I have been doing a little thinking lately about why, exactly, Kerry has managed to run away with the idea that he is the most electable. As we all remember, Kerry was the presumptive front-runner such a long time ago before we went to war against Iraq. At this point the Republicans were riding high and openly touting President Bush's huge advantage in foreign policy and matter military.
So lets examine this scene here from early February to late May of 2003. The economy, as we already know had been going through tough times and hadn't shown the signs of "improvement" that we are being told now. Bush was considered a shoo-in considering his massive foreign-policy advantage and general acceptance of his actions by the majority of people.
During this period Kerry was prowar as well as many others who later flipped over to anti-war when it appeared that Bush was loosing popularity.
These were the inital appeals of Clark and Kerry. They both had the thick, war hero resume that would be perfect in a lineup against president Bush. However nobody in the beginning really like what they had to say about the economy or special interests, or basically anything non-defense related. Sure the positions were basically democratic, but nothing really caught fire. Dean on the other hand had caught lots of fire. His anti-war rhetoric was what boosted him into the spotlight, but his overall critique of the lackluster democrats in congress is what really, in my opinion, sealed the deal. Dean had the guts, determination, and possibly skill to accomplish what he wanted to do, but in the end he couldn't really package it correctly.
However, I would say that the reason for Kerry's rise in Iowa is the same reason for Dean's fall in Iowa. If Iowa had been a primary it would have been something like dean having come in second I assume. But due to Kerry's experienced team, and Dean's inexperienced team, Kerry was able to take away much of the Gephardt vote. Kucinich's vote helped Edwards make it into 2nd place. That is where we crossed the line. Before Iowa, the choice was Dean or antiDean. One the one hand there was the option of having a political process based on new unwritten rules. On the other hand was the old-fashined way.
Before anyone turns away, let me add that I am no Dean apologist. I don't particularly care that he didn't survive. I am a little peeved by Kerry's electabilty meme, and although I sense that coming from him too, it does worry me.
In many ways, who you support has to have some sort of base level of popularity. Nobody in the mainstream will support Dennis Kucinich or Sharpton, because they know that in the end they'll never win. At the beginning Kerry and Edwards were exactly the same. They just couldn't catch fire. Kerry had some name recognition to work with, but Edwards didn't seem to make any progress despite being a very good speaker.
In Iowa, Dean began to face attack from all sides and there was heavy negative criticism in the media. We all knew that a Dean cantidacy was not going to be normal, and it would be a risky gamble. However, Iowa didn't support Kerry as much as they rejected Dean. Kerry was just the lucky guy to be at the right place at the right time. If Clark had had significant ground operations and hadn't skipped Iowa he would have had just as much chance as Kerry had. Iowans don't really mix with the Coastal deaniacs very well. Especially not those wearing perfect storm beanies! Once Dean was defeated, people realized that it would indeed be a normal year and nobody was going to change the process like Dean had promised before.
Just consider how much support Dean has lost. At least 20 percent in every state. I see there being three types of Dean supporters. Loyal fundementalists, pragmatics, and ex-fundementalists. The fundementalists are still with Dean today, holding out hope. The pragmatics were those that were with dean only because of his relative position because he thought that he could win. This was of course an entire spectrum of belief, from the most pragmatic to the most fundemental, but before Iowa lets consider the Dean campaign to be made entirely of this group. I'll even put myself in this category. Having supported Dean earlier I was probably in the middle. The fundementalits could be considered those who would not vote in November if he wasn't the cantidate. The pragmatics are those who only like him because they think that he can win. Dean has lost about 50 percent of his most pragmatic supporters. If they were so pragmatic as to switch to the strongest horse at some slight press, then it is natural to suggest that they would probably go to the guy with the greatest chance of beating Bush. That man was, by resume and default, John Kerry.
People think that we need a Democrat that is strong on defense, and can give good foreign policy experience because they know that the Republicans will call it as our weakness. Therefore it becomes a self-fulfilling propehcy.
"Well, I think they could all do a good job, but if a good resume sells, then that's what I'll buy" This is the way that support for Kerry builds.
In many ways Dean's cantidacy has helped the democratic party turn into something much more capable of defeating George W Bush next year. At the beginning, Howard Dean's rhetoric against Democrats was the most exciting part of his cantidacy. Because of his influence, his criticisms are now less valid. He brought up the war issue at a time when every criticism of the president had to be preceeded with "I support the war, but on this issue..." Now that the tone has changed, his uniqueness is only by what he was and not what he is now.
There were two ways to attract voters in the primaries. Appear the most electable, or to offer a very attractive, but different vision. Dean did this at the beginning, but he mellowed out to a certain extent, and others moved into his previous territory to some extent.
After Howard Dean told us how dangerous Bush was, we actually started to believe him. In a way, I suppose he should have waited to drop that bomb on the faux-naive media, because once that sunk into the public consciousness, we all of a sudden became so concerned with getting Bush out that we all became very pragmatic. ABB was such a popular sentiment. The basic idea behind Kerry is that since the Democrats own the economic debate anyway, we better have a good veteran to fight on the defense front.
Kerry looks good on paper, but hasn't impressed me in action. He's the sort of cantidate, much like Gore, who is worth less than the sum of his parts. GWB and John Edwards would be the opposite, I suppose. They DON'T look good on paper, but in action they seem to work well.
I think that in our search for a cantidate we are so terrified by the prospect of losing to GWB that we'll field the most well-rounded player that we have. He's good on defense, and he can also, as all democrats can, have the advantage with the economy. "I'm not taking any chances this year, we better win." What we didn't really think about, is that for most people they'll think about terrorism maybe once a month at the most, but for the millions of possible voters, they think about money, or lack of, EVERY SINGLE DAY. Unless Bush can somehow scare people into being afraid of terrorists more often than they are of financial/healthcare problems, it won't matter.
That's why I think that we will have passed a great opportunity if we don't elect John Edwards. He can relate to the voters about the economy better than even Clinton could. He can show empathy better than anyone else out there. Its a question of what people think about the most?
Patriotism or money
Gay rights or jobs
terrorism affecting them, or lack of healtcare coverage affecting them.
These people that worry about these things are democrats, and the ones that we need to vote.
Kerry can attract these people on a general level like every Democrat can, but John Edwards is stronger on the economy than Kerry's strength on Defense and Economy combined. But its ABB so we want a well-rounder, don't we?
