For some months now the press has been full of breathless accounts of Howard Dean's "innovative" and "non-hierarchical" campaign strategy, the "genius" of how he's used the internet to run "a new kind of campaign," to raise funds and raise awareness and allow volunteers to define his campaign, using weblogs as a central organizing tool.
They usually soft-peddled the other aspects that made him so popular. Or even pretended that detractors were just making those aspects up.
We weren't.
We saw what we saw, and even if some of you refused to see it, lots of us did, and we wouldn't shut up about it, either.
(Oh, and don't believe that quote? Try clicking here and listening for yourself.)
Do you really think it was hard for the Bush people to put together this ad? Do you think Howard Dean's throwing of raw meat to the angry faithful didn't cause the other candidates to start thinking they had to act just like him if they wanted to win? You're tempted to blame Republicans for it? If so, you'll only have yourselves to blame if Dems get a severe trouncing in November.
I've been saying for at least six months now that this "Howard Dean's running a different kind of campaign" stuff is horse manure. Why? Because Pat Buchanan was doing all that in the early 1990s, virtually exactly the same way, in his attempt to win the Republican nomination. His only difference was web sites and internet listservs, rather than weblogs. But harnessing a bunch of idealistic, patriotic True Believers with a seething animosity was no way to win an election then, and I don't think it is now. Running your campaign in such a half-coherent, "driven by the volunteers" fashion through the internet, desperately believing you can get "disenchanted" voters to show up to support you, can only wind up biting you on the behind.
Just look how the Blogs for Bush people are using material from the Howard Dean web site to make Dean and his people look like idiots. Direct quotes, too, with no distortion, line after line after damning line of it, most of it stuff I can confirm is legit because I saw it on Howard Dean's own web site a few hours ago. Eventually, the Dean campaign had to close comments just to get the embarassing trolls, and the even more embarassing True Believers, to shut up.
And once again, this is not just any message board. This is Howard Dean's own web site, the site he and his people bragged about so much, about how it represented their campaign and their "new" way of doing things that made the campaign so much more exciting and innovative and special than any before it. "The volunteers are the campaign," they told us, and pointed proudly to how that web site helped them get all their cash and create their group of volunteers.
But the Blogs for Bush people have the transcripts now, and can merely start to point.
My prediction, for anyone who cares, is that within the near future, the Dean campaign will permanently end all comments on their web site, or, move to a moderation scheme so that only approved voices are heard. And thus will end the "innovative" and "non-hierarchical" dot-com campaign of Howard "Angryman" Dean and his sweet, likeable, charming, nutball fans who believe vile things about their country and its legitimately elected leaders.
I have no more pity for these people than I did for the Buchanan Brigades.
Money doesn't win campaigns. Never has, never will. Neither does being a really-truly-true-believer and just a super patriot who loves America who really digs hanging out with your cool like-minded friends. Nor does being convinced you're right--especially if you're convinced that only stupid or ill-informed people could disagree with you.
It's a bitter lesson, but those of us who like politics all have to learn it sooner or later. I had ashes in my mouth for weeks when George H.W. Bush trounced my boy Michael Dukakis in 1988. I got over it, in a strange process known as "growing up."
But we'll see. I may be getting ahead of myself. Maybe Dean will go roaring into New Hampshire, screaming his way into getting New Hampshirites to vote for him, and all his dot-com faithful will manage to rally all their twenty-something friends to put him over the top. (Sure, the Iraq war is supported by the overwhelming majority of young people, but still, maybe they'll manage it anyway.)
Ara bet me a dollar last year that Dean would be the nominee. He asked me a few weeks ago if I wanted to just pay up now. I said, "no," because something in my gut was telling me that the Dean campaign might well implode at any moment. Because his "innovative" campaign isn't innovative at all, and money does not win elections.
I expect we'll start to see the Dean implosion start to happen over the next week or so. Especially if Howard Dean can't wave enough flags and scream energetically enough to get New Hampshirites to vote for him. His one saving grace may be that the State of the Union speech overshadows his embarassing performance last night.
