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.

I remain highly suspicious of Dean's fund-raising over the internet. It would be quite easy for a big-bucks donor to deposit money in a complicit bank (Citibank comes to mind), which would set up a bunch of small credit card accounts. Each account would be given the limit just under the amount which triggers the FEC to require information on the donor.

A computer program can be set to automatically donate to Dean at a predetermined time (like when he announces a "fundraiser" on the net) and the money is transferred to Dean from all those dummy credit card accounts. The accounts are then paid from the funds deposited by the donor.

Democrats do not donate small amounts over a long period of time to a primary candidate. I have two democrats in my family, and one (my union brother) NEVER donates, as he counts on the union to do so. The other, one of my sisters, donates only as the general election approaches, and she gives small amounts one time.

Democrats have NOT been able to count on small donors for a long time. Why does Dean suddenly have all these donors? I maintain that it is an elaborate fraud, and one which will remain hidden unless we get lucky.

Excellent anaysis. What you say is that if Dean doesn't get 50%+ of the democrat votes, Hillary can usurp the process and take the nomination all the way to the end.

But, she only does that if it is clear Dean will lose (I think likely) and she will win.

Dean's rats will vote for whoever the D is in the game. They will protest but they will vote for sure. These guys would vote for OBL (dead and all).

What is missing in your analysis is what new scandel that the rats are going to invent coming into the election (see memogate). They will scream and cry that it is the end of the world. They will play to stay in the game until the river card and then hope for the best (worst).

I didn’t say they were going to take the Congress on the contrary, I DON’T believe they will be able to do it. What I said is I believe that’s their real goal. If a democrat wins the White House, that leaves Hillary out in the cold in ’08. But if they could get their hands on Congressional seats, they can set Hillary up to win next time.

Don’t forget who the players are behind the scenes. You have James (serpent head) Carville and Bill Clinton pulling the strings with McCauliff, fund raiser-in-chief and mud slinger. They are the masters of manipulation and dirty tricks.

Your suggestion about the Democrats taking control of either the House or the Senate is foolish. If you've been following the Texas redistricting flap, you know that was about the Republicans gaining another five Congressmen from that state alone, by making the boundaries of the districts reflect by results the voting preferences of Texas citizens.

If you have been following the resignations of Southern Democratic Senators, including Zell Miller, you know that the Republicans stand to pick up four or five Senators -- even if Thune decides to retake his House seat and doesn't hand Li'l Tommy Dashcle his well-deserved and final defeat.

In short, the Democrats have zero chance to take control of either House of Congress, based on hard-headed analysis of the facts on the ground. I'd be curious to see why you think otherwise.

Especially, why do you think the "real strategy" is to retake the House and Senate at the same time that the Democrats' presidential nominee is going down the toilet? It's sort of like throwing a drowning man an anchor rather than a life buoy, don't you think?

John / Billybob

Good analysis, but one wonders what the 'Rats must be thinking if they acquiesce to the nomination of Howard the Doc.

From a policy standpoint, the man is a disaster, combining as he does the worst features of McGovernite cut-and-run foreign policy, Carterish one-worldism, and Mondalesque tax hikes. Electorally, he's even worse; no geographic base to speak of, only some unions and (maybe) the traditional black, homosexual, professioriat, and lockstep loony lefty voting base.

What states do he or the 'Rats think he'll carry, f'Heaven's sake? VT, ok, probably. MA ME, likely enough, RI, too. CT? Tossup, at best. NH, forget it. NY, assuming Hitlery doesn't torpedo his ass, very possibly as is NJ. But south of there, he's got only DC and a shot at MD. Scratch PA and OH -- battleground states no more, or at least not with Howard the Doc as the head of the ticket.

MI? Dunno -- can our MI FReeper friends tell how much influence the Mohammedan vote has in Wayne Co. and statewide? Enough to tip it? I've no idea. IL is a possible, courtesy of Crook County and the utter disarray of the Pubbies there. WI, don't think so, I believe the idiot Gov there has stabbed the 'Rats in the knee with his shenanigans on marriage and CCW. MN, far less likely than in 2000, and IA goes in the GOP column this time, too.

