 "Do not meddle in |
    |
Posted on 11/09/2003 10:39:19 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
The national press was all atwitter this weekend over the announcement that Howard Dean was going to skip public financing in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President. However, the press was unanimous in missing one of the small but necessary elements within that decision, and they therefore missed the big picture – the real story.
The real story is that this election is now over. Howard Dean (or "James Dean," as a reporterette for Fox News called him once) now owns the Democratic nomination. George Bush now owns the general election. And once you've finished reading this column, you don't need to read anything else about this election except the long, or impressively long, list of states that Bush will carry in that election.
The included detail that the press missed was this: public funding comes with restrictions on spending. Total spending in any state is capped by a sliding scale based on the population of each state. And typical of bureaucratic rule-making, the cap on spending makes no allowance for the difference between small states like Delaware and Wyoming where no one in his right mind would campaign seriously, and small states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where every known human with a tangential interest in the presidency has spent much of his or her life in the last year.
Candidates have long developed creative ways of maximizing their campaigns in the early primary states while restricting direct spending. Staffers are routinely instructed to stay in motels and eat in restaurants that are just across the border in neighboring states, so those expenses don't count against the cap.
But, per the Supreme Court's ruling in the original campaign finance law challenge (the Buckley case in 1976), the government only has a right to place caps on spending in individual states, if the candidate voluntarily accepts public financing. Those who refuse the public financing and raise their own money are free to spend it as they choose, in accord with the First Amendment.
So the Dean announcement means two things. First, he and his advisors are satisfied that they can raise sufficient funds to conduct a successful campaign with no public money. Second, they want to bury all possible opponents (Hillary Clinton excluded) in the three early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Each of his "real" opponents – which list excludes four of the nine dwarves – is planning on his own version of a fire wall, to beat or at least effectively tie Dean in a selected one of those three states. If Dean buries all of them in all of those states, the money will flow to him, the endorsements will fall on him like rain, and his candidacy will be unstoppable.
This is a proper strategy for any clear front-runner like Dean. In the "sweet science," boxing, it's referred to as finishing off your opponent when you have him on the ropes. In all other sports it's referred to as building a lead that will break the spirit of your opponents, so they're embarrassed to come out for the next quarter, inning, hole, chukker, whatever applies. Dean is about to beat each of his primary opponents like a rented mule.
There is a second reason for this strategy, which applies especially to Howard Dean. He needs to win before he self-destructs by making one too many exceptionally stupid comments in public, like his reference to seeking the votes of "guys who have Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Did he stay up all night with his staff deliberately trying to find a comment that would alienate the black votes which he must have most of, while simultaneously alienating the white Southern votes which he must have some of? Had he done that, he could not have crafted a worse comment than what he did say, apparently off the cuff.
Dean is a son of Eli, a graduate of Yale. So are Joe Lieberman and John Kerry. So am I. I knew the latter two well, starting when we were surrounded by "ivy-covered professors in ivy-covered halls." One of the two, I respected at that time. But unlike the three of them, I am a Southerner who wears jeans, drives a Jeep, and knows how to split wood. Splitting wood isn't just an idle occupation here; we heat with wood, and would freeze to death come January without it. But I digress.
The bottom line is that the Dean strategy is to front-load his spending on his campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. And in the Democratic primaries in those three states, his strategy will work perfectly, even in South Carolina (but keep in mind that the Democrat voters there are only a third of the electorate, and Dean will only take, say, 60% of those who vote in the primary).
Three of the real opponents have suggested that they, too, will reject public funding of their campaigns. If they do this, that will prove that the Dean strategy is correct.
Consider the national and international poker tournaments now being carried variously on ESPN or the Travel Channel. The game is Texas hold-‘em, which I won't explain here. (I recommend those tournaments to readers interested in risk and mathematical strategy, and you'll quickly understand the game.) The relevance here is the betting process in those poker tournaments. They are "table stakes" games. That means any competitor can at any time go "all in." That means they bet every chip they have, on one hand or even on one card. All other players must then "see" or match that bet, which may be as high as a half million dollars, or fold.
Dean has just decided not merely to skip public financing in his whole campaign, he has decided to go "all in" in the first three states. If the other players (excuse me, candidates) go "all in" also, pushing their smaller piles of chips to the center of the table on one of those three hands in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, they will be recognizing the truth that this is the whole ball of wax. Their only chances of defeating Dean are here. And if they fail here, it is sharply downhill all the way for Dean to roll through the remaining primaries and take the nomination.
In short, Dean's strategy is to win the nomination with three knockouts in the three opening rounds. That will leave the Democrats nationally a minimum amount of time and space to reflect on whether they are acquiring another McGovern, Mondale, or Dukakis. Or if one wants to be bipartisan about doomed campaigns, whether they are acquiring another Goldwater or Dole (him).
Howard Dean has run, so far, an exceptionally open campaign. He has been more honest about who he is, and what he stands for, than your average politician. He has repeatedly described himself as representing "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." That is correct, and that is half the reason why he now owns the nomination.
