Display:
Well, Dean's biggest problem was his campaign team. He had a few people on board that just weren't up for it and I think gave him bad advice.  The institutional opposition to him in favor of Kerry was far stronger in 2004 than we see with Hillary/Obama against Edwards.  I think anyone who watched closely and understands politics can see that Dean would have had a very strong chance of beating Bush in 2004 and the Republicans knew that.  A very large number of non-democrats caucused in Iowa in 2004 because there wasn't a Republican caucus they had to attend instead.  

The media of course was very against Dean as soon as he opened his mouth about media regulation, big surprise.  Edwards has done the same this time around but knew going in what the effect would be.  Edwards is much savvier than Dean and has a far greater grasp of long-term strategy in a political situation, his trial lawyer experience is huge here.  Remember that Edwards is a guy who won a senate seat in North Carolina as a DEMOCRAT in the late 90's.  That is some miraculous stuff.

In terms of "aggression" or "rhetoric" or primary/general election differences it's all b/s.  Nothing said the past two months will be remembered come August/September.  How one wins the primary is not especially important in a general election when you have a party apparatus behind you going against an "enemy" who is genuinely not on your side.  

Tonight is really fascinating because there are 8 or 9 people who might be the next US President and that picture will clarify greatly after all is done in Iowa.  Even the mere thought of someone other than Bush being the President is inspiring.

I also see major potential for party re-alignments depending on how things shake out.  The Republican Party is dangerously close to a split on coalition lines.   I also think that if the GOP genuinely splits the Democrats will be right behind them.  The political realignment will look as such:

Right Wing/Christian Party (15% base)
Libertarian Party (10%)
Centrist Party (left wing Repubs and "moderate" Democrats - 30%)
Corporatist Party (Romney/Giuliani's/Lieberman's - 25%)
Progressive/Green Party - (left wing Dems and Greens/Nader/Kucinich types 15%)

That represents a clearer view of the actual political breakdown in the US, in my opinion and the failure to nominate party-uniting candidates can push a split here.  The Republicans will go first but the Democrats will immediately follow, being abandoned by a left-wing that is only there to keep Republicans out of office, once the GOP block is broken the left wing block can leave in peace and the Democrats/Centrists will still be a "majority" party able to block rightwingers from the big office.

by paving on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 06:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Republican Party is dangerously close to a split on coalition lines.   I also think that if the GOP genuinely splits the Democrats will be right behind them.

I agree.

I'd rearrange your political list to put the Corporate Party above the Centrist Party (to the Right), but that's me.

I hope and actually think the Progressive/Green Party did better than 15%.  How much?  shrug  20%?  Maybe even as high as 25% depending on the leaders and the message.

There is a not-so underground wave of anger building in the US that either of the establishment Parties, as currently constituted, are prepared to handle.  

by ATinNM on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... entrenchment of two party politics, so it is far more likely that if the Republicans are burst asunder either they will be rebuilt on new lines or a new second party will rise in their place.

Without even OSP (Optional Second Preference) Voting, let alone IRV, and with fusion tickets illegal in most states (joint candidate on the ballot for multiple parties), the only way for a third party to gain power in first past the post districts is to be the first or second party on a state or regional basis ... and in that case, as with the Farmers-Labor party of Minnesota, there is a strong incentive to join the national major party where it is possible to find the most allies.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The way in which, if a presidential election doesn't result in a candidate with an absolute majority of electoral college votes, the election falls back on the Congress makes third parties unviable at the national level. Also the way the House and Senate majorities work.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the US any third party able to elect members to Congress immediately would be "viable" in such a scenario.  I think all of these groups have an existing party-apparatus to build upon and existing geographic strongholds where they could elect sitting members of Congress, local councils and state assemblies/senates.

A few of them could easily win electoral votes in a Presidential election, thanks to our much-maligned but in my opinion geographically-sound and well thought-out electoral college system.  If a candidate fails to reach the majority # of electoral votes the election returns to Congress, which has decided US Presidential elections in the past.  At that moment your ability to form coalitions with other parties would become very important.

Most important culturally the existing "Democrat" and "Republican" type parties would essentially remain with less conflicted bases and would likely be relatively the two largest parties, preserving a significant amount of the existing political climate.  The key is that the incentive for say left wing Democrats to throw in their hat with them is reduced because the liklihood of a rightwinger getting elected is still about the same as it is today.  The difference is now their values are actually represented, potentially growing and there is an actual platform.

A Progressive/Green coalition party in the US, if able to steal the left wing of the Democratic party, would be very legitimately powerful immediately.  Consider that they would most likely have a couple sitting senators and a number of congressman from day one.

by paving on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... in the later 1800's, which is home "fusion tickets" came to be outlawed in the first place. As Republicans argued at the time, they could beat the Democrats, and they could beat the Progressives, but if they were forced to run against both the Democrats and the Progressives at the same time, they might not beat them.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series