Right on. Of course any of them can beat Bush. And any one of them, including Al Sharpton, would be a better President of the United States than the current office-holder.

Atrios for VP!

Heck no. Atrios for campaign manager.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is and has always been, how the heck could Bush hope to win? He essentially tied with Gore, and that's back when people thought he was a moderate. Now that he's rather obviously not moderate (and more obviously not competent), he's going to lose support from the center. And I can't imagine anyone who voted for Gore saying, "You know, that Bush really is a great President," so he's not going to get offsetting gains.

Some of you are engaging in wishful thinking. Bush is a very bad president, but I expect that he's going to soundly thrash Howard Dean. It's going to be an ugly beatdown.

Believe me, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. But if it were truly so blindingly obvious that Bush is an evil, incompetent, warmongering, no-good moron... well, he certainly wouldn't have a 52% approval rating.

And $250 million buys a lot of airtime.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Yes, a candidate with extensive military and foreign policy experience (Clark) or a legislative record (Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, even Lieberman) has some appeal, BUT... beating Bush will, frankly, involve NOT following the conventional wisdom-- not "playing it safe" and pandering the usual pressure groups-- but GOING BALLS OUT FOR IT.

Of this group, boys and girls, that means Howard Dean. (And I think his hatred of Bush is sincere. Like mine.)

Yes, it would be nice if he were a Southerner himself-- seemingly the only way any Democrat ever carries Southern states-- but he doesn't have to be. If he takes the Gore states plus New Hampshire, he wins. Yes, Gore is taking a chance on ending party divisiveness-- but as the show of hands shows, the Dems may be more interested in in-fighting and positioning (why do you all think Hillary's stand-in Terry McAuliffe keeps allowing Sharpton, Moseley Braun and Kucinich in the debates... to make the guys who HAVE a chance look GOOD?) than in winning the damned election.

Well, Gore has chosen WINNING, or at least, the best shot at trying to win-- and I say, kudos to him.

Maybe Dean won't win the election-- but damn it, he won't play it safe trying. (As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore just about walks on water...)

But as noted, if "Oh boo hoo Dean is a McGovern liberal who can't possibly beat the Mighty Bush" is the best the other candidates can do-- then fuck them, and let Dean be the standardbearer.

Regarding GWB's oh-so-scary 52% approval rating, I roll my eyes. That's no great shakes for a wartime incumbent eleven months before the election.

I find it entirely plausible that Bush will be re-elected. I just don't think it's inevitable, or that he's invulnerable, and I think people who are bidding to lead my party ought to work on projecting a lot less defeatism and a lot more pep.

There's the problem, Patrick--a fair number of insider Democrats act like they'd rather lose than win, if winning means Dean getting elected. It could be called counter-revolutionary defeatism.

You know, a lot of the upcoming election is going to depend on the vagaries of the war. If Bush can pull OBL and/or Saddam out of the hat a month or so before the election, having the head on a stick will give him the approval ratings he needs. If not, and something more disastrous happens--massive amounts of troops being massacred, for example, followed by the trigger-happy shell-shocked remnants blowing up an orphanage as a "Baathist Stronghold" with live footage showing up on Al Jazeera--then public opinion will decidedly sour.

In the last election, votes were won or lost on the basis of the politicians stumping around touting their platforms. This next one, the votes are going to be decided by the blood and severed heads on everyone's television screens. Even if we remain in a holding pattern for the next year with recyclable headlines about helicopters downed and numbers of troops killed, the talking points of the campaign are going to be about blood and severed heads, with a little bit about jobs for formality's sake.

Bush may win the way Schwarzenegger won. If the opponents come across in mass media as nervous, wishy-washy, human beings worried about losing or winning. A large number of know-nothing individuals may be herded to the polls to vote for a megalithic, pathological ego-monster -- when they see that the opposition is an imperfect *human.*

I can't explain why this happens -- but it seems to. Add those votes to the votes of the perennially ticked-off (my property, my guns, my church, their sex, their smart-aleck vocabularies, their failure to present black and white solutions) added to the votes and big-bucks brainwashing of unprincipled, avaricious plutocrats.

I don't believe this adds up to more than 50% of the eligible voting population, but it _could_ add up to a sufficient number of electoral votes (with possible criminal manipulation of the polls as a frightening unknown background factor).

But most particularly, I have the impression/illusion/fear that it could add up to a sufficient number of electoral votes if the Democrats don't mobilize a sufficient number of rational people to go to the polls. I'm not sure enough of them/us will go to the polls and automatically vote against Bush just because he's a nitwit. It may take extra campaigning to persuade sufficient numbers of stay-at-homes and Greens that it's really important enough, this time, to reject Bush

I didn't see the debate, but the report of it on NPR yesterday made it sound like not only where they being defeatist, but they spent the majority of their time whining about Al Gore's endorsement.

If Bush can pull OBL and/or Saddam out of the hat a month or so before the election, having the head on a stick will give him the approval ratings he needs.

I suddenly have this vision of Bush donning an appropriately dark, gloomy, sinister, hooded cloak and descending to the tenth sub-basement of the White House - where the dungeon is, as everyone knows. Swinging a set of keys, he strides to the darkest, smelliest, dankest cell of the dungeon. He drags a key across the bars. "Osaaaama." He squats down to the prisoner's level. "Don't worry. Just a few more dips in my approval rating, and you'll be released. In the middle of an armored tank division." He cackles in that chimp-ish manner. The occupant of the next stall, confused, joins in. Bush glares and kicks the bars of Saddam's cell. "Shut up. I'm saving you for Columbus Day!"

