And via another of my fellow guest commenters on Tacitus we see a link to this Nicholas D Kristof article. He’s taking the position that the result of a Dean nomination is going to be roughly equivalent to that of McGovern’s.
This reminds me of something that I’ve noticed: nobody seems to be able to agree on what year it is. If you’re a Republican, it’s 1984*, or possibly 1972; the Democrats are operating on the assumption that it’s 1992 and debating on whether acting as if it was 2000 would be a good call or not. I don’t know whether this is just a side-effect of the fact that we haven’t even really started the primaries yet or not, but it’s still kind of troubling. I mean, just to use my cobloggers as examples, I think Katherine’s a pretty bright person** with her head screwed on straight… but she’s looking at the exact same evidence that I am and we’re forecasting completely different results. And yes, of course I have considered the implications of that… but, sorry, I’m still not convinced of her position.
It’s a puzzler.
Moe
PS: Keep the faith, Bird Dog. You too, democritus. I like reading you both.
*And no, not the book. Personal quirk of mine, but I feel that works of softcore masochism porn should not be used in serious political discussions… which also means that Ayn Rand should be largely banished as well, so there’s a silver lining for everybody.
**This is not to be taken as a diminishing of von, who’s equally bright and sane. I wouldn’t have come up with the idea of having this blog if they weren’t.
UPDATE: OK, in Katherine’s case at least I stand somewhat corrected; her views (see the below comments) on the probability of a Dean win are somewhat parallel to mine, and I actually agree that the practical successes shown by his campaign will be a good thing for the Democratic Party in general. Mea culpa and substitute for Katherine’s name the name of any rational Lefty out there postulating a Dean landslide.
Obviously, I’m still standing by my calling my cobloggers both bright and sane…
Wait a sec. I thought that if you’re a Republican, it’s always 1955?
No, harley, that’s just generally the accusation made against us. As always, the truth is just a bit more complex than that. 🙂
1957? 🙂
LOL. 🙂
I actually think Dean will probably lose, but I think Clark would probably lose too. I’d say Clark’s a bit more likely to win, but only a bit. Outside of the chance that it’s a race Clark could win and Dean couldn’t (which I’d put at 10-15%, though that number is pulled out of thin air) I think Dean is definitely better for the long run fortunes of the party, think he would make a better president, and feel a certain sense of loyalty to the man for getting us off of the carpet. I mean, McCain was more electable than Bush but the right was not dissuaded and the gamble paid off.
I like Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt’s chances less than Dean’s in the general election. Edwards maybe a little better, but his primary campaign has gotten nowhere & the lack of experience hurts him (part of his problem is that he looks younger than he is–he’s actually 50.)
I also like Dean for non-partisan, process type reasons:
1) I think it’s unhealthy in the long run for parties to vote based on our not-very-educated guesses about “electability”. I am not going to punish Dean for sharing my view on Iraq, and being unafraid to say so. I am not going to punish him for being on the right side of what, in my eyes, is one of the clearest moral issues of our day (civil unions). I will not. There are plenty of substantive reasons not to like the guy–I bet von could make a list–but the most common concern cited is electability and those two positions are the reason why.
2) I think the structure of the Dean campaign is a very healthy & needed thing.
It’s 2004, not 1972 or 1968 or what have you. We could lose in a landslide, lose in a squeaker, or win in a close race (I don’t think the Democrats can win in a landslide). But it won’t be because Dean is Reagan or Goldwater or McGovern; it will be because he runs a good or a bad campaign, and because of external circumstances (Iraq, the economy, etc.) beyond his control.
One more thing: I don’t know if you’ll find it impressive, endearing, disturbing, or just plain bizarre, but there’s a good NY Times magazine article today about the Dean campaign phenomenon & the devotion he inspires in a lot of supporters. (it’s too long, just like every other NY Times magazine article, but it’s still worth reading.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/magazine/07DEAN.html
These are my favorite lines:
“For each person who decided to arrive unannounced at the Dean office, dozens more stayed home and appointed themselves director of one unofficial Dean organization or another.
