HOW TO GET TO 30%:

Howard Dean, the Non-Fluke (Andrew E. Busch, September 2003, Ashbrook.org)

Sometime in the last two months, the political and media world has caught on to the fact that Howard Dean is a hot commodity in the Democratic presidential nomination race. In certain respects, Dean’s rise is indeed surprising, given that he is a relatively unknown former governor from a very small and idiosyncratic state. On the other hand, his current strength and future potential are hardly an accident, for several reasons. [...]

Added to the general difficulty faced by members of Congress seeking presidential nominations, the 2004 Democratic race bears a striking resemblance to the Republican race of 2000 in the following way: In the preceding midterm elections, those of 1998 and 2002, the presidentís opposition actually lost seats, contrary to all historical expectations, defeats which substantially discredited the party’s congressional leadership and strategy. This backlash triggered the resignation of the party’s House leader (Newt Gingrich in 1998, Richard Gephardt in 2002). In 1998, the Republican midterm election debacle also clearly had the effect of causing Republicans to look outside of their congressional contingent for a presidential nominee, almost immediately launching George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, into the lead. It is not difficult to perceive that Democrats after 2002 might have felt a similar urge to look beyond the Beltway. Dean was the only candidate in a position to capitalize on it. [...]

The subtle form of anger Dean has tapped in the Democratic ranks is aimed not at George W. Bush but at Bill Clinton. Here Dean must tread more carefully, but his appeals to "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party" is a lightly-coded criticism of Clintonism, under which the left wing chafed for eight long years. While Clinton reigned, the true believers were willing to remain largely silent; their many years in the wilderness had taught them the value of winning. When Gore lost in 2000, it became an open question whether the mere promise of victory would be enough any longer to subdue them. Dean’s surge would seem to indicate an answer to that question: No.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the Democrats and Republicans can generally count on 40% of the vote, with the other 20% in play. Further, let's assume that each party is made up of roughly 75% die-hards --of either Left or Right, depending on party -- and then 25% who haven't quite drunk the Kool-Aid. What made Bill Clinton so maddeningly successful was that he could usually keep his own 75% + 25%, win at least half of the 20% and even peel off some of the GOP's 25%ers, which didn't actually give him 135% as the equation seems to indicate, but did generally keep him over 50% come elections time (the great exception being 1994, when he was down to his own 75%).

The danger in Howard Dean's campaign for the Democrats is that he understands that he can win the nomination by just out-gunning his opponents for the 75%. As Mr. Busch says, they grew terribly weary of Bill Clinton's ability to take them for granted while trolling for support elsewhere and they are still angry about Florida 2000. They want red meat and Dr. Dean fed it to them first. Now the others are trying to catch up, as they must in order to win the nomination, and so the campaign is being fought out on the turf and on the issues where the Party is furthest to the extreme Left, territory you don't particularly want to advertise to the broader electorate. Beyond that, they're having to disavow the Clinton legacy, thereby alienating their own 25%ers, the 20% in the middle, and that portion of the GOP 25% that liked him.

When the dust clears and the Democrats have a moninee, he (or she) will be someone with a death grip on 75% of the 40% Democratic vote and that's only 30% of the vote in the nation as a whole. The entire Fall campaign may then consist of nothing more than trying to coax the other 25% to come home and it may never allow for an appeal to the middle 20%. It all adds up to a blowout of staggering proportions.

MORE STRANGE MATH:
Lieberman, Dean Spar Over Middle East in Debate (Dan Balz, September 10, 2003, Washington Post)

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) clashed sharply here tonight over the Middle East in a lively Democratic debate, with Lieberman charging that Dean would recklessly reverse half a century of U.S. policy and Dean accusing his rival of demagoguery.

Dean said last week that the United States should not take sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He denied tonight that he was advocating a significant policy change but said there is no way for the United States to help bring peace to the Middle East without being a "credible negotiator" trusted by both sides. "It doesn't help, Joe, to demagogue this issue," Dean said. "We're all Democrats; we need to beat George Bush so we can have peace in the Middle East."

But Lieberman vigorously disagreed with Dean's assertion that his position was the same as that of former president Bill Clinton and said the governor was abandoning American values and threatening an important alliance. "Howard Dean's statements," he said, "break a 50-year record in which presidents, Republican and Democrat, members of Congress of both parties, have supported our relationship with Israel based on shared values and common strategic interests."

Given that 100% of Jews are part of the Democrat 75%, it is insane to take on a Jewish Senator over Zionism. [Okay, 90%]

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 10, 2003 2:05 PM