But watch: that "innovative" web site of his is gonna get a whole lot less freewheeling, right soon.
* Update * John was not the only one to predict a meltdown. Of course, as I say, we Dean critics may be getting ahead of ourselves...* Update 2 * Holy cow, on Sunday, Dan Drezner predicted the exact results, or damned close to it, anyway. I gotta read that blog more often.
Thanks for the link to the Blogs for Bush website...digging around the ol' pile of political knowledge, I now note that while the Iowa caucuses have been fairly good at picking the eventual nominee, they've been much, much better at picking the guy who's gonna lose in the general election...only twice in seriously contested Iowa caucuses have the winners gone on to win both the nomination and the Presidency (Carter and President Bush the Younger).
Kerry still seems a bit too much 'flavor of the month' - in my view, a plurality of the Iowa Democrats held a contest to find out which candidate was not Howard Dean and by process of elimination, Kerry was determined to be the most un-Dean like person available who also wouldn't be laughed at as the Democratic nominee. Edwards, however, score a clear victory...as of now, he's the only Democratic candidate who gives me a bit of jitters - prosperity + war + incumbancy will pretty much ensure that President Bush wins against whomever, but I'd much rather have President Bush run against anyone other than Edwards...because Edwards stands the best chance of cutting down President Bush's coat-tails.
All in all, though, its a pretty pathetic showing for the Democrats...their winner got less than 40% of the overall vote and its abundantly clear that in addition to apathy, the Democrats must contend with the fact that the Democratic Party is messageless and directionless.
Oh, and I just noted that its one year to the day before we swear President Bush in for a second term...
There's plenty of time for Democrats to find a message, Mark.
Although the longer it takes them to settle on the nominee, the longer that will take them, they will have one.
One major terrorist attack on American soil, or a horrible blowup complicating the Iraq situation, a major stall in the economic recovery, could change the election dynamic. Don't kid yourself. November could be very close indeed.
No one took Ronald Reagan seriously in 1980. No one. And he trailed Carter in the polls right up until one week before the election.
Just stay smug and confident, Republicans, and you may get your hats handed to you in November.
Still, we should watch how Bush handles things. He'll most likely try to take most of the domestic issues away from the Democrats, but we'll see what we see.
I heard someone say that the Iowans have rejected the pillars of the Democratic party, by rejecting Gephardt (unions) and Dean (Angry Left), and that this is somehow significant. But they chose two rich guys in suits with nice hair. That's normal in America.
Quote from former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson after watching Dean's speech last night.
Dean "looked like a prairie dog on drugs."
AAAHAHAHA. That's a pretty good description. Especially when you can just hear all the Deaniacs singing that old Caddyshack favorite, "I'm all right, don't nobody worry bought me."
Not a prairie dog. He looks like Barney Rubble. With that said, you will never be able to look at his picture again without seeing him say, "Morning, Fred."
I think he looks like the MadHatter from AliceInWonderland.
I just can't stop laughing at all the comments made about Dean's speech last night.
From Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review Online site:
"Edwards wasn't done and Dean started stripping and screaming, like he was at a prowrestling event. Slamdown in New Hampshire? I don't think he handles defeat well. Staffers should be on guard for anxiety attacks."
Oh, my sides are hurting. Please stop. I can't take any more.
Washington Wrestling Federation inside report-
January 20th, 2004
Following his defeat at the hands of John "The Comeback Vet" Kerry, Howard "Doctor Love" Dean is planning to recover some of his heat by a surprise run on tonight.
Word is that during the current Heavyweight titleholders' speech, the Doctornator will leap onstage and deliver the smackdown with a folding chair. Following up, he will prepare to deliver the People's Left Elbow, peeling off his Jumbo-sized caffeine-nicotine patch and hurling it into the crowd. But while he does so, the Texas Presisnake will get up behind him, and as he turns, drop him with a San Antone Stunner, give him the Saddam Salute, and have his head checked for lice.
Raaarr.
