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.

Howard Dean (or "James Dean," as a reporterette for Fox News called him once) now owns the Democratic nomination.

Any bets that you are wrong. Dean will never get the nomination. He attracts white liberal angry white guys. That is it.

Gephardt or Kerry will get the nod from the DNC. If you want to draw an analogy, Dean is to the Democrats what Buchanan was to the Republican party.

If history is any indication of what can happen in an election, Dean like Buchanan will do well in the primaries, but when it came to crunch time ...... well you know the rest of the story.

The latest poll out of Iowa shows Gephardt inching ahead. If the economy holds on its pace Bush will win. If not, then it's up for grabs.

You are absolutely right that the Democrats will stay in for "the river card" and then hope for the (worst) best. At the political table, unlike the poker table, there is no option of throwing in the hand and waiting for the next deal.

And I thoroughly agree that the Democrats' strategy will be to attempt to manufacture an issue, where there is no real one. That's what the Rockefeller memo in the Senate Intelligence Committee is all about. I didn't neglect that. I assume that. But it was beyond the scope of this column.

John / Billybob

Dean's rats will vote for whoever the D is in the game. They will protest but they will vote for sure.

Dean always makes a point of saying how many new people he's brought into politics. The "new people" are not avid Democrats who will support anyone with a D after his/her name. These are people who will become disaffected from politics once again.

If Hillary pulls that parachuting-in stunt, and takes the nomination away from Dean, she will be dead meat. She may be leading all the other Dems. in national polls, but she is not leading by getting 60 or 70% (or more) support of Dem voters, she is getting 43%, 48%, etc. I think the great probability is that the other 50-60% of Dems. *hate* her (maybe not as much as we do, but hate her nonetheless). She has ticked off people like Susan Sarandon because she voted for the Iraq war, and her new-found "moderation" has certainly not won converts among Republicans!

Virtually everyone who's met Bill Clinton has said he's the most charming man they'd ever met, including *Brit Hume* who's hardly a Lewinsky wannabe. WHO HAS EVER SAID THIS ABOUT HILLARY?

Bill never won a majority of the vote. Even with his charm, and his devastating "come hither" good looks (ha!), he only got a plurality. What gives anyone the impression that Hillary could do better? And she would have to, as the Republican registration has risen mightily since 9/11, and the "red states" have more electoral votes since the census.

What Southern state could Hillary win? Tennessee? West Virginia? Arkansas?

(BTW, Congressman Billybob, loved your piece ...)

It is a good piece, with one flaw in my eye:

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).

Here is the problem. Dean is already 7 points behind Gephardt in Iowa-- and this is before the impact of his recent asinine comments and then damning pandering apology the next day. He was only up 12 in New Hampshire, again before the comments, and after months and months of huge (free) publicity and fawning press coverage. He should be up 30 with the media fellatio he has gotten. And he's not even in first or second in South Carolina.

You read it here first (and I have been predicting this for months now)- Dean won't be the nominee, and he won't win any of Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.

Well, I thank like yew.

My curiosity is wunderin why Clark was put in the race (by Clinton) in the first place. I do believe he is intended to be the "spoiler" and attack any frontrunner heading up to the convention. I think "Thunder Thighs" wants the dim party to be leaderless (at least among the dwarves+gore) going into the convention.

The dims will be massacred.

She will then be able to "demand" the 2008 nomination by acclamation thereby eliminating any primary competition, allowing her to raise record amounts of money (both foreign and domestic). She would be free to attack anyone she wants without accountability and then run by not disclosing any of her plans.

This, she hopes, will offset her negatives sufficiently (as she was able to do in NY) to get her elected.

Legitimate question. Deserves a serious answer.

As soon as any would-be candidate either files the necessary papers, or merely announces in public that "I am a candidate," that person is immediately subject to all the reporting and other requirements of the Federal Election Commission. Someone who merely has an "Exploratory Committee" to decide whether to run (below the level of presidential candidates), remains free of the clutches of the FEC.

There is a second, solid reason for my present position. I've researched congressional elections all the way back to 1790, and written one book plus a heavily statistical article for the American Academy of Actuaries on that subject. Bottom line: I know better than most exactly how hard it is to win a seat in Congress. So, I've decided not to run unless I DO IT RIGHT with a real chance to win.

I don't have to declare until 27 February, which is the filing deadline in North Carolina for Congress. And I WON'T file and actually run unless I have in hand a reasonable start on the 2,000+ volunteers and the $600,000+ in contributions that I know are essential for a legitimate run with a legitimate chance of victory.

I've read, and analyzed, the histories of the thousands of "lightning strike" candidates for Congress since 1976. Those are people who file to run, raise less than $100,000, and hope for lightning to strike. Doing that involves both deceiving your supporters and yourself. Exactly ONE such candidate has won in the last thirty years (due to a huge, last-minute scandal involving his opponent). I will not play that hopeless game.

Does that answer your questions?

John / Billybob

The problem with pundits is they start to believe their prophecies. Never say never. You may be wrong and the overconfident tend to be wrong more than the cautious. It does look like President Bush will be reelected, but think back to 1992. The last President Bush looked strong, and turned out not to be. Don't discount the possibility of some Perot-figure entering the race, or some bizarre turn of events. Dean may well falter in the primaries, opening up the way for another candidate. But it does look like he's shot himself in the foot for the general election. Once a candidate has written off half the country it's hard to recover.

Interesting analysis.

Re your Hillary observations, did you notice that yesterday morning, Madeline Albright, in responding to a question at a Miami book signing event on CSPAN, stated quite forcefully that, "She reserves a special place in Hell for all women who fail to support the political campaigns of other women." The heavily female audience responded enthusiastically with applause.

With this comment, the State Department Secretary Ever In Waiting artfully appears to have carried out her assignment by signaling a shift of Democratic Party policy from tax the rich class warfare, to all women for Hillary gender warfare.

It would also appear highly likely that following the event, the memory challenged former secretary raced over to Donna Shelala's University of Miami provided mansion , where the two, along with failed gubernatorial candidate, Janet Reno, could cheerfully report the morning's activities back to the top secret Hillary in '04 headquarters.

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.