"even the long-shot candidates could do it given the sort of improbable circumstances that would lead to their getting the nomination"

Hmm. If you're talking about Kucinich or Mosely-Braun, then the circumstances would have to include invasion by alien overlords with a twisted sense of humor. If you stipulate conditions that would lead to either one of them being nominated, you can assign a reasonable probability to almost anything else.

Dean will be a fiery campaigner, all right, and he probably won't be totally McGoverned. But looking at the electoral map, I have trouble seeing how he can win - especially if the economy continues to improve. It would take a major disaster in Iraq to counterbalance that. I fear that several commenters here are engaging in wishful thinking.

Bush's lead in Florida, for example, is rather large, and I would expect some other close states from 2000 have also widened. Couple that with the redistribution of electoral votes from the last census, and Bush is in a strong position.

But I'm not an unbiased observer. I work as a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry, so the prospect of a Dean victory, on a pay-the-mortgage level, gives me the shakes.

a fair number of insider Democrats act like they'd rather lose than win, if winning means Dean getting elected.

Adamsj, I think that's very astute.

But the question is does the prospect of a Dean victory produce more shakes than the prospect of a Bush victory (at the "degradation of civilization, additional human misery, and loss of intelligent government in the United States" level)?

If you think so, then we probably need someone more sophisticated than I am, right now, to convince
you otherwise. I tend to doubt that electing Bush will save most people money, in the long run (if
that's what determines your vote), but I don't know your personal circumstances.

I'm also getting tired of the "Karl Rove wants to run against Dean" remarks. Why of course he'd say that, and of course Republicans repeat it. Why wouldn't they? But as a criticism of Howard Dean (or any other candidate), it ranks right up there with "The boogy-man'll get you if you don't watch out."

well, he certainly wouldn't have a 52% approval rating.

Only 52%? Shouldn't a President who, according to his party has revitalized the economy, avenged the WTC deaths, freed the Iraqis, and kept us safe from further attacks, have a higher approval rating than that? I don't regard 52% as anything to brag about, really.

52%? Poppy Bush had an 89% approval rating in 1991. Baby Bush hit 90% immediately after 9/11, but he won92t see numbers like that again. Here are Bush92s numbers in detail, and presidential approval ratings from 1953-1996.

Excellent sources, Avram. To make it a bit more graphical, I suggest the Pollkatz charts including the chart of Bush 43 as compared to the six post-WWII presidents. As you can see, Bush 43 shows a very different pattern, one of massive positive shifts of popularity based on major events, followed by a steep, steady (almost linear) decline. As of this point, I would say that Bush is about where he was before 9/11, or even 1/20/2001. In fact, he may be a bit worse off. His approval numbers at this point in his term is in the low average ranger for presidents but seems to be heading south into the territory only seen over the past 50 years by Bush 41 and Jimmy Carter

Pulling my motheaten wizard's hat out of my backpack (I haven't done this for money in over a decade) I would say that outside of the economic numbers, Bush is in a moderate amount of electoral trouble, and knows it. The biggest advantage that Dean, or any other candidate has, is initiative -- you just gotta move fast, inside the decision loop of the Bush troops. While you always have to be able to strongly answer anything the Bushies say (Go watch The War Room) it's better if the Bush folks are having to answer questions about what you say and do, and never quite catch up. Make them stay on your message, which is just what Dean has done so far with the other Democratic candidates. Iraq looks like it will be absorbing a lot of attention on their part -- a good time to go in under the radar.

I don't think that Kerry or Gephardt can do that, at least based on their campaigns to this point. Clark may still be able to do it, especially if the field starts to narrow down quickly. I like some of his strengths as acandidate and I think he would give Bush fits.

Both Dean and Clark have one quality that I think will be important in a Democratic candidate this year: the ability to get pissed off in public wihout coming off as a fake or a whacko. A winning candidate will need to be able to tap into the anger that has been building in one portion of the electorate since Bush v. Gore while not alienating other voters. Most of the people that Dean and Clark seem to be able to really antagonize these days will be voting for Bush anyway, so . . .

Urr -- don't try to post while trying to answer calls at work . . .

His approval numbers at this point in his term are in the low average range . . .

Adamsj:
"a fair number of insider Democrats act like they'd rather lose than win, if winning means Dean getting elected."

From Kathryn Cramer:

"Adamsj, I think that's very astute."

That's my biggest fear - that a bunch of DLC guys (like McAuliffe) feel that a Dean victory in '04 would end their careers, but that a Dean loss in '04 would leave them in charge. Not in charge of much, but reign in hell and all that.

I personally think that they're factually wrong, that the Bush administration intends to make revolutionary changes, and is in a good position to do so. The GOP has a major monetary advantage, a cooperative corporate media, control of all three branches of government, the will/discipline to do so - plus 9/11. Note the extra redistrictings being done by the GOP in a couple of states - the GOP plays for keeps.

By 2008, after a Bush win in '04, things could be pretty bad for the Democratic Party. The GOP will undoubtedly attack Democratic funding sources - squeezing donors, attacking unions, setting up faith-based programs, which will be routed through right-wing churches as much as possible. Objective government science and analysis will be trashed (this is already in progress), replaced by partisan government analysis and industry propaganda.

