the Greater Nomadic Council

Hmmm... Well I think you are mischaracterizing Dean's strategy to some extent, though I tend to agree with the thrust of your criticisms. But in all fairness, Dean's spiel has always emphasized his moderate credentials and ability to appeal to across the spectrum.

Besides this is the argument that because this country is so divided, we need a pugnacious guy who will inspire every person on the left side of the divide to vote. True enough, though not a sufficient case in itself, because this pugnacious guy might inspire the right spectrum to vote as well.

But then you have the seperate but somehow related claim that non-voters would mostly vote left if they got to the polls. This is, IMO, an unfortunate argument, whose popularity among Dean supporters is tracable to the fact that many were involved in the Nader campaign, where the above claim an article of faith. Michael Moore, who repeated this logic ad nauseum in 2000 for Nader, now seems prepared to disavow it completely, arguing that Clark is best prepared to bite into the Republican base. And it seems that this widespread grassroots rationalization for a left, Kucinich-esque campaign has made it's way up into Dean's actual strategy, just as grassroots advocacy convinced Dean to change his position on trade.

I don't think the above argument is totally untrue--the average non-voter is likely to be in a low socioeconomic bracket and thus more likely to benefit from Dem policies. But it goes without saying that such brackets don't always vote in their interests, and the Dem party is increasingly white collar anyway. But in any case, just accepting this premise on faith is very risky general election strategy.

And this is why I find your link to Nick Confessore so depressing. If it is true that the problem with the strategy of bringing in new voters is that non-voters tend to be more pro-war than registered voters as a whole, then the whole Dean case is taken down. I wish this weren't the case, but I think what we're seeing in Iowa confirms Confessore's comments--people are now turning away from the front-runner annointed with big endorsements even when it's essential that we concentrate our resources on Bush. Why?

There are tons of reasons, some of them being 1) some think Dean's too extreme to beat Bush 2) some really do disagree with Dean on the war 3) some are generally turned off to Dean's "anger" or his "negative" strategies, whether as a result of media manipulation or otherwise. Unless just about everyone doubting Dean is motivated by reason 1, then Dean has a huge problem--namely, it seems he both 1) lacks teflon and 2) isn't convincing non-junkies. Worse, like 1972, strong advocacy of certain positions combined with apparently lacking communicative skills might actually convince more people to vote against him than for him.

At the same time, I do think we need to do everything possible to inspire leftists to come out to vote--and this supports arguments for the kind of "populist" campaign that Gephardt, Edwards and Dean are all advocating--trying to awaken a sense of class consciousness in this country and thus generate a dialogue about what it takes to make it a better place. I think we need more ideology in the States, not less, but we also need to find a way to win. I honestly don't believe its the "populist" aspect of Dean that is giving him problems--rather other aspects of his image.

How would you say I'm mischaracterizing his strategy? There are quotes from Trippi saying that all they need to do to win is to fire up the base and then the non-voters and swing voters will vote for them because they have more passion.

I just think that Dean's emphasis on being pro-gun, fiscally conservative, etc. does not mean he is "ignoring the center". He is trying to argue he is essentially a centrist, but one out of conviction rather than triangulation.

Scott, I would amend your comment about Dean's lack of communication skills to read "lack of sound-byte generating skills". I've read quite a few interviews with Dean over the past few days, and he is decidedly not lacking in communication skills - he comes across as genuine and determined in a one on one setting. But I know what you mean, and you're probably right - the camera simply doesn't like him.

That's because he pulls his head back into his neck. It makes him look funny.

And Scott, as for his centrist views, I realize that's what he is, but that's not how the media is characterizing him and his campaign hasn't done a very good job challenging that perception yet.

A big reason why Dean is relatively unpopular with women is that he comes across as overly aggressive. While I was driving in Colorado, I listened to a debate on the radio, and without seeing his facial expressions and physical posturing, he seemed much less so. Therefore, I conclude that the balance of his campaign should be conducted from a remote radio broadcasting station in Alaska.

Heh. Funny suggestion, but good point. I don't see Dean moderating his approach to appeal to women in the general election either. Since white males primarily vote Republican anyways, if he can't swing minorities and women to his side, he's lost.

That is, unless he can somehow get the 50% or so of people who don't vote to vote for him, as he and Trippi claim they can, but that just seems unlikely.

Sleepnotwork--Point taken and I agree, which is why I said "apparently lacking"--I actually believe he's the best stump speaker of the bunch, but this doesn't necessarily translate into you know what.

David--I totally agree. When in Vermont he only gave radio addresses, which Vermonters claim helped his political prospects immensely.

Mallarme--The Dean campaign has aruged that perceptions are not substance, and that perceptions can and will be changed once the general election rolls around. Right now, Dean desperately needs to tilt left in order to give people a reason to vote for him instead of one of the taller, better looking, supposedly more electable candidates. I think Trippi's current rhetoric of uncompromising leftism is somewhat genuine, but also just another strategy. There's so much passion and so much at stake that these guy don't know what they believe anymore--they just want to win.

You could be right. Maybe his currently stated strategy is just a ruse, but if that's the case, it would seem to undermine his credibility later on, provided he wins the nomination. Maybe they consider it a strategy that would be easy to back away from without alienating the leftists which whom they've bonded so well already. It seems risky, though, as it could keep them from even getting the nomination due to less extreme voters taking the strategy at face value and deciding that it's not viable. However, from everything I've read, I think they truly believe that just mobilizing the base and bringing in new voters would be enough to win.