Which Democrat is the most electable?
Is there anything more to John Kerry than that he is the flipside of Howard Dean?
After months of incessant attacks from all fronts (opposing candidates, Republicans, media), support for Dean in Iowa collapsed, and panic-stricken Democrats there rushed into the waiting arms of John Kerry, who in a last-ditch effort to save his campaign, had worked Iowa assiduously. Kerry, we were told, had the resume to unseat the president. That, and he wasn’t so boring any more, nor so arrogant. He had actually started listening to voters rather than scanning the room to see who else he could talk to. These were the kinds of things being written about Kerry at the time. The basic theme was “He’s always been an arrogant jerk, but he’s making nice now.”
Whatever, I thought at the time, let’s have another look at this guy. He rode the momentum wave fairly well for a week or so, but then started reverting back to his natural state (dreadfully boring, full of himself, and lacking a succinct message).
Then it hit me: the electability thing is a crock. John Kerry only looks electable when compared with Howard Dean!
As Noam Scheiber writes in The New Republic,
"It's a phenomenon that's actually very similar to what goes on in the stock market. Less sophisticated investors just pick the stocks whose prices they've heard are going up. More sophisticated investors actually do some research about the companies they plan to invest in. Up until yesterday, Kerry was that tech stock that the girlfriend of the cousin of the guy down the street said was a can't-miss opportunity, while Edwards was the unheralded stock of a company with a little-known but solid product." Emphasis added.
So even though Edwards’ “surprisingly strong” second-place finish in Wisconsin is in all likelihood too little, too late, after a few days of contemplation, I have my hopes up:
The Case for Edwards
1. Even before the Wisconsin results were known, Edwards was doing nearly as well in trial heats against Bush as Kerry is, despite the huge difference in media attention the two have received since Iowa.
2. Edwards polled better than Kerry among self-described independents and even Republicans who voted in Wisconsin’s open primary, despite the fact that he focused on trade issues during the weeklong campaign. What this says to me is that Edwards may well be more attractive to swing voters – Wisconsin is, after all, a battleground state – than Kerry. At the same time, the Democratic base, in poll after poll, has indicated that it will rally around whomever is the nominee.
3. Edwards political record, or lack thereof, would admittedly be a weakness in the General Election, particularly his lack of foreign policy experience. But Kerry’s long record may be even more of a weakness. We'll have to pick our poison. Remember, Kerry has a two decades-long voting and campaign-finance record to defend. He makes for a huge target for the $100 million plus of AMD (Ads of Mass Destruction) that Bush will drop on him.
And if you don't believe that, take a look at what Bush's chief polling and media strategists said in today's papers (in the braggadocio typical of political consultants):
"The beauty of John Kerry is 32 years of votes and public pronouncements," said Mark McKinnon, the chief media adviser. McKinnon suggested a possible tag line: 'He's been wrong for 32 years, he's wrong now.' "
Other tidbits: "The Bush campaign's biggest advantage,said Matthew Dowd, the president's polling director, is that Bush is a well-defined figure, even among those who are not supporters, while voters are barely familiar with Kerry's record. 'I don't think most of America has a clue about John Kerry," McKinnon said.'"
"The Bush ads will depict Kerry as a politician who says one thing and does another. This would echo criticism made by some of Kerry's Democratic rivals, who said he took conflicting positions on such issues as the Iraq war.
And for the most revealing comment of the day:
"Acknowledging that Bush has received major financial support from corporations, McKinnon said: 'The issue is hypocrisy in saying you're going to take on the special interests, not who took the most special interest money. You don't hear the president in the Oval Office railing against the special interests. You do hear John Kerry railing against the special interests.' The campaign has previewed this theme in an online video calling Kerry 'unprincipled' and 'brought to you by the special interests.'"
To all of this, Kerry is talking a good game -- “Bring It On!” -- but one of the ways a candidate inoculates himself from attack politics is by being likeable. And Kerry is just not very likeable. In fact, one Boston-area journalist-cum-blogger writes:
"It's important to remember that Senator Kerry is viewed from within his campaign pretty much the same way he is viewed by Mickey Kaus and Ellisblog. They think he's a stiff! They were surprised that he won Iowa (they thought the Edwards surge would catch them there) and they were amazed that he won New Hampshire more or less without a fight. And they've been stunned that the others have basically let him keep on winning. What they dread most of all is negative momentum, because (let's face it) the candidate has no strong base of support within the party. They're only for him because he's winning. Once he starts losing, he's a loser."
