Nathan Newman links to a Kos post that predicts Dean will crush Bush in November, based on figures from Dean Meetups, especially in swing states. I think this analysis is wrong. Dean will have a hard time shedding his image as a liberal/anti-war candidate - and having hundreds of thousands of devoted liberal/anti-war acolytes probably won't help, even (especially?) in swing states. To win there, he'll need to be a visionary and a conciliator.
Of course, I'd be glad to be mistaken on this, and not just because Bush would be out. Dean has run a truly visionary campaign in terms of organization and technology, the kind of campaign that has the potential to change the way our democracy works, and - to all appearances - for the better. It's engaged the public, it's gotten people involved in the political process. And it's tipped the model for fundraising toward individuals with more typical funds - even my starving artist friend in Oaxaca gave $10. At this point, Dean's probably had enough success that his campaign model will be back even if he's not. But a win in November would transform the whole landscape of political organization.
I think you're starting to see Dean setting up to reconcile with the Democrats already. He pledged to support the nominee (forcing the others to make the same pledge, of course), and if he apologizes to John Edwards one more time for his gaffe earlier in the year, I'll puke.
I don't think anyone is going to crush anyone in this election. If the winner in November gets more than 52%, I'll be surprised.
Agreed, every indication is that the electorate is still very polarized. A really big win for anybody would be quite surprising.
Haggai, I think this gets to the issue of the fallacy you mentioned - basically there's a whole bunch of folks in the middle, and whoever gets them will win, and probably win big. So, no matter that it's polarized, a big win is still there for the taking, the candidates will just have to reposition themselves. I personally think Dean will have a much harder time doing that, and the whole activist apparatus may even be part of the problem.
I don't buy that there's this huge group of folks in the middle. I think a lot of people declare themselved "independent", but the majority of those independents almost always vote for one party or the other. Maybe they'll toss a fringe party a vote now and then, but I don't believe 33% o the electorate splits its votes every election.
I think they flatter themselves that they do, but I doubt their actions match the reality.
Post a comment