|
Before we decide who is or isn't "electable," remember this sobering truth:
This is going to be an election about Bush first, his opponent second.
In other words, whether we pick a Dean, a Clark, a Kerry, or even a Lieberman isn't what's going to decide this election. What will decide this election, first and foremost, is how the electorate thinks Bush is doing his job.
And that means three things: the economy, Iraq, and fighting terrorism.
If most people believe the economy is improving (as it has, slightly, over the past few months), and if Iraq has stabilized to the point that most people believe that we have prevailed there, and if most people believe that we are in less danger from terrorism, then Bush will win. Probably by a landslide. And it won't matter which Democrat is running against him. Dean will lose, big. Clark will lose, big. Leiberman will lose, big. Even the ghost of JFK, with the ghost of FDR as his running mate, would lose, big.
However...if people still feel like they are suffering from the economy, and/or people still feel that Iraq is a quagmire with continuous American casualties, and/or people still feel less secure from terrorist attacks, then Bush will be very, very vulnerable. There are some circumstances where, likely, any of the potential Democratic nominees could win. There are others in which Bush might be still able to win against some candidates, but not others.
And that is what we have to determine -- who is the best nominee to defeat Bush if (or, as we would likely say, when) he is a faltering candidate next fall.
I bring this up because I've seen a lot of "Democratic civil war" posts over the past few days, along the lines that "if XXX is nominated, we will lose," and other such doom-laden sentiments. I've seen supporters of candidate X already laying the blame against supporters of candidate Y for a presumed 2004 defeat. It seems like a lot of people are already working harder to make sure "the other side " gets the blame for a 2004 loss rather than trying to achieve a 2004 victory. And it seems like a lot of people are being urged to cast their primary votes based on fear of an upcoming November catastrophe rather than on who would be the best future President.
I repeat once again:
This is going to be an election about Bush first, his opponent second.
So, if Dean, or Clark, or Kerry, or Lieberman, or ??? gets the nomination and loses, unless he did so while voter dissatisfaction against Bush is high, it will almost certainly not be because of that candidate turning the voters off, but because those voters felt Bush was doing a good job and would have voted for him in any case.
That, therefore, suggests to me that we have two goals in this race:
1) If the election is going to be about Bush first, we have to make sure that it is about Bush on our terms. In other words, we have to make sure the voters come to see Bush as we do -- as a warmongering, economy-wrecking incompetent.
2) We then have to pick our nominee based on which of the candidates would do the best job as President if/when we convince voters to see Bush as we see him.
In other words, stop worrying about the "electability" of any one candidate, because whether they are electable depends more on what people feel about Bush than about our nominee him- or herself. Work to ensure people see Bush as he is, pick a top-quality nominee, and the "electability" issue will take care of itself.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
