Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Dean, & Clark

[Vap Noose]

I am fascinated by the implications of Clark coming into the race. Aside from the Clark-fanatics (2% tops nation-wide). Who will he hurt the most? MY guess is 2 votes from Kerry and Lieberman, for every 1 votes from Dean and Gephardt. I've also heard that Kerry is shifting his "offical" media announcement from the 23rd to the beginning of Sept, around the 3rd or so. This is right at the date being talked about by Clark supporters for his entry.

Lots of fluidity in this race, for sure.

[Vap Noose]

1. The others

Graham and Edwards have done nothing yet...

[virtualobserver]

2. I think he will pull as much from Dean as anyone else.....

but I still like him in the race.

[w4rma]

9. I don't think Clark will hurt Dean, as much, because Dean supporters

seem to be more loyal to their candidate than supporters of other Democratic candidates.

…
Under the Clinton scenario, Kerry would fall into the second tier of Democratic hopefuls, favored by just 16 percent of voters. All the other Democratic candidates would be relegated to the single digits.

Dean’s support among independent- and reform-minded voters seems intact with or without Clinton in the race while Kerry would find his base of support among traditional Democratic voters threatened, according to Herald pollster R. Kelly Myers.

"If Hillary Clinton suddenly expressed some interest in the race, the biggest potential loser is Kerry," Myers told the Herald. "She doesn’t eat into Dean’s lead at all ... As of today, Dean is the only one who could hold his own (against Clinton)."
…
http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/July2003/July_28/News/reg_pol_0728a.asp

[tsipple]

3. Not Much Impact

I know it goes against conventional wisdom, but I don't think Clark has much impact on the race. It ever-so-slightly hurts Kerry and Lieberman perhaps, but I don't think it changes the picture much for anyone, including Kerry and Lieberman.

Hurting Dean? Unlikely, due to how he mobilized his support (grassroots, Internet, etc.) That's not the type of support that will switch allegiances.

[dean4america]

4. yep

concur, he won't hurt Dean as much as Kerry. However, if he stays out of the race, I think it helps Dean the most.

[DrFunkenstein]

5. Labor Day: Announcing The Kerry/Clark Ticket?

Kerry/Clark ticket would be decorated one-two punch

"Whatever the merits of all the other candidates, it would badly complicate Mr. Rove’s "patriotic" strategy if Messrs. Bush and Cheney were required to confront not one but two progressive Democrats who served in Vietnam."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15172&CFID=7975769&CFTOKEN=28445278

<>

<>

[tsipple]

6. Some Reminders on Recent History

1992: Bill Clinton (non-vet) defeated George W. Bush (WW2 "Hero")
1996: Bill Clinton (non-vet) defeated Bob Dole (WW2 Hero)
2000: George W. Bush (AWOL TX Air Nat'l Guard) "defeated" Al Gore (U.S. Army in Vietnam, press officer)
2002: Saxby Chambliss (chickenhawk) defeated Max Cleland (Vietnam hero)

Veterans and war heros do not exactly have good track records winning elections over the past decade plus. While I admire Clark's (and Kerry's) service to our country, and while I do think it's an asset, it doesn't seem to sway votes. :-(

[tameszu]

7. It totally depends on the environment

1992: Clinton had an easier time making 1992 all about jobs, jobs, jobs because the economy was pretty ugly. Plus, Bush won Iraq so decisively that it was no longer an issue by the time the election came around. In fact, with the Cold War over, that was probably the first election in years in which defense and foreign policy were a small issue. You can bet that if Bush I had Rove and the neocons, he would have gone into Baghdad and stretched out the war until the election.

1996-2000: Security still not an issue.

2002: Clelland didn't hit back. He should have and he might have won.

The thing is that Sept. 11 and the War on Iraq changed everything. Dubya is committed to making th War on Terror and Iraq and so on his centerpiece issue. Which he should (strategically), because his domestic record is crap.

Clark would never run if it wasn't for this environment. Everyone knows that. I'm not sure if Kerry's service will sway a huge number of votes, but it will surely help a bit. Kerry can't overplay it, though.

For Clark, it can be huge. It's his entire career, so he can legitimately run on it without looking exploitative.

As for who a Clark candidacy will "hurt" the most, I hate speaking this way, since right now, the frontrunner is still "undecided," and that's who will lose the most votes if Clark enters.

Purely candidly, I think if we assume that Clark's a pretty strong candidate, his entrance will probably annhiliate Graham and Edwards and probably finish off Lieberman as well. It will damage Kerry significantly, who will have to rally a bit to stay in it, but I think he's strong enough to stay in the race for quite awhile. It will hurt Dean a little less, but it will take away his momentum. Gephardt will be basically untouched, but he's useless anyway. I predict that if Clark enters, it will become a 3-way race pretty soon, with Gephardt and Lieberman hanging around for a little while, and Sharpton and Kucinich there to keep raising their issues.

[George_Bonanza]

8. I agree

I don't think people were as worried about national security in the 90's as they are now. Even though there were some terrorist attacks on Americans, the biggest one was home-grown (Oklahoma), and the foreign ones were painful but easily swayed aside in the face of economic growth. Now, national security is number one, as it probably should be.