January 27, 2004
WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?:
Death of a Salesman:
Can John Kerry sell John Kerry? (William Saletan, Jan. 27, 2004, Slate)
If the polls are right, John Kerry will win the New Hampshire primary today and head South and West as the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee. "Dated Dean, Married Kerry," goes the slogan of the hour. But before this rebound relationship drifts to the altar, maybe Democrats should ask what they're getting in Kerry. After watching him for a year and seeing him work New Hampshire, here's my warning: You're getting a guy who has plenty of selling points but can't make the sale himself.Like my colleague Chris Suellentrop, I've watched the Kerry surge with amazement. I've asked myself how Kerry is persuading previously skeptical voters to change their minds about him. The answer is, he isn't. Other people are doing the persuasion. Other people are doing the testimonial ads, as first lady Christie Vilsack did for Kerry in Iowa. Other people are firing up his crowds. Other people are telling his story. Other people are touting his virtues at rallies because he doesn't reliably display those virtues himself. The man who stood up to serve his country as a soldier is being propped up as a candidate.
One of the things you hear alot these days is that the Left's hatred of George W. Bush is no different than was the Right's hatred of Bill Clinton. You also hear that the main consideration of the primary voters this time around is therefore to find someone who can beat President Bush. So they appear to be willing to vote for guys they don't particularly like or agree with much or even know much about, just so long as they are perceived as "electable".
Now, what's interesting about this is that GOP voters, who presumably would have wanted to beat Bill Clinton and Al Gore just as badly, handed the '96 nomination to Bob Dole, whose turn it was in the much more hierarchical and orderly Republican Party, and to George W. Bush in 2000, even though John McCain polled far better in head-to-head matchups against Gore. Electability seemed a rather secondary issue. In the case of Bush vs. McCain in particular, the nomination went to the guy who seemed more comfortable being a conservative Republican. This did pretty nearly backfire--so maybe it proves once and for all that the GOP is the Stupid Party--but it meant that when Mr. Bush did pull out the election the party had the guy it wanted most, instead of a guy who'd have won easier but about whom they weren't terribly enthusiastic.
That the Democrats are doing the opposite is obvious even in the unofficial slogan of the Kerry campaign--"Dated Dean, Married Kerry". Not just Senator Kerry but General Clark and Senator Edwards have all made a conscious decision to market themselves as candidates you settle for, instead of ones you love. Strange.
For those reasons, a Kerry run has all the makings of a Third Party party.
Can you imagine the vote totals Buchanan would have rolled up if McCain had run?
Posted by: Timothy at January 27, 2004 8:17 PMMaybe this is more confirmation that the Democratic party is in a long-term slide. After all, Clinton won due to luck (short recession + Perot) and painting himself as a "new Democrat" (which he was, kinda). Heck, Carter and LBJ both won the same way: "Southern Democrat" against weak opponent. And come to think of it, even JFK won (barely) by running to the right of Nixon on defense. Who was the last Democrat to win by running left? Truman? (OK, maybe it was LBJ.)
In any case, the Democratic party has moved so far left in recent decades, and is so beholden to so may conflicting interest groups, that even Democrats know it's pointless to vote for presidential candidates they "love," because they know they can't win nationally.
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 27, 2004 8:39 PMHopefully for all those who "Dated Dean, Married Kerry," they got a prenup like Teresa did.
Posted by: John at January 27, 2004 10:15 PMI still think it is terribly difficult for a Democrat candidate to win without being from the South.
The last 3 Democrat presidents were from the South. In addition, the Gore (a Southerner) came inches away from being elected president. On the other hand, that losing Democrat candidates were liberals from Massachusetts or Minnesota and South Dakota. Carter lost because he was, well, Carter in 1980.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is going to be difficult.
Bush is an incumbent, it is hard to beat incumbents especially with a vastly improving economy and a war occurring. Second, he is still pretty popular. He has numbers better than Clinton in 1996.
Posted by: pchuck at January 27, 2004 11:07 PM
And if selecting the candidate by the region is as important as it seems to be, what does it say about Democrats to pick a man from New England, a region they usually get by default?
If Democrats write off the South (as Kerry says they should do) and concede the West minus California, they pretty much have to run the table on the rest of the country. At a time when even Illinois seems to be in play for Bush, the prospect of Democrats capturing all the Midwest seems rather remote.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at January 28, 2004 1:18 AM