Given this, the money edge and the public information advantage for the GOP could be radically increased. Multiple redistrictings (after 2000, after 2002, and after 2004) could lock in a nice House advantage.

All in all, not good.

Bob Herbert did a nice job of summing up in the NYT today:

No Will To Win?

"The Dems may indeed sink like the Titanic next year. But I don't think Dr. Dean is the problem 97 at least, not yet. The problem is the party itself. God and the Republicans have blessed the Democrats with the high ground on one important issue after another, from the war in Iraq to national economic policy to health care to education to the environment.

"But like the Union general George McClellan, the Democrats have been too timid to take full advantage. It's a party for the faint of heart. The Republicans are hijacking elections and redistricting the country and looting the Treasury and ignoring the Constitution and embittering our allies, while the Democrats are 97 let's see, fumbling their way through an incoherent primary season and freaking out over Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean."

At least Hillary has the right idea:

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/national.bg?articleid=200

Unlike some Democrats who worry about the liberal Dean's electability in a general election matchup, Clinton said Dean could defeat President Bush.

``Sure,'' she said. ``Absolutely. Any of our candidates can (beat Bush). Whoever emerges from this nominating process will be a competitive candidate. We can put together a winning combination to take back the White House and that's what I'm going to work on.''

James,

She does indeed have the right idea. Those who think she's angling for the nomination this summer are wrong, and it's things like this which show it. I'm gaining respect for Senator Clinton.

I'm very glad to see Sen. Clinton's comments. That's the right spirit.

I am very dismayed to see so many Democratic activists and boosters acting like, say, Libertarian candidates. It is not edifying to see people who've spent the whole of the current administration and previous election cycle telling us just how bad Bush was - some of them quite right long before the rest of us, which is to say, I, realized - now turning their back on the whole thing because they might end up with a candidate who's only 33% or 50% or 75% pure.

I see a fairly serious gap between rhetorical points here. I can understand feeling that Dean or Clark or Kucinich or whoever isn't the best person the Democratic Party could put forth. But if all that stuff about Bush's danger actually mattered, then surely even a far-from-best Democratic nominee is an improvement, and the campaign should be more in the spirit of "this is why X is the best choice" than "this is why Y is slime that should be hosed off the public shoe". It's possible to compete - and compete vigorously, at that - while retaining some overall perspective. In the end, someone wins the Democratic nomination, and if Bush is indeed the peril he's portrayed as, isn't it worth behaving in ways that make it likely that any nominee gets adequate support for the general election?

Agree completely. The behavior of some swaths of the Democratic leadership is completely outrageous. I'm going to keep ranting about this on my site too (and I like to trackback to the DNC blog when I do so... hee).

I remain an independent because of nonsense like this. What is wrong with this party???

Unless there is a 9/11 type earth-shattering event that breaks against George W. Bush, I don't see how it can be considered that any of the democratic candidates can win the presidential election.

At this point in the game it appears that only two viable candidates remain, Howard Dean, and Dick Gephardt.

As an official resident of "Fly-over" country, I can testify that many of the anti-GWB attitudes displayed on this board are NOT common in the so-called Red States.

Some of you have expressed that the voting public won't stand for the "degradation of civilization, additional human misery, and loss of intelligent government in the United States".

I hate to break it to you, but according to reports in the major media that I have read, that attitude is forefront in less than 20 percent of democratic party voters, which corresponds to less than 10 percent of all registered voters.

Face it, a huge swath of voters across the country don't have the same problems with GWB that you or I may have. At least half of them think he's doing a pretty good job, which far outweighs the GWB-haters. Campaigning on Bush-hatred is NOT going to win the general election, and right now none of the democratic candidates are offering anything close to substantial reasons to vote for them instead of GWB.

If Gephardt wins the nomination, I think he'd run a campaign very similar to Bob Dole's 1996 presidential run, including similar results.

If Howard Dean is nominated, IMO he will have to run a 'perfect' campaign to have a chance to beat GWB. I also think this is highly unlikely because of the very nature of Howard Dean.

Of any American politician alive today, I would most like to have a dinner or lunch conversation with Howard Dean. While I don't agree with his political stands to a large degree, I know that he speaks his mind and it would be a hugely entertaining conversation.

This is the very reason I don't think that Howard Dean can run a 'perfect' campaign... his tendency to speak before he thinks will probably end up doing him in. He's already done it several times before the primaries start, but once the real election campaign begins, even a friendly media won't be able to protect him from "confederate flags & guns", and "GWB knew about the 9/11 attacks before they took place" kind of statements.

I think Gore's endorsement was entirely based on his desire to position himself at the head of the democratic party once Dean has lost the election. The battle for the 2008 presidential election has begun, and it looks like the democrats will be split into two groups: far-left lead by Gore along with Dean supporters and moveon.org types, and center-left lead by Hillary Clinton along with Terry MacAulliffe and the DLC.

In any event, it's going to be an interesting election... interesting as in the Chinese curse!

Cheers,
Trogdor the Burninator

P.S.: If you live in a highly politically polarized part of the US, do yourself a favor and seek out someone intelligent with diamentricly oppposed political views and talk to them about the issues. Residing in an insulated environment is the quickest way to lose touch with your environment.