By contrast, and back to my point, the Republicans won’t know exactly what to do with Edwards other than to say he’s an inexperienced trial lawyer. But Edwards will take positions, he will articulate a theme, and he will come off as so damned likeable that it will take a lot more of that stuff to stick. Clearly, Edwards has the ability to confuse the enemy more than Kerry does. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
After months of incessant attacks from all fronts (opposing candidates, Republicans, media), support for Dean in Iowa collapsed, and panic-stricken Democrats there rushed into the waiting arms of John Kerry, who in a last-ditch effort to save his campaign, had worked Iowa assiduously. Kerry, we were told, had the resume to unseat the president. That, and he wasn’t so boring any more, nor so arrogant. He had actually started listening to voters rather than scanning the room to see who else he could talk to. These were the kinds of things being written about Kerry at the time. The basic theme was “He’s always been an arrogant jerk, but he’s making nice now.”
Whatever, I thought at the time, let’s have another look at this guy. He rode the momentum wave fairly well for a week or so, but then started reverting back to his natural state (dreadfully boring, full of himself, and lacking a succinct message).
Then it hit me: the electability thing is a crock. John Kerry only looks electable when compared with Howard Dean!
As Noam Scheiber writes in The New Republic,
"It's a phenomenon that's actually very similar to what goes on in the stock market. Less sophisticated investors just pick the stocks whose prices they've heard are going up. More sophisticated investors actually do some research about the companies they plan to invest in. Up until yesterday, Kerry was that tech stock that the girlfriend of the cousin of the guy down the street said was a can't-miss opportunity, while Edwards was the unheralded stock of a company with a little-known but solid product." Emphasis added.
So even though Edwards’ “surprisingly strong” second-place finish in Wisconsin is in all likelihood too little, too late, after a few days of contemplation, I have my hopes up:
The Case for Edwards
1. Even before the Wisconsin results were known, Edwards was doing nearly as well in trial heats against Bush as Kerry is, despite the huge difference in media attention the two have received since Iowa.
2. Edwards polled better than Kerry among self-described independents and even Republicans who voted in Wisconsin’s open primary, despite the fact that he focused on trade issues during the weeklong campaign. What this says to me is that Edwards may well be more attractive to swing voters – Wisconsin is, after all, a battleground state – than Kerry. At the same time, the Democratic base, in poll after poll, has indicated that it will rally around whomever is the nominee.
3. Edwards political record, or lack thereof, would admittedly be a weakness in the General Election, particularly his lack of foreign policy experience. But Kerry’s long record may be even more of a weakness. We'll have to pick our poison. Remember, Kerry has a two decades-long voting and campaign-finance record to defend. He makes for a huge target for the $100 million plus of AMD (Ads of Mass Destruction) that Bush will drop on him.
And if you don't believe that, take a look at what Bush's chief polling and media strategists said in today's papers (in the braggadocio typical of political consultants):
"The beauty of John Kerry is 32 years of votes and public pronouncements," said Mark McKinnon, the chief media adviser. McKinnon suggested a possible tag line: 'He's been wrong for 32 years, he's wrong now.' "
Other tidbits: "The Bush campaign's biggest advantage,said Matthew Dowd, the president's polling director, is that Bush is a well-defined figure, even among those who are not supporters, while voters are barely familiar with Kerry's record. 'I don't think most of America has a clue about John Kerry," McKinnon said.'"
"The Bush ads will depict Kerry as a politician who says one thing and does another. This would echo criticism made by some of Kerry's Democratic rivals, who said he took conflicting positions on such issues as the Iraq war.
And for the most revealing comment of the day:
"Acknowledging that Bush has received major financial support from corporations, McKinnon said: 'The issue is hypocrisy in saying you're going to take on the special interests, not who took the most special interest money. You don't hear the president in the Oval Office railing against the special interests. You do hear John Kerry railing against the special interests.' The campaign has previewed this theme in an online video calling Kerry 'unprincipled' and 'brought to you by the special interests.'"
To all of this, Kerry is talking a good game -- “Bring It On!” -- but one of the ways a candidate inoculates himself from attack politics is by being likeable. And Kerry is just not very likeable. In fact, one Boston-area journalist-cum-blogger writes:
"It's important to remember that Senator Kerry is viewed from within his campaign pretty much the same way he is viewed by Mickey Kaus and Ellisblog. They think he's a stiff! They were surprised that he won Iowa (they thought the Edwards surge would catch them there) and they were amazed that he won New Hampshire more or less without a fight. And they've been stunned that the others have basically let him keep on winning. What they dread most of all is negative momentum, because (let's face it) the candidate has no strong base of support within the party. They're only for him because he's winning. Once he starts losing, he's a loser."
By contrast, and back to my point, the Republicans won’t know exactly what to do with Edwards other than to say he’s an inexperienced trial lawyer. But Edwards will take positions, he will articulate a theme, and he will come off as so damned likeable that it will take a lot more of that stuff to stick. Clearly, Edwards has the ability to confuse the enemy more than Kerry does. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
posted by JFH @ 2:15 PM
<< Home