A PROGRESSIVE WIN IN 2004

How to Elect Dr Dean

Here I stand on the edge of the abyss, 2004.  People are ready to push me off,  either because I am a Leftie or hopelessly deluded,  or I have reduced a serious subject to a pep talk.  So far,  I've been able to resist the crowd by digging in my heels,  and recycling the old passive resistance routine (think totally limp Velcro).  Even though I am running out of energy, it's time to push back;  to be a snail with a Velcro foot.

The Candidates

I endorsed Dr Dean.  Now I think he's the one who will run against George W Bush.  I think the odds are over 75% that Dr Dean will be the Democratic nominee.

It is possible Rep Gephardt or Wesley Clark will take the nomination,  but it seems very unlikely.  It can only happen if there is some major trend reversal in the next month,  and big upsets in the February primaries.  I have no idea where or how such events would originate.  But ... sigh ... these have been weird and backward times,  so expect anything.

Assuming candidate Dean,  it is very probable someone from the South will be nominated for VP.  This could be Clark, Gephardt or Edwards.  I think Clark is most likely,  then Edwards.

Some minor candidates are unlikely to get out of the race before the convention,  as long as the process provides access to the national media.  I do think Mosely-Braun, Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt might give up by March.  I don't think Kerry, Sharpton or Clark will give up easily.  Kucinich is probably somewhere in between,  probably wanting some votes to control the tone of the Convention and the party platform.

Money

Dr Dean's biggest problem will be Kerry's money.  If Sen Kerry doesn't give up - he is the only financially competitive candidate - the Dean campaign could be drained of resources by next summer.  All the money the Dean campaign is collecting could be wasted fighting off John Kerry instead of George Bush.

Dean and Kerry have dispensed with FEC rules and funding.  This means they are only bound by State election laws.  Unfortunately,  this is leading to a major blood-letting in Iowa and New Hampshire,  which is breaking campaign budgets.  The hope on both sides is that a win by one will force the other out of the race.  I hope that is true whoever is the winner;  but I am rooting for Dean.

Whoever is the candidate cannot afford an on-going dogfight after March,  because the Bush war machine is scheduled to attack in April.  That is one Bush promise I believe.  This year, I believe Democrats should urge their candidates to give up, if they do not have a reasonable chance of winning the nomination by mid-March.

George Bush, the Republican party and their allies will have around $400 million at their disposal to ruin Democratic hopes.  There is only one way to compete in the looming political war:  you must have as much money.  This election will be determined in the ether,  not on the ground.  If you don't think so,  please consider what the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (which really does exist) did to Bill Clinton.

The Federal Election Commission allows each candidate $45 million in pre-convention spending.  George Bush will have at least $100 million for that period,  and plans to use it to destroy whoever is the leading pre-convention candidate.  That well-known plan is common knowledge in Washington, DC,  if not elsewhere.  (Now you know what is going on, too.)

The Left got lucky recently,  when George Soros pledged to spend a fortune to get rid of George Bush.  He already granted millions to Moveon.org,  and millions more will be forthcoming.  But,  even such generosity will not save us,  because the plutocrats and  corporate backers of conservatism can afford to give BILLIONS, if necessary.  The scale of elections has been ramped up dramatically,  to maybe 10 times what they were just 4 or 5 years ago.

Thus, in this election,  the Left will have to be truly democratically financed to win.  Dr Dean's goal is a $100 donation per elector,  and he is hoping for 2 million donors.  That is an unprecedented goal,  but one that has to be reached.  Moreover,  it will have to be reached by whoever is the candidate in order to compete with George Bush.  It is that simple.

For myself,  this has become a tough business,  because nowadays $100 is a lot of money to this retiree.  I have decided to pledge the $100,  but in little doses.  $25 now,  $25 in February and the rest sometime between March and November.  We'll see how it goes.  What I don't want to happen is money wasted on intra-party squabbles.

I recommend this strategy to the Readers:  make up a contribution plan and stick to it.  If you write to the campaign. tell them you have a schedule and won't be ponying up "emergency money."  Political campaigns are notorious for pleading for more money on account of some emergency.   Fiscal responsibility starts at home.

