|
|
Sunday, January 04, 2004
|
|
NOTES ON THE MASS SUICIDE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Wow. just when you think someone can't be more determined to lose they sit back, think really hard and find a way. As I write this, I'm watching seven of the nine dwarves debating in Iowa. This argument seems to center on five things;
A) Who can raise taxes the highest.
B) Who can spend the most money the fastest.
C) Who can bug out of Iraq the fastest and humiliate the United States as President the fastet.
D) What the fuck is Howard Dean thinking most of the time?
E) Precisely which planet is Dennis Kucinich from?
These guys have to know that none of them have a serious chance against George W. Bush. Gephardt and Lieberman have the best shot in the Electoral College, but by no means should that be taken to mean that either can actually win. Bush will crush any and all of these friggin' people like a beercan. Some are holding out the ridiculous notion that Hilary Clinton could magically jump in and save the day but that's a pipe dream. The filing deadlines for all the major primaries have passed and the party would have to fundamentally change it's convention rules to have anything approaching the "brokered convention" of old. Those hoping for Hilary as the Democratic nominee may as well hope for Santa as the nominee. Santa actually has something in common with a Democrat who can beat Bush this year...neither exists.
Because it seems that everyone in the party now knows that the President will be re-elected and the party will be humiliated and have figured, "What the fuck? Let's destroy the party! Maybe we can get a President Nader in 2008." Don't believe me? The party is on the verge of nominating a guy who has said that "capturing Saddam Hussien doesn't make America safer" and that he'd rather not "prejudge the guilt of Osama bin Laden." Here are the facts as most people know them: The invasion of Iraq (something I had well known reservations about) has made it virtually impossible for any subsequent Iraqi government to threaten it's neighbours and necessitate another large scale American deployment. The deposing , and later capture of, Saddam and his goverment has sent a strong signal throughout the Middle East. Iran has agreed to international inspections of it's nuclear program and caused Libya to abandon it's WMD program entirely.
So far as the quote about bin Laden goes, that's just to ridiculous for words. Bin Laden is on videotape taking credit for 9/11. Christ, even O.J wasn't that ballsy! The only plausable explanation, other than retardation, for Dean's comments is that he's decided that he's so certain of victory that he'd like to help Bush/Cheney '04 and the RNC by writing their advertisements for them. I defy anyone to come up with another reason. This makes Howard Dean either nuts, stupid or drunk. He'll win no more than ten states at the absolute maximum. I actually think the number will be closer to five and could be as few as three.
Even the press is starting to question Dean's mental balance. Over the summer, Governor Dean was on the covers of Time, Newsweek and U.S News and World Report in the same week declaring that he practically walked on water and could turn water into wine. This week, he's on the covers of Time and Newsweek and both seem to be questioning his very sanity.
As I write this, Bush has an approval rating in the low to mid 60's. Entering an election year, that's pretty popular. Higher than Clinton in '96, higher even than Reagan in '84. The President has high approval numbers on job performance and even higher ones on personal integrity. Whether or not you or I agree with these numbers is immaterial. Jesus was most likely born in April, but everyone still celebrates Christmas in December. What matters is what most people believe. Most people seem to like George W. Bush and the American people vote (with the exception of Richard Nixon in 1968) for the candidate they personally like better. You may not like it, but it's a fact of life. People like Bush and they like Dean less and less every day.
So what does MoveOn.org, the presumed advertising wing of the Democratic party do? They run an ad on their website equating President Bush with Adolf Hitler. Even though I have some serious reservations about Bush's ability, I would vote for him if I could. Millions of people did and millions more will this year. But there are millions of independents and undecideds to consider. And the surest way to alienate those folks is to equate Bush with a genocidal maniac like Adolf Hitler.
The greatest poll number of all, and one that has held for over a year now, is that, when put up against a "generic Democrat", Bush loses by between three and five points. But when put up against a specific
Democrat (meaning any of the declared candidates and Hilary, who would even lose in New York), Bush wins by anywhere between 5 and 20 points dependending on the candidate and the poll. A good way of phrasing this is that most voters prefer the idea of a Democrat much more than the actuality of one. So the actual, living breathing Democrats in the race and their "independent" supporters respond by saying and doing things that Bush will not only be able to use with unrestrained glee next fall, they throw away entire regions of the country in the process. Dean's assertion on NPR that Bush had advance warning of 9/11 from the Saudis (even though he said he himself did not believe it) has destroyed the chances of any nominee to win any state in the south. And if they get blown out in the south (and I believe Dean would get annhilated in most of the midwest, excepting Minnesotta as well), they have virtually no chance of winning. Geography and mathematics makes it impossible.
Why has this happened? For the reason that Bush has co-opted so many Democratic issues (education, prescription drugs, ect), he has made rank and file Democratics crazier than any political figure since Richard Nixon. Accordingly, the declared candidates have decided that the easiest way to get the nomination is to prove that each hates George Bush so much more than the others. Howard Dean has won those sweepstakes. The problem with this is that it so limits his potential appeal that he can't move beyond his current base. That base is about 35% of registered Democrats, themselves only about 30% of registered voters (Republicans consist of another 30% and Independents the remaining 40%.) So Howard Dean will go into the fall with a support base of 10-13% of the general electorate with little hope of expanding it.
This is not to say that Bush will win with 85% of the vote. The Democrats could nominate Osama bin Laden and still get about 35% of the popular vote. Certain segments of the populationd wouldn't vote for a Republican under any circumstances. What, I am saying is that election will have the lowest turn out in American history. Maybe as low as 40%. And Bush will still win anywhere from 35-45 states and increase his margins in both the House and the Senate in ways that most people would think I'm insane for suggesting now.
Given the path the Democratic party is taking right now, they may as well take the convention out of Boston and move it somewhere more appropriate to the tenor the convention will take....like Jonestown.
Kool-Aid, anyone?
|
|
|
| |