I think Gore's endorsement was entirely based on his desire to position himself at the head of the democratic party once Dean has lost the election.

Sorry, but I think this kind of tin-foil-hat speculation about the nefarious motives of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton is every bit as destructive as the pot-shots and distortions.

What makes you think Al Gore would subject this country to four more years of Bush just to satisfy his own ambitions? I don't think you can ascribe that kind of craven malevolence to a man you've never met.

I remain an independent because of nonsense like this. What is wrong with this party???

The biggest thing that is wrong with the party is that people like you remain independent. When it comes right down to it, I can see arguments in favor of the violent over-throw of the government. I mostly don't approve, but I believe that it can be a reasonable, moral option in extreme states. However, violently overthrowing the Democratic Party seems silly, at best. If one isn't going to overthrow the party, and one doesn't think it's irrelevant,then working on making it work seems like a good idea. Choices are three: no party, no voice; third party, irrelevancy; and Democratic party, relevant but needs work.

I dunno. Apathy is pretty attractive to me, too. I don't do a lot. I'm not going to Dean Meet-Ups, for instance. I should really pursue being a precinct captain, but I won't, this year. I'm really not prepared.

Gods know, the Democratic party leaves me perfectly apoplectic on a regular basis. However, they 1) have a pretty good political organization to work with, well established and funded, and 2) they aren't as bad as the Republicans. So, I'm a Democrat, all registered right and tight, and I even very occasionally do volunteer work.

Campaigning on Bush-hatred is NOT going to win the general election, and right now none of the democratic candidates are offering anything close to substantial reasons to vote for them instead of GWB.

To me, this sounds like confusing anger with with campaigning on anger. I think it is _great_ that we've got a couple of candidates that have the balls to get up in public and say, "This is so screwed, and I am so pissed, and you should be, too." That's not campaigning on anger, that's campaigning while angry. Campaigning on anger is something Bush is good at. We'd be idiots to try to play that same game, Republicans are much better at it than we are. But we would also be idiots to continue to be calm and gentlemanly while we're getting very publicly screwed. It's time to be angry.

As for what most people believe, or don't believe, out here in the fly-over states, now is the time in which we work to make our positions clear, and try to change peoples' minds. Now is the time to keep clearly in mind that we won the _last_ time, by a goodly margin. It's true that Florida politics screwed us, but simple majority vote put Gore solidly ahead of Bush. That's a big, solid thing to build on. A majority of the voters voted for Gore. Of course there are Bush supporters, it's a free country. However, it's stupidly demoralizing to think about that as if the Democrats had no foothold, no influence, no chance.

I decided on Dean because he's doing a crackerjack job of building the Democratic Party. I'm not optimistic about anyone beating Bush (other than Bush himself, always a possibility).

The biggest thing that is wrong with the party is that people like you remain independent.

Apathy is the biggest problem in politics in general, including the DNC. And independence does not equal apathy any more than party affiliation equals political concern and action.

Hamletta, tin-foil hat aspersions aside, I don't think there's anything nefarious about it. To declare that Hillary Clinton is not maneuvering to approach the 2008 election from a position of strength is an indefensible statement. Frankly, if either Hillary or Al Gore thought that victory in 2004 presidential election were likely, they'd be running!

"What makes you think Al Gore would subject this country to four more years of Bush just to satisfy his own ambitions?"

What makes you think Al Gore has the ability to determine what this country is subjected to or not? Talk about the tin-foil capped pot calling the tin-foil capped kettle black.

Don't forget that the 2000 Presidential election was Al Gore's to win. Regardless of the outcome in Florida, Gore couldn't manage to win his own state for crying out loud! If he had simply beat GWB in Tennessee, Florida would have been irrelevant! GWB didn't so much win the 2000 presidential election, as Al Gore lost it. Gore has been out of the spotlight for a couple of years and he doesn't like it. Endorsing Dean was a win-win situation for him. Should Dean win the election, we could have Supreme Court Justice Gore. If Dean loses, Gore has positioned himself to step into the leadership of Dean's far-left, hate-Bush, anti-war, moveon.org faction of the democratic party. Far from attacking Gore on this, I think this is brilliant in a Sun Tzu/Machiavellian way.

Happy Holidays and Consumate V's to All,

Trogdor the Burninator

P.S. Every time you think about how much you hate George W. Bush, just remember that for every Bush hater, there are probably 4 or 5 other people who vote that don't hate him. In fact, 2 or 3 of them probably think he's pretty nifty.

In fact, 2 or 3 of them probably think he's pretty nifty.

Well, maybe. To quote a relatively recent (Dec. 3) poll sponsored by FOX News and conducted by Opinion Dynamics:

"If you could give President (George W.) Bush one of the following holiday gifts, which would it be?"

• Another four years in the White House - 43%
• Retirement to his ranch in Crawford, Texas - 47%
• Not sure - 10%

So nifty that they want him out of office.

Hi, Trogdor,

I noticed a typo in your post. You said:

Dean's far-left, hate-Bush, anti-war, moveon.org faction of the democratic party.

You typed "Dean" where you surely meant "Kuchinch".

Dean is not a "far-left" candidate by any means--he's somewhat to the right of many of his supporters--nor is his position against the Iraq war a generally "anti-war" position.

