rgr22j

My first "new thread," so I'm sorry if I inadvertantly do anything wrong!

I thought the subject would grab some attention, so I'll clarify a few things first, so we can get on to the discussion!

First, this is a post about the Democratic candidates for the 2004 election, not about how liberals do this or conservatives do that. Second, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a liberal. Third, my post will follow the following structure : assumptions, hypothesis, and support. Last, and most importantly, I apologize in advance for any offense that might be taken from my post. I mean only to start a discussion and nothing more!

Assumptions: Let us assume that George W. Bush will be the Republican candidate for president, and Ralph Nader will receive approximately the same percentage of votes he did in the last election. Let us also assume that there will be no new issues (new terrorist attack, for example) that may change everything.

Hypothesis: If Howard Dean or John Kerry win the Democratic primary, we are sure to lose the general election against George W. Bush. Instead, we should promote a young, Southern, governer. The first and third facts are critical; the second is helpful. What we don't need are older, well-to-do, Northeastern WASP liberals, like Howard Dean (son of a well-to-do family, governor of a tiny extremist state) and John Kerry (married into ketchup money, Boston liberal).

Instead, I will present Alvin's general theories for winning presidential elections and conclusions.

Support: First let me state Alvin's three theorems for general elections, which come out of both my studies in presidential elections and out of personal observation.

1. The best predictor of the future is history.
2. 30% of the electorate will always vote Democrat, 30% Republican, with the 40% remaining to be fought over.
3. Self-identified centrists/moderates/independents are actually liberals. The real fight is over weak conservatives.

#1: I think this is a general rule of thumb for life, but especially so in politics. A northeasterner has not won the presidency in decades. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 were all non-northeastern, governors of larger states.

Next, say what you like about Bush and Gore, but the general perception was that Bush was a through-and-through Texan (despite his expensive northeastern education) and Gore a stuffy elitist northeasterner (despite hailing from Tennessee). This perception played so poorly in Tennessee that Gore did much worse than normal for a "home state" candidate.

Dean, the frontrunner, is a governor, that's true, but a governor of a tiny, very leftist state. The northeast is in general solidly liberal; the "home state" effect will be completely ineffectual. Clinton brought some geographical spillover into a normally Republican area.

Moreover, Clinton played off as a young, dynamic, non-elitist which worked well against the elder, stuffy, arrogant Bush 41. Similarly, Bush 43 played off as a young, dynamic, non-elitist, which worked well against the "elder," stuffy, arrogant Gore. Dean and Kerry both come off as stuffy, arrogant northeastererns, i.e. the "My East Coast Ivy League education means I know what's best for you Californians/Texans/Floridians" an image which, I believe, will be exploited by Republicans.

Carter, Reagan, and Bush 43 all parlayed this image into political gain -- American voters like the idea of somebody siding with "the little guy." In Carter's case it was the unassuming "Peanut Farmer from Georgia," and in Reagan's case the "Plainspoken Actor from California." In all three cases the opposition attempted to paint them as stupid and dumb, all of which played poorly to the American public. Americans, in general, don't like other people boasting of their intelligence. Bush 41, as well, tried to portray Clinton as a dumb Arkansas hick, not a Washington insider, which backfired as well.

So, in conclusion (#1!): Be a young, excitable governor, and do not portray the opposition, however justified, as dumb. Dean and Kerry fail miserably at this case.

#2: We can debate numbers, but you get the general idea.

Conclusion #2: Don't try to carry the extremist issues. Dean is easily the most far left of the Democratic candidates, despite what the mass media might try to tell you. It appears that they've resigned themselves to backing Dean, since it looks like he'll win the primary. I believe there's still time, though.

#3 is what, in my opinion, kills the Democratic party. By focusing on "centrists" -- who are really liberals -- what both parties fight over is actually weak liberals. If Democrats win, they don't gain many additional votes, and waste time and energy on voters that would've voted for them anyway. Instead, we should poach weak conservatives, i.e. non-religious Republicans.

Clinton, for example, stole weak conservatives -- he supported gays in the military, but pandered to weak conservatives by instituting a half-hearted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He curried favor by taking a hard line against Iraq (and indeed, bombinb Baghdad) but appeased the liberals by stopping short of an all-out war. Somewhat brilliantly, he took the "moderate" line while letting Hillary carry out the far left issues, like the socialized Hillarycare. In this he got support by association (and some opposition by association), but at the same time, looked far more conciliatory, stealing away weak conservatives.

For all the bluster about Bush 43 (and attempts to paint him as fascist and extreme right-wing), about the worst we can accurately describe him as is center-right. He is not a free-trader (steel tariffs, for example), yet not a protectionist. He proposes tax cuts, but hugely expands government (so much for fiscal conservatism!). At best, merely lukewarm in his religious beliefs. But that last one may be my suspiciousness getting in the way!

Last, the liberation of Iraq is still popular with the American public. This is where I believe, Democrats are doomed. We don't quite realize that the American public links Iraq with national security. Most Americans, after all, still believe Iraqis were the ones who hijacked the planes flown into the WTC. Even more, the relentless media pounding of how much the rebuildling of Iraq is going to cost only strengthens the idea that invading Iraq was not about oil (it appears we'll need a lot of it to break even) and instead, a humanitarian effort. The American public likes these kinds of "morally uplifting" stories. Anti-war stances are only detrimental to poaching weak conservatives.

Conclusion #3: It's easier to choose a different candidate (or at least, moderate his/her agenda) than change the American public. Attack weak conservatives, and only brush over so-called "centrists."

So what do these three conclusions tell us? Well, either we need to select a new candidate (please tell me that Dean and Kerry are not the best we have to offer), or throw our support behind John Edwards (not a governor), or Joe Lieberman (pro-liberation, Jewish, but older and from CT). Even with the last two, I still think they'll lose against Bush.

I look forward to suggestions and criticisms. I apologize for the length -- I've cut it down from it's original size by more than half, and it's still excessive!

-- Alvin