The other reason is that Dean is a more interesting candidate. He is not as dull as his "real" opponents, and not as irrelevant as his other opponents. To understand the level of dull here, recall the civics teacher played to perfection by Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. (It is one of the fifty most memorable scenes in American movies.)
In front of his totally non-responsive students Stein drones, "In 1930, the ... House ..., in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone? ...the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? ...raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone ...?"
The very reasons that now guarantee Dean the Democratic nomination also guarantee that he will be buried in the general election. His "Democratic wing" is the arch-liberal, high tax, large government, anti-war wing of his party. He will carry a strong plurality in all of his primary races. But he will win the nomination by earning a majority of a minority. His capacity to unify his own party is limited. His capacity to reach beyond it to a significant number of independents and a small fraction of Republicans is nil.
Dean will lose all of the South, much of the Midwest, part of the West, and part of the East as well. I will concede him the Electoral College votes of Vermont and the District of Columbia, all six of them. Beyond that, it will be catch as catch can for Dean in the general election, but mostly catching nothing.
It is unfortunately necessary to factor in the possibility that Hillary Clinton will "parachute in" and take the nomination away from Dean at the last minute. She will not attempt to do that until two conditions have been met. They are: 1. Dean has in hand almost, but not quite enough, delegates to the Democratic convention for a mathematical lock on the nomination. 2. All major polls agree that Dean is headed for a Dukakis-sized defeat at the hands of George Bush.
The pundits on TV and elsewhere have been considering this possibility on the basis that there are deadlines for filing to be a Democratic candidate in various states which therefore require Hillary Clinton to throw her hat in the ring no later than late November or early December. The pundits, as usual, are wrong. There is a wrinkle in the election laws which allow Hillary several more months to make her move.
When voters in any primary "vote" for a candidate for President, they are actually voting for delegates who are pledged to that candidate. And any candidate can "free" his or her delegates by withdrawing from the race. (This varies with individual state laws; in some states the delegates once chosen are bound to their candidate for the first ballot, regardless.)
Wesley Clark has already demonstrated that he is a stalking horse – or sock puppet if you will – for the Clintons (both of them). He has shown this by dumping his independent volunteers as major players in his campaign, in favor of Clinton-grown professionals. All it would take for Hillary to jump into the game very late in the day is a joint press conference with Clark. He announces that he's leaving his name on the remaining ballots but that he is resigning from the race for President in favor of Clinton (her). He offers, and she accepts, the support of all of his pledged delegates on the earliest ballot at the convention when they are free to change. Both urge all Democrats who want Hillary to be the nominee, to vote for Clark in the voting booth.
This tactic, if pursued by Hillary, will not change the outcome of the general election. She will be able, if she chooses, to snatch the nomination out of the grasp of Dean just before he closes his fingers around the brass ring. But she would have the same difficulties as Dean, beyond that point.
She will have trouble unifying her own party, in part because some of the dedicated Deaniacs will resent the "stealing" of the nomination, and will sit on their hands during the campaign, and sit on their sofas come election day. She will have the same problems in the South, the Midwest, the West, and the East. I will concede her the Electoral College votes of New York and the District of Columbia, but all else is up for grabs by Bush and mostly beyond her grasp.
If you are a glutton for punishment, feel free to read or watch further coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election. But that really isn't necessary, and you certainly have better things to do with your time. It's all over but the shouting. Today.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
(C) 2003, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.
I would loan them all my guns but I fear for the Presidents life.
I support gun control for registered Democrats.
(trying to get this response posted at DU.)
Hillary will be the one to run for the dumberrcats
not james dean the sausage guy
She will run for VICE President:
• She keeps he promise not to run for president in '04
• Two years and one day into her term the first slotter gets arkincided
• Under Article XXII, she can still run for two full terms as the incumbent
• The Hillary!™ Decade begins
• Hillary uses the Patriot Act to it's fullest extent, and beyond
• At the end of the Hillary!™ Decade there is a National Emergency "temporarily" delaying the elections
• Under the pressure of the National Emergency, the 2nd and 22nd amendments are repealed...
"Do not meddle in |
|
You're right, but the media is so enamored of Dean that they'll give him a lot of cover while he proves time and again that he's in way over his head.
The problem with the other candidates is that Dean has sucked up so much of the oxygen that they just aren't strong enough to take him on. He has stumbled somewhat as of late, but he's still running rings around the other candidates in terms of money and media buzz. Kerry especially realizes this, which explains the almost hysterical tone he's taken in attacking Dean.
Kerry CAN still get back into this thing, but he's going to have to win New Hampshire outright to do it. Problem is, he already down by double-digits to Dean, so he has to make up a lot of ground in a small amount of time. Kerry's mulling of skipping public funds (which he has to do now, or he will in effect declare that he's not serious about clsoing with Dean) is his acknowledgement of this.
I think you may be onto something here. McCaulif and the Xlintoons are hopelessly liberal but they're not stupid, on the contrary they're criminal masterminds. If they can pick up a few seats in the senate Bush will not get a single judicial nominee in, they can stall any tax cuts , they can bring any reforms to a halt and Bush and the republicans get all the blame. Remember they count on the ignorance of the average voter. Once things are all mucked up on '08, along comes her highness to the rescue.
