The 2004 Election is Over, Now

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.

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.

oops, didnt finish the thought:

" In the 31st CD, one Peter Wareing spent $1million+ and lost to John Carter who spent only $280,000, in the primary - end result ... John Carter won.

Why? John Carter ran a grassroots campaign that capitalized on his 20 years experience as a local conservative Judge. All Peter wareing's money just reinforced the message that he was a rich carpetbagger in the minds of conservative primary voters."

The Hillary! scenario must include the fact that Dean voters have another option in the General Election -- Nader. If Hillary! parachutes in, Dean voters will feel angry and -- especially if polls show W winning easily -- will pull the lever for Nader rather than for Hillary!

This would be my favorite scenario. It would put the Left in electoral disarray for the next few generations.

Thank you for being so attentive to this long thread.

Oh, Gephardt will probably win Iowa. I know he won it in '88 and he's likely to lose NH badly. But, will this have an effect on Dean as the press jumps on Dick's bandwagon?

I think the polls will remain tight, W keeping a 4-5 point lead over Dean. That is not a huge margin.

As a result, dean will be trumpeted in the press as 'competitive' and nipping at W's heels. Dean will get the everyone loves an underdog status for the entire election from the press. We all know what effect that will have on voters.

2004 will be nasty and very close, not a McGovern like blowout.

Anyone here who has followed your threads or heard you speak couldn't assume you are anywhere close to ignorant. I have a nagging doubt about the Hillary scenario though - is it possible she would make a last minute run not necessarily to win but to 1) Save the Rats from a filibuster-proof Senate, (e.g., with lower expectations), which would also 2) mark her as the party leader and assure her succession in 2008, 3) help her build a national infra-structure for '08, or 4) who knows what'll happen throughout a campaign - stochastic shocks in a volatile world?

Pataki is too left-wing (in bed with the unions) and is dull as yesterday's mashed potatoes. Frist won't do it, and doesn't have the campaign pizzazz. Guiliani and Jeb Bush are both possibilities. I think a more conservative candidate with some spark will arise, can't say who.

John / Billybob

All I'm doing at the present time is the grass roots stuff. Just lined up some important appearances at Western Carolina University, the largest university in this district which, as its name implies, draws about 95% of its students from here. From long experience on college campuses, I know I'll come away from that with upwards of 100 solid volunteers in all parts of the District.

The incumbent, Charlie Taylor, is running again. He hasn't said so, but I took the time early on, to talk with his wife and six members of his staff. In four weeks or so, I'll have videos of extemporaneous get-togethers in civic meetings and in private homes where I take on the critical issue of "why Armor, instead of Taylor?"

Make sure I have your snail mail address. When that video is shot, I'll burn a DVD and send it to you. It'll be raw footage (unedited) which I'm not about to post on the Internet. You'll be able to make your own judgment about my horsepower in this race.

On substantive issues, I've boiled it down to two: Jobs -- in agriculture, tourism and manufacturing. And education -- meaning student and teacher testing, charter schools, vouchers, and assisting rather than inhibiting home schooling. (Suffice to say, I'm a big believer in good, old-fashioned competition.)

Thanks for asking those pertinent questions.

John / Billybob

I forgot to answer one of your key questions. In terms of voters who turn out and vote, this district is about 51-49% Republican. (That's excluding the registered independents, about 12%, and Libertarians, about 1%) However, a majority of the Democrats other than those in the center of Asheville and on the Cherokee Reservation, are "Southern" Democrats who have in the past and will again steer clear of a liberal Democrat with solid backing of the "edukashun" unions.

This district will stay Republican in 2004. If I get the nomination, I will win the general. The trick is the primary, originally scheduled for 7 May, but likely to be pushed back to September because the NC SC ruled the current law unconstitutional. The legislature has to rewrite the law. Then there will be another round of litigation. That has to do with state legislative districts, and will not affect congressional districts.

