WHAT IF THE ANTI-DEAN IS MORE DEAN THAN DEAN IS?

Clark closes in on Dean in poll; Bush still beats Democratic field (Richard Benedetto and Susan Page, 1/06/03, USA TODAY)

Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean, pounded by rivals in recent weeks for his positions and his temperament, has lost ground in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, and retired general Wesley Clark has emerged as his chief rival.

Dean still tops the Democratic field in the national survey, at 24%, but the 21-point lead he held over Clark less than a month ago has narrowed to just 4 percentage points, within the poll's margin of error. [...]

Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, says the former Vermont governor's strength in those two states matters more than national polls, which he says will change "in an instant" with momentum from the early contests.

But advisers to other campaigns say Dean's remarkable drive to the nomination could be imperiled if the field of nine is winnowed to a consensus alternative.

Trippi says Clark's surge — up 10 points in less than a month — is "bad news" for those who hope to be the alternative, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt. Gephardt is battling Dean for the lead in Iowa, where Clark isn't competing.

Clark is gaining support in some other key states. An American Research Group survey in New Hampshire released Tuesday shows Clark tied with Kerry for second place behind Dean.

If possible, the following is even more purely bullwash than the rest of the idle and misinformed speculation you get here, but one wonders if there's not a potentially curious dynamic at play in the Democratic race right now. Typically an "Anybody but" candidate tends to be, for obvious reasons, at least different than the candidate being butted, even close to opposite on big issues. Thus, the logical "Anybody but" candidate in this year's Democratic race should: (1) want to keep all or most of the tax cuts, maybe even cut some more; (2) Have supported the Iraq War, maybe even want to go on to North Korea, Iran, Syria, wherever; (3) be sufficiently pro-business to allay Wall Street fears about his obligatory big healthcare boondoggle; (4) oppose expansive gay rights, or at least have a sufficient patina of religiosity that folks might expect more conservatism on social issues; (5) Support Israel instead of Palestine, or tilt Israeli, rather than even-handed; (6) Have something of a common touch, rather than presenting as an arrogant know-it-all; (7) Have some considerable experience in Washington, in national politics, in running a big time campaign, (8) be placid in demeanor, rather than behaving like a ferret on crack; etc. Okay, maybe they wouldn't have to meet every criteria, but they'd certainly be noticeably different, right?

So, if we feed that data into our patented InstaAlternative Machine, who do we get: Senator Joe Lieberman. He would seem to be the opposite of Howard Dean on every, or almost every, one of those points. In fact, he's the ideal alternative.

Except for one thing, in the real race, as opposed to in our lab, the Democrats have served up Wesley Clark as the "Anyone but" alternative to Howard Dean. And when we run through our checklist, we find, to some considerable stupefaction, that he's so similar to the Doctor as to be barely distinguishable. What gives?

Well, here's an observation and a guess. First, if you look at the poll data it turns out that many people still don't know who General Clark is (though, of course, more Republicans do than Democrats)--an amazing 37% have either never heard of him or have no opinion (not that they know any of the others--with the exception, to some degree, of Senator Lieberman, any better). So he's kind of a blank slate that folks can write whatever they wish upon. And if he's being presented as the Clinton's mainstream foil to the extreme Howard Dean, you'd not expect him to be to the good Doctor's Left, would you?

More than that though, and here we reach our speculative crux, who would expect the General in the race to be just as anti-war as Governor Dean? It seems entirely possible that the 15-17%, or whatever, that has coalesced around him may mistakenly think that he's the pro-war Democrat who'll have the national security credibility to face President Bush and, not coincidentally, go kill some more Islamicists if elected.

Sure, Republicans are the Stupid Party, but can anyone else explain what's going on here if it isn't simple Democratic ignorance?

MORE:
-Dean's gaffes yield dividends for Clark (Amy Fagan, 1/07/04, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
A Tax Debate Full of Hazards for Democrats (ROBIN TONER, 1/08/04, NY Times)

Twelve days before the Iowa caucuses, the battle for the Democratic nomination has become an increasingly furious debate over how to reverse President Bush's tax cuts, yet avoid the politically deadly charge that the Democrats are the party of tax increases.

Nowhere is this more striking than in the sudden scrambling of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, who has advocated repealing all of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, including those for the middle class. Now, under heavy fire from his rivals, Dr. Dean is preparing a new tax plan that is widely expected to offer tax relief for the middle class.

Dr. Dean insisted on Wednesday that he had long intended to propose "additional tax reforms that will make the tax code fairer for working families and that will ensure that corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share." But the political pressures to do so are intense — both from his opponents for the nomination and from the increasing imperative to reposition himself to the center for what he hopes will be a general election campaign.

Most immediately, Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Senators John Kerry, John Edwards and Joseph I. Lieberman, seeking to present themselves as the more centrist, electable alternatives to Dr. Dean, are hitting the issue hard in Iowa and New Hampshire.

-Dean's Democrats Richochet to the Left (Dick Morris, January 8, 2004, FrontPageMagazine.com)

Why does the opposition party tend to become dominated by its own extremists when it is out of power? Why did the Democrats follow liberal leaders like Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis while Ronald Reagan was president? Why did the right under Newt Gingrich take over the Republican Party during the Clinton years? Why is Howard Dean dominating the Democrats these days?

Call it the ricochet effect. [...]

As the moderates leave the other party and move toward the incumbent president, the leftists of the Democratic Party or the GOP's rightists come increasingly to predominate in primaries. At the same time, their alienation and anger at the policies of the incumbent chief executive generate a new activism on the extremes of the opposition party which kindle increased flows of money and manpower into the minority party.

The ricochet theory, in a sense, is the concomitant of triangulation. If one steals the other side's centrist issues, one becomes attractive to the moderates in the enemy camp. But because an incumbent stays faithful to the core issues of his own party (gun control, abortion, etc.) he generally drives the extreme members of the opposition crazier than ever.

Because George W. Bush is attracting moderates with his forthright stand against terrorism, his willingness to go to war to defend our security, and his relatively compassionate social agenda, he is winning over Democrats and Independents who might once have voted against him. Those moderates who remain Democrats find themselves weakened by the defection of these moderates and become outvoted in the Democratic primaries.

This phenomenon is precisely why Joseph Lieberman is losing to Howard Dean in the Democratic race for president. His constituency is voting for Bush and has left his party.

Though Mr. Morris misses the point that Nixon was a freak--it was only when the GOP turned to its Goldwater base, with Reagan, that it became the majority party again. Dean, on the other hand, is the Democrat base.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 7, 2004 11:26 PM