Tony, I hear what you're saying. I am under no illusions that the American populace will rise as one, sweep Dean to a 48-2 electoral college victory, and consign Dubya to street-sweeping duties for the next thirty years.

About half the people who COULD vote in America simply won't. Ever.

Another 40% vote at least once in a while, but do it without thinking -- they either pull the big Dem lever or the big Rep lever and go home happy that they've done their civic duty.

The remaining 10% -- call it 3% hardcore leftists, 3% dedicated Libertarians, 4% Bible-thumping theocrats -- are the ones spewing zeal and fury and get-out-the-vote perseverance, but (ironically) are often the ones supporting Quixotic candidacies that have no chance of winning over the rank-and-file.

The thing about Dean is that while he's certainly exciting most of the leftist elitists, he's not so far to the left that he can't appeal to the middle group as well. He's got an A rating from the NRA, supports the death penalty, supports a balanced budget and cutting government spending, and is not averse to tax cuts on a reasonable scale. This isn't Moonbeam Brown or Ralph Nader we're talking about here; the DLC may be blasting him now, but they were singing his praises not too long ago. He has a name-recognition hurdle to overcome, but it's early yet.

Lieberman, on the other hand, can write off almost all of the hardcore leftists on day one, and doesn't really stand much of a chance of drawing votes from the Republican camp, either. If given a choice between Republican-lite and Republican, why will Republicans vote for the watered-down variety, who's promising essentially the same things as the full-blown conservative?

How do you get the once-in-a-whilers to come out and vote? One of two ways: either convince them that there's a direct benefit if their candidate gets in (he'll vote for something that affects them, be it a tax cut, something being banned, something being un-banned, or glittering generalities like "an end to the war" or "a stronger economy" or "more jobs"), or convince them that the other guy will directly and negatively affect them if HE gets in (spreading FUD, in other words).

Lieberman can do neither, as long as he's reciting Republican talking points. He's not providing any compelling differences between himself and Bush, nor is he attacking Bush effectively. Dean has the advantage of looking and sounding different. Kerry, Edwards, Wesley Clark (if he ends up deciding to throw his hat in the ring after all) and others could do the same thing, without leaning so far to the left as to be easy targets for the smear machines.

SOMEBODY has to be the Democratic candidate next year. Running Lieberman is as good as declaring "We have no ideas, so we're borrowing theirs."

Vsp, you are apparently pulling those numbers straight out of your ass. Most of my friends and I don't fall into any of those categories.

v-man, you're still thinking like yourself and not like voters.

The "oh wow" moment for me happened during an LP seminar on political debates and how to win them. The speaker was one of the primo LPers, one of the most well-respected on the lecture circuit. He was explaining how to "win" the debate: as in, how to convince people you're right.

In attendance was a guy I knew who had some real-world experience running Republican campaigns. I kept an eye on him. A third of the way through the seminar, he walked out in disgust.

I followed him and asked him what was up. He explained that the speaker didn't have a clue. Following the speakers' advice, he explained, you might convince the crowd that you're Very Smart, and maybe even Right. But that's not your objective! Your objective is to convince them to vote for you, which is a very different thing.

F'rinstance, issues are what YOU care about, but Joe and Josephine Voter only care about a third as hard as you do. Most candidates' stances are a blur; if they can remember one specific issue, it's because the candidate hit it over and over and over again (witness Gore's "lockbox") or because they are generally single-issue. Why they vote the way they do is usually not simply matching preferences to issues. Many people won't consider issues one bit and will only consider whether the candidate appears to be trustworthy (or honest or presidential or Italian or patriotic or family-oriented or gay or etc.)

Why did Clinton beat Dole in 1996? Many think it's because Clinton stole the issue of welfare reform, which would put him on the opposite side of 80% of his party. But it's just as likely because, to most people, Clinton came across as a sincere, caring guy while Dole came across as a mean, bitter old man.

Hearing stories about candidates meeting voters further convinced me of all this. When you ask the average person, what problem bothers you the most? What needs fixing? S/he's just as likely to complain about the neighbor's dog endlessly barking as the economy.

How do you get that person to care about your candidate? Not only do you have to convince them that you have a candidate that differs, but you have to convince them that voting is a meaningful process that will actually make a difference in their lives if they participate.

