(This post is directed mainly towards fellow Democrats or Democratic-leaning independent. If you’re it’s not given for you that the Democrats are the good guys and that Bush has to go, it won’t make much sense.)
I wouldn’t make the same prediction about the primary as von—, but I think it’s a strong possibility & I’m going to write this post on the assumption that it will come true.
I think it’s becoming clear that the last phase will be a two man race between Dean and Clark, and that both have a realistic chance of winning. I should be happy with this. I’ve been wishing for a two man race between Dean and Clark since September and especially since December. The scurvy Congresscritters* have been routed, and it’s down to our two strongest candidates. I thought at one point that I’d be nearly as happy with Clark’s nomination as with Dean’s.
Instead I’m as depressed about the Democratic party as I’ve been since last March. And I don’t think it’s because Dean looks more beatable this week than he has for a little while. I never expected him to come close, it was a very long time before I admitted to myself that he was the front runner (the SEIU and ASFCME was when I admitted it), and I’ve never counted Clark out.
No, it’s because I’m depressed about how the campaign has gone–especially since the Gore endorsement. Shortly after Gore endorsed Michael Tomasky warned:
And goodness knows, if [Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, or Clark] manages to overcome Dean and become the nominee, he sure will have earned the title.
Unless, that is, he benefited from an insider-driven process designed to block Dean at all costs. At this point, after he has amassed the armies of small donors and bloggers and volunteers, blocking Dean is not blocking one man. It’s blocking the hopes of millions of Democrats who—understand the importance of this—would walk through fire for a candidate for the first time in their lives. That isn’t something that should be done cavalierly.
Despite Tomasky’s warning, this is exactly what seems to be happening. After Gore endorsed, right wing politicians and media people began concentrating their attacks on Dean. And Democrats–above all Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt, but also other party officials, and pundits, and consultants–begin attacking him three times as much, at three times the volume, that they were before. The press, ever eager for a new storyline, piled on.
I don’t remember attacks this nasty directed against a candidate from such a large percentage of his own party–especially a candidate as likely as Dean is to be the nomineee. (Bush’s attacks on McCain were nastier, but involved fewer people & were done in secret). Maybe that’s because I’m young, and maybe that’s because I’m not unbiased. But Eric Alterman and Paul Krugman say some of the same things.
I think many of Dean’s critics are mainly motivated by a paralyzing fear of Karl Rove and four more year’s of Bush, and I can certainly sympathize. But some of them seem much more concerned with stopping Dean than they are with beating Bush. In a few cases, it’s hard not to believe that they would prefer a Dean loss in the general, and an opportunity to say “I told you so”, to a Dean presidency.
(Let me note some Dean critics not included in any of the above criticisms: Edwards, Clark, most of their supporters including those with blogs, Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, von (not liking him for policy reasons is a different story, and he’s not a Democrat anyway), etc., etc. I don’t expect people to give up and rally behind a candidate they don’t like, especially before any primaries. Plenty of criticism is Dean is perfectly fair, and some of it is well-deserved. And I know he, and his supporters, have been plenty unfair to other candidates at times.)
So I am feeling rather sad and bitter. It would never stop me from voting, and it will not stop me from volunteering and donating to Clark (though it will probably be a lower priority–campaign work is scut work and it’s hard to stay motivated if you’re not excited.) But as you may have noticed, a lot of Dean supporters are less cool-headed than I am***. I think most would vote, but I’m much less sure they’d donate money or actively campaign. And–this is what prompted the last post–we saw in 2002 what an unmotivated and disillusioned party base does to turnout, even when they know how screwed we’ll be if we lose. We saw the consequences of a divided party in 2000, and especially in 1968.
It’s not that any of those scenarios are likely to repeat this fall. If Nader runs, I think most Democrats will ignore him. Clark would run a better campaign than the midterms, and turnout is always higher in presidential years. No one is going to be assassinated, and our convention is not going to dissolve into a mess of social unrest and police brutality, and Clark has the same position as most Dean supporters on Iraq.
But this election is an uphill battle no matter who the candidate is. Everyone needs to be on board. If we lose, we absolutely cannot afford another round of recriminations and “I told you so”s. Even if we win, Congress will probably be awful. We need to be united, and motivated.
You cannot afford for Dean supporters to feel what I feel about the Democratic party this week. This will be a problem for Dean as much as it will be for Clark–but I’m a Deanbot, not a Clarkbot, so I can only tell you what would work on my side. It’s rather obvious:
If Clark is the nominee, make Dean the Vice Presidential candidate.
Daily Kos is right. Dean’s weaknesses are Clark’s strengths, and Clark’s weaknesses are Dean’s strengths. It’s traditional for the vice president to play attack dog and Dean, as you may have noticed, can do that. Regional balance, all that money, all those starry eyed volunteers, instant party unity….what’s not to like? In short, this ticket is Voltron.
