Burnt Orange Report

I, for one, am delighted and profoundly surprised. I liked Edwards when he first announced...and spent months wondering why NO ONE else could see the positive qualities he had. Met the Doctor at an event here in Austin and was impressed and supported him for awhile...but have become VERY concerned about his campaign over the last month or two.

Message from Iowa: IF YOU RUN ANTI-WAR YOU LOSE. Simple as that. If Dean couldn't get 20 percent in the IA caucuses with that as his main message, for God's sake, what will happen in the general election??? Edwards, with his Two Americas theme and his life story is perfectly positioned for the general, on the other hand. I am now convinced that, if Dean is nominated, the Democratic party will suffer a meltdown of McGovernesque proportions in November. Thankfully, we can realize this NOW and not nominate such a polarizing figure.

Andrew,

I think you discount Dean's chances if he loses NH too much, particularly if Kerry doesn't win it (though a Clark win in NH is increasingly unlikely). Dean still has more cash than anyone else, and more dedicated supporters. That does matter, even if it wasn't enough in Iowa. Also, Dean hasn't taken as many attack ads nationwide as he has in IA/NH, so he is not going to be quite as vulnerable in others states. I think what tonight mainly does, besides give Kerry a badly needed win, is divide the anti-Dean vote between Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Lieberman. It no longer looks like it will come down to a 1-1 matchup between Dean and someone else (namely Clark, until tonight), which isn't as bad for Dean as you seem to think. Also, as one of you (don't know if it was you or not) mentioned a while ago, this could easily go to Boston to be decided.

Sherk

Thanks for the encouragement Sherk. I suppose you are right about Dean, but I think that if Kerry wins NH he is done. If Clark wins Clark will be the story and they'll say "one time huge frontrunner Howard Dean felled for second week in a row." No one else really has a shot at winning NH. Still, we'll see if he sticks it out, though I doubt it. If it goes to Boston it will be a nightmare for the Democrats- I doubt it would happen. I think that someone with a huge stature but independent position in the party (paging President Clinton...) will get them in a room and say "Look, you have the most delegates- you are president. you have the second most- you are vp. you have third- you are whatever position in the cabinet you want to be and barring our victory you get some goodies from Tom Daschle/Nancy Pelosi, whoever."

Blue, I don't think anyone will have a "McGovern Meltdown." Three of the four largest states- California, New York and Illinois- are almost guaranteed to go Dem. I really don't think you can call that "McGovern-esque." See, I think that people just rush to the worst possible scenario they can conjure up because they are more interested in big rhetoric and not facts. McGovern-esque is a long shot.

Going with the Anti-War message, I remember a poll that poped up on CNN (because the announcer was a little "cornfused" about it) that close to 70% of the people of the caucus did NOT support the war in Iraq, yet the people voted for the guy who voted for the war resolution. So it was not much of the war message. The link is here to the cnn exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

Clark may be hurt by a surging Kerry, but he may also be helped by a lagging Dean.
With Dean's aura of inevitability shattered, many voters who lean to Dean will question his electability. And electability has become a big issue for Democratic voters. Clark and Dean are not very far apart on most matters of policy, though they do have distinctive personal styles. Fortunately for Clark, his style comes across as more "presidential".

Dean's caucus night speech was the most bizarre one by a major Democratic politician since Gov. Rod Blagojevich's victory speech in Illinois in November of 2002. Fortunately, Rod had just gotten elected and won't have to face the voters until 2006. But Dean's rivals will have a ton of fun at his expense by simply making sure that speech is aired as often as possible.
Iowa has made it clear that Dean cannot win by merely firing up his base. He needs to impress skeptical voters who are not sure what he stands for. It's doubtful that his shrill rhetoric on Monday night will do that.

Anything other first place for Dean in NH will seriously wound his candidacy. And Wesley Clark cannot afford anything lower than second place. A Kerry-Dean-Clark finish in NH would certainly transfer the "aura of inevitability" to Kerry.

As a Clark backer since the Draft days, I think the results in Iowa are going to spell "major test" for the Clark campaign for the reasons mentioned: Kerry in NH and Edwards in the South, specifically SC.