Very bad, very disappointing, those (Howard) Dean supporters. As I said, he chose a base (anti-war, i.e., pro-surrender, and gimme gimme gimme) base and let them lead (this "non-hierarchical" nonsense, letting the inmates run the asylum), and so now he's losing. Too bad. As (the Good) Dean said, it's too early to tell, I'm certainly not making any bets, but at this rate Bush has another four years to go.
“My prediction, for anyone who cares, is that within the near future, the Dean campaign will permanently end all comments on their web site, or, move to a moderation scheme so that only approved voices are heard. And thus will end the "innovative" and "non-hierarchical" dot-com campaign of Howard "Angryman" Dean and his sweet, likeable, charming, nutball fans who believe vile things about their country and its legitimately elected leaders.”
Dean is already over (which means that now you can get over him and his “nutball fans”).
“There's plenty of time for Democrats to find a message, Mark.”
How’s this for the Kerry/Edwards (or Kerry/Clark) message:
“we’re not ideologues and we actually know some stuff” Iowans may be telegraphing that America is nervous enough to want experience and sober judgment instead of another “Washington outsider” candidate.
“Money doesn't win campaigns. Never has, never will.”
Wrong. Money (coupled with a complete lack of scruples) in South Carolina, for example, is why we don’t have a President McCain. Money (see “complete lack…” above) is why there’s no longer a Senator Max Cleland. Advertising isn't the biggest industry in the world because people aren’t persuaded by marketing. Money buys marketing.
Dean,
You're wrong, ya know; Reagan had a message...what is the message of any of the leading Democrats; you've got five minutes after you've read this to answer that...if you don't have an answer, then thats bad...if, however, the message is what they've been talking about, then thats worse...
When you run for President, you have to have a message from the get-go unless you run into the most amazing luck in human history...like being a small time governor from a nothing State with serious ethical problems who managed to have 1/3 of his opponents votes taken away by an insurgent third party candidate...as for a major terrorist attack or things going south in Iraq; that would actually just redound to the credit of the President...one thing I'm very sure of is that the American people want victory in the War on Terrorism, anyone suggests cutting and running after some sort of setback will just get clobbered when the votes are counted...and as the Democrats foolishly refused to out-war the President on the war and instead went into carping and conspiracy-theorising, they have no way to turn a military set-back to their advantage.
Aw, thanks, Shep -- now you've got me rooting for Mad Howie again.
Can you imagine the polical ad.
"Howard Dean says he want to be the candidate of white southern hillbillies(cue video of toothless white guy holding a shotgun, barefoot in overalls), who love Nascar (video of Jeff Gordon waving a checkered flag on a victory lap), Pro wrestling (any appropriate video), and drive around in pick-em-up trucks (cue video with same hillbilly) with Confederate flags." (zoom to show bumpersticker "Hillbillies for Dean")
"Now we know why." (Cue video of Dean "victory" speech in Iowa.) "Dean for President in 2004. Smackdown in Washington."
End Commercial.
Mark Noonan is right. The Democrats must be hawks in this War on Islam's Terrorism, this Crusade for Freedom, or else they will lose, they _must_ lose if they are not hawks. We are in a War for the very survival of the United States of America and Western civilization.
The thing that bugs me is that picture of H. Dean. He looks so very, very masculine. He has very short hair (I like to keep my hair very short, too), he's a mesomorph, his sleeves rolled up like he means business. What a _man_! If I were a man's man like John Kusch, I'd probably go for him. A real he-man. And a very angry man, too.
(That is _not_ to say or imply anything whatsoever against women. Just that the sexes are complementarily different, men and women look and act differently, as we've discussed before.)
And he was an excellent Governor of the Green Mountain State. As I said, I agree with many of his stands on domestic issues.
The contradiction is, that he is a dove on military policy. His supporters are peaceniks, long-haired "hippies", for a wimpy, "don't offend anybody" foreign policy of appeasement and surrender. That is a fatal contradiction.
I agree with Noonan, any terrorist attack (esp. on American soil) seems to me to bolster Bush's re-election. The Dems are soft on War relative to Bush, and futher attacks will parlay into a stronger demand for a MORE militant response (by other than core-lefties).