The expectations have now changed. The six months ago things are history. Expectations for Dean are now sky high. A win for Gephardt or Kerry would be big now.
In Iowa, Gephardt is ahead, but everyone would expect him to lead there comfortably, thanks to all of his union connections (that's another thing you missed - Dean's pickup of the AFSCME and SEIU endorsements is a huge, probably fatal, blow to Dick Gephardt).
Those are service unions, very different from Gephardt's manufacturing etc. supporters. He didn't get 'em in '88 either. He's never been the leader for their endorsements. Big win for Dean, but not at Dick's expense.
In short, Dean doesn't have to "win" Iowa in order to chalk it up as a victory - all he has to do is make a respectable showing.
He needs top two in each to avoid a collapse. He can lose to Gephardt in Iowa, no big deal, but two second place finishes would be far from a victory.
There have been a couple of threads about that already. Basically, there are senators (Hagel, Snowe, Nickles, Frist, et al), governors (Pawlenty, Sanford, Pataki, Owens, Bush, Benson, et al), and a governor turned senator (George Allen). Plus a Mayor and a National Security Advisor.
Clark has completely imploded, (unless he and Hillary do the democrat "vote for the stalking horse" shuffle.) Does she get around that by having Clark as Deans VP pick, how much input would a VP nominee have on who is running the party? I think Hillary strongly prefers NOT to run, but Dean seems to realize how much damage the Clintons, and particularly McAuliff, have done to the party and Dean wants them gone. How does Hillary balance letting Dean run and lose vs. possibly losing control of the party? I don't understand enough about how the Dems structure their party to know what the smart strategery might be.
Hillary will control the Party no matter who wins the nomination. She is the Rat leader. That's where they get their money. Fast Eddie Rendell and Bill Richardson are the other big dogs in Rat circles. They're on board with Hillary too. None of those folks is going to take orders from any of the dwarfs.
Quote of the day material here!
This here's ma home-brewed website afore n until I gits another one. It offers ma weekly columns n a chance ta have yer say, ta boot. Ain't gotta back issues file, n ain't got most ov the purty pixtures, but what the H-E-double-toothpicks, it's better'n nuttin, rat? -- (Don't even think of spell-checkin' this.)
cyberCongressman Billybob's Website
I like your style, part home-brew, part Eli, all good common sense. While I agree with much of your excellent analyses, I am leery of what the Dem candidate can throw, especially those October surprises, e.g., the Rockefeller Memo lays out the recipe for Molotov Cocktails. Thus, Election 2004 is no shoe-in for Republicans despite encouraging trends, given the antiBush (antiwar, anti-America) passions inflaming Democrat loins and the relentless connivance of the liberal press.
I was hoping Hillary would hop into the campaign to run this year, under the theory she is probably more beatable in 2004 than in a year less proximate to her White House occupation. The sooner her potential/power is destroyed, the better for America. But a GIGO outcome is becoming less likely.
Thus, it appears to me Dean has a wrap, as he benefits from his Mojo -- like someone who has goes over a cliff tends to pick up speed, and not a few endorsements and more money. Compared with Hillary, he's agile/facile, has a more likable personality, and has a better organization -- look at whom the Clintons sent to help Wesley. But those repelled by Dean fearing another McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis-Gore candidate who is soft on defense, loves costly entitlements and wants to raise taxes, are not likely to switch to her since Hillary embraces the same core positions, plus stratospheric negatives, despite what cleverly-worded polls may show today.
As for Hillary, she will probably decide she would have a better chance in 2006 beating her opponent in NY -- it may not be Giuliani, which would be bad news for her -- but even he doesn't have a lock as we saw in the first part of the last go-round. Then, assuming a Dean debacle, she might still have a chance in 2008, with better odds than she may get in the current campaign, and a chance to realize her lifelong ambition/dream (our nightmare) of becoming the first female US president.
But what do I know? At this time in the 1992 campaign, I thought there was no way Bush 41 could lose to Clinton 42.
Could you back that up? Her margin of victory was 5% **LESS** than Al Gore's margin of victory in New York, and much of her victory was due to voter fraud.
I can back that up from personal experience. I am a New York voter. I had no trouble turning the lever for George Bush. However, the lever to vote Republican for Senate was disabled. Lazio ran on the Conservative line, so I voted for him on that line. This experience was not a fluke. The same thing happened to a friend who lived in another area, Crown Heights, of my borough (Brooklyn) and a co-worker who lived in Bay Ridge. It also happened to Don Imus when he voted in Manhattan!
The Democratic Party needs to run someone who can get *more* votes than Gore, not *fewer." And with John Ashcroft at Justice it has to be a candidate who can get votes without the benefit of (too much) fraud!
That candidate is not Hillary and I think you live in a fantasy world if you think she won the election on the basis of conservative Republican women upstate. That makes almost as much sense as saying that Haley Barbour won his election on the basis of the vote of Delta black women.
Get a clue. Republican conservative women HATE Hillary!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.