Dean boom goes bust

Washington Times ^ | 3/20/04 | Tod Lindberg

[kattracks]

I would like to review this week a little footnote to the history of the 2004 presidential campaign, namely, Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. I think it may have something to tell us about the current ebb and flow of the presidential campaign now that Democrats have settled on John Kerry as their nominee.

[sd-joe]

Yes, but he is missing the 800 lb gorilla.

The Clintons turned on Dean, and took him down.

[goldstategop]

The truth is more prosaic. The Democrats loved Howard Dean and they agreed with everything he stood for. Except for one teeny weeny problem: he was too honest a liberal and would have identified the Democrats all too clearly. That's why they ditched for John F. Kerry. See, they like Dean's positions but they know Dean's forthrightness was a losing political proposition. Running as a proud and self-identified liberal in this country is a political kiss of death for any one with aspirations for the Presidency. So the Democrats went for Kerry, whom none of them likes, since he was perceived as "electable," that is, as being able to put the repellent liberal baggage in a brown paper bag. And since Kerry denies being a liberal, they hope that's what it takes to keep them competitive up to November.

[Fledermaus]

An "important footnote"? How? So he used PayPal and he's an icon for political campaigns in the future?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

in the absence of exogenous information (such as is provided by actual caucus-goers and voters), the politico-media complex takes on the characteristics of a giant echo chamber. By late fall, all you could hear in it was "Dean!!-Dean!-Dean-dean-deandeandean."

. . . unless I am very much mistaken, the politico-media complex is operating like an echo chamber once again: The noise reverberating from within it is, "Vulnerable!!-vulnerable!-vulnerable-vulnerablevulnerable" — referring, of course, to President Bush and his prospects for re-election. Every new fact has to operate in the context of this rumbling background of interpretation.

1. A high-growth economy with a not-especially high unemployment rate: "vulnerable-vulnerable";
2. a former staffer with the crackpot idea that Condoleezza Rice is incompetent: "vulnerable-vulnerable."

. . . before you climb into the echo chamber and start rumbling "vulnerable-vulnerable" yourself, you might want to ask those inside whatever happened to the Bush-Dean matchup they had planned for November 2004.

Our system has a lot of feedback in it. Positive feedback is necessary to the desired instability known as "economic growth." But excessive positive feedback - e.g., when a microphone picks up and amplifies sound from a speaker it is controlling - causes dramatic and sometimes painful instability. In the example of the microphone/amplifier/speaker, too much gain causes the penetrating squeal we all have heard - and have no desire to be subjected to again.

When pundits have insufficient information on which to base their predictions - when they are attempting to project further into the future than the available data (and the available conventional wisdom) allows - it is the equivalent of a technician turning up the gain of the sound system too much - the output is not information but noise. In the case of the sound system the phenomenon is easily recognized; in the case of punditry it is less so - because even the person with the correct perspective will have been chastened by surprises at one time or another, and hence at least somewhat unsure of his own judgment.

But Mark Steyn told you long before the balloting that Howard Dean would not be the Democratic nominee, and Mark Steyn told you that Bush is in a very strong position now. I think Steyn is right. By November I think the economy will be a serious problem - for the Democrats. By November the downside of the Iraq invasion will be old news, and the upside of it will still be current - and will have been dramatized by the prosecution of Saddam by a new Iraqi government.

And by November I think journalism will be exhausted from trying to levitate the candidacy of a Democratic nominee who is unlikeable and at once stale and lacking serious experience for the executive position he seeks. A man who will be seen as fit only for second guessing a leader, and not for leadership.

[CasearianDaoist]

That and the fact that Dean is a raving loon.

[Jhensy]

And he didn't just look weird; he looked disturbing.

[js1138]

Not trying to be negative, but these poststs from the Washington times are ugly and hard to read. An extra line breaks tossed in every four or five lines would make them more readable.

[js1138]

But the dens have no choice but to suck up to dean. He still has a lot of money and voters. Even clinton had to suck up to Dean at the DUD. And the audio from DUD clearly indicated where the dem's heart lies.

[Enduring Freedom]

DEAN FOR PRESIDENT!

Paid for by the Academics United Against Common Sense


...


KERRY FOR PRESIDENT!

Paid for by the Socialist Countries United Against Capitalism


...


LANDSLIDE! BUSH 2004!

Paid for by a Grateful Nation

[prognostigaator]

And by November I think journalism will be exhausted from trying to levitate the candidacy of a Democratic nominee who is unlikeable and at once stale and lacking serious experience for the executive position he seeks. A man who will be seen as fit only for second guessing a leader, and not for leadership.

You mean like Lazerus?

[maica]

Our system has a lot of feedback in it. Positive feedback is necessary to the desired instability known as "economic growth." But excessive positive feedback - e.g., when a microphone picks up and amplifies sound from a speaker it is controlling - causes dramatic and sometimes painful instability. In the example of the microphone/amplifier/speaker, too much gain causes the penetrating squeal we all have heard - and have no desire to be subjected to again.
*****

Valuable analogy.

Dean's support came largely from the protest marcher 'class' These are a much smaller percentage of voters than their activism would make their numbers appear.

The media fell for the noise generated by these activists.