the Greater Nomadic Council

I, too, like Edwards more than Kerry or Gephardt, though I would be happy with any of them (Clark or Dean included). However, Edwards doesn't need to win to gain a huge momentum boost. Just a second or third place finish would beat expectations, which is what the early primaries are all about. Furthermore, I must admit that I'm glad to see Dean's support slipping. Over the past few weeks, I've seriously questioned whether he could win the general election and I think the answer is no. Clark or Edwards would seem to be our best shots, followed by Gephardt, then Kerry and Dean. I love what Dean has done with his use of the Internet and his ability to reinvigorate the base, but that's not enough. His insistence on a complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts, his secularism, and his attitude seem like enough to prevent a sizeable number of swing voters from supporting him. Plus, as Trippi has stated, they believe that the way to win the election is to mobilize the 50% of people that don't vote through further appeals to the base, essentially ignoring the centrists, which would be political suicide. So, while I think Dean would be a superb president based on his record as governor and his decisive, facts-based personality, I think he'd probably get slaughtered in the general election. Since this comment is already turning into a blog-post, I'll leave it at that and not discuss the other candidates. :)

Well I share most of your sentiments regarding Dean. I'm torn because I believe Dean is the best candidate on philosophical and policy grounds. I don't feel nearly the same way about Clark or Kerry, which would make me less enthusiastic about working for them and convincing others to support them. Ultimately, it comes down to their characters. While they are superior to Bush in every way, so far they fail to inspire me either with their rhetoric or their life story. And there are a lot of Democrats who share these sentiments. All of them will support the nominee--but how enthusiastically? We'll see--even if Dean loses, I expect one more upswing.

Nevertheless I want to win too. Clark and Edwards would seem to have the regional appeal and media savvy to charm the fence-sitters and try to take Florida, while their Veep can go on the attack. Faced with these considerations, personal feelings become more subjective.

One of the worst arguments made for Dean is that all he has to do to win is pick up the Gore states plus 1 or 2 midwestern states. But by those criteria, Gephardt is far better suited because he appeals to Midwest regionalism, has impassioned labor support and his populist style may appeal to retired Florida folks. Then again I'm not sure whether Midwestern voters are as regionally prejudiced as Southern voters--probably not. And then there's Gephardt's flaws (too many to list here) and the fact that he was never taken very seriously. But nevertheless I like the Midwestern strategy and wish we could nominate a governor of Ohio or something. And I wouldn't rule Gep out as a Veep (now that he's practically done in the POTUS race anyway--he'd be especially good for Clark).

Southern regionalism, among other factors, gives Clark an advantage, because he would likely take Arkansas and perhaps neighboring Missouri as well. That would already put the GOP on the defensive--they would have to fight for big states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, while defending in Florida. I think the Dems are solid East/West and can defend in the Midwest, but it won't be easy.

I don't know what you mean by saying Gephardt is almost done in the race. He's in a four-way tie for first in Iowa right now. Granted, if he doesn't win, he'll probably be finished since either Clark, Dean, or Kerry is going to pick up New Hampshire.

As for Dean being the best candidate on philosophical grounds, that may be, but it's not a very strong reason to nominate someone. Policy is tangential to who gets elected; most voters don't have the time or energy to be fully informed on the issues anyways, so personality and looks play a big role. Obviously, someone who's advocating shipping all the new born babies to Mars isn't going to be voted for no matter what he looks like or how charming he is, but beyond extremely unpopular positions (like raising taxes a la Dean), it comes down to the candidates' personalities as the media characterizes them and how close to the center they can get, not philosophical purity.

To Geppy--Back in 88 he won Iowa, which gave him enough of a boost to get 2nd or 3rd in New Hamphire, and then that was it. He had no money to compete in the South. Clark and Dean have already won the money primary. So even if Gephardt wins Iowa, there aren't enough labor states in the early primaries to keep his campaign going. If he stays in he'll be decisively beaten in the really big states (NY, Texas, etc.).

As for Dean and philosophical purity, I agree with you 100%, although I'll still be happier to campaign for Dean than for Kerry or Clark. I just still think there is a case to be made for Dean's electability based on Dean's charisma and the dedication of his supporters. But probably not as strong as the cases for Clark or Edwards, I grant you. TV is just too important.

