Non-Dean Democrats: What makes you so electable?

jeter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Dec-10-03 03:49 PM
Original message

Non-Dean Democrats: What makes you so electable?

This argument of electability has gone from funny to just plain stupid. I think many of the Washington Democrats are falling into that one trap they should never fall into: they are believing their own rhetoic. This seems to be the year of the anti-establishment. People don't seem to want to nominate someone from Washington. If this sentiment continues, then I believe we'll be able to use it against Bush. That in itself, makes Dean and Clark the only two viable candidates.

But that said, the biggest argument against Dean seems to be the "electability question." Can Dean beat Bush? When asked yesterday by Peter Jennings if any of the candidates believed Dean could beat Bush. Only one raised their hand, Dean himself. The view of official Washington, the DLC, and the Clintons, is that Dean can not win.

But I got a question. What makes you think that YOU can win?

That's the implication isn't it? If you say that Dean can't win, it must be because you think that you CAN win. The polls all show the Democrats hovering around similar levels. Some polls have Kerry and Clark slightly doing better against Bush. Other polls show Gephardt and Dean doing better against Bush. That in effect makes the differences in numbers statistically insignificant. Basically any or all candidates would do just as well as any or all candidates.

So let's break down the electability question for each candidate. What makes you so damn electable?

Senator John Kerry, MA. Like Dean, Kerry could be charged with being an eastern elitist candidate out of touch with regular people. His record is liberal, more liberal than Dean's in fact, and would be painted as an out of touch liberal from Taxacusettes. Kerry has never been the chief executive officer (Governor) of anything. He is a Senator. One of one hundred. A junior Senator at that. Kerry has one thing going for him. He fought in Vietnam (for about six months) and came home to oppose the war. But, Kerry also supported the War Resolution for Iraq. Thus putting into doubt any kind of effective opposition to Bush's war during the general election. It is hard to see where Kerry will get any support from. Conservatives will be put off by his eastern, liberal credentials. Liberals will be put off by his support for Bush for the war. I don't see where Kerry energizes anyone enough to defeat the President. Christ, he can't even win the Massachussetts Primary against Dean, how can he beat George W. Bush in the general election?

Senator Joe Lieberman, CT. Holy Joe, what do you know? Lieberman has been playing up the slight by Gore. Let's fact it, it's the most attention he has gotten since this campaign began. The truth is Lieberman's campaign benefitted initially from his high public profile (being the Dem running-mate) in 2000. But he never delivered a message that resonated with the Democratic supporters. I have a gut feeling that if Lieberman were nominated, many democrats would simply stay home. Lieberman is a classic example of Bush-lite (or Republican-lite). He won't convince any of the conservatives to leave Bush and support him. He'll have a difficult time energizing the base of Democrats to come out and support him enthusiastically. And moderates will ask themselves, why should I vote for someone who is trying to pretend to be Bush, when I can vote for Bush himself. This has always been the achilles heel of the DLC strategy. They hurt themselves more in the long run than they do helping themselves in the present. Because we'll never be republican enough for the republicans. Moderates will see us as wishy-washy. And Democrats will become disinterested in their own party. Lieberman loses in a landslide. Because he'll be making the argument of why Bush should be re-elected. Bush could just stay home.

Congressman Dick Gephardt, MO. Gepthardt will have union support. But lets be fair, so does Dean. Gephardt, as leader of the Congressional Democrats in the 2002 elections failed to win any seats. Even though we needed only a eight to back the House. In fact we actually lost three seats in that election. Gephardt also loses, badly, to Bush in the state of Missouri. His home state. It's important to remember that Gephardt is a Congressman, not a Senator. He represents a Democratic district in St. Louis. He has never had a difficult election fight where he has won. The only advantage Gephardt has is his union support. But Dean has matched that support. And any Democrat would win such support for the General Election anyway.

General Wesley Clark, AR. He has an impressive resume. But absolutely no political experience. It is hard to gauge the electability of someone who has never run for office before. But despite a lot of initial bruhaha. His poll numbers have retreated back to everyone elses. He does just as well against Bush as any other candidate. He may poll one or two percentage points ahead. But not much better than that. And I have seen polls that show him several points behind the other candidates. Clark would make a better VP candidate than Presidential candidate.

Senator John Edwards, NC. He is young. Is southern. But has very little experience. He was also a trial lawyer before entering politics. He has not even finished a single term in the Senate. He has accomplished very little in terms of getting important pieces of legislation through. Edwards seems better suited for a cabinet post than the Presidency.

Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich don't have a prayer.

So what about Dean?

- he'll have to defend his support for gay civil unions. But his position is exactly the same as Dick Cheney, the Vice President, so it is hard to see how this will hurt him very badly.

- Dean has a perfect record on guns from the NRA, which will help us a lot more than people realise. States like PA, MI, WV, OH, NH and western states will find his position appealling.

- He actually polls well in states like AZ, NV, NM, OR, and CO. Newest poll shows him ahead of Bush in Maryland. If Dean can be ahead in Maryland with no or little campaigning. We'll be okay for 2004. That means Dean will do well in the states Gore carried, and if he holds those. Then we only need another 10 electoral votes to win the whole thing. Dean has potential strength in a number of states: - WV, NH, OH, MO, AZ, MT, CO, NV. And depending on who his running mate is, he can do well in: AR, LA, FL.

Dean is actually in a better position than most other Democrats because he has the potential of bringing together the Democratic Party. If he makes Clark his running mate, he can bring together the Dean and Clinton wings of the Democratic Party.

He has appeal to Independants and Moderates.

So I just don't see how anyone can say that the other Democrats are stronger than Dean against Bush. Clark has the army record, but doesn't have a message. If we try to play the Bush game when it comes down to the war and foreign affairs. We'll lose before we even begin. We have to show an alternative vision for America and the world. Not prove that we are stronger than Bush.

Basically it comes down to this, if you have to go around telling people how strong you are. You can't be very strong.