Keep in mind that more people voted for Gore than Bush in 2000--that's where Dean voters come from.

P.S. You also forgot to capitalize "Democratic Party".

Adamsj,

I hate to correct you but I will. I stand by my comment about Howard Dean. Any candidate who promises to break up private businesses, i.e. media companies, is at the very least a socialist, hence "far-left". FYI, my definition of "plain ol' left" would be FDR.

If I were referring to Dennis Kusinich, I'd be talking about the "looney-left" faction of the democratic party.

As for the vote total, the last time I checked, the USA still used the electoral college to determine presidential elections, so the popular vote count in the 2000 election is trivia. Unless Dean can appeal to enough voters in the "Red" states and beats GWB in the electoral college, he can have 10 million more popular votes than GWB and it won't matter to history. If you don't like the electoral college system, talk to your elected representatives and urge them to sponsor legislation to change it.

I always fail to capitalize the first letter of political parties, regardless of the name. For example, President George W. Bush is a member of the republican party.

Trogdor, self-appointed leader of the burninator party.

"When all the land is in ruin... and burnination has foresaken the countryside... only one guy will remain... my money's on TROGDOR!"

Any candidate who promises to break up private businesses, i.e. media companies....

And who, pray tell, would that be? Because it sure ain't Howard Dean.

for every Bush hater, there are probably 4 or 5 other people who vote that don't hate him. In fact, 2 or 3 of them probably think he's pretty nifty.

That doesn't make any sense. Bush got just under half of the popular vote in 2000 and his current approval rating is hovering around 50%; from where do you get this 5-to-1 idea? I think you're listening too closely to the Republican Spin Machine. (Either that, or you're part of it; I still think "Trogdor" is a very trollish name, and a number of commentators saw the "Bush hater" rhetoric coming some time ago.)

Got called away; on preview, Jon and adamsj beat me to it, and the more you talk about "looney-left" the more I like my troll theory.

Trogdor the Burninator: Any candidate who promises to break up private businesses, i.e. media companies, is at the very least a socialist, hence "far-left". FYI, my definition of "plain ol' left" would be FDR.

I get it. Teddy Roosevelt was a socialist, then, further to the left than "plain ol' left" Franklin Roosevelt.

Oh, okay--now I understand. By "far-left" you mean "liberal".

Glad we cleared that up.

I still think "Trogdor" is a very trollish name [...] the more you talk about "looney-left" the more I like my troll theory.

I like it a lot too. He's either a troll, or he disunderstands elementary logic in a way that can only achieved by those who (a) are making a deliberate effort not to understand it or (b) are so clinically stupid that they have to be regularly reminded to breathe.

To declare that Hillary Clinton is not maneuvering to approach the 2008 election from a position of strength is an indefensible statement.

And to declare that Trogdor the Burninator does not think the Moon is made of green cheese is an equally indefensible statement. Scalawag.

Trogdor, I would advise you that a surprising number of us here live in "flyover country". I, for example, live in San Joaquin Valley. We generally describe the Valley as Texas with palm trees -- and it votes like it. (I happen to have staffed or run political campaigns here.) I can testify that there is a growing number of pissed off ex-Bush voters.

As for Gov. Dean's statements on media corporations, if you look at them as linked by hamnletta, he is not even going so far as to suggest reversing the 1990's changes in media ownership rules -- a change that I for one would support. That dog won't hunt -- get another.

As far as that great level of support that Bush 43 supposedly has, I repeat my link to this chart. Bush has roughly, at best, the level of support he had coming in, perheps a bit less. (His negatives are significantly higher, by the way) If the current pattern of opinion change continues, the New Year will find him in territory only previously occupied by Carter and his father -- and we can both remember how well their re-election campaigns went. Currently his support is like the Platte River -- a mile wide and an inch deep.

Yeah, Bush can win. But even if he does, it won't be pretty, and it won't be a landslide.

The economy of the United States is weaker, and weakening; the Army of the United States is being damaged, and put at risk of being destroyed. Obvious public corruption is being undertaken in ways that fairly obviously fail to benefit average citizens. Mr. Bush has lied publically about substantive matters.

It baffles me that anyone could suggest he could beat three mops and an orange crate, come election day.

Graydon, they are probably working from the principle that nobody ever went broke from underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

From Trogdor the Burninator:

"To declare that Hillary Clinton is not maneuvering to approach the 2008 election from a position of strength is an indefensible statement. Frankly, if either Hillary or Al Gore thought that victory in 2004 presidential election were likely, they'd be running!"

To declare the Hillary Clinton *is* maneuvering to approach the 2008 election from a position of strength is an indefensible statement.

Actually, Bush's poll numbers look decent. Here's the latest from Gallup. He's right at the average for the last ten presidents at this point in his term.

A closer look at the December polls (same link as above) suggests that Bush may be more in the position of Clinton in 1995 or Reagan in 1983. Of course, it's a long, long way until next November. But I notice that people have been arguing polling data, so I thought it was worth bringing this up.

I'll reiterate my earlier position: if the economy continues to improve, Bush will be very hard to beat. Whether you think that's good news or bad news is another question, of course.

