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.

Congressman Billybob,

With all due respect, Sir...I still have your words ringing in my ears before the 2000 election: "Bush is going to win without ANY problem; Gore has no chance", etc. I can't remember if I heard you on Rush, Phil Paleologeous, or ? All I know is you were very, very sure Bush would take almost every state.

I think we'd all better focus on making sure 1. Everyone we know gets registered and votes; 2. Everyone we know understands completely how vital it is that Bush win again AND the Congress gain more Republicans.

I've never been on Rush (not that I wouldn't welcome the opportunity). I did say, on with Phil, that I expected Bush to win. I did NOT say that I expected Bush to take "almost every state." When the margin between the candidates is less than 5%, as it clearly was in that election, both candidates will take a substantial number of states.

The margin in THIS election will have a majority of 10% for Bush (give or take 2%). That means it will be a landslide in the order of Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, etc. That also translates to a landslide of even higher order in the Electoral College.

That said, it is not a suggestion that anyone who wants Bush to win should sit on his or her sofa and not contribute, not get out and work, not help turn out favorable voters. Even when one team is powerful and the other is weak, it is still necessary to play the game out to the final gun.

I agree with you and all other posters who have said that this is no time for complacency.

John / Billybob

Billybob,

You can certainly talk the talk. But will your prognostications hold up? Let's hope.

However, I am one of those "glass half empty" kind of people. (I would prolly play "Eore", the donkey in Winnie the Pooh.) :o)

I am printing and saving your analysis to pull out of the folder again in September and October to cheer me up when things may be looking bleak for our man. You make it look too easy. These things are rarely a cakewalk.

My guess for Dean's running mate would be a good ol' North Carolina shyster named Edwards. Would that help in the South? Mebbe, mebbe not. It didn't help Gore to be from Tennessee.

How about Sen. Graham? Would that help take Florida this time? Probably would help. Having Jeb and Bob slugging it out and pushing every political button in the state would be fun to watch...if our side was winning.

The Clintons don't love Dean. He said early on that he would remove Terry McAwful from the Democrat National Committee. That doesn't sit well with Bill and Hillary and their desires to control it all.

It wouldn't make any sense for Hillary to be a running mate - except to excite the Democrats. But stranger things have happened.

I think Dean would get great press. He is the John McCain, Jimmy Carter (and early Ross Perot, )kind of guy the press love.

I think Dean will win more states than Congressman Bob predicts. But, my movie - or storybook - kind of chapter in this drama would be for Cheney to say he was not feeling up to anothr campaign, and Dubya asking Condi Rice to be running mate.

The press should love it. It wouldn't bring over the "old" Black caucus. But it would take enough Black votes away from the Democrats to significantly redraw the political map in the US for quite awhile. In this scenario, Dubya and Condi run the table.

...and then there is the war - a double edge sword.

At this point the butterflies are already fluttering in my stomach. It's time to re-read Billybob's treatise and get ready to run thru walls for Dubya. :o)

To use an old poker table term, Bush is "rat-holing" his money right now. That means taking it off the table and not spending or risking it. Until the Democrats finish beating up on each other (in part) and have chosen a candidate (whoever that is), Bush/Rove/the Republicans will spend essentially nothing. Or at most, they will spend only the interest on the money they've rat-holed.

During that time, because the Democrats are on the attack and the Republicans are not replying, Bush's approval ratings will undoubtedly drop a few more points. That is not dangerous. It is to be expected.

When it's time to fight, and Dean (most likely) is the Democrat nominee, Bush will come out roaring and spending. And at that point, he will have much more money than Dean. That's because Dean will not raise as much money as Bush (probably), and Dean will spend part of his hoard defeating the other Democrats (certainly).

Bottom line: other than the "convention bounce" that both the Democrat and Bush will get when their respective conventions are held, from the time the Democrats have settled on a candidate through the general election, Bush's approval ratings will continuously rise until he wins the general election going away.

The determining facts of every election are three: incumbency, relative money spent in the election, and issues. Bush is on the upside of all three of those. End of story.