If your candidate is not a winner,  move your remaining money to the winning person (on our side).  As in the stock market,  you simply have to know when to quit,  accept your losses, and move on.

Behind the money is a MAJOR division in the Democratic party.  If this division explodes,  the party will disintegrate while George Bush wins.  So, it is important to stop the division from becoming a Civil War.  Of course, the Republicans will use their money to promote 'let's you and him fight.'

If we pull together on this one - a sensible financial plan - we can win.  In fact,  we can even make political hay about our financial responsibility.

The Party and Congress

There are 3 major Democratic party financing and election bodies:  the Democratic National Committee (DNC,  Chair: Terry McAuliffe),  the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC, Chair: Rep Bob Matsui [CA]),  and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC, Chair: Sen Jon Corzine [NJ]).  These groups represent party interests,  rather than specific candidates.  All of these bodies are controlled by the Democratic Establishment,  our elected and appointed officials.  These are the politicians who become "super-delegates" at the national convention.

The DNC is generally viewed as being controlled by the Clintons,  since Terry McAuliffe is (or was) a Clinton operative.  This means the DNC tends to be responsive to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC),  which is also run by Clintonites.  Before Clinton, the DLC was mostly a Dixiecrat organization.  The DNC and DLC tend to promote centrist and right-wing Democrats, respectively;  for example, Sen Lieberman and Gen Clark.

The DNC tends to follow the Establishment line set, in the past, by Rep Gephardt and Sen Daschle.  Examples:  the election strategy of 2000 and 2002,  which led to dramatic Democratic losses.  One division in the Democratic party is about who controls the DNC.  Deanies would like to dump McAuliffe,  whereas Clintonites want things to stay the same.  It is a good old fashioned power struggle.  (I'm for giving McAuliffe the heave-ho.)

The DCCC represents the interests of House Democrats. The DSCC represents the interests of Senate Democrats.  What this means is both groups adopt strategies, and spend money, mostly in accordance with the wishes of the Congressional party leaders.  In the past,  most of the effort and money went to electing people likely to be beholden to the leadership.  This is the time-honored way of gaining a following:  BUY IT.  Generally,  the DCCC and DSCC are not very ideological;  they are more about authority (power) and the pecking order.

Because of McCain-Feingold,  and until the Supreme Court decides several Constitutional questions about elections,  the DNC, DSCC and DCCC have a more restricted role than in past elections.  They cannot as directly support the candidates as they are wont.  It is also "illegal(?)" to co-ordinate campaign efforts.  This diminishes their importance.

In the 2004 election,  more than ever,  each candidate sinks or swims on his own.  For the electorate,  this means you are going to have to figure out who to support.  If you give time and money to the party organizations,  only a small portion of that may reach the candidates you prefer.  Therefore, this year each one of us will have to figure out who to support,  and in what proportion.  You will need to be your own campaign strategist.

This is really hard on Lefties;  the Bushies have much simpler choices.  For myself,  I plan to contribute to specific campaigns,  and probably not to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC  (Sorry, politicians).  I haven't figured out how much, or who, but I have decided this much:  I don't like the DLC,  and I am not a Clinton supporter.  I won't be helping any more Zell Millers to the Senate.  I plan on helping those closest to my political philosophy; e.g., Barbara Boxer.  I will be looking through various sources to find similar candidates.

My rule of thumb:  I will donate only what I can afford,  only to those who truly represent my views,  and in proportion to the need.  I don't plan on helping campaigns that are already well-oiled.

I have one other modifying factor:  what difference, on a national scale, will winning this or that seat make?  Right now, it appears Democrats are unlikely to regain control of either body.  We have our best shot in the Senate,  but this may be problematic if the newly elected Democrats are Killer Bees (my label for folks like, or becoming like, Zell Miller).  In other words,  there is a double problem:  winning an election,  and seating real Democrats.  A Senate or House filled with Killer Bees would be a Pyrrhic victory.  I think the extent of this big headache will become more apparent in a few months.

Electing a President

Right now,  on account of all the foregoing considerations,  I think our best vehicle to power is the Presidential election.  If we have a strong candidate and campaign,  we might pull along some Congressional candidates.  But, we won't know about coattails until much, much later,  so expect a frustrating campaign.