Which leaves, fapp for the 'Rats, NM, CA, OR, WA, HI, and conceivably NV -- and they'll lose a couple of those states, likely enough, esp. if the economy is into a solid recovery. What's that add up to? Maybe 130-140 EVs, best case, and could be well under 100 if Dean continues to make remarks weird enough to make the average psychotic look like Einstein. Hell's bells, even the inept Dole did better than that.

OK, that's my 2 cents, take it from there.

I don't, my friend, take the election for granted at all. All successful elections require thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of dollars -- even in a small District like the 11th in North Carolina, where I may be running.

The money has to be spent wisely. The volunteers have to be well organized and well motivated. But mechanics and facts on the ground do determine whether a given candidate in a given election is almost certainly dead meat. Or whether his/her opponent is almost certainly a winner.

Imagine pitting the Oklahoma football team against Harvard. No rational person would bet on Harvard. But you still do have to play the game. It is still necessary to "execute." And Karl Rove is a past master at "execution" in political campaigns.

John / Billybob

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.

He is neglecting the third and most important condition; Hillery would have to be relatively sure she could beat Dubya. I believe she would only consider it if the economy is tanking and Dubya's approval rating is significantly below 50%, in the 40% range. My bet is she will wait until 2008.

POKER NOTE

They are "table stakes" games. That means any competitor can at any time go "all in."

The term the author is looking for here is "no limit". "Table stakes" means that you can only play with money already on the table when the hand starts. You can add money between hands, but not during the hand.

I certainly have been paying attention but I also know that counting your chickens before they hatch is stupid. Take a lesson from the tortoise and the hare. The hare thought he was a sure winner but he lost.

I’m making the point that it’s time to be vigilant and this is no time to take anything for granted. We still have to work HARD to make sure the dems don’t win anything. Anything can happen between now and the election and with the dirty tricks and the lies the dems will throw out there, now is not the time to be smug.

Great stuff, Billybob.

I'm not quite as convinced as you are about the outcomes of the Democrat nomination and the general election, but I'm leaning that way in both cases.

At this point, I'd say Dean is almost even money to take the nomination. His decision to forego matching funds has to be a psychological blow to the other dwarves, and will bring confidence to his followers. Still, it should be noted that 1) not a single delegate has yet been selected, and it might be a tad early for the coronation; 2) Dean, as the leader for the nomination, will get ganged up on by the others, as we saw in the aftermath of the pickup truck/Confederate flag flap; 3) Dean, being hot-tempered, will have ample opportunity to again "step in it"; and 4) I question whether Dean can carry South Carolina against a field that will have been effectively narrowed by then, even if there are no official dropouts.

I confess to still having a touch of Gephardtphobia. If he manages to win the Iowa caucus (which he must to remain viable; 2nd place in a Midwestern state by the only major Midwestern candidate won't cut it), he could survive a 3rd place finish in New Hampshire, and look toward the South, where he is (inexplicably) viewed by some as a moderate.

Everyone will have his opinion, of course, and everyone's guesses will change based on events (I, for instance, had thought Graham would have made an impact, and I couldn't have been more off the mark). As of now, I'd give Dean a 45% chance of taking the nomination; Gephardt 15%; Kerry 10%; Hillary 10% (things would have to break "just right" for her to "parachute in," as you pointed out); and the rest combined 20%. Clark was among the leaders for a few hours, as I recall; it looks like he has the staying power of a soap bubble.

With respect to the general election, I think a failure of our incipient economic recovery is the only thing that could beat President Bush. Certainly I'd feel better about his chances even if the recovery falters if Dean is the nominee. But any Democratic candidate who could manage to couch his image in moderate terms could be dangerous under such circumstances. "It's the economy, stupid" could still resonate if the stock market re-tanks and the payroll rebound reverses.

I'm optimistic with regard to both the economy and the general election. But I don't see it as a lock.

Excellent summary of the situation. With the economy receding as an issue, that leaves Iraq and terrorism. None of the Democrats who have foreign policy credibility can adequately appeal to their own left wing primary voters. Except possibly Gebhardt. He leads in the Iowa polling and should run better than Dean in the south. I see a two man race therefore, Dean and and Dick. Because of the loss of manufacturing jobs to China issue, Dick probably has some support in the midwest as well. I'm picking Gebhardt. He still loses big to Bush, however.

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.