Quite so, Derek, and analysis by Gallup is generally the gold standard. But I suggest the current numbers only make sense in a wider frame. Consider this chart of all Gallup approval numbers for all presidents from Carter to now. The norm is that most presidents, including successful ones, do the worst during their first term, gaining back popularity as the election date for their second term approaches. I agree that Bush 43 is pretty much on the average line right now -- but where was he six, twelve, or eighteen months ago? I't not what your numbers are, it is where they are going and what you can do about it that matters. Polling patterns are not destiny, but I see a pattern for Bush 43 that looks closest to Bush 41's numbers. Like his father, his numbers are average right now, but it is because they have been falling steadily for some time.

>It baffles me that anyone could suggest he could >beat three mops and an orange crate, come election
>day.

I hope I can say more about this, without simply repeating myself.

My subjective impression is that there are powerful memes in operation around figures like Bush. The people I think of as "rational" see Bush as small-minded -- an individual with blunted affect who supports simplistic strategies that hurt the general welfare of the United States.

But, apparently, there are a number of people who see Bush as "strong" -- a totem who doesn't telegraph the complications, self-doubts, small personal preferences, biases, blemishes, etc. that they're able to detect in Bush's human challengers.

Some people (who I meet), appear to support Bush because he relieves them of the task of weighing alternatives; miring in their own agonized moral calculus over complex issues.

They perceive him as "calling the question." "Saddam must go," "Terrorists must be destroyed,"
"We Shall Prevail," "We must reward our friends." When poker-faced Bush issues a Draconian edict, that's that. He does it because these things are necessary to preserve our way of life. They identify with him. "Somebody has to do _something_." Here's an entity that makes decisions and seems to be unafraid of criticism.

When rational people present factual evidence of the contradictions in what Bush says and what he does, this doesn't necessarily cause a Bush supporter to switch loyalties. I'm encouraged by the increasing number of Republicans in public life who *are* withdrawing their support of the Bush administration as evidence of his incompetence and lack of integrity mounts.

But the more contact I have with "I'm for Bush patriots," the more I believe there's something else going on. Some people have demonstrably highly-developed analytical abilities when they're not deliberating on the moral calculus of political issues. But when it comes to judgments about "right" and "wrong" they appear to desperately want the emotional relief of supporting simple solutions.

This seductive pill worked for Reagan, too.

Are there enough electoral votes to be had, if we dismiss this demographic? I don't know. I think
there may be large numbers of decent, intelligent professional people out there who continue to blind themselves to the consequences of what Bush actually does. They see him as someone who Takes Action. They don't see what we see: that he mouths off, attacks professionals who recognize complexity and replaces them with individuals willing to take simplistic unilateral action for its own sake. ((Not to mention the fact that most of these simple actions also appear calculated to increase the revenue streams of the families, friends, and supporters of Bush's administration.))

The problem (for the Dems) that must not be discounted in '04 is the number of people who would rather feel personally virtuous about where their vote goes than join a coalition effort to vote for the Clearly Less Awful Candidate, (which I think it's safe to say will be Dean) as though their ideologically pure ceremonial votes vanish into the ether, leaving their casters miraculously shorn of any responsibility for the outcome of the election.

"Don't blame me... I wrote in Harlan Ellison."

"Don't blame me... I voted Monster Raving Loony Party."

"Don't blame me... I voted Scylla/Charybdis on the Eat Ulysses Ticket."

"Don't blame me... I voted for Nader."

It's undeniable that the thug branch of the GOP won the '00 election by chicanery, but the question is-- how many additional votes would have been required to provide a safety margin that would have made that chicanery irrelevant? I think the answer is "not too damn many."

But then, a lot of people cleverer than I have been all over this issue in this thread and others. The important question for '04 is, is anyone going to listen?

Ask the question: "Will voting for [X] get you closer to or further away from what you want?" With people who _don't_ believe that voting for Bush gets them closer, you may have a fighting chance to persuade them that voting for the Democratic candidate might.

Which of the candidates could whup Bush's butt in a fair fight?
Is it a fair fight now? When did that happen?
The change I mean.
Last time I looked he got to the White House on the back of a snake. Did the snake die?
Is it realistic to think whatever machine Dick Cheney sits in the cockpit of is just going to step back and 'let the best man win'?
Is it simply about winning the 2004 election?
Or are we discussing a corrupt plutocratic oligarchy, ready and willing to do whatever it takes to maintain its power base, including subvert the most successful experiment in democracy the world's ever seen? Not to mention callously increasing the death, suffering, and chronic misery of multitudes of the undeserving.
I don't want to sound overly pessimistic, but there seems to be a Pollyanna-ish expectation that that whole Florida thing was an aberration, and that Cheney and W and all them will just head on back to their respective haciendas and ranchos, once the good guys re-win the presidency fair and square.
Maybe so.
It'd sure be nice, I'll say that.

Barry -

Well, probably, but that's not really stupidity, that's attention span.

Keep hammering on jobs numbers, casualty numbers, Osama bin Laden's freedom, the increasing strength and capability of various terrorist networks, the total abscence of WMD's from Iraq, the continued freedom and freedom of activity of Saddam Hussein, and you'll get somewhere.

Print out the weekly casualty figures from the Pentagon and put it up at your church, every week, in whatever 'please pray for these people' space may already exist. That'd be a start.

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: In order to position itself as a spoiler in some political race several years down the road. Damn devious chickens! When will they let ordinary, decent citizens live their lives free of all these hideous machinations? Why do they hate America?

(Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos.)

A group of "Democrats" are now using bin Laden in attack ads against Dean.

