The Dean front runner myth

Dean is only marginally the front runner because of his superior fundraising and organization. The polls are starting to tell a different story. Dean has a 4 point lead in the national poll and a slim lead in many states. He's hardly a front runner, and at this point, should the field narrow, he can't stand up against a single other candidate who can raise money.

Dean's best hope of winning the nomination is that most of the candidates in the field stay in the race for a while. Even that scenario isn't particularly rosy for Dean.

Imagine if Gephardt won in Iowa. Not only would he stay in the race, but he'd pick up some delegates. So would Kerry, Dean, and Edwards. In New Hampshire, Kerry, Clark, and Dean all stand to pick up substantial delegates. In South Carolina, even Al Sharpton stands to receive a few delegates. Each candidate keeps these delegates and can potentially decide to release them to one camp or another - I know it sounds sketchy, but if this thing drags on for a while, it might come down to that.

So Dean's problem is that if the field narrows to 2, he probably can't stand up against that one candidate.
If the field stays crowded, he has a better chance, but he'll have to hope that the various "anti-Dean" candidates don't form coalition - or even tickets - and surpass his delegate lead.

It's all very fascinating.

Ah ha!!!

Why is Kerry surging in Iowa? Could it be this:



Like I've been saying all along - most Democrats DON'T LIKE MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS!!!

Woah...

The main news today is the Kerry/Dean/Gephardt tie in Iowa (with Edwards shortly behind).

But potentially even more surprising is Clark's near tie with Dean in New Hampshire.

Both Clark AND Kerry seem to be draining support away from Dean. This is interesting. Conventional wisdom is that Clark and Kerry share the same potential supporters in New Hampshire. This will be interesting to watch unfold.

Of course, if Kerry finishes strong in Iowa, then he'll have a revitalized campaign and many people will take a second look at him in New Hampshire. The question is, will he peel support away from Clark, Dean, or both (and how much)?

If the answer is Dean, then a Kerry resurgence in New Hampshire could actually HELP Clark rather than hurt him.

If the answer is Clark, then Clark is in trouble.

Either way, it is now entirely conceivable that Howard Dean could lose both New Hampshire and Iowa.

Optimistic Democrats

Daily Kos seems to know a great deal about the dynamics of Senate races, but I think he's a bit too optimistic. Here's an example where he gives a Democrat a 50/50 chance of winning in Georgia of all places.

This of course goes against my doomsday prediction. With Dean on the ticket, Democrats can kiss the slim margin in the Senate good bye.

Why are many Democrats so over confident? How can they see sunny days ahead when nearly every demographic trend points to a future of Republican majorities? Here's why: They're out of touch (I'm out of touch as well, with the only difference being that I know I'm out of touch). Most of the country DOES NOT hate Bush. They rather like the guy. A slim majority of the country might disagree with his policies - but do swing voters vote based on policies or personality? Personality 9 times out of 10. Kisses and sighs control swing voters, not policy positions. That's why when a somewhat arrogant Northeastern secular governor goes to "culturally conservative" states like Missouri he's going to get clocked.

Diary of a Deanophobe

Read today's post, it's a good one.

Here's the best point:

Perhaps the most alarming detail in the story is a memo from Trippi to Dean last June obtained by Simon. "Think about the fear and anger you have engendered from the DLC, the other candidates, and many in the Washington establishment," he writes. "They are not afraid you are George McGovern or Jerry Brown. No, what they are afraid of is that you are Jimmy Carter." In other words, Dean's Democratic critics fear not that he'd lose but that he'd win, and they'd lose their power. I've seen this view expressed often on Dean's blog, but I didn't think that powerful people in the Dean campaign actually believed it. Because, simply put, it's insane. Even moderate Democrats are desperate to defeat Bush. Whatever "power" the DLC has right now--the power to write memos and policy proposals--it would still have under a Dean presidency.

What's most telling, and frightening, about this last point is its paranoid ideological style. A characteristic trait of the far left--which can be seen most clearly in Ralph Nader--is a steadfast refusal to concede that anybody can ever disagree in good faith. One's own views are so obviously true that those who don't accept them must be corrupt. Trippi won't concede that other Democrats even believe that Dean would lose to Bush--they must be motivated by something darker. I think Trippi and Dean are honest in their belief that they could defeat Bush. I just think they're off their rockers.

Supposed Clark misstatements

Slate has this roundup of recent Wesley Clark misstatements...I don't find even one of them remotely objectionable...check them out for yourself.

New Hampshire trip

As I mentioned a month ago, I'm going to New Hampshire to work for Clark. I just found out that most of the people who chartered the bus are working for Dean...

