January 19, 2004
THE WORST RUN FRONT-RUNNING CAMPAIGN EVER?:
Democrats Wrestle With 'Electability' (John F. Harris, January 16, 2004, Washington Post)
As his supporters roared approval, Howard Dean told Democrats to look past next week's Iowa caucuses and think about November: "We are the only campaign that has a chance of beating George Bush." [...]Speaking here the other day, Dean expressly rejected the constant focus on moderate swing voters that was Clinton's hallmark.
"Our strategy is not to go to swing voters first and hope everybody else will come along," Dean explained to his audience. Of young people and other nonvoters, he said, "The reason they don't vote is because they can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and we're going to show them that there really is a difference."
Such an approach, many Democratic strategists believe, could represent a historic miscalculation if Dean retains his precarious lead and carries the Democratic banner. All of Dean's major competitors are arguing that they are better positioned to pivot from a nominating contest to a battle with Bush for moderate voters in critical states.
These include Pennsylvania and Michigan -- swing states that broke decisively late in the 2000 election for Democrats -- or in Ohio, Missouri or West Virginia, which were states Bush won even though Clinton carried them twice. Even many independent strategists maintain that Dean's background from a liberal small state, his identification as a peace candidate, and his opposition to even that portion of tax cuts that benefited the middle class leave him vulnerable in such places. [...]
In one sense, the strategic question facing Democrats about how to beat Bush amounts to a debate between Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, and [Mark] Penn, a principal author of Clinton's political strategy from 1995 onward.
That strategy was built around a constant focus on the preferences of swing voters skeptical of both parties. Penn's premises about the primacy of independents and how to engage them are shared by several other Democratic campaigns.
In an interview, Trippi said, "The established way is to go after the middle, even if it means depressing your base." He said that swing voters will look at large issues -- the war and the budget -- but that policy positions are secondary to the larger mood and promise Dean conveys.
That promise, in the campaign's view, is a revival of grass-roots democracy to challenge Bush's alleged coziness with corporate special interests. Independent voters don't necessarily gravitate to the most moderate candidate.
"There's something very appealing about taking a party back, and that crosses party lines," he said. "The middle tends to go the most energized party."
Penn said there is no evidence for this. "The real swing voters are not members of either party, and they are not excited by 'political momentum,' " he said. "They make up their mind without reference to political parties."
The Deaniacs seem to have miscalculated on such an epic scale that their partisan extremism is even turning off the base in IA and NH. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 19, 2004 1:28 PM
Any man who could get snookered by Jimmy Carter . . . .
Posted by: Mike Morley at January 19, 2004 2:17 PM(I had a really brillant post, typed and posted then my computer apparently sneezed)
But to cut to the chase as regards Clinton's strategy, is it now assumed that Clinton would have won in 1992 even without Perot getting 19% of the vote? I can't buy that.
"The reason they don't vote is because they can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and we're going to show them that there really is a difference."
I can't see that as being good for anyone but Bush and Co.
Posted by: Timothy at January 19, 2004 2:35 PMH-man. Agree - if I remember correctly most polls/analysis showed Perot drew most of his support from people who would have gone for Bush I.
It was known Dean would implode at some point - question was before or after he secured the Dem nomination.
People forget that Perot got 19% of the vote. Would Clinton have won a two-man race? Perhaps - Bush Sr. was that unavailable and that out of touch with the average American. But had the base been together, like this year - once Perot dropped out, he would have stayed out.
What is remarkable about both Bush and Clinton is that if Perot had never dropped out, he might have received 25% of the vote. Scary, but true.
Part of Dean's problem is that it is far easier to energize the base than it is to strike new ground with independents and disaffected voters. In the final analysis, running the race to the flaming left is just lazy. But Gephardt has run his race for the unions, Kerry for the French tourists (who fought in Vietnam), and Clark for Hollywood, so why not Dean? It takes work and courage to run a different kind of campaign. More than anything else, that is what propelled Clinton to the fore back in 1992. He was different, and he didn't hesitate to empathize (which he did better than any of the pretenders currently out there).
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 19, 2004 4:29 PMI agree with most of the commentary here. I'd like to add, however, that there is something very powerful in what Dean is attempting (not necessarily succeeding at).
As a conservative, I can't stand the focus on the "swing voter". To the extent that these people actually exist, they are not the smartest slice of electorate, rather, they are the slice that responds to vacuous news/sound bites, and moronic 30 second spots.
The Perot/Ventura phenomenon points to the better direction. These 3rd party efforts GREW the voter base (participation skyrocketed in both cases).
It was not an accident that Republicans swept in 1994. The voters brought into the process in 1992 leaned strongly conservative in 94. It appears that they generally stayed that way.
If my theory is correct, then MN should follow the same path. On the day Jesse won, Rs won the house.
It is no accident that MN., formerly a democratic stalwart, now has a Republican legislature, Governor, and Senator.
The danger/opportunity for Dean is that Trippi is actually correct, and that his insurgency expands the base (left wing nuts) faster than he loses the middle.
I'm confident that Bush can win, but I counsel NOT whistling past the grave yard. This bears watching.
Further, Orrin's triumphalism notwithstanding, if Dean bolts and runs as a 3rd, AND Bush continues to spend us into oblivion in the 2nd term, I predict a 2008 debacle of monumental proportions.
Posted by: BB at January 19, 2004 5:27 PMBB, you'll forgive me if I think that while what you are saying is true for conservatives, because they are right, it isn't for liberals. Because they are not.
Posted by: Timothy at January 19, 2004 5:33 PM