There are now 900 unofficial Dean groups….I saw a middle-aged man at a garden party in New Hampshire preface a question to Dean by saying he was associated with Howards for Howard. Dean nodded, as if the man had said he was with the AARP.”
“Brooks soon has seven apple cores piled by his desk; when Joe Trippi returns from dinner with a journalist, takeout containers of his half-eaten soup are deposited on Brooks’s desk. Brooks augments this diet with pasta that he says he doesn’t have time to cook. (”Try some,” he says, holding out a piece of raw ziti. ”If it had salt on it, you’d think it was a potato chip.”)
I confess–the historical parallel I’d like to believe is that this is the RFK campaign without Sirhan Sirhan. But I’m well aware that that’s probably just hopeless romanticism on my part.
Per Thomas Friedman, it’s 1864.
Lincoln?!? That’s a new one. In response to Friedman’s last line:
The reason I do not go to anti Al-Qaeda or anti-Saddam protests is because there is exactly zero chance of influencing either, or their supporters, or public opinion in their countries.
That isn’t to say that some protesters haven’t lost all perspective about the really evil people in this world. And some of them aren’t really interested in changing people’s mind, but in registering a moral stance, so if you’re going to that you might as well do against people who really and truly and beyond any doubt deserve it.
But by and large, this “why didn’t you protest Saddam” argument is not worth much…It’s analagous to saying: “You wrote a letter to your Congressmen about some petty bill he’s voting on? Why don’t you write a letter to Kim Jong Il or the dictator in charge of Uzbekistan, huh? HUH? I guess this shows how screwed up your priorities. (etc., etc.)”
Both and Clark are unknown quantities on the national scene, so naturally there is a larger variability in reasonable expectations of how either would fare against Bush. (I assume Kerrey et al are effectively out of the race now, assuming no major gaffes by Dean or Clark.) I seriously doubt that there is landslide potential on either side. It will be 2000 all over again, in terms of popular vote.
I do think it will be Dean, and I think he will win it in a narrow race. He has the message, organization and money, and he speaks very well. He also has a fighter’s instinct, like Clinton. He’s not Gore, tap-dancing among the constituencies and getting peeved when people didn’t give him a gold star for being the smartest kid in class. Dean looks like he’s going to going to punch someone in the nose and then get back to work.
Dean’s problem is, he doesn’t have a record to run on. Bush’s problem is, he does.
Before the invasion, there was a anti-war protest on a streetcorner near my office every Friday. I was tempted to stand on the opposite streetcorner with a big sign saying “Free Iraq”.
It would have been fun, the only problem being I wasn’t a real big fan of invading Iraq.
Some thoughts on the Dean/McGovern analogy. Via Instapundit.
http://www.reason.com/rauch/120803.shtml
Have comparrisons of earlier elections or candidates to current elections or candidates ever been accurate?
Dean really is unlike any candidate I’ve known of.
Dean’s problem is, he doesn’t have a record to run on.
Actually Dean does have a record to run on. He will for example talk about how he balanced the budget in Vermont (nearly) every year while Republicans will mention that he nearly tripled spending while governor with a number of tax increases and the raiding of some of the trust funds. A couple of facts which will pretty much inoculate Bush from charges that he is not “fiscally conservative” enough as well as put in doubt Dean’s claim that he wants to limit federal spending to the rate of economic growth.
Dean will talk about agricultural issues and how he was the “architect” of the Northeast Dairy Compact. A fact which will cost him the vote of most of the dairy farmers in the Midwest where that program is universally reviled because it paid Midwestern dairy farmers a lower subsidy then those in Vermont. Not a good thing to have on your record when you’re competing in Midwest swing States like Wisconsin and Minnesota.
So yes Dean does in fact have a record which will be used against him Republicans just as Democrats wish to use the POTUS’ record of it against him.