I told a friend of mine who's reluctantly working for Dean that he should go from door to door and pull his pants down, then hand out a card that said, "This message was paid for by Howard Dean."

Democracy in action, as I like to say.

Defense of Dean

Salon's at it again, defending Dean with the same conspiratorial arguments. Apparently the media's out to get him, and they're adopting Republican talking points.

The problem with that theory is contained in this blog (and hundreds of other blogs) written by liberals who hate Bush but can't stand the thought of Dean getting the nomination.

The most dubious claim in the Salon article is that Dean's popularity stems from his actual policy proposals (and that the media isn't paying attention to that - just caricatures of his personality). I disagree. It's his personality that has inspired a cult-like following - not his policy proposals. I've always said that the more people learn of Dean's policy proposals, the less they'll like him.

Ultra-liberal Democrats (his core supporters) are now learning that Dean's opposition to the war (although central to his campaign) was simply strategic and calculated.

The media has recently started reporting on Dean's plan to raise taxes on the middle class (as if he JUST came up with this plan). And the more people learn, the more the gravitate away from Dean. He peaked early, when nothing was known about him (except that he used the internet and criticized Bush when others were more tepid in their criticism). I don't see his support increasing. His contributor base has remained steady at around half a million different people since June.

Usage

Well, I'm not up to about 1000 visits per month. That's not bad...I'm sure it's the same 10 people, but it's still not bad...

Great news for Clark

Clark made some gaffes over the last two days, but that will be overshadowed by his surge in New Hampshire. Survey USA has him at only 9 points back from Dean - making up 21 points since the last poll in December.

And more...

I've had another way that the gay marriage debate can be construed pointed out to me. As we all know, to many churchs, marriage between a man and a woman is a closely defined sacriment. So many non-bigoted people oppose gay marriage. I can accept that.

But I think these people could be perhaps persuaded with a libertarian argument (the same one that worked so well for abortion-rights supporters). You can be against gay marriage (because marriage is well-defined in your church tradition) but not support a ban on gay marriage (because a church tradition should not dictate what a state decides). That seems like a reasonable position.
In my previous posts, I should have inserted "supported a constitutional marriage amendment" where I put, "opposed gay marriage".

If there is one truly principled, tolerant position against gay marriage, then it is this:
Someone who believes that 1. marriage (as defined by their church) is a complicated and holy sacriment that should not be altered, and 2. the wall between church and state does not prevent the government from reflecting this definition within it's laws.

I think number 1 is fine, but I couldn't disagree more with number 2.

Why am I paying so much attention to this issue? Well it's going to be HUGE in the 2004 elections (both congressional and Presidential).

Gay marriage foes

I did some research and looked into some anti-gay marriage websites. Here are my findings (some are radical, some are more mainstream). I read a book on homophobia and it's various forms. It's similar to antisemitism...you have alot of grandiose crackpot theories about the downfall of society.

NoGayMarriage.Com
This one stays away from spewing hate (mostly as a political strategy), but it slips by comparing homosexuality to polygomy
Here are some quotes from it:

Homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

There's an amusing FAQ section that basically answers every question with a variance of "Marriage is between a man and a woman." It always goes back to that. It's a semantics debate to these people...

Weekly Standard article
This article says that making gay marriage legal would open up the slippery slope to polygomy. Sound alarmist? Not according to this author:

Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists.

I'll stop here. This guy is clearly nuts.

I found all sorts of other trash on the internet, including this.

More on Clark's statement

As troubled as I am about Clark's recent statement that, in effect, he would protect America 100% from terrorist attacks...it's somewhat refreshing. It reflects a "the buck stops here" mentality that this Administration hasn't exhibited.

Remember after 9-11, when pundits declared, "This is the greatest failure of intelligence in the history of this country." Differently stated, 9-11 was the greatest failure of the US government to protect it's citizenry in the history of this country. If, after 9-11, Bush had said, "I have failed to protect you," or even, "My predecessors and I have failed to protect you from the looming terrorist threat," that would have been refreshing. That would have been leadership.

Saffire's spinning column

William Saffire turned in this spin column today...realists: please don't read this column!

I'm going to take on his points one by one.

1. The reality about Libya? Their pathetic WMD program rivaled the Vatican City's...In my view, Qaddafi was merely exploiting the US political situation for his own economic gain. It makes me want to offer WMD inspections of my apartment in return for college tuition aid.

2. Afghanistan??? Wow...the tenth of the country that is not under warlord or former Taliban rule took some time and crafted the beginnings of a constitution.

