Well, it appears that we have a primary contest.
I’ve been listening to and reading a lot about the electoral handicapping over the last few weeks, and have to say that I’m befuddled, as are most of the experts, I think.
I was right there with Kaus in predicting Kerry’s withdrawal, so I don’t even get to affably mock him for it.
Since I’m pretty convinced that this election is going to be train wreck for my party, I’ve kind of averted my gaze. But that’s not remotely the right thing to do, and I need to dig in and figure out where I stand.
Dammit.
Dean made everything so easy…
I don’t want to make things easier on you guys, but the fact of the matter is that only Edwards could defeat Bush.
Kerry will get ripped up by the press like Gore did.
Dean and Clark have said too many contradictory things on the war, and don’t seem trustworthy on national security.
Only Edwards has a chance.
I have to agree,
Dean is obviously the best candidate, and Edwards clearly the worst.
My head is spinning, too. I’m a lot less embarassed to be a Democrat all of a sudden, although Kerry still doesn’t work for me.
Edwards, though…
Hey, Bill Clinton polled 3% in Iowa in 1992. It doesn’t matter. New Hampshire doesn’t matter- remember Paul Tsongas? Both Clinton and Bush lost there. Wait until March. Then we will (probably) know.
The only person who could beat Dean a month ago was Dean.
Dean seems to have done just that in Iowa with the willing cooperation of the Democratic media establishment.
The big surprise for me was Edwards. It seems his skills set as a successful trial lawyer meant he just did not make the verbal gaffs all the other Democratic candidates did and he looks telegenic besides.
Or as Jeff Greenfield said: “This guy makes a speech that’s a coherent argument, not a collection of sound bites.”
Now it comes down to organization and money over the long haul. That looks like Kerry and Dean unless someone gives Edwards a lot of money. A long haul primary fight will go to Kerry because Dean has to win quickly or not at all.
The Democrats have moved the realm of possible outcomes from a 49 state wipe out with a Republican filibiluster proof Senate to a 38-40 state loss and a +2 to a +4 Republican Senate pick up.
Good.
A.L.
I saw this post over on Calpundit’s blog:
I actually grew up in Iowa, and I just got off the phone with my parents, who went to their first caucus tonight. 40% of the people who showed up to their precinct were Republicans, well, former Republicans. You can change your registration tonight. These are middle aged, middle class women and men, I know most of them, hell, I babysat their kids. They aren’t political operatives sent out by Rove to pick the weakest candidate. According to my parents, they mostly voted for Kerry and Edwards, and the ones my parents knew and talked to said they want Bush out. It will be interesting to see if this was true all over the state.
Call me seriously interested, if this is true. This reflects on something my Republican voting, early 60 something, mother said recently about the need to check the hubris of the Repubican majority on domestic spending and healthcare regulations.
Achh! How can you call this a trainwreck for the party? This is manna from heaven, man! The pair to emerge from this trial by fire will be tremendously strong. I’m gunning for an Edwards/Kerry ticket (or possibly the reverse, who knows). The “anybody but Bush” platform can only succeed with bland, middle of the road (if you’re a Deanie) candidates. To us non-Deanies, these are known as moderate, responsible, presidentialish figures.
I could not be happier. Yesterday I was resigned to voting for Bush. My husband was too. Neither of us are Republicans, but we both hate Dean. Today we are free, thanks to the good people of Iowa. My Deanie neighbor responded to my query (“what’s next for your guy?”) with a resolute “anybody but Bush.” Except for a few scraggly college types who probably would have voted for Nader (or not voted at all) in the end, this will be the dominant sentiment.
Smile, life is good.
Kelli, I’ve been thinking this election cycle will be a trainwreck for the party; this result doesn’t conform to my assumptions – and I want to go on record as saying that it’s damn annoying when reality does that.
A.L.
For whatever it’s worth, I never thought a 49-state blowout was in the cards. Even with the worst possible candidate, the Democrats would do better than that because the partisan divisions are so sharp now: There are a lot more states that the “other side” just can’t win, even if one of the candidates is a total shmoe and the other a Pericles (and remember, Pericles wasn’t exactly uncontrovercial in the Athens of his time).
I figured that with Dean and the campaign the Democrats seemed headed for, the Republicans would win by just enough to feel smug and confident, but the Democrats wouldn’t lose by enough to make them engage in soul-searching and self reflection. That is, the Republicans would win in a way that caused them to pat themselves on the back while the Democrats would lose by a narrow enough margin that they would feel that no changes were needed, just a better campaign and a better candidate running on the same themes and platform. ~6% margin, perhaps a shade less.