Oh, and after the election make Joe Trippi the head of the DNC.
*Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kucinich. Edwards is a non-scurvy Congresscritter.
**Or close
***Not that I’m so cool headed, but you know what I mean.
This will be a problem for Dean as much as it will be for Clark–but I’m a Deanbot, not a Clarkbot, so I can only tell you what would work on my side.
The question is, which of them are wearing purple, and which of them are wearing red?
I’d quibble with a few charges (the attacks on Dean ain’t really been that bad — it’s just that many Deaniacs are new to the process — and Bush’s attacks on McCain were very much in public), but I agree with your view: Were I Karl Rove, the one thing that would keep me up at night would be a Clark-Dean ticket, with Clark at the head of it. Everything else — Dean alone, Clark alone, any one of the other dwarves (alone or in combination), even Dean-Clark — I’d know how to handle.
von–
I don’t really think a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket is Rove’s worst nightmare. There are far more effective combinations.
The Democratic party is changing, fast. Dean and crew understands this. Win or lose the concept of grassroots has been reborn. Kerry, Lieberman etc. are lost memories. I’m anxious to see the Dean machine take on Bush Co. It’ll be like nothing you’ve ever seen.
If I were Rove, I would worry about:
1. Clark/Dean
2. Dean/Richardson or Dean/Clark
3. Dean/Edwards or Clark/non-Dean-to-be-named-later.
I don’t think Clark as VP would win over former Dean supporters to quite the the same extent as Dean as Clark’s VP. Richardson has foreign policy cred, if not the military history–and he’s got a few things going for him Clark lacks:
1. He’s from more of a swing region.
2. Campaign experience.
3. More Washington insider experience.
4. First hispanic major party candidate, I think.
5. Unlike Clark, he does not appear/is not rumored to really dislike Dean.
Bob Graham is too un-charismatic and weird, even though I’ve got all kinds of respect for him. A younger candidate would also be better.
How do I make a straight faced claim that Dean is Rove’s second greatest fear?
1. Because I say so/because I’m biased.
2. Dean might be more likely than say, Gephardt, to lose in a landslide, but also more likely to win.
3. Rove is both short and long term cynical, while the Democratic consultants are only short term cynical. He wants Republican political domination for the next decade or two, not just a Bush re-election. Dean threatens that in a way that some of the more “electable” candidates don’t.
Query: what Dean weaknesses are Clark’s strengths, and vice versa? Offhand, I can only think of two things: Dean having held public office, and Clark having considerable military experience.
I don’t think these things will matter much; they didn’t in ’92 (Admiral Stockdale), and they didn’t in ’96 (Bob Dole).
What will matter isn’t the candidates’ resumes; rather, the election will be a referendum on Bush’s performance during his term, on the merits of his proposals for the next term, the Democrats’ criticism of Bush, and the Democrats’ proposals.
Assuming I’m right here, since Dean and Clark are similarly critical of Bush and proposed policies fairly similar things, they probably appeal to the same voters. In that case, wouldn’t it make sense to nominate someone else, who might appeal to a different set of voters?
Bob Graham is too un-charismatic and weird, even though I’ve got all kinds of respect for him. A younger candidate would also be better.
Graham, however, was extremely popular as Governor of Florida, and is still popular as a Senator. Many Floridans still think very fondly of him. Given what happened in 2000, I don’t think the importance of anything which gives us an edge in Florida can be overstated.
Moreover, Graham also has many long years of experience in the Senate–which, I would argue, is going to be a crucial attribute for either a Dean or Clark ticket. Congressional experience may not do much for the General Election, but it will be absolutely essential in order for the new president to liaise with Congress. In fact, I’d say that this would be even more critical for Clark than it would be for Dean.
This past week, I’ve narrowed down my primary choices a bit. It wasn’t a lot of fun, but ducking it had dragged on too long.
One possibility is Dean. Not really crazy about him, but I am impressed by the people who have come together to support him. They, combined with Dean’s stated commitment to get after the deficit, keep him in the running for my vote. As for the fellow himself, well, someone who publicly compares members of Congress to cockroaches gives me little confidence that the level of arrogance critics charge Bush with would drop in a Dean administration. But, as I said, I’d be voting in the hope of keeping that particular grassroots alive to support a future, better candidate, not for Dean himself.
The other possibility is Gephardt. Traditional Dem, feel a little sorry for him after the unions threw him over after years of steadfast support. Don’t agree with all of his policies, but I do respect him, and think he would bring more to debates with Bush than Dean would, which I imagine will run more like Rocky vs. Apollo.
As for Clark, I gauge my vote based on past record, and he has none. Plus, I’m tired of the Clinton/Bush as Hatfield/McCoy act, and am further biased against Clark as the champion for that banner.