3. Syria - there is no proof that Syria is hiding Saddam's weapons, although hinting at it might allow Saffire to convince the Republican half of the country that they're there (just like hinting at the Iraq-Al Qaida connection allowed the Bush administration to convince the country it existed). Syria entering the negotiation mix could be good news, but it has more to do with al-Assad's attempt to make Syria into a modern state than the US troops in Iraq.

4. Iran - I actually agree that the presence of US troops has pressured Iran into negotiating about their WMD program. However, I still predict Iran will have nukes by at least the end 2005.

5. We've already seen that the war in Iraq did not advance the "road map to peace".

6. In Iraq we're probably going to disenfranchise the Kurds again - over 50% of the country is still unemployed. What's holding it together? US troops - martial law. What happens when we leave? Chaos. Plus, what's with this comparison of Baghdad with a US ghetto (LA or NYC)? I honestly doubt William Saffire ventures into the seedier neighborhoods of the Bronx...

7. Korea will also have Nukes before 2005 (if they already don't have them). Say what you will about the ethics of Clinton's carrot and stick bribery policy - at least it worked.

Principle vs reality

I'm for free trade and looser immigration laws on principle. Free trade helps the poor in other countries in the short term and America in the long term by providing a healthy consumer base abroad. Allowing immigration also helps ease other countries' poverty.

We all need to admit to the reality here though - free trade while providing prosperity to our companies, WILL CERTAINLY send millions of manufacturing jobs overseas.

And the reality of immigration is that if we let everyone into the US, it would be flooded with immigrants and unemployment would skyrocket...

In reality, our country's prosperity has been built upon these two tenets (among other things) 1. closing off immigration to keep unemployment low and 2. protectionist policies...

Something to think about...

I think that certainly free trade makes our companies more prosperous by allowing them to tap into a cheaper workforce abroad (and therefore cut costs) - but is the tradeoff worth it? Our economy is driven by consumption, and if we eliminate low paying jobs in the US, will displaced workers find new high-skill jobs, or will they remain unemployed? Do those high-skill jobs even exist? Along with manufacturing jobs, we've been shipping IT jobs and customer service jobs to India lately...

Another interesting Clark statement

Many on the left (and I'm one of them) have long argued that it's indefensible to scare the public the way this Administration has. Sure, when Tom Ridge comes on television and says, "the threat is high, the boogie man's coming to get you, you're all going to die", I don't really pay any attention...but many people do - mostly the elderly (including my great-grandmother who takes this type of stuff seriously). We have to admit to ourselves that another terrorist attack is likely, but I think we can over do it...

Then there is the other end of the spectrum, for example, Wesley Clark's recent statements. It's a good contrast, but it goes a bit too far. The Administration's tendency to scaremonger is worth criticizing, but one shouldn't go to the other extreme and say, "There is a 100% chance that you will be protected in my Administration". Not only is that inaccurate, it sets you up for a political fall if something should happen.

Take the Bush Administration, for example. If another attack occurs, they'll once again be more popular than Jesus as the country rallies around it's leaders.

But if someone attacked during a Clark Administration, many would point to him and say, "I thought you told us you were safe!"

I guess it's Clark's background in the United States military that makes him believe things with such certainty. But it makes you wonder if his time in Vietnam taught him much...

I'm sure he'll moderate from this extreme soon. This makes 2 unappealing Clark statements that I've found in one day. Most likely there will be more. No candidate is perfect.

Gay marriage

The reason why I think opposition to gay marriage is rooted in hate (or at least discomfort) towards gays is because I don't see any other possible reason. Granted, some politicians support a gay marriage ban just because it's popular with their constituents, despite who it might offend - even if it's their own daughter (see two posts below).

What is "the sanctity of marriage"? I've heard it described as, "the idea that a man and a woman can only marry." Ok...right...that's just a statement...it explains nothing. Why is that idea worth defending? I still don't get it.

Then you have the "if gays can marry, then can't anyone? Couldn't people just go marry their same-sex roommate to get tax incentives?" argument...Well, actually, pretty much anyone CAN MARRY NOW (anyone of opposite sex that is). But how often do you hear about opposite sex roommates tying the knot in order to save a couple hundred dollars a year on their taxes? Besides Bill and Hillary Clinton (that had to be the reason), I can't think of another case.

So...what am I left to point at? What do public opinion polls and my own personal experience show is highly prevalent in our society? Intolerance towards gays, especially amongst older males in the South and the Midwest. Until someone points to another logical reason to be against civil unions, then I'll be forced (reluctantly, absent of other options) to assume that many in our country are intolerant.

Clark goof-up

Clark had this to say about Abortion:

McQuaid: Let's take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?

Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion—

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: At all?

Clark: It's between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.

McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?

Clark: Nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?

Clark: Nope, nope.

McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?

Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don't put the law in there. ...


Geez, that's alot of nopes.

While I agree with the spirit of what he's saying - hopefully he didn't mean to go that far. His campaign released one of those "our guy screwed up, here's a clarification".

Cheney solidifies GOP's bigoted 2004 elections appeals

Dick Cheney now says he will support President Bush's proposal to enact a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriages. Why is this important?

Well, the Democrats' strategy for 2004 was to respond to attacks on gay marriage by saying, "My position is similar with Vice President Cheney's" (Cheney previously supported states' efforts to make civil unions legal. His daughter is a lesbian). This damages that defense and leaves it clear as to which party supports gay marriage (or civil unions...WHATEVER...) and which party is against them.

Let me make myself clear - gay marriage opposition is bigotry masked as a "principled stand" for states' rights or the sanctity of marriage (whatever that is).

Good for Howard Dean

If you didn't know why many liberals are supporting Howard Dean (despite his lack of electability), here is some evidence. A Bush supporter in Iowa lectured Dean for what he called, "mean-spiritedness" and Dean calmly responded that it was within his patriotic right to criticize the Bush Administration.

This reminds me of a time back about a year and a half or so when CNN or FoxNews would have an on the air debate. The debate was over whether it is unpatriotic to criticize the President. They actually gave equal time (and on screen graphics) to those who argued that it was inpermisable to criticize the President. That's what these Republicans want...

During this year's election, the Republicans' central motif will be this:

"The Democrats are too angry. They are hateful. Stop criticizing the President, and step in line, you America-hating hippies."

To this, I say: Remember the insanity of impeachment? (and other crazy accusations that Republicans have thrown at Clinton, including:

1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Rejecting Sudan's offer of Osama bin Laden
and others...

Some of these Republicans need to get on the internet and take a look at their own websites if they really want to see some hate.

Good analysis

From DailyKos.com:

The Jobless Occupation
by DHinMI
Sun Jan 11th, 2004 at 18:00:48 GMT

We already knew the Bush administration didn't seem particularly fond of gunboat diplomacy, but they're apparently not much more fond of gunboat economic development:

Tensions in Amarah, 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, erupted Saturday after hundreds of Iraqis gathered to protest that authorities had not kept a promise to give them jobs.
They stoned the town hall, shattering windows. Shots rang out, makeshift bombs were thrown and the British and Iraqi police opened fire. Hospital officials said six people were killed. The British put the death toll at five -- with no casualties among soldiers or police.

Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Saddam's security forces were the biggest employer in the city of 400,000. On Sunday, demonstrators sent a representative to talk to British and Iraqi officials, who promised them 8,000 jobs, according to witnesses. But protesters said a similar promise made weeks before had not been fulfilled and the clash ensued. No Iraqi police were visible at the scene Sunday.

Reading this makes me think of Hoover's response to the stock market crash in 1929. As awful as the crash was for the economy, it was Hoover's obstinate refusal to do anything that might have limited the economic bleeding that helped accelerate the collapse into the depression. Like the U.S. in 1929, in Iraq you have a catastrophic shock to the economic system (the war and the collapse of the Saddam's Baathist regime) followed by a deliberate policy of governmental non-intervention in the economy.

The military had used cash seized from Baathist offices to employ local workers and distribute to religious and charitable organizations, but that cash dried up in the Fall and hasn't been replaced. (The end of cash payments to local residents coincides, of course, with the escalation of attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.) But now that our military is no longer greasing palms with seized cash and it's time to actually spend money to resuscitate the Iraqi economy, we're left the job to the Free Marketeers who've decided to break unions, implement a flat tax, and let the invisible hand continue to be invisible throughout Iraq.


The most important part about that post is the part about the attacks increasing. Look for them to increase over the next few months (as Iraqis remain unemployed and hope begins to wane).

Harris running in Florida?

That's right. I thought Mel Martinez would run (and of course easily win), but it looks like Harris might get the nomination as a late thank you present from the Bush Administration. That means the Democrats might have a chance after all in Florida (both the Senate race and the Presidential race).

More on sweaters

So...it's fine that Clark's sweater wearing got a day's press...and people rightly commented that it was silly for him to shift his clothing...I guess...

But - I'm already dreading this kind of reporting...it dominated the last election, and it had better not dominate this one. Gossip columnists marading as political columnists like Maureen Dowd need to stick to the real issues (she occasionally covers them - when she's not drooling over Arnold or other celebrities)

In 2000, the biggest poll shifts were caused by a kiss and a sigh...what does that say about this our democracy?