Dems need to shut up about the war, and concentrate on domestic issues and hope there are no more attacks if they wish to beat Bush.
I think it would be VERY INTERESTING to investigate demographics of voters. What is the voting strength (turn out) of 30-45 year olds? What is their concentration (geographically, i.e., electoral impact)?
Speaking as a 40-year-old, used-to-be-Dem, supporter of the War, my hot buttons are: Terrorist threats, fiscal responsibility (cut spending rather than increase taxes), and civil liberty.
I wonder how many 30-45 year olds have had enough experience to realize that they don't trust government to handle "their money" (i.e. taxes) and that pork barrel politics and govt beauracracy and calls for more education funding are lost causes? And feel that senior benefits should be means-tested? And are technically-savvy enough to debate electronic voting, and were educated prior to the Self-esteem Rules All Public Education Paradigm to knowledgeably discuss the ramifications of the Patriot Act, campaign finance reform implications on free speech, etc., and current-event analysis based on historical analogies?
I'm not sure that "30-45 yr old" is the exact age group (it might be larger), but it's close.
Shep: Cleland didn't lose because he was outspent. He lost because he was weak and befuddled on national security, and ineffectually tried using "don't question my patriotism" as his defense, even though no one did.
Glad you have so much respect for voters, though.
Bush always led in South Carolina, and it once again had less to do with money than having a good organization already well in place there.
Once again, glad you have so much respect for voters, though. It's why your party continues to flounder--you blame others for your own problems. This is the sign of a party in decay, and it's rather hard for me to watch.
CJ,
Its interesting how our demographic is trending Republican...for me, it was no contest...444 days of Carter hand-wringing over the hostage crisis completely turned me off on the Democrats...they say that those who's formative political years were the last two years of Carter and the first two years of Reagan are strongly Republican...and for the Democrats, it just gets worse...just when another political generation started to rise up with no memory of Reagan, along comes the War on Terrorism to make Republican Bush look extremely good...its gonna be a long, long 20 years for the Democrats....
“I agree with Noonan, any terrorist attack (esp. on American soil) seems to me to bolster Bush's re-election. The Dems are soft on War relative to Bush, and futher attacks will parlay into a stronger demand for a MORE militant response (by other than core-lefties).”
That depends. First, people will have to continue to falsely conflate the Iraq war with a sound short-term national security policy. Imagine decorated vet and 3-term Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and presidential candidate Kerry explaining to the American people how the $ billions and mighty intelligence assets spent in a war of Bush’s choice could have been used to stop the most recent devastating terrorist attack. Unlike September 11, where Bush’s culpability can be found only in the unanswerable question of what might have been had he properly focused on the Al Queda threat identified by the outgoing administration (as well as the intelligence under his nose), if there’s another attack (or worse than necessary consequences) because of inadequate resources committed to domestic security, Bush will own that one completely.
Dean,
I am really beggining to appreciate your take on current politics. I am to your right on the spectrum, but clarity is clarity; and you have it.
The classical formula for success in American politics: 1.)Secure a foothold at one extreme end or another at the beginning of the campaign. 2.) Begin to move to the center as you move toward the party's nominating process. 3.) Having obtained the nomination, begin pandering to the 5-10% of undecided, swing voters who determine the outcome of most of our elections.
Assuming that you concur with this formula, what issue/issues do you believe will be of most interest to the swing voter in this year's national election?
My take on Howard Dean is that the Democratic Party simply used him as their consolidator-of-the-extreme-left which went in too many different directions in the last presidential election i.e. Ralph Nader. He has done his job. Now the move to the center. And then finally, the most adept communicator will be chosen at the convention to pander to the swing voter.
I believe the Democratic Party has a great strategy which takes the flip-flop accusation argument away from Pres. Bush. By using a large group of contenders to play the individual parts in this drama, the final standard bearer will escape having to spend all of his political capital early on. The nominee will also escape the embarassment of having to defend a shift from the left-wing rhetoric of Dean to the more moderate platform of the party.
I believew that communicator will be Sen. Edwards.