View here.

Trogdor's posts would benefit from less reliance on phrases like "I hate to break it to you," "face it," and "I hate to correct you but I will." A reliable rule of thumb is that people who say "I hate to break it to you" are almost never telling the truth. They don't hate to break it to you; quite the contrary, they're convinced they're right and they're enjoying the process of conveying that fact. Think back to the last time you yourself used that phrase. Were you in fact hating to break it to someone? Possibly, but the odds are against it.

"Face it" is a similarly reliable marker for BS. "No one in this conversation dares speak the truth but me!" it says. "Arise from your slothly failure to confront the truth!" Yes, you're very brave, we're all impressed.

I have nothing against Trogdor's argument that Bush has a broad base of support that will be tough to beat. (Although as Alan Bostick has pointed out, Trogdor's definition of "ultra-left" shows a daunting ignorance of history.) But I find myself weary of people who write like this. If you want to convince me of something, put the hectoring and self-congratulation on hold. I don't "hate to break this to you" at all.

Patrick,

I agree with you that "Trogdor's argument that Bush has a broad base of support that will be tough to beat" is a pretty good point--his strongest, really. When the reserves and National Guardsmen start coming home on rotation next year, though, I wonder whether what they--particularly the officers--are going to be saying to their friends and neighbors.

Might not be all that solid a base of support after all--self-inflicted wounds, you know.

Registered Democrat: We don't get mad, we get bumperstickers.

Patrick,

In essence you're correct about Trogdor's use of catch phrases, but my read is that Trogdor was probably just trying to be a smart ass, not be trollish. You're even more correct about his point about bush's base.

Your response to Trogdor was much more in line with reasonable conversation than the others attacking him for being a troll. Trodgor brings up issues that merit though, and disagreeing and countering with Trogdor on those issues is one thing, base attacks are another.

I don't have a single close friend who likes bush, and it is very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the majority of people agree with my POV. But, there are a bunch of people who support the guy, so there it is....

Finally, I don't feel it's fair to blatantly dismiss someone because they use catch phrases. Not everyone who reads Electrolite is a writer or editor, and sufficient amounts of slack should be given if you care to have a diverse discussion.

Ted,

I read Patrick as saying more or less saying what you are. A little more sarcastically, but then Patrick...is good at that.

I also think that while it's unfair to dismiss someone for using catchphrases, a) Patrick wasn't doing that, and b) it's also perfectly legit to point out to them that their use of catchphrases weakens their argument and annoys the people they're trying to convince.

Ted, it's not the "face it" tone of Trogdor's posts that leads me to call him a troll, it's the cut-and-pasting from the Republican Astroturf Handbook.

And independence does not equal apathy any more than party affiliation equals political concern and action.

Exactly.

"People like me" are the problem with the Democratic party because the Democratic party hasn't given me a reason to become more involved? Come on.

I vote, I live in an open primary state (so no disenfranchisement there), and my money's just as green as any "true Democrat's." This time, all of my money's going to Howard Dean. I'm going to max out twice. I volunteer, I write letters, attend MeetUps, make phone calls, wear the t-shirt, the works. But the party makes it clear over and over in numerous ways that it really doesn't want anything from me (except for cash that it seems to fritter away by rolling over for radical right wing wackos on the Hill).

Not good enough. Don't blame the party's failings on we independents. This election is the Democratic party's latest (and possibly last) chance; we'll see whether it can snap out of its spinelessness and lead or implode into intraparty disarray, taking the country down with it.

J from VJ,

The most inspiring thing I've seen about the Dean campaign--in fact, the particular thing that swung me to supporting it--was that at every one of the meet-ups I've attended, how to join and help build the Democratic Party was addressed. You, J from VJ, are the Democratic Party, if you want to be badly enough and are willing to pay the dues of all varieties.

Check out this article by Michael Tomasky or the article Patrick linked from the Washington Post.

(Geez--this having kids thing really does reduce your cynicism, doesn't it?)

J from VJ, your description of yourself isn't anything I would call "being an independent." Having an independent mind, not just blindly following party doctrine, isn't what I meant. I was thinking of the people who decide that they are unwilling to be a member of Party X, and so register as Independent, or no preference, or whatever is the equivalent in their state.

In the case of registering as independent, the problem isn't apathy. As you point out, it's quite possible to be a party member and apathetic. Rather, the problem is cynicism, or perfectionism, or both. In the first case, the person has decided that they con't do anything that will help, for whatever reason. The party's too corrupt, the system doesn't work, etc. The problem is, even if they're right, holding themselves above the fray doesn't actually make things any better. In fact, it helps preserve the status quo. The second, perfectionism, is an attitude which I think misses the entire point of politics. It leaves no room for deal-making and compromises. In a pluralistic society, there have to be deals and compromises and patchwork fixes. Monolithic answers will not do, they don't have enough breadth. Someone who chooses the pure over the practical may feel better, but they are not making a choice for the common good.

I firmly believe that anyone should be allowed to complain about anything at any time. Bitching is an inalienable right. But if you ask me, What's the matter with the Democratic Party? I'm going to tell you, Not enough good people are putting in the work. I am not excepting myself. The thing I find so heartening and impressive about Dean is that he is getting people involved. He may provide the Democrats a shot in the arm like nothing they've felt in 30 or 40 years.