Well, the television aspect of the campaign doesn't bother me in the least when it comes to Dean. He's relatively attractive and has come off very well in almost all the debates to date, staying calm and self-assured. I actually think his personality is likely to be an asset in the general election, but, in his case, that won't be enough given his policy and strategy liabilities.

I disagree with you--Dean was less than brilliant in the last 2 debates I saw (via CSPAN). Clark wasn't there but Edwards and Kerry came off better, not because they were making more sense, but because they seemed 1) more articulate 2) taller and thus more telegenic. Dean scored a few times, but he fumbled quite a bit as well. These debates are part of the explanation for Dean's declining numbers in Iowa.

Edwards is particuarly sunny on TV (to the point where his cheeks actually shine and the lights magnify his tan) and he's getting more careful, though he's still prone to mistakes. Kerry is also getting smarter but I still think it would be a big mistake to nominate him. As for Dean, his overall charisma doesn't come across very well in soundbites. As Will Saletan remarked recently, Dean is best when you watch his stump speech.

The challenge for the Democrats is finding a strong, distinctive, moderate voice that is likable and plays well on TV. I don't think any of the candidates meet this standard, but just about any of them could be good enough if Bush proves to be vulnerable and the American people finally say enough is enough.

I have to confess, I didn't watch the recent debates. I get enough information about the candidates online that I can't easily stomach the debates. Hearing politicians actually speak is always somewhat painful.

Whether Bush proves to be vulnerable or not will be, I think, up to the Democratic candidate opposing him. He's certainly made enough bad or unpopular decisions that he can be attacked with; the challenge is finding a candidate who can make those criticisms stick while not alienating voters who like Bush's personality, but not his policies and making them dislike his policies enough to outweigh his charm. Articulating the criticisms in such a way to achieve that must be the Democrat's primary goal in the general election campaign.

Particularly after reading the long New Yorker piece posted earlier, I'm disturbed and more than a little confused by pols continued insistence on Dean's 'unelectability'. I would really appreciate a thorough post on the subject, because I still don't understand it. By the same thinking that makes Dean unelectable because he's a bit of a loudmouth, Bush would've been deemed unelectable because he's a dumbass. I don't know much about Clark, but I think Bush will fucking steamroller Kerry if it gets down to one on one. Where's the ammunition? Kerry simply can't engage Bush on the only issue that seems to matter to the core Democratic electorate - the war. What would you guys say to Dean's claims about mobilizing more core Democratic voters? I think his hopes of shifting white working-class southerners are a bit farfetched, but at least he's ambitious. The thought of Kerry vs. Bush is a wet rag flung over what little hope I have left.

BTW, Mallarme, I feel I must gently chide you, and to a lesser degree scott, for your borderline cynicism on this whole issue. Obviously we care about who gets elected, but I think it's extremely damaging when we as a culture become more invested in strategy and tactics than in content. I think it's already happened on television - if I remember correctly, during the last election far more network time was devoted to reporting on strategy and image-building than on explicating platforms. This simply sickens me. I can understand that you guys see yourselves as somewhat above the fray, able to analyze the larger picture, and to a certain extent I'm sure your right. But I think we can't let that perspective take over - we must remain personally invested, even as we try to think about context. Sure, if you're Joe Trippi, you make these sorts of hard philosophy vs. strategy calls. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not currently managing a presidential campaign, so I feel little compunction about throwing my weight behind Dean. I would like to think that belief, passion, and in particular, the intelligence that each one of us posesses, are as likely to convert fence-sitters as a burnished tan.

Well, I would prefer Dean over Kerry or Gephardt, I'm just trying to be realistic about the general election chances of each of them. I think Kerry would certainly be more of a disaster than Dean since he seems weak and looks like a sad hound dog. Like I said before, Dean's personality would be a good thing in the election, I just think his policies and strategy would be liabilities. It's wonderful to bring out the base and bring new voters in, but I don't think it's enough to win and, as I've said before, his tax cut repeal platform is suicide. No politician has ever won by promising to raise taxes. I realize he has a good, nuanced (and correct) argument for it that would probably sway some people, but it would just be too easy for Rove to spin it as an outright tax raise. Nuance tends to get lost during reporting. However, Dean's ability to take the fight directly to Bush would surely be an asset.