I can still see Dean viable (but on campaign life support) with a second place finish in NH but I really don't see the thin tails of the probability distribution biting Dean on the ass in New Hampshire. He's got a very robust lead in the ARG polls, and ARG usually does a very solid job (as solid as one can do with surveys and polls) with their work; if a candidate can beat him it will be Kerry; I don't think that Clark will be able to make the big push required to challenge Dean but a lagging spike from Iowa *might* be enough for Kerry to challenge.

My prediction: Dean wins New Hampshire, though not with as robust a lead as he has maintained in the past couple of months. I think South Carolina will be the next major battle now with a resurgent Edwards in his own backyard, a suddenly besieged Clark, a focused Sharpton (not often you'll hear that!), and the military vet Kerry riding one (possibly two?) victories and a centrist voting record.

The thing to remember is that Iowa seldom goes the same way as the rest of the country. It has always done its own thing. The caucus system they employ there is, to say the least, very strange.

Kerry and Clark are going to be fighting for the same votes in New Hampshire, and, as Clark says -- "He's just a lieutenant. I'm a general." Their split will be enough to put Dean over the top. Edwards simply will not fly in New Hampshire. It's a very liberal state, and most people there are highly educated. That has always been Dean's demographic.

If I had to rank them coming out of NH, it would be:

1. Dean
2. Clark
3. Kerry
4. Edwards
5. Lieberman

Even if Dean comes in a strong second in NH, he still remains extremely viable. He has the money and strong organization going into the Feb. 3rd states.

I think Andrew is being too kind. I think Dean is done today. Drudge had an audio clip (I know) from Dean's speech last night and it was sad for this very pro-Dean guy to listen to. I've been with him almost an entire year, but I think this is the beginning and the middle of the end. The end will be next week.

I really like John Edwards too and will be looking around seeing if I can find any policy papers or speeches on gays and HIV/AIDS help. His site gives a generic "pro civil rights" thought that could really be cut and pasted to any of the frontrunners' site.

As for Veep considerations, I'm glad I am not the only guy who would give a strong, hard look to someone like Mary Landrieu. I worked for Mary while a student at LSU and she's amazing. She is the perfect southern candidate that puts much of the South back into play should John Edwards win. Edwards/Landrieu can really give Bush a run for his money.

I think its too soon to count anyone out except for Gephardt. Like everyone has said- NH and IA rarely vote together and Kerry's surge hurts Clark in NH. Edwards could concievably do well in NH but if I were him I'd kick it and fight for SC, OK, MO, AZ and NM wins and second placers in ND and DE. If he can do that he'll be on the fast track to the nomination.

I think that Dean has a shot in NH. A very very strong 2nd place might be able to keep him alive but I doubt it. He has to win NH.

And for a candidate with at least a modicum of FP credibility (Edwards is on the Select Committe on Intelligence) Landrieu would make a perfect running mate. Moderate, pro-life, attractive, articulate, a woman, Southern, beat Bush/Rove's "Operation Icing on the Cake," etc. If it is Edwards, expect to see her in the running, though I have reservations about two Senators running. At least she now has a Dem governor so the seat will stay D if she does win.

Well, I, like everyone else, has some crow to eat for overestimating Dean. Like a lot of Dems, I started off for another candidate (in my case, Edwards) and got behind the Dean Machine because it seemed to have developed into a movement which could motivate voters and beat Bush.

Make no mistake, Dean got an old-fashioned ass whuppin last night. (And his bizzare speech last night did not help) He is not out, and will drag along for quite a while (he still has $$$ and national organization, but he is not likely to win the nomination. Things cannot go on too long, because 60% of the delegates will be decided by March 3, 2003, and substantially more one week later.

In NH, Dean and Kerry have built-in advanatges being from adjacent states. IF Dean implodes and Kerry wins, it will be REALLY hard to stop the guy that won both IA & NH. (Clark had an artificial bump because he had the state all to himself for 2 weeks - that will change and his #s will go down - the question is how much and to whom) Thereafter, Kerry, even for a Bostonian, has a "base" in SC if he will use it. SC has a lot of veterans and they tend to support their own. If Kerry can pull a trifecta (which is possible), he's REALLY hard to beat. Even if he puts a strong second in NH and/or SC, he is still hard to beat.