Not everyone who reads Electrolite is a writer or editor, and sufficient amounts of slack should be given if you care to have a diverse discussion.

I admire yout sentiment, Ted, and I share it-- to a degree. But there is a difference between cutting slack to the rhetorically ungifted/inexperienced and cutting slack to a smirking belligerent. "Having a diverse discussion" should by no means require us all to roll over and diplomatically eat smarm from a guy who calls himself "Trogdor the Burninator."

I was thinking of the people who decide that they are unwilling to be a member of Party X, and so register as Independent, or no preference, or whatever is the equivalent in their state.

This does not exclude the attitude J from VJ described. Quite frankly, to insist that the Democratic Party can't fix itself without the affiliation of folks who don't believe in/can't tolerate the majority of its figures implies that the problems in the DNC are a lot worse than anyone expected. Registering as an Independent is, as far as I'm concerned, the mark of someone who does not wish to be officially linked with either party. In fact, those who actually take the time to register as an Independent (rather than leaving the section blank, which I believe is an option, too), might be more inclined to have J from VJ's attitude of find the best candidate and support him or her as much as possible, regardless of party. If that is going to tank the DNC, then maybe we shouldn't have a party-system.

Rather, the problem is cynicism, or perfectionism, or both.

And again, this isn't just a problem with Independents. Perhaps these attitudes are most often found in Independents. I really wouldn't know, as I'm just emerging from perfectionism into cynicism with moments of realism - when it comes to politics at least. I'm very happy being Independent because it gives me a sense of political removal that my perfectionism required and my sense of justice and choice still needs. Political action seems to be a process of evolution. Not everyone is fortunate enough to accept the reality of politics at an early age. To imply that the problems of the DNC, and perhaps politics in general, are due to people who need more time to sort things out seems like passing the buck. The problems with the DNC can only be put on the people in control of it - its leading figures, the movers and shakers. If they can get their acts together, then it won't matter what everyone's personal poltical realization timeline is. And it honestly shouldn't matter.

I suddenly have this vision of Bush donning an appropriately dark, gloomy, sinister, hooded cloak and descending to the tenth sub-basement of the White House - where the dungeon is, as everyone knows. Swinging a set of keys, he strides to the darkest, smelliest, dankest cell of the dungeon. He drags a key across the bars. "Osaaaama." He squats down to the prisoner's level. "Don't worry. Just a few more dips in my approval rating, and you'll be released. In the middle of an armored tank division." He cackles in that chimp-ish manner. The occupant of the next stall, confused, joins in. Bush glares and kicks the bars of Saddam's cell. "Shut up. I'm saving you for Columbus Day!"

Hmmm. It seems I had the two switched. Guess we should look toward OBL's appearance closer to the eleciton.

Kellie -- Interesting comments. I would quibble with a couple of things, though.

First, while cynicism and/or perfectionism might be "a problem with" some Independents, I don't think it holds up for all. Second, I don't agree that people are non-affiliated/Independent because they "need more time to sort things out." (Not sure if that's what you were implying, but it read that way...) I think I've got things pretty well sorted and currently don't feel comfortable aligning myself with either major political party.

That doesn't make me politically "inactive," or apathetic, though.

I emphatically disagree with the implication by some earlier that the Democratic party's problems are my fault and the fault of other Independents... I've got a post brewing about some of the issues raised in this thread.. hopefully I'll get around to writing it.

In the meantime, some of you might be interested in the Dean Independents site for more perspective from people who choose not to affiliate with a political party. (I'm not an author of that site, but I comment there occasionally.)

J from VJ, quibble away, as I was not completely clear.

My point about "sorting things out" was more in response to the problem of perfectionism and cynicism when it comes to politics - something common to all ideologies and party affiliation, not just Independents (as Lydia implied). Perfectionism and cynicism are the first steps in stepping away from apathy. Independents, as I mentioned, don't want to affiliate themselves with a party. Whether that desire is borne out of a need to sort things out or not is something individual and hardly applicable to the group as a whole. I also didn't mean to imply that one couldn't remain Independent once things were sorted out, if that was why one became Independent in the first place.

In short, I'm with you 100%, J.

Atrios would have a lot more credibility if he spoke up when Dean began his dishonest mean-spirited negative campaign against the other Democrats. Instead, he placed himself above the fray, declaring himself neutral.

rachelrachel: Could you be a little bit more specific, please, about this alleged "mean-spirited negative campaign against the other Democrats"?

Dean has campaigned against the war, and he doesn't feel that candidates who supported the war can credibly run against it.

I haven't settled on anyone yet (although a few have eliminated themselves) - still, I think the situation begs the question: can someone run against Bush on a platform of "for the same stuff, but not quite as much"?

I don't think it's unfair to ask the candidates who supported the war to address that issue, and I think it would be damn foolish to wait until after the convention to hear the answer.

Too many Democrats are already preparing for failure. Insulting the electorate as stupid, insinuations of vote theft to come, and constant Bush=Hitler comparisons are going to ensure defeat by scaring the centrists.

Dean has a blog, he should be reacting to this stuff now, not waiting for the primaries. He should be telling his supporters to chill on the over the top stuff, and distance themselves from those that won't, Otherwise he'll be painted with the worst stuff when he goes up against the incumbant.

He'll be painted with the worst stuff anyway, and with any lie they can make up and get to stick.