Anyways, I'm just rambling here now, but I agree with your comment about my cynicism. In my defense though, I'm just trying to be realistic based on past elections. The mainstream news media, for better or worse (mainly the latter) have enormous power in shaping the public perception of the candidates. It takes a politician of Clinton's calibur to control that reporting rather than simply reacting to it as Gore did. Maybe Dean has that ability; if he does, then he has a good chance of winning. I definitely don't think he's unelectable, just not necessarily our best chance.

Now if you want to discuss who I think would make the best president, it's Dean, so perhaps that alone should make me support him. I don't know. I'm still undecided. Now if I were to try and convince others about the merits of the various candidates, I'm would almost definitely exclude tactical and strategic concerns and stick to their platforms and personalities. Those are what's important, but it's also fun to try and analyze those other aspects, which is what I've been doing here.

In my own defense, I'm something of an inveterate sports fan, and political horseracing is great stuff. There's no question that it's largely a waste of time--but a fun waste of time.

But in defense of stressing electability, I would also point out that on pure policy positions, there is little substantial difference between the candidates, especially when compared with Bush. Except on some trade and corporate issues, the policy differences are mostly glitter. I have always felt this way and this is why it is important to talk horseracing. And in this sense it would be silly to make IWR a litmus test--I think it's clear that had any of the Dems, save Lieberman, been president, then we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Kerry and Clark have not been consistent on the issue, but at least in Clark's case, I think there is a good explanation for his position, even if it's not my own. That being that he had doubts about but the war but was happy to see Saddam go, and is now irritated by the postwar. The fact is that most Americans reluctantly supported the war and were happy to see Saddam go and are now having doubts about it, so theoretically Clark does have the majority on his side.

I like Dean's character--his principle and backbone and especially his willingness to critique neo-imperalism on a moral level. However, if Dean's negative media image keeps him from desicively winning these early Dem primaries, what chance does he have against Bush? If Dean's (and Geppy's) massive volunteer network of true believers (including gargantuan phone banks) can't win these early primaries, how can it defeat Bush? Do Kerry and Edwards supporters merely think Dean is unelectable, while they would prefer Dean in reality? Or are they just making a cynical caluculation? I don't think that is generally the case. Look at the numbers for female voters--not good at all for Dean. People seek an excuse to vote for the tall, good looking guy, whether we like it or not.

Ultimately, I think these early primaries will give an indication of whether or not the US is ready for a Dean campaign--Dean should have to meet the burden of high expectations because supporting his campaign has always constituted a risk.

I would like a candidate with Edwards' looks, aura, and attitude combined with Dean's passion and integrity. Barring this, I'm reluctantly swaying away from Dean/Edwards and towards Clark because Bush has got to go, and assuming there are no dark secrets waiting to be unearthed about him, Clark is the man to do it. His supporters are very real and they are very passionate about their man, and he is the 2nd choice for most Deaniacs. If Clark has major weaknesses (his past, etc.), I hope the Dean and Kerry teams are on the job and help give us a good idea of how Clark will deal with the inveitable critical torrent. If Clark slips again then Edwards is the best option (if he's still alive), and if not Edwards then Dean.

If I were to advise a post-NH voter--I'd say watch the NH debates and give everyone a real 2nd look, and then make a decision based on who is still alive post NH.

Ok, sorry to ramble so much :). It's all just too much fun. This is a political junkie's dream come true.

One more point, which I realize I left out. In justification for my horse racing, I would argue that I am personally invested in beating Bush above making a choice based on identity politics. I believe practically all Dean supporters feel the same way, and thus would have no problem getting behind whoever the candidate is.

Good point about personal invesment in beating Bush. I guess I kind of had things mixed up in my head - just because Dean's the guy who's most vehemently anti-Bush doesn't mean that he's the guy my anti-bush sentiments should lead me to endorse. But to put in my own two cents on horseracing, I do see Dean as a potential Clinton figure. He's not on the 'feeling our pain' tip, granted, but a lot has changed in ten years - I think there is more of an undercurrent of anger and dissasifaction, and Dean may be the guy to tap into that.

Well, if he wins the nomination, I hope you're right. However, polls consistently show Bush's personal approval close to 65%, so I don't know how many people are really dissatisfied with him. They may not like his policies (at least those paying attention) but they like and trust him as a person which goes a long way.