John / Billybob

I think this whole analysis is on the money, except that Hillary is far more dangerous than you allow. She controls the press, she controls huge sums of money, she controls the Democrat Party, and she has FBI files on everybody who ever graduated from high school.

Exactly; Don't ever sell this woman short. You can call her all the names you want, but go figure how she, after the 8 year mess she made of the country, took the Senate election in New York without ever being a citizen.

I believe most posters on this board, are so blinded with hatred for hildebeast, they cannot admit what a power she has.

Remember, the people of this country voted them in twice after the most insane acts you could imagine.

Hildy and slick are master politicians, and will stop at nothing to gain their ends. Best keep your head up dealing with people like this.

Why should any Democrat nominee take federal money and its consequent restrictions when their fund-raising is going to blow Bush out of the water? We thought Bush was going to be rich, rich, rich when his campaign goal was announced at $200-million--well, that's nothing compared to the $450-million promised to the Democrats by organized labor ($185-million is already in hand) and the pledge they got yesterday from Crazy George. That doesn't even include contributions from the scads of people using the internet and the usual bevy of rich liberals from the coasts.

Our biggest asset is that Dean is an absolute nut case, and the Democrat primary structure has gotten the nomination out of the smoke-filled rooms and into the hands of the most liberal kooks in the country. Hillary can come in at the last minute and confiscate Dean's committed delegates; but, the consequences upon the party and its image of being for the "little guy", "it's about about the process", etc., would be toast. Individual Democratic voters around the country would have made sincere commitments to Dean via their money and primary votes and a last minute foreclosure of their participation would look like sour grapes (and I don't think the Dean Team would let the Clinton's get away with it without a fight---and Dean's one fiesty little guy!).

Another terror attack could change the political landscape dramatically.

People, please don't forget who we are dealing with here. Not only the slickmeisters, but the Muslim world.

The country is paying millions of dollars evey week now in security measures.This country is impossible to secure. Far too vast.

One major attack next summer and GW is toast.IMHO.

Which lessons of history?

In 1945, we won WWII. In 1946, The Republicans took Congress. In 1948, they were poised for victory but let the big city machines take it away.

In 1990, we won the Cold War. In 1992, x42 won the Presidency. In 1994, the National Socialst medical bill was on the verge of passing. But Newt Gingrich, minority leader of the House, and Rush Limbaugh spoke up. And the Republicans have run the House ever since.

The lessons of history teach us that the voters of these United States are fickle. The swing voters can be swayed. The thing to remember that the election is in November 2004.

The recent Senate misadventure says that we need anywhere from three to 11 more Senate seats to get judges confirmed. Three more may give Bush the nuclear option. 11 more should get cloture passed. We may get the three, but not the 11. Why 11 and not 9? Because who knows how McCain, Snowe, Collins and Chafee will vote.

If you go to www.scottpolls.com you see D leading R by 46% to 37%. It is good that it is not November 2004. I think that the Democrats are peaking too soon. My odds are:

Bush wins: 80-85%
Dean wins: 0-5%
Gephardt wins: 5-10%
Kerry wins: 0-5%
Hitlery wins: 0-0%

For the Senate, the Republicans should pick up 3-8 seats. In the House, it could go anywhere. The Ds could win the House back or the Republicans could pick up 15 seats.

What the Democrats have miscalulated badly is that Bush will pick up many more Christian votes than he did in 2000. Conservative Christian churches are growing, while leftist churches are in decline. And many who stayed home in 2000 will be reenergized in 2004.

In the South, Bush has locked up the vote, unless Gephardt wins. Even there, Gephardt takes Missouri and Arkansas, but what else? In the Northeast, Bush is gaining among Catholics. In California, Bush is gaining among Hispanics, who I see as a future core Republican voting bloc, if we treat Hispanics with respect. This could move New Mexico and California into the Republican zone.

I also am listening to the swing voters. The media is hurting us here, badly. They believe the crap the media is saying about Iraq. That is why it is important to make it clear that Iraq is a success. In addition, a drop in oil prices into the summer of 2004 would help the economy and Bush popularity.

Just remember that American political history is filled with zigs and zags.

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.