make it" through the South Carolina primary, but will probably drop out shortly after

Given that South Carolina is one week after NH primary - Gephardt and Lieberman will most likely "stick it out" through that one and then withdraw

Kuchinich and Sharpton will withdraw after Iowa and throw their support behind one of the other candidates - probably NOT Dean, but I don't have a good guess which of the others they will support

lots can happen between now and the convention - any of the candidates are just as likely to get a "explosion of support" or "implode"

going to depend on how well they are able to fend off the attacks from fellow candidates -- and more importantly how they respond to whatever the latest "bush* Bomb" hits the front pages

going into the general election proper - whoever the nominee ends up being will have to shift their message to include a vision of HOPE for a better tomorrow and convince voters that they are capable of bringing that vision into reality

[Lexingtonian]

4. I agree, largely, with your prognosis.

The Missouri caucuses are also on February 3rd, which is Gephardt's last real point of pride unless Iowa gives him reason for high hopes. Lieberman is out of money after that date, and it will be the best showing for Edwards because all the states are southern. I expect them to endorse Clark or maybe put off endorsements until the winner is pretty clear.

I have no feel for the logic to Kucinich's actions but I think Sharpton will hang in there passively in order to use the bully pulpit it offers, letting the big boys fight to win and getting a few delegates from protest voting.

March 2 is about most of the big and really Blue states. I think it should knock off either Kerry or Dean. (Or both?)

But I remain curious about who the writer of your analysis thinks will emerge and when.

[radfringe]

5. curious about who the writer of your analysis thinks will emerge and when

heh, me too - but he's not saying at the moment and simply states that it's too early to tell

his wife's views are "I'll vote for Anyone But Bush - even if they nominate a ham sandwich and I'm a vegetarian..."

on edit: interesting to note - we get together during the spring soltice for a 'space fest' - (bunch of us from all over the eastern states)... ennywhoo, I spoke to him at that time about Dean, told him that this was someone to keep an eye on - he shrugged and said "maybe"

His concern is which of the candidates will be able to get the support needed from the southern states - he sees that as being a major factor

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I'm seeing something interesting in the South

There's an emergence of an idependent group in our area who has decided to bypass the moribund local Democratic establishment (which didn't support Gore and said they wouldn't support any candidate that wasn't pro-gun, pro-life, and anti-gay--wasn't even sure he'd support Clark, who is from our state!) and work independently to get information out about the Democratic nominee. Apparently this Dem. attitude is prevelant in our area-some folks went to Boone Co Dems, who said they were afraid to meet or admit their party affiliation!

Could it be that the nominee needs to look to independent groups in states like Arkansas to get out his message?

[NashVegas]

7. I think your friend

underestimates Dean's appeal among moderates and independents.

Yes, I am biased, but I'm ever surprised by the numbers of my righter-than-me acquaintances who look favorably on the guy - and this is in the South, even.