« "Earning" Health Care | Main | 'Illions of Dollars »

01/31/2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Petey

"It's not (Dean's) ideology, which I think is as malleable as they come..."

Heh. That's a polite way to put it.

---

Let's also not forget that Dean's approval percentage is in the teens nationally, and only in the 20's among Democrats (!)

Perhaps not the best face for the party.

Petey

"Am I really expected to have an opinion about who should be the chair of the Democratic National Committee?"

The thing almost no one seems to realize yet is that the big news is that we've just witnessed a Hillary/Dean alliance, which is quite likely to both result in both Dean winning the DNC chair, and Hillary winning the '08 nomination.

My feelings about this are quite mixed. While I was looking for a non-northeastern candidate in '08, a Hillary/Dean alliance would unite the party across the spectrum like no one since her husband in '92. And there's an interesting case to be made for her electability since she won't have to pander left, recently expressed well by Marshall Whitman.

But it's worth noting that the party tectonic plates have moved drastically in the past week, and nobody seems to have noticed.

Nell Lancaster

Petey, what evidence is there for a Clinton-Dean alliance? Maybe the reason no one's noticed is that the party tectonic plates haven't moved, much less drastically.

Petey

"Petey, what evidence is there for a Clinton-Dean alliance?"

In plain light of day - Ickes.

Behind closed doors - the abandonment of Frost.

"Maybe the reason no one's noticed is that the party tectonic plates haven't moved,"

Believe what you like, but watch how things go down, both over the next two weeks, and over the next three years.

Patrick

Hmmm...that's an interesting observation, Petey. There would appear to be some shape that comes out of connecting the Ickes-Clinton-Dean-Frost dots.

I am not sold on Hillary Clinton in '08. Early on, I'd much rather see Russ Feingold. But I have to admit that after enduring the Great Summer Laydown of '04 from the Kerry campaign, I'll give anyone who is willing to call a pig a pig and call a Republican an inequality loving thug that wipes his ass with the Constitution a chance to make his or her case.

I do think that Hillary will battle with both fists like Bill did. That's my only un-negotiable demand so far for '08. The only language these Republican curs understand is the boot; it's way past time that we give it to them.

james

and what are the positive things you think Dean would bring to the role?

Crab Nebula

I have no reason to believe Dean won't do a decent job as DNC chair. His Prez campaign probably (hopefully) taught him he has limits, and if he delegates properly to compensate for his weaknesses he can get done what needs to get done by focussing on his strengths. Everybody brings their own mix of pluses and minuses. That said, I like Rosenberg, too.

While I think Petey's observation is noteworthy and possible, I can't see the deal being sealed. I don't see Dean being able to "deliver" his followers to Hillary, and there weren't that many Dean followers (relative to the whole of primary voters) anyway. And there's plenty of background skepticism of Hillary, and no shortage of other talent chomping at the bit to run in '08.

Petey

"I don't see Dean being able to "deliver" his followers to Hillary, and there weren't that many Dean followers (relative to the whole of primary voters) anyway."

Dean doesn't have many voters as followers, but he's got a lot of activists as followers.

Since the new primary rules were instituted in the early 80's, the party establishment choice in the year before the actual primaries has ALWAYS received the nomination. An alliance between Dean and the Clintons would give them unstoppable power to select that party establishment choice.

While an Edwards, Warner, or Richardson will be able to run, they'll have to run an insurgent campaign, which is very difficult to pull off under the rules.

And finally, on the topic of "delivering" followers, I thought it was interesting that a couple of days before the Ickes endorsement, Markos had a post up asking people to lay off Hillary. This is how the new machine works.

---

"I have no reason to believe Dean won't do a decent job as DNC chair."

The main problems with Dean that I see are threefold:

- The guy has serious baggage, and at a bare minimum, he will make it more difficult to ameliorate the existing problems with the Democratic brand.

- If he actually pursues the "appeal to the base" strategy that his rhetoric centers around, it will cause problems given the GOP's huge margin in self-identified conservatives over self-identified liberals.

- There is a moral hazard here. Dean has risen inside the party by attacking the party. Rewarding him for doing so will encourage more discord and division in the future.

All that said, it looks like this is a done deal.

Crab Nebula

Petey, I agree with you that Dean's baggage and questionable campaign conduct and strategy make him a bad Presidential nominee, but I don't think these sink him as DNC chair. I mean, how many "bad" party chairs have there been? I don't think the DNC is a likely locus of reform for the party anyway - that's gonna come from 2 places : 1) innovative candidates, and 2) the work of places like NAF and CAP -- and the innovative candidates who pick up their ideas.

I don't think Markos can be corralled to be such an inside player as you imagine. He's a maverick; that's my take on him.

I think a lot of money will line up for an "anybody but Hillary." And the whole 'establishment choice a year before' thing you mention reminds me of the nonsensical "senators can't win" argument. It's a very small sample size from which to make a generalization. (like McCain couldn't win if he had the nomination? like Kerry didn't come close?)

Petey

"And the whole 'establishment choice a year before' thing you mention reminds me of the nonsensical "senators can't win" argument. It's a very small sample size from which to make a generalization."