Now I think that it’s more likely they’ll have a better seeming candidate, and more likely that things will be close. Emphasis on “Seeming” – it was, or should have been, revealing that when Kuchinich and Edwards made their little deal in Iowa, Edwards said he shared identical positions with Kuchinich on many issues.
Edwards gives off a moderate vibe but in the end his policies are, by his own words, closest to those of the most far-Left candidate in the field. It’s vibe and a semblance of moderation, but in the end if he wins he’ll base his Presidency on the support of, and fill offices, with the same sort of people.
But the race is likely to be closer because neither Edwards nor Kerry have Dean’s in-temperment (though Kerry at times comes close). Whether that’s better or worse depends on how one sees things, I suppose.
In any case, nothing like a 49 state blow-out was going to happen. Think about the Liberals and Democrats we know on the web who didn’t think much of Dean but weren’t about to even consider voting for Bush, even if their position on the war (for example) was closer to that of Bush than to those of the Democratic candidates. It wouldn’t enter their consideration. And there are conservatives such as myself whose opinion of the Democrats at the moment is such that I wouldn’t vote for *any* Democrat, because it would IMO mean rewarding the Party as a whole.
Two sides of the same coin, and though party affiliation is down partisan adhesion atm is a lot stronger, the votes in the middle (the true middle, that is, not the faux middle of people who claim to be open but really aren’t) much fewer. 20% victory margins (60-40) aren’t going to happen under these conditions, nor are 49-state-blowouts.
An actual liberal here…apologies, AL, I respect your thoughtfulness but you are far from what I think of as either a liberal or a Democrat. And I’m quite glad that Dean took it on the chin. The sooner he is out of the race the better so far as I am concerned…although I would love a way to keep his $40 million and his volunteers in it. He just does not have a presidential temperment, or at least not the temperment and type of charisma you look for from a presidential candidate. All of the remaining candidates have their flaws — Kerry is kinda stiff, Edwards inexperienced in foreign policy, and Clark has to show that he can translate his thoughtful, sensible, and nuanced positions on national security into a clear message that cuts through the dishonesty and spin the Repubs are throwing at him. But all would IMO make fine presidents, and all are capable of winning the election. I would like to see at least one ex military guy on the ticket. Bush has to be favored at this point, but if you think the election is out of reach you didn’t study the 2000 election returns closely enough. I think all of these guys have at least the capacity to run a better campaign than Gore in 00.
And as for this election cycle being a disaster for your party…if you take your party as the warbloggers, this cycle is already shaping up pretty badly for you. Rove wants out of Iraq ASAP and the U.S. is falling all over itself to get somebody to help ease the transition (I like Kofi Annan, but I didn’t know the Bush administration did…). This is election driven. Depending on how close the election turns out to be, the “transform the middle east by conquest” folks could end up getting frozen out within the Republican party.
Presidential Race–still Bush’s to lose, no matter who the Democratic nominee is. Every one of the Democrats in the race has some sort of exploitable Achilles’ heel, and Team Bush is not going to get trapped in an overconfident posture. Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton might give Bush a 49-state victory; Dean wouldn’t, although any Democrat is going to be doing very well to get more than 15 states.
Down-Ticket–the Democrats are going to lose 5-10 House seats in Texas and 4-5 Senate seats in the South. This is before accounting for Bush’s coattails, and if 2002 demonstrated anything, it was that Bush’s popularity can translate into significant down-ticket party support. This may not be a train wreck for the party, but it has to be at least a multi-car accident.
A.L, Porphyrogenitus,
The issue of a 49-state blow out was one of basic turn out. Whether a Dean candidacy would drive down black Democratic turn out to levels below that of Clinton’s let alone Gore’s, as in, welcome to a repeat of 1994.
Edwards might have what it takes to keep black Democratic voter turn out at Clinton in 1992 levels. I doubt that Kerry does, but neither would Kerry be the major 1994 mid-terms negative that Dean might have been.
The reason I see a 40 state Dukakis (sp?) level loss as the best hope Democrats have is a fact you both have missed…that both Edwards and Kerry voted against the $87 billion Defense supplimental that funded Iraqi military operations.
