What we all need to remember about the 2004 election...

Before we decide who is or isn't "electable," remember this sobering truth:

This is going to be an election about Bush first, his opponent second.

In other words, whether we pick a Dean, a Clark, a Kerry, or even a Lieberman isn't what's going to decide this election. What will decide this election, first and foremost, is how the electorate thinks Bush is doing his job.

And that means three things: the economy, Iraq, and fighting terrorism.

If most people believe the economy is improving (as it has, slightly, over the past few months), and if Iraq has stabilized to the point that most people believe that we have prevailed there, and if most people believe that we are in less danger from terrorism, then Bush will win. Probably by a landslide. And it won't matter which Democrat is running against him. Dean will lose, big. Clark will lose, big. Leiberman will lose, big. Even the ghost of JFK, with the ghost of FDR as his running mate, would lose, big.

However...if people still feel like they are suffering from the economy, and/or people still feel that Iraq is a quagmire with continuous American casualties, and/or people still feel less secure from terrorist attacks, then Bush will be very, very vulnerable. There are some circumstances where, likely, any of the potential Democratic nominees could win. There are others in which Bush might be still able to win against some candidates, but not others.

And that is what we have to determine -- who is the best nominee to defeat Bush if (or, as we would likely say, when) he is a faltering candidate next fall.

I bring this up because I've seen a lot of "Democratic civil war" posts over the past few days, along the lines that "if XXX is nominated, we will lose," and other such doom-laden sentiments. I've seen supporters of candidate X already laying the blame against supporters of candidate Y for a presumed 2004 defeat. It seems like a lot of people are already working harder to make sure "the other side " gets the blame for a 2004 loss rather than trying to achieve a 2004 victory. And it seems like a lot of people are being urged to cast their primary votes based on fear of an upcoming November catastrophe rather than on who would be the best future President.

I repeat once again:

This is going to be an election about Bush first, his opponent second.

So, if Dean, or Clark, or Kerry, or Lieberman, or ??? gets the nomination and loses, unless he did so while voter dissatisfaction against Bush is high, it will almost certainly not be because of that candidate turning the voters off, but because those voters felt Bush was doing a good job and would have voted for him in any case.

That, therefore, suggests to me that we have two goals in this race:

1) If the election is going to be about Bush first, we have to make sure that it is about Bush on our terms. In other words, we have to make sure the voters come to see Bush as we do -- as a warmongering, economy-wrecking incompetent.

2) We then have to pick our nominee based on which of the candidates would do the best job as President if/when we convince voters to see Bush as we see him.

In other words, stop worrying about the "electability" of any one candidate, because whether they are electable depends more on what people feel about Bush than about our nominee him- or herself. Work to ensure people see Bush as he is, pick a top-quality nominee, and the "electability" issue will take care of itself.

Well said!

Nice post, JDWalley. Two things:

#1 If the general electorate cannot recognize after all these years that they are sitting in a massive mountain of steaming shit, what can we do to educate them quickly about the stench: the state of the economy/the rampant joblessness, the disaster of Iraq, and the incompetence of their simian leader (for starters)? This is what absolutely baffles me beyond belief. (I'm NOT saying that they're stupid; I'm saying that they are terribly misinformed.)

#2 Thank you for not paternally using the condescending terms "people" or "folks" a single time in your post. When someone does that, it's an instant turn-off for me, LOL. "People, we need to...." "Folks, we need to..."

On the fence unable to choose between Clark and Dean,

EOM

However, I don't belive it's that simple. IMO, there is a small group of hard-core RW voters that will vote for dubya no matter what. There is also a small group of voters that will vote for anyone but. However, the majority of voters will pick who ever they believe the most and the questions are never that simple. IMO, the last election should have been all about the economy. In 92 poppy had a lot of things going against him and I don't think anyone but Clinton could have beat him in that election. It really does matter who goes up against dubya this time. The majority of voters will pick who ever they believe the most. You are right on the money when you say we need those people to see the light about dubya and crew. I also want dubya out of office (anyone but). Let's face it dubya is going to be hard to beat for many reasons. The candidate that goes against him better be a mighty big man or woman. One false move and we might have a bush in the WH for the next 20 years...

The Media. If it started broadcasting/printing nothing but the truth about bu$h 24/7 right now, I wonder whether it would do anything to counteract the 3+ years of "Republicans good, Democrats baaa-aad" that it's been spewing so willfully.

:freak:
dbt

there is a large group of fickle voters who can sometimes be swayed by one slip of the lips.

Read my Lips!
I never had sex with that woman!
Over my dead body!

But didn't those things (at least the first two) happen before the supposedly Free Press turned into the Mighty Wurlitzer--sometime in the summer of 2000?

BTW, welcome to DU!

:hi:
dbt

Remember, the media are as fickle as the electorate.

Thanks!

start sending people free copies of "That's my Bush" from comedy central?