You are right that it is a small sample size. And I agree that an insurgent nomination isn't impossible. But I do think it is much more difficult than many people think.

Given the rule changes of the early 80's that were put into place specifically to stop insurgencies, it's a high hill to climb. Not many folks realize that Hart got more votes, and won more delegates than Mondale in '84, for example.

In 2000, things were set up so that even if Bradley had pulled out NH, Gore would almost definitely have still won the nomination.

In 2004, if two thousand Iowans had gone for Edwards instead of Kerry, Edwards would have won Iowa and had a serious shot at the nomination. But given the process, I'd wager Kerry still would've won the actual prize.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a perfect storm insurgency. And you are correct that we are dealing with a sample size so small as to be basically meaningless.

But if the Deanie forces get behind Hillary in 2006 and 2007 as I expect, she'll be operating from a position of such strength as to make an insurgency almost impossible to pull off. Think about the Bush '00 primary campaign in the other party for a template of what it'll look like.

---

"I don't think Markos can be corralled to be such an inside player as you imagine. He's a maverick; that's my take on him."

I see him as a very old fashioned party machine hack in a very new field. I think the reason you perceive him as a maverick is because his forces have been outsiders in the party until this week. But in the sense that being a maverick implies independence, I think your take on him is dead wrong.

To return to the Hillary example, there was a perception at dKos throughout and after the '04 primaries that the Clintons were hostile to the Dean Presidential campaign. As a result, there was a large amount of hostility directed Hillary - the general tone toward her was like something you'd expect to see at a right wing site. And then, a couple of days before the Ickes endorsement was made public, Markos posted a defense of Hillary, which is something I'd never seen before.

That's not a maverick. That's an old fashioned power politico trying to deliver for his faction.

RonK, Seattle

As little as I know of what it takes to succeed as DNC Chair, I understand it takes at the very least a massive sublimation of one's own ego.

Memory fails, but when's the last time a DNC Chair was a former elected official? A prominent EO? (RNC examples come to mind more easily.)

Petey

"Memory fails, but when's the last time a DNC Chair was a former elected official?"

As recently as the 90's.

Chris Dodd and Roy Roemer both were chairs, each paired with an executive director to do all the non-talking head work. (Dodd was not 'former', and I'm not sure if Roemer was 'former' when he held the job.)

It'll be interesting to see if the Dean steamroller is willing to put up with that kind of arrangement or if Dean will have control over the executive director. Dean, personally, seems to be mostly on a long Nixonian quest for reputation redemption, which would not necessitate control of the party machinery. But those in his camp are definitely looking for control.

RonK, Seattle

As I said, memory fails ;-)

FWIW, I endorsed Rosenberg a while back as the business end of a split chair arrangement.

Now it's opportunity time for Rosenberg. Streams of Democratic money, activists, consultants, technologists, candidates and voters may take refuge outside the DNC loop -- some whose minds are made up, some opting out on a probationary basis, and some insufficiently Deanish purged by the true believers.

NDN can catch the wave. Or Simon can fold it in, staunch some of the flow, and let other vehicles pick up the remainder.

Petey

"Now it's opportunity time for Rosenberg. Streams of Democratic money, activists, consultants, technologists, candidates and voters may take refuge outside the DNC loop"

Maybe. But maybe not.

The whole point of a Dean / Clintons alliance is to create a consensus Democratic establishment again, with Dean inside the tent pissing out.

If Dean plays his role properly, there won't be a need for a shadow party.

It's obviously very early, and things could still break in many different directions. But unless Dean is truly a whacko, it'll be in everybody's interests to keep things together.

Petey

From Lizza's article, Dean is quoted thusly:

"I am the Howard Dean who knows how to build things. I'm not Joe Trippi's creation."

As someone who's always thought the price for Dean's readmission into polite society was his public repudiation of Trippi-ism, I'm partially mollified.

I'd prefer, ""I am the Howard Dean who knows how to build things. And Joe Trippi is a cancer on the soul of the left." But I'll settle for what I can get.

RonK, Seattle

It's Dean by acclamation, and Rosenberg's opening bid is to maintain NDN (and his role in it) as-is.

mike

I am not an american, so please bear with me. I have followed your politics for 40 years,and the Democrats seem to be going around in circles.

Election results are affected by party policies and also by the technicalities surrounding the process of voting. Democrats seem to be impervious to words and ideas that point out to them that the US electoral system is RIGGED against them.

Does it tell you something that the US is the only major country in the world without a national government organised automatic enrollment of all citizens over 18 years onto a public register for the purposes of voting?

How much money and energy is spent simply getting people enrolled? And anyone can do it...no wonder there is so much corruption.

Why can't the Democrats introduce State Election Commissions which enroll every person legally resident in the state onto a voting register. There are states controlled by the Democrats where this can be done. Democrats will benefit from more of the disenfranchised being able to vote.

Why not do it?

And twenty other sensible technical improvements to the process of voting and counting votes.

If you refuse to see commonsense, you may as well elect Homer Simpson as Chair of the DNC.

The comments to this entry are closed.