Briefly, I’m not sure Tomasky was referring to simple criticism when he described an ‘insider-drive process’ designed to block Dean. We’ve had rough primaries in the past and will have them in the future. My guess is that he was talking about back room deals, super delegates and things of that nature. Not to mention the maneuvering that might occur in an open convention.
This may be a fairly minor historical point, but the anti-Dean stuff we’re seeing isn’t really that unusual. The ABC (Anybody But Carter) campaign in 1976 was pretty brutal, as was Teddy Kennedy’s run against Carter in 1980. And the second ABC (Anybody But Clinton) campaign in 1992 was pretty rough as well.
But I agree with your general point. The Dean fans are a loyal bunch, and if Clark wins the nomination he’s going to have to work awfully hard to keep them inspired.
Don’t get too worried about how tough the primary campaign is, though. This happens every four years and it always seems worse than it’s ever been, mostly due to foggy memories of years before. After all, the 2000 campaign was pretty rough for Bush, and he came through OK…..
My two cents: The original motivating factor for these new democrats was George Bush and his policies. Dean recognized this and became the ‘bottling plant’ that captured the emotion. If Dean is removed from the equation, say, in July, his loyal followers will have almost half a year of steady doses of George Bush to chew on. They can then decide whether they want to pout or whether they want to get behind the candidate who will lead us over Bush. Five or six months is a lot of bonding time, and I think the majority of them will be on board with whoever the nominee is. If it’s not Dean, I think Dean will be pushing them to support the nominee, despite his hints to the contrary.
Thanks, everyone. Okay, I’m willing to concede that I’m too involved to compare this to past years. Combine:
1) the higher stakes for the election,
2) the fact that I’ve been paying attention for well over a year, which I’ve never done before
3) the fact I chose my candidate 9 months ago, which I’ve never done before, and
4) the fact that I’ve donated time and money, which I’ve never deen before,
5) the fact that I think the Democratic party has been ineptly led since 2000, which I’ve never thought as strongly before.
This is not a recipe for objective analysis. On the other hand it is a very common scenario for a Dean supporter. I’d guess that many people, especially the most active volunteers and highest donors, feel more loyal to Dean, more bitter towards his opponents, etc. than I do.
It’s the 8-against-1 pileup aspect that bothers me, and the fact that some of the 8 candidates seem like they cannot possibly get the nomination–and even if they don’t realize that, running this negative a campaign is not a good strategy anyway.
I do think an overwhelming majority of Dean supporters will vote for the nominee no matter what. If it leads to a drop in turnout it’s because they won’t also nag everyone they know to register and vote, won’t donate money (or as much money, won’t donate time (or as much time)–that sort of thing. It has a real effect, especially among people my age.
I am worried about the recriminations afterward if we lose, no matter who the candidate is.
The question is not whether Dean supporters would eventually vote for a non-Dean nominee. Of course most of them would. A fundamental confusion about the Dean campaign that outsiders have is that they confuse ‘supporter’ with ‘voter’ and look at 200,000 meetup numbers and think ‘What’s 200,000 voters?’. In this campaign (and probably all campaigns, so I don’t know why the confusion persists), supporters are volunteers and donors. . much more signficant, because each one can mean 5 or 10 or 100 votes.
Dean supporters would of course vote for the Democratic nominee. Whether they would bust their asses, post to the blogs, write letters to undecideds, or do anything else other than vote . . it’s hard to say. Overall, I doubt it.
And that’s what, I believe, Dean means when he says his supporters are not transferable. And it isn’t his choice. It’s theirs.
It’s the 8-against-1 pileup aspect that bothers me
Katherine, from another perspective, Dean might not even have a lead if not for the eight others. Pretend for a moment that the polls are accurate, and, if you do the math, there are more voters against Dean than for him. It’s the plurality that makes him appear so invincible, when in fact, if he was head to head against the strongest of the eight, he might come in second.
sidereal,
No doubt the intensity of Dean’s followers is high. But so are Nader’s followers, and others who have been part of vocal minorities. Granted, Dean’s following is quite large, but how readily the whole Dean phenomenon can transfer into the national consciousness is part of what we’ve been watching for. In our local Clark Meetups, we have a steady stream of converts coming over from the Dean camp. I’m wondering if there’s something in that intensity (fanaticism?) that leaves some rational people scratching their head.
pop,
I do think if anyone can maintain some semblance of the fanaticism in Dean supporters, it’ll be Clark. In large part because his campaign was built around the same infrastructure, and in large part because he hasn’t poisoned the well with mudslinging against Dean (because, naturally, he hasn’t had to).
Agree … and whoever ends up number two, Dean or Clark, will play a big role in how well the following transfers over to number one.