Blue thinks the message from IA is: IF YOU RUN ANTI-WAR YOU LOSE. Simple as that.

I'm not so sure. After all, Gephardt shepherded Bush's war resolution through Congress, and he did even worse than Dean. Besides, Dean was looking good in the polls: he just faded badly in the home stretch. Dean certainly hasn't made a secret of his war position; if that was the problem, why were so many IA Dems telling pollsters they supported him in the first place?

I think Dean suffered from a combination of problems last night:

1. Dean and Gephardt went negative to knock each other out of the race, and both were successful. Gep is out; Dean is wounded.

2. As the frontrunner in the polls, the objectively pro-Repug media turned their cannons on Dean as well. Their real problem with Dean is his opposition to Bush's tax cuts; but having decided they don't want him, they misquoted him and editorialized against him in their "news" reports virtually nonstop last week. (Don't worry; if Kerry wins NH too, you can rest assured the media will turn their cannons on him in due time.)

3. Dean's campaign people had little experience with caucus politics, and it showed.

4. Realizing his only sliver of hope is to pick up Dean's anti-war supporters, Kucinich played his limited support strategically, helping Edwards bring Dean down another notch.

5. (Maybe) Dean gathered endorsements from several IA politicians. True, they were just jumping on his bandwagon, but it tarnished his "outsider" image.

For those who paid attention (I wasn't one of them) there was a hint that Dean was in trouble when he failed to win a majority in the DC beauty contest, where his only opponents were Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, and Kucinich. Still, I think Dean can learn from this. But if not, he's certainly not ready to face Bush/Rove, and the Dems need to find another candidate anyway.

In brighter news, both BFA and Josh Marshall report that Dean's speech in New Hampshire today (and apparently his campaign focus) is entirely different from his Iowa approach.

Policy and record, mainly.

How is this NOT proof of the McGovern possibilities presented by Dean??? I do NOT think Dean could guarantee CA or NY and IL would definitely be up for grabs in a Bush/Dean race. The best case for the doctor would be having to spend some time defending home turf...which would not be good. I WANT a D to win...and for awhile I thought maybe, just maybe, Dean's new campaign philosophy won't work...but if he is turning off hard core Ds and not bringing any new blood in to support him, clearly it does not.

And let's not even bring up the truly bizarre concession speech.

Just a side note on CA being solid Dem. In a close race, yes that is a given, but if Bush is winning by 10%+, don't count on it. A recent poll had him with a fifteen point lead on Dean in CA, so don't assume it is a lock for you any more than NY was a Dem lock in '72, '80 or '84.

Sherk

Echoing Sherk, the 1/16/04 Field Poll in California gives Bush a head-to-head victory in the state against any Democratic nominee.

General election match-up - When Bush is paired against each of the five leading Democratic candidates in simulated general election trial heats, he bests each by margins ranging from three to ten percentage points. A Bush/Dean match-up produces a 47% to 43% result in favor of Bush, while the President leads Clark 44% to 41% when these two are paired in a general election preference test. Bush's lead over Lieberman is four points (47% to 43%), while against Gephardt and Kerry the President is favored by ten points and nine points, respectively.

This, in California!

I think there's an important detail people are overlooking: jobs, and how trade policy relates to jobs. It's the only reasonable explanation I can offer to what happened in Iowa, and frankly, it offers us all ("us" being Deaniacs) an interesting ray of hope....

Check the "Rain on the Scarecrow" entry on my blog for my theory on this... hint: "It's the Economy, Stupid".

"In brighter news, both BFA and Josh Marshall report that Dean's speech in New Hampshire today (and apparently his campaign focus) is entirely different from his Iowa approach."

So, which speech do you think people will remember better?

The most recent one. This is New Hampshire, after all, and they're getting them in Town Hall formats.

If Iowa showed anything, it's that people tuned in at the last minute, and jumped around easily.

You'd think Dean's Iowa speech was jacked directly into everyone's brain when he gave it.