I’m obviously pretty pleased about Edwards’ performance tonight. I’m not sold on him, but I’m convinced that on the issues that matter most to me – the war – he’s better than Kerry, and may be someone I’d consider against Bush, whose domestic policies make me anxious as hell.
William Saletan has a damn good column at Slate about some mechanics that should concern Kerry supporters as much as his policies and history concern me.
The pattern among crossover Republicans is more lopsided. Kerry has won one contest; Edwards has won six. This month, Edwards has beaten Kerry among Republicans in all six states in which Republican votes were measured.
Remember, Democrats are as likely to vote for Edwards against President Bush as they are to vote for Kerry against Bush. It’s far more likely that independents and crossover Republicans will determine the outcome. In states where the choices of these groups have been measured, Edwards is matching Kerry among independents and beating him among crossover Republicans.
Fine, you say. But independents and crossover Republicans don’t control Democratic primaries. Democrats do, and they’re voting for Kerry.
That’s true. But the exit polls show that by and large, Democrats aren’t voting for Kerry because they prefer him on the issues. They’re voting for him because they think he’s the Democrat most likely to beat Bush. What happens if they find out he isn’t? What happens if they realize that Edwards is doing as well as Kerry among independents and is doing better than Kerry among crossover Republicans?
Don’tcha think?
A bit like McCain, in that respect, I guess. But he may be too moderate for some…
Of course, there are those who take AnyBodyButBush seriously…
Face it, A.L., this one’s over.
Now that my dream candidate (since I’m Republican) Howard Dean has self-destructed, I’d like to see a nasty fight between Kerry and Edwards in the runup to the Democratic convention. Unfortunately, I think Joe’s probably right.
I think you might be reading too much into this. Republicans voting in a Democratic primary are most likely spoilers. They want to weaken the front runner, or promote someone they think is more easly beaten.
I would be very, very reluctant to assume that Edwards could count on those votes in a contest with Bush.
I agree with your main thesis, Iblis, but not the motivation behind it. I have no doubt you are right that, even if the D they preferred got the nomination, are still going to pull the R lever in November. Most of those votes are people none of the candidates will get in the fall, so aren’t really worth chasing.
While perhaps SOME of them might be voting to weaken the opposite candidate, Machiavelli has too much tendency to devolve into Lucy Ricardo. Remember Pat Brown in 1966, who savaged Christopher so the easily beatable Reagan would win. Oops.
I think it’s more of a nature of minimizing the downside risk by selecting the “best of a bad lot.”
Too young to have any recollection of the ’66 CA governor race. I do, however, recall the 2002 race. Davis savaged Riordan during the primaries helping the hapless Simon to win the nomination. Davis then bulldozed Simon in the general election. Moral: Spoiling can work.
Also this year there was the story of the Republican who was the campaign manager for Dean in Mississippi. His reason? I paraphrase: After June we have our own priorities, but until then our interests are aligned. Not that it did Dean much good, but that’s another story.
Anyway, I doubt very much that any Democratic candidate will have much interest in or luck with “Crossover Republicans.” Any of them would be doing well just to get the rural, blue collar, gun owning Democrat vote.
Hey, Iblis: where is Davis now? You can go to the well once too often.
For the Democrats to win, they have to keep the level of enthusiasm and optimism and self-confidence that, to be blunt, H***** D*** gave them. That KY House seat didn’t just flip (it had been held by Dems before the Rep who became governor)—look at the margin! Twelve points.
I think John Edwards is more likely to accomplish this than John Kerry, even though in theory I prefer Kerry’s nuanced (incomprehensible?) Iraq stand to Edwards’ un-nuanced hawkery, and even though I think I have badly underestimated the impact of Vietnam Vets and the Silver Star for Kerry’s campaign. (Those will work especially well against President Costume Party Flight Suit.)
Davis is unemployed, but not as a result of lousy tactics. He was fired for gross incompetence. Had he not been such a great campaigner, perhaps he would have been fired in 2002.
People will read into the KY race (and the upcoming SD special election) what they will. From my side of the aisle it looked a lot like a guy who had just lost the race for Gov winning a house seat against a no name in a short election.
As we have heard over and over and over, Bush was a pilot in the National Guard. So seeing him in a flight suit is not exactly like seeing Dukakis in a tank. Didn’t he even take the controls on the flight over…
Kerry and Vietnam. Sigh. What was the quip on John’s Stewart’s Daily Show: Something about being, like, 8 wars behind the rest of us? Yeah. Kerry served. He’s brought it up a few times. But his Jane Fonda days will hurt him with vets.
Bush’s numbers are all over the place–depending quite a bit on whom and when you ask. But support for the war in Iraq has remained very strong. If Kerry (or Edwards) wants to make the race about Vietnam vs. Iraq that’ll be fine with me.
Dick Morris has said that the only thing people want Bush for is the War on Terror. Whether that’s right or wrong, I would certainly like to see him come out and promise that Iran’s Mullocracy, for example, would not survive another Bush term. As long as he stays solid on the WoT and the economy doesn’t do a 180 nosedive the safe money is on Bush. None of the Dem wannabees has any credibility in terms of fighting terrorism and its state sponsors.
Still gonna be an interesting 8 months.