With John Edwards set to drop out of the race tomorrow, it seems all-but assured that it will be Kerry vs. Bush on the general election ballot in November, and today I am breathing a huge sigh of relief that the Democrats did go ahead and nominate the serious candidate whom I considered most beatable.
O.k., o.k., with 20/20 hindsight Dean would probably have proven a general election disaster for the Democrats. Nevertheless, several months ago Dean seemed like the rare candidate who could pull off the political jujitsu of completely energizing the Party's base in the primary season, and then becoming a formidable general election opponent on the strength of his accomplishments and occasional signs of moderation as Governor of Vermont. Alas, in the weeks before the Iowa caucuses it became clear that Dean was not savvy enough to pull this off and the Democrats wisely dumped him. So, that left us with Kerry or Edwards. Despite Kerry's overwhelming victories in the polls, I think that there is ample evidence that Democrats know in their hearts that Edwards was the better candidate. According to the exit polls, about the only reason that Democrats could come up with to vote for Kerry in the primaries was that they considered him "more electable." Whom did they agree with more on the issues? Edwards. Who was the better campaigner? Edwards. Whom excited them more? Edwards. So, how did Kerry garner this mantle of "electability"? Well, I think this article from Slate.com nails it spot on: http://slate.msn.com/id/2095993 In addition, what we essentially saw happen is that in the week *before* the Iowa Caucuses, as the Dean campaign started imploding, Iowa caucus-goers tended to very narrowly end up pulling for Kerry than Edwards. The next week, New Hampshire voters living in the Boston media market came out in force for Kerry, and those NH voters living along the Vermont border came out heavily for Dean. Suddenly, Kerry had opened the race with two wins.... a very narrow one in a State where he had several times the money and organization of Edwards, and another in the suburbs of his home State. In the minds of the American people, this somehow translated into big-time "momentum." By the time South Carolina came around, a State that Edwards won despite Kerry getting the most-coveted endorsement in that State, Edwards' lone victory was lost amid Kerry's wins - largely based on perceived "momentum" in other States on that same date. Also deadly for Edwards was the fact that he lost the vote in Oklahoma by the tiniest margins to General Wesley Clark from nearby Arkansas. A second win for Edwards on February 3rd would have been a huge boost for Edwards' media "momentum" and certainly could have helped Edwards pull off a win in Tennessee or Virginia or both the next week. Alternatively, if South Carolina voted after the Iowa caucuses, and not New Hampshire, it seems highly unlikely that we would be talking about Kerry wrapping up the race today. Such are the vagaries of history. So anyhow, I can't help but think that maybe Pat Robertson is right about Bush. At the very least, Bush is unusually lucky. All of the usual indicators of Presidential Election Outcomes - the lack of a primary fight for the incumbent, a strong economy, and two wartime victories point to a huge win for Bush. Up against such stacked indicators, I've always felt that the Democrats' best hope was to rewrite the playbook - perhaps by nominating an exciting, outsider Governor or by nominating a young, fresh-faced, rare political talent who could break the Republican Solid South by bringing in his home State of North Carolina. Instead, the Democrats went with the safest, most typical Presidential candidate available...... a long-serving Senator from one of their safest States with a personally-compelling war-record, and who was first mooted as a Presidential Candidate several decades ago. Can you say Bob Dole? It really is amazing to me how fortunate George W. Bush is. I mean, the Democrats have just nominated the Lieutenant Governor of Michael Dukakis! In fact, they've nominated a Senator who was rated by the National Journal as the single-most liberal Senator in 2003 - the fourth time he has won the award! Kerry is not known for being particularly dynamic, and has not really shown an ability to "connect" with the voters. His Senate record will certainly provide plenty of opposition-research fodder, and he has already suffered from two very damaging stories in the Washington Post, one which concluded that he took more "special interest money" than any other Senator, and another today which noted that Kerry's budget plans *already* would add an additional $185 billion to the federal budget deficit. All the while, Democrats have somehow convinced themselves that Kerry is the most-electable of the bunch! (Although, I can't laugh too much, because Republicans fell into *exactly* the same trap of convincing themselves of the electability of Bob Dole back in 1996.) Americans haven't elected a sitting Senator since.... welll, since that other JFK from Massachusetts won the Presidency. Whether or not John Edwards can be Kerry's LBJ and be the first Vice-Presidentical candidate since Johnson to "deliver" a State for the ticket remains to be seen. Obviously, given how close the 2000 results were, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility for Kerry to win. Nevertheless, I think that President Bush can breath a sigh of relief in that he gets to face the most beatable candidate he could have reasonably hoped to face. And if Bush wins in another close election, Democrats will really have to wonder whether or not Terry McAuliffe's famously compressed primary schedule prevented them for every really getting to know John Edwards, and maybe realizing that he belonged at the top of the ticket.... not at the bottom. And maybe eight years from now, we'll all be watching John Kerry on Larry King. JDG _______________________________________________________ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