John / Billybob

You're right. It looks like Nadar will run another self-indulgent campaign. And that will be a place to go for leftists for Dean who resent Hillary! coming in late to pick up all the marbles.

As for Iowa, it is not just a matter of gross support for Dean and Gephardt, it is also a matter of commitment to that choice. Remember, those folks have to do more than just go in a booth and vote. They have to go to a caucus further away from home, and sit through a long, boring meeting since the commitment of the delegates from each caucus comes at the end of the meeting.

Bottom line (and I'll skip some of the reasons why, based on Dean's larger warchest): I expect Dean to be down about 5% going into the caucuses, but come out the next day either tied (1% down) or in the lead (up to 2% win). Either way, he clobbers the expectation and gets a bump going into New Hampshire -- where he will clip Kerry's wings.

Edwards will either tie Sharpton, or lose to Sharpton, in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He will then be damaged goods going into South Carolina. I expect Dean to get a close second in SC. As in NASCAR point standings, a tie, a first, and a second will give him the big "mo" coming out of that.

John / Billybob

No matter how you scratch it, Dean is not going to get into the White House without a visitor's pass. But for Hillary! to come in late (which I do NOT think she will do in '04), part of her justification will be polls showing that Dean is going to be creamed in the general election. Hillary! has ZERO fear that Dean will actually be elected President.

John / Billybob

If Hillary! were the sort of dedicated Democrat who would ever sacrifice for her party, your point might have some validity. If Dean is running, say, 13% behind Bush, but Hillary! could run just 5% behind Bush, you are correct that that could save a few critical Democrat seats in the Senate -- and preserve the "filibuster" margin, which is all the Democrats have left in Washington.

But, that assumes that Hillary! would ever consider sacrificing herself in an election she couldn't win, for the benefit of the Democratic Party. That woman would NEVER sacrifice herself for anyone else, any time, for any reason, in this universe. That's why I didn't even discuss the Hillary! runs expecting-to-do-good-but-not-win scenario.

John / Billybob

This came up on another thread about Colorado politics and folks were raving about Gov Bill Owens for 2008.

Myself, I dont want Rudy, Pataki or anyone not fully pro-life to be our Prez nominee, and there's a few million other Republican activists who will be sure that wont happen either. Pataki has zero chance. (check how well Pete Wilson didnt do in 1996).

I *do* want Rudy to beat the tar out of Hillary! in 2006.

Note how Senators seem to be having trouble getting traction as Presidential candidates. Governorship seems to be a better "training" ground for higher executive office; maybe you spend less time inside the beltway and can talk more realistically to real voters.

But there are a few exceptions to that rule: One is one-time Virgina Gov and now Senator George Allen.

Other possibles: Tom Ridge, Don Nickles, Rick Santorum.

Jeb Bush will has served out 2 terms and may be looking for something new. Bush III??? Americans are getting used to "sequels".

Very nice analysis. I think you're probably correct

The biggest "if" I see is a Dean win. He's in a good position, but he could still lose it.

I think the threat from Hillary is minimal. If the economy is doing poorly and/or Iraq is looking bad, then Bush's numbers will be lower and he'll look more beatable. In that case, Dean won't be obviously headed for the massacre that's a prerequisite for Hillary's entry. He'll look viable, so Hillary can't ride in on a white horse (or broom in her case) to "save" the Party. But if Bush's numbers are strong, then Hillary will not want to enter a race she will likely lose, so she'll bide her time.

As to why the Dems would nominate a guy who looks like a sure loser in the general election, I think it goes back to 2000. There is a significant percentage of Dems that have such a visceral, irrational hatred of Bush that they cannot conceive of someone who gives voice to that hatred -- Dean -- losing to Bush. They are convinced that Bush can be beaten if only someone has the "courage" to tell "the truth". In their mind, Dean is the best candidate, no matter what the numbers say, precisely because he is so polarizing. It's self-delusion, but that's never stopped them before.

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.