MORE ON WHAT HAPPENED TO DEAN
Here's a very interesting post from DailyKos Iowa correspondent Tom Schaller, who confirms what a lot of people suspected about Dean, Gephardt and the results in Iowa.
But in all seriousness, this does provide some insight into why Dean underperformed in Iowa. Sure, the war of mudslinging attrition with Gep hurt him, and losing your message and becoming complacent (being an insurgent candidate relying too much on endorsements) didn't help. But Howard Dean was also a victim of the caucus process to some extent. Why? Because he did very badly among second choices of voters, particularly Gephardt voters. In many precincts, Gephardt did not make 15%, the "viability" threshold. As Schaller described, his supporters were, shall we say, *reluctant* to turn to Dean. Thus, they turned to Kerry and Edwards en masse.
As Dean and Joe Trippi have reminded people time and time again, they're running "a different kind of campaign" (a 50-state, grassroots-oriented net-savvy machine, yadda yadda). Sure his tactics and stature became increasingly conventional heading into Iowa, and that probably hurt him. But the nature of Dean's support, as well as the convictions of supporters of non-"viable" candidates, did not help him in the caucuses. Dean has inspired very strong feelings among the Democratic electorate ("He's the new revolution in the party!" "He's nowhere near as electable as my guy, plus he yells a lot!"). As a result, he's more of a first-choice-or-no-choice kind of candidate. A candidate that inspires feelings that strong is less likely to be people's second choice. And the polling in the days prior to the caucus showed just that: Kerry and Edwards were far ahead of him in second-choice polls.
Also, the caucus process artificially inflated Kerry's totals. He received the runaway Gephardt support, surely. But in the lead-up to the caucus, he was polling well as the second choice of Dean voters. So in rural precincts where Dean had less support and couldn't make the viability threshold, his supporters turned to Kerry.
It's likely that Kerry still would have won if Iowa had a full primary election instead of a caucus. Instead of the 38-34-18-11 spread that the caucus process gave us (Kerry Edwards Dean & Gep, respectively), the primary may have given us results like 28-25-22-18 (again, K E D & G respectively). So if Iowa were a primary instead of a caucus, the lead story might have been "Kerry wins, but it's a logjam!"
In Kerry's case, he's the candidate who put the most eggs in Iowa, had the most to lose, and is low on funds, and will now have some competition for the vet vote in New Hampshire. My advice to the tall drink of water from Mass is to be careful and plan well.
Speaking of Kerry, it's nice to Mickey Kaus squirm, he who has been ridiculing Kerry's campaign rather harshly for a while now.
Here's a very interesting post from DailyKos Iowa correspondent Tom Schaller, who confirms what a lot of people suspected about Dean, Gephardt and the results in Iowa.
Actually, for all the buzz about Clark-as-stalking-horse, I think one of the legacies of Iowa 2004 will be that Gephardt and Dean turned out to be Trojan horses for Kerry and Edwards. That is, they brought the bodies and the resources and the logistics to bear, which drove up the turnout. But they couldn't then persuade those turned out to stay with them once they arrived out of the cold and into the school auditoria and community centers.This leaves open the possibility for another positive spin on Iowa from the Dean camp: "Gephardt fucked with us, and now he's out. Don't fuck with us."
I mean, just look at Gephardt's numbers. Yeesh! Another week and Kucinich catches him. (Ok, maybe not, but you get my point.) Those 21 unions weren't worth an extra coffee break or a new dental plan. Nobody voted for him.
Aha, but at the same time none of his supporters then recast their support for Dean. The word is that Gephardt people, whenever not viable, told the Dean people to just "talk to the hand" when they tried to make an appeal. I saw this woman in Precinct 63 in Des Moines who, sitting in her chair at the Gephardt table, was literally and metaphorically unmoved by anything the Dean precinct captain had to say. Gephardt turned out to be the anti-Dean movement all by himself.
But in all seriousness, this does provide some insight into why Dean underperformed in Iowa. Sure, the war of mudslinging attrition with Gep hurt him, and losing your message and becoming complacent (being an insurgent candidate relying too much on endorsements) didn't help. But Howard Dean was also a victim of the caucus process to some extent. Why? Because he did very badly among second choices of voters, particularly Gephardt voters. In many precincts, Gephardt did not make 15%, the "viability" threshold. As Schaller described, his supporters were, shall we say, *reluctant* to turn to Dean. Thus, they turned to Kerry and Edwards en masse.
As Dean and Joe Trippi have reminded people time and time again, they're running "a different kind of campaign" (a 50-state, grassroots-oriented net-savvy machine, yadda yadda). Sure his tactics and stature became increasingly conventional heading into Iowa, and that probably hurt him. But the nature of Dean's support, as well as the convictions of supporters of non-"viable" candidates, did not help him in the caucuses. Dean has inspired very strong feelings among the Democratic electorate ("He's the new revolution in the party!" "He's nowhere near as electable as my guy, plus he yells a lot!"). As a result, he's more of a first-choice-or-no-choice kind of candidate. A candidate that inspires feelings that strong is less likely to be people's second choice. And the polling in the days prior to the caucus showed just that: Kerry and Edwards were far ahead of him in second-choice polls.
Also, the caucus process artificially inflated Kerry's totals. He received the runaway Gephardt support, surely. But in the lead-up to the caucus, he was polling well as the second choice of Dean voters. So in rural precincts where Dean had less support and couldn't make the viability threshold, his supporters turned to Kerry.
It's likely that Kerry still would have won if Iowa had a full primary election instead of a caucus. Instead of the 38-34-18-11 spread that the caucus process gave us (Kerry Edwards Dean & Gep, respectively), the primary may have given us results like 28-25-22-18 (again, K E D & G respectively). So if Iowa were a primary instead of a caucus, the lead story might have been "Kerry wins, but it's a logjam!"
In Kerry's case, he's the candidate who put the most eggs in Iowa, had the most to lose, and is low on funds, and will now have some competition for the vet vote in New Hampshire. My advice to the tall drink of water from Mass is to be careful and plan well.
Speaking of Kerry, it's nice to Mickey Kaus squirm, he who has been ridiculing Kerry's campaign rather harshly for a while now.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home