I gotta close this now, because I gotta go, and you could just assume the other ten paragraphs I was going to write...

I'd say that it's the uneducated themselves who have lost their perspective. When learning about and voting for the people who will control one's life becomes so unimportant to half the country, I'd say that's a pretty clear indication of a mass loss of perspective.

UT isn't saying that trying to educate the voters is useless or silly. He's saying that it has nothing to do with trying to win elections. Have you ever actually worked for any campaigns? Although my experience in this regard isn't as extensive as his, I fully agree with that position.

Except that's exactly what I thought _I_ said. I've known plenty of Joe and Josephines who (when and if they DO vote) don't think about issues; they tend to vote either Democratic or Republican because, well, they've always voted either Democratic or Republican.

If I call a random phone number and get a typical American on the line, proceeding to try to sell him on my candidate's virtues, I agree that the person probably won't listen if I ramble on about issue X or issue Y. It'll all come down to one basic question:

"What's in it for me?"

I'm unclear as to how someone like Lieberman has a clear advantage in answering that over the other Dem candidates.

Again, agreed. Now, how does a lump like Lieberman do either of those things?

People really hate being "educated". This was another point from my R acquaintance at the debates seminar. What would you think of someone pointing out how dumb you are and/or how you don't have the right priorities? It's just not a good starting point for asking for someone's vote.

OK, Lieberman is a lump and sounds too much like the guy from "Alf", I admit it. I think he will differentiate himself when some of the current issues have played out.

It's probably a political gambit, a flyer, just like Dean's "Bush Lied!" -- if WMDs are found Lieberman goes to #1 and stays, because most of the rest of the lot look not only stupid but dangerous and unpoised and unpresidential.

Saw 30 seconds of Lieberman today, and it occurred to me that his job right now is to differentiate himself from the other D candidates -- which he has now done. His job to differentiate himself from the R candidate will be after the primaries.

And the economy is a larger point than the war. If the economy recovers, all the candidates who are running hard against the tax cut are doomed, because it'll look like the tax cut was responsible. Lieberman may be plainly betting that WMDs are found and the economy looks stronger by the end of the year. That's Lieberman's flyer.

And since I don't foresee either one happening, I think my money is safe. ;)

Hillary has been pretty coy through this whole thing. She has been very careful to position herself much like Lieberman whose butt she would kick in a Dem primary. What she and some in the party don't get is that she is unelectable without a Bull Moose candidate pulling exclusively from the right.

More information:

Zogby Poll

Gephardt 12%
Lieberman 12%
Dean 12%
Kerry 9%

The big news in this is the changes since the last quarter: Lieberman 8% down, Dean 8% up.

In the middle of the page is another interesting table: Favorable/Unfavorable/Unfamiliar. It finds that 61% are still unfamiliar with Dean (compare 18% unfamiliar with Lieberman), down from 75% in last quarter. Six months until New Hampshire.

Go Dean Go!

Having paid not a whit of attention to Hillary since she relocated to NY, I was surprised to have lunch with some NYC republicans who absolutely despise WJClinton, but are pleased with Hillary as their senator. They say most of their friends around the state feel the same way. These are people who wouldn't in a million years vote for Lieberman because he's A) a Democrat; B) too old, and; C) Jewish.

I wouldn't vote for Lieberman in a million years because A) his stance on censorship.

I'm not going to moan about it, but... just like Tipper Gore, this man is a fuckhole.

Yeah, that's all.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Lieberman's image. He is a politician. He is very powerful. He has been, is, and will be again in the spotlight of the press.
All of which makes getting elected to the Presidency extremely difficult.
Why? People don't see the 'Honest Joe' that they want for a Prez (see GB and WJC). They see 'Slick Joey,' the hustler from around the block that can get what you need, without any questions asked. He is a part of the machine that makes the world run, but a you don't necessarily want a cog in control of the works; they're too slimy.

And I whole-heartedly second Dave's motion on fuck-hole-itude-ness.

Does anyone have any thoughts on pairing folks up for Veep this time around?

The mere fact that Lieberman is Jewish makes him unelectable as president, IMO. Could you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if Gore had become president and Lieberman had to ascend to the presidency for whatever reason?

Nothing against Jews, of course. But it took over 170 years to elect a Catholic president...our nation doesn't seem ready yet for a Jewish/female/minority president.