Replies

I pretty much agree with most of what's been discussed. Wesley Clark had great potential. If he had articulated himself, done some triangulation (against flag-burning and gay marriage, for example), and stuck to his guns, he could have beaten Bush. But he repeatedly stumbled out of the starting gate, and is now an also-ran. John Kerry is beaten. He'll announce his withdraw before the year is out. John Edwards, the Southern Regional Chairman of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, is now positioning hiself for V.P. Dennis Kucinivich has been overshadowed by Howard Dean, and Al Sharpton & Carole Mosley-Braun are, at best, mascots. I figured a few months ago, it would boil down to either Howard Dean vs. Joe Leiberman, or Howard Dean vs. Richard Gephardt. Well, Leiberman is fading away. So it's Dean vs. Gephardt. To those who are old enough to remember, does anyone remember George McGovern vs. Hubert Humphrey in 1972? The parallels are striking. I think that Dean will prevail through a combination of money and leftist grass-roots support. But the general election won't be a wipeout like 1972 or 1984. In those elections, America was divided by economic status and to a lesser degree, by national security outlook. The so-called social issues were an afterthought. But now the nation is polarized by a social, cultural, and even religious divide. This division has far, far more emotional resonance than income or foreign policy. It also leaves less room for compromise or middle ground, and therefore will have a smaller swing vote. So, in a Bush/Dean race, Bush would win by around 10%-14%, not the broad national mandate enjoyed by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, and Ronald Reagan in 1984. But Bush could boast more down-ticket effect, too.