Scratch two Dem candidates off the list

vsp · 07-26-2003, 09:30 AM

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."

07-26-2003, 09:30 AM	#11
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	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."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)