Desperation vs. Leap of Faith. A theory on the primaries.

bain_sidhe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Feb-01-04 05:06 PM
Original message

Desperation vs. Leap of Faith. A theory on the primaries.

To all those Kerry supporters still insisting that Kerry's huge overnight bounce after Iowa was a result of voters "looking at him and deciding he was best" - get real. It was too big, and too sudden, and too much of it came from supporters of other candidates to be that. Exit polls showed that issues didn't matter, positions didn't matter, records didn't matter. What mattered was winnning in November, and Kerry convinced Iowans that he could do that. Kerry opponents, give the man some credit. He did that all by himself. Whether or not there were "dirty tricks" involved is now moot, because he did it, and now has the "electability" mantle.

Although some of his new support in NH and elsewhere came from undecideds, a lot MORE of it came from supporters of other candidates. These were not people who hadn't been paying attention, they were people who had looked at the candidates and had made a decision about who they thought would be the best candidate/president. But when Kerry looked like a "winner," they switched, because winning was more important. Why? Because sticking with their previous choice required a "leap of faith" in the face of "proof" that Kerry was a winner:

Dean - it requires a leap of faith to believe that this new type of campaign, with its new voters, will be able to win in November. It's never been tried before. Dare we bet our country on the chance that it might work?

Clark - it requires a leap of faith to believe that this man who has NEVER, EVER won an election, can win this one, with his message that appeals to both Democrats and moderate Republicans. I've taken that leap of faith - but I can understand that others may not be willing to bet their country on it.

Edwards - it requires a leap of faith to believe that the man who won ONE senate race, and appears unlikely to win it a second time, can win against the Bush/Rove machine. His lack of experience will be pounded like a big bass drum by the repukes, and are we willing to bet our country on the belief that the majority of Americans will ignore that in this "time of war" and faltering economy?

In short, to be a supporter of Dean, Clark or Edwards requires a leap of faith that it would appear the Democratic electorate is not willing to make for this election. This is understandable, because the price of being proven wrong is so horrific - Bush gets four more years to destroy everything good that this country stands for. And I don't think any of us doubt that he WILL do so, if he gets the chance.

Now, here's the shocker (at least, coming from me, it's a shocker). This is not an entirely bad thing. That's how the repukes do it. They support their guy whether they agree with him or not. If (and, yes, that's a big if) this "will to win" among the Democratic electorate, it bodes well for the nominee's chances in the general election.

HOWEVER, this "will to win" will benefit ANY nominee. And, here's the bad news: Kerry as a nominee might win, and that's not a bad thing - it can at least stop the packing of the courts with right-wing ideologues, and, remember, all lot of the destruction Bush has wreaked on this country has been done by Executive Orders - those can be overturned the very first day. But a Kerry candidacy will do nothing for the Democratic party in the long run. It will leave the country as polarized as it is now, will likely hurt the "down ticket" races in the South, and will probably lose even more seats in the Senate and House. Republicans have nearly a "working fillibuster-proof" majority now, when conservative Democrats who often vote with them are included. Do we really want them to have a "lock" on passing their agenda with the possibility of a working VETO-proof coalition? (It takes 60 votes to break a fillibuster, 67 votes to override a veto.)

A Clark candidacy, in my opinion, WILL benefit the party both short term and long term. As I've said all along, Clark is about REALIGNMENT. He can bring back those Dems that left the fold over security issues, and at least SOME of them that left over cultural issues. Instead of the 50-50 nation that republican congress-critters now face - a nation that offers no real punishment for obstructionism, Repubs could be facing a 60-40 nation, or even better. That changes the calculus of obstructionism - they could pay a real price for blocking Clark's initiatives. The very initiatives that will make those swing voters' lives better, and thereby solidify their switch to the Democratic fold.

I know I'm asking for a leap of faith. I know some people won't feel comfortable making it. And I accept that it's possible that *enough* people *won't* make that leap of faith, and Kerry will get the nomination. But let's be clear about what were choosing. The same "will to win" that could give Kerry the nomination and the Presidency can ALSO give Clark the Presidency. (Or even Dean, for those who support him. I'm less sure about Edwards... his lack of experience scares ME too.) Do we really want to give up the chance to CHANGE the country for a chance to merely "hold the line"?