This will be played against either of them by Bush-Rove in the general election the way Georgia’s US Senator Max Cleland’s Homeland Security vote was.
trent – im concerned about Edwards vote on the $87 billion, for policy as well as political reasons. However he has never wavered in his assertion that his support for the war was right, and his foreign policy platform emphasizes the importance of democracy promotion as part of the WOT. Which sets him quite apart from people like Clark, and maybe Kerry (not to mention Dean) who think the WOT is strictly a hunt for al qaeeda, narrowly defined. I think Edwards explains his vote as being an attempt to force the Admin to better explain their strategy in Iraq, exactly what the $ were going for, etc. Now if Rove wants to paint over that nuance that would be only fair – Dems have done the same thing to Reps on entitlement programs etc.
At this point I think Edwards is both more electable and more nominatiable than Lieberman, whom i otherwise prefer.
As for Edwards-Kuchinich, i think youre taking an out of context remark about a maneuver driven by the mechanics of the Iowa caucus, that doesnt really mean anything. Look at Edwards policy positions, and his record in the Senate, and hes hardly a far leftie. More populist than Lieberman maybe, or even Clinton, but thats not necessarily a fault to me. And i am someone who would DEFINITELY consider voting for Bush if Dr. Dean got the nomination. Heck, im not sure i would vote for Clark or Kerry.
oops = part of the above was a respone to porp, not TT.
Trent: Under normal circumstances that vote would hurt Kerry or Edwards, but I don’t think it will this time.
Bush *could* win ~38 states, but IMO that’s the outter envelope under these conditions. And nothing like the 20 point spread in the popular vote by which McGovern & Mondale were trounced.
LiberalHawk: Edwards was talking about his policy positions and saying that he shared many with Kuchinich. That was the context. He could have thanked Kuchinich for the support saying they were friends withuot mentioning similarity of positions. That’s not what he said.
Look, you all can’t have it both ways, talk about how principled these guys are and then say “oh, when they talk about what they believe, it’s just strategy”. Which is it? Was Edwards sincere in identifying his positions with Kuchinich’s? Or was he being deceptive?
I grow weary of the Left harping on every little thing they believe Bush does (often feavered imaginings based on Urban Legends bouncing in the Left’s Echo Chamber but with no basis in reality) as if it were the ultimate betrayal and unimaginable deception and then give their own guys a pass on similar maneuverings. And yes, as for Edwards’ voting record it is very Liberal, not exactly moderate. As I said, he gives off a moderate vibe, but his votes tend to be another matter.
“I grow weary of the Left harping on every little thing they believe Bush does (often feavered imaginings based on Urban Legends bouncing in the Left’s Echo Chamber but with no basis in reality) ”
yah but i dont do that. I dont have much patience for the crazy bush haters.
Look pols are pols. Thats not a bad thing. I dont have the allergy to nitty gritty politics some on the left AND right have. Maybe having lived in New York and CHICAGO has inured me. As long as they dont sell judgeships for cash im cool. You can be a person of principle and still make tactical deals.
Now give me some evidence on Edwards voting record.
and BTW, the assumptions you make about ME dont impress me much.
a quick search on ‘john Edwards voting record’ shows plenty of conservative sites trying to make him look a far liberal. Mainly they cite opposition to tax cuts, and pro-choice votes, neither of which keeps him from being a moderate IMHO. He is clearly more liberal then miller or Breaux – also fine with me. One site says he almost as liberal as – be still my beating heart – Hilary Clinton!!! If thats the worst they can say about him, im fine.
Porphyrogenitus,
You are underestimating the importance of the war to voters. The last Field poll in California had Bush over every listed Democratic candidate.
_CALIFORNIA_
LiberalHawk: I might say that the vote on funding for Iraq, which you yourself cite as troublesome, puts another layer of evidence on things. Combine that with *HIS* own words, as I did – not conservative websites – and IMO one doesn’t see a moderate in practice, just a moderate in vibe. We could probably delve into his speeches, too, and search in vain for the Moderate Edwards. But we’re probably just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Trent: Maybe I am. It’s quite possible. I’m saying what I perceive, but I’ve been accused of pessimism. Is California going to go for Bush in November? I’m dubious.
Also, we can see how things have shifted just by how you’re talking about California – as if it is abnormal for a Republican to be leading in a poll in California. Wasn’t long ago that Republicans were considered more than competitive in California. I can remember when people were talking about the “Republican Lock on the Electoral College”, primarily because they had the South, the West, and. . .California.
I didn’t believe in that “lock” at the time (of course, back then, I wanted Dems to win. Lots of things change I guess), and now California is seen as a Democratic state because, well, it is.
But we’ll see.