Assuming we don't win the Congress,  the main reason for electing a Democratic President is simply holding the line.  That's right:  hold the line.  But,  what is the line?

It should be clear, at least to Democrats, why we are furious about George Bush.  There's the judges,  letting polluters off the hook, erosion of women's rights,  Republican pork masquerading as Medicare reform or an Energy Bill, Civil Rights and Ashcroft, and, lest we forget, Iraq.  The daily abuses and outrages this Administration commits are too numerous to list here;  you know them by reading the daily news.

It should be clear to everyone - it is certainly clear to the pollsters - that America is DEADLOCKED.  Nothing has changed in years.  There's about 50% for us,  and 50% against us.  A very small fraction of the population decides the outcome.  We already know which States will vote for who,  even without knowing who will be the Democratic nominee.  There are very few contestable States:  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.  Maybe Arkansas and Missouri could be won by Democrats,  but Florida is the only Southern State likely to vote Democrat.

For the most part,  there are two views of the world that make up RED (red neck, Republican) and Blue (stocking) States.  These views are different, sometimes mirror images of each other.  It is very unlikely any minds will be changed in this election.  The beliefs involved are too deeply cultural and lifelong.  So, as crazy as this is,  those least informed and least aware of the society around them,  will decide our next President.

This means the election ideology will have to be completely different from the issues that get discussed in these and many other pages.  Who wins will probably depend on who can connect to this very marginal person.

Based on the foregoing,  disregard any claims about "electability."   Most of the Democratic candidates start off with at least 185 electoral votes,  just because they are Democrats.  The election is George Bush's to lose,  but it is also not likely he will win in a landslide.  Various Republican strategists have said repeatedly this will be a close election.  I believe them.

Dr Dean

Howard Dean, MD, former governor of Vermont,  is probably the Democratic nominee.  Having listened to many of his speeches and debates,  this what I think are his views:

The Republicans are trying to present Dr Dean as a wild-eyed radical,  whereas  GEORGE BUSH is the only wild-eyed radical in this election.  Dr Dean is actually quite moderate:

Those are scarcely the views of a wild-eyed radical;  they are considerably to the right of this writer.  Dr Dean does have a temper,  but so do most leaders.  Most of the time,  he sounds a lot more modulated and reasonable than the other candidates.  PRESENTATION QUALITIES - BEDSIDE MANNER - might win over those undecided voters.  After all,  he is a doctor.

The trick is to get George Bush on his high horse as much as possible,  and to push Cheney - Dr Death - out there, too.  Bush wins by hiding from a well informed and reasonable opponent.

How To Win

This election is about MONEY, GRIT AND PERSISTENCE.  It will be won by the most organized campaign.  It will be won by working the problem every single day;  this is a 24/7 project.  It will be won by financial strategists who know how, when and where to place their bets;  people who know when to hold and when to fold.  There will be very little room for error.

The major strategic difference between Democrats and Republicans this time is room for error:  Republicans have more money, thus more leeway.

But, Republicans are defending the title,  not winning it.  They are more committed to their previously winning beliefs and strategies than the Democrats.  This is a big weakness,  if faced with a versatile and creative opponent.  Democrats should encourage Republicans to talk in stereotypes, and in the most prejudiced possible way.  Then, Democrats should act differently.  The idea is to induce the Republicans to trip over themselves.

George Bush and his neo-conservative cronies have a lot of personal problems.  For example, they are excessively secretive, and really intolerant of those who do not agree with them.  Democrats need to bring those characteristics out.  After all,  a key point in the Republican pitch is "character."

In this play,  it will be very important for the candidate to demonstrate by word and deed,  by example generally,  that he is not George Bush.  After all,  it won't be ideology that will bring along those few undecided votes.

Finally - for now - Democrats need to establish themselves as the party of PEACE, PROSPERITY AND PERSONAL FULFILLMENT.  We need to present Republicans as the party of WAR, UNEMPLOYMENT and DISCRIMINATION.  Those are our major themes.  The major programs (policies) that we propose should co-ordinate with those themes.

December 1, 2003

Last update: 11/02/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.