Don't bet yet on Dean-Bush race, or result
By Janadas Devan
NOT a single vote has been cast in the Democratic presidential primaries. This year's presidential race will not even begin in earnest till September or so, after the two major parties have held their respective conventions.
And yet, the media seems to have decided who the Democratic presidential nominee will be - Dr Howard Dean - and there have been a slew of articles matching him to the Republican incumbent, Mr George W. Bush. As far as the media is concerned, the contest is all but settled, except for the crowning of the inevitable victor - Mr Bush.
But is it? Not by a long shot. Firstly, on the Democratic side, the primary race is far from over. Dr Dean is leading in the polls at the moment, but front runners have been known to fall flat on their faces before.
In fact, in almost half of the Democratic primary races since 1960 when an incumbent president wasn't running, front runners at this stage of the game didn't go on to win the party's nomination.
Remember Ed Muskie? Well, few would, for although he led in the polls in December 1971, he lost the Democratic nomination to Mr George McGovern in 1972.
Remember Senator Ted Kennedy? He is well remembered, of course, but he too led twice in the polls at this stage of the game - in 1976, when he wasn't a candidate, and in 1980, when he was - and on both occasions, another man, Mr Jimmy Carter, won.
On most occasions, the leading candidate at this stage of the game does go on to win the nomination. But most occasions don't mean all occasions. Is Dr Dean a Muskie or McGovern, a Kennedy or Carter? Democratic voters will decide - and they won't tune in till later this month and next, when the primary season begins in earnest.
The optimistic Dean script runs something like this: He bags the Iowa caucus on Jan 19, beating Congressman Dick Gephardt, his strongest challenger there. Then he goes on to win the New Hampshire primary on Jan 27, burying Mr John Kerry, a senator from neighbouring Massachusetts. All his opponents then dutifully fall out, and he has the nomination all but sewn up by next month. Perhaps - but again, perhaps not.
Iowa and New Hampshire will be followed by South Carolina, an altogether different place. African-Americans, not Dr Dean's strongest suit, will constitute almost half its Democratic primary electorate. Whoever comes out the victor in Iowa and New Hampshire will no doubt have momentum, or 'Big Mo', behind him, but there is also a funny thing called 'Expectations' in American politics.
Remember Mr Bill Clinton in 1992? Dogged by the Gennifer Flowers affair during the New Hampshire primary, his lead in the polls evaporated and he was all but written off. But the 'Comeback Kid' promised to fight 'till the last dog dies', and ended a surprise second. It was a loss, certainly, but he beat that mysterious but real candidate, 'Expectations', so suddenly it was he who had 'the Big Mo' behind him, not the actual victor in New Hampshire. Mr Clinton went on to become a two-term president, the first Democrat to achieve that feat since Franklin Roosevelt.
The point here is not that Dr Dean won't win, or that he will - but rather, that we don't know yet. A week is a long time in politics, former British prime minister Harold Wilson said once, and nowhere is that truer than in America, where a week can be an eternity.
But what if Dr Dean does win the Democratic nomination? Would the outcome of a Bush-Dean match-up be all but pre-ordained? That's the conventional wisdom and, on the face of it, difficult to contradict. Dr Dean's liberal insurgency candidacy does resemble that other famous (or infamous) liberal insurgency candidacy - Mr McGovern's in 1972. He does appear liberal enough to win the Democratic nomination, but too liberal to win the general.
Still, this may be too premature an assumption. For one thing, Dr Dean is not quite a flaming liberal. He may quack like one, but he doesn't always walk like one. When he was Governor of Vermont, he actually supported gun rights - not exactly a kosher liberal position - and generally ruled from the centre.
For another, the American electorate is deeply polarised on a whole host of issues. Democrats are mad as hell with Mr Bush, especially over Iraq, and Mr Bush's supporters love him with a fervour few incumbents have commanded, again because of Iraq. The electorate remains very much what it was in 2000, almost evenly split, with the coasts generally anti-Bush and almost everything in between pro-Bush.
The President's approval rating is high now - 56 per cent - boosted in part by Saddam Hussein's capture, but when asked if they would like to see him re-elected, voters are split down the middle, with 46 per cent saying 'yes' and 46 per cent 'no'.
This election may well be decided, not by that endangered species, the independent 'swing' voter, but by turnout. Dr Dean's alleged liberalism would probably do him harm if independents were deciding the outcome, but not if the election was close and the outcome depended on motivating the faithful to go to the polls.
The odds are Mr Bush will win, especially if the economy continues to add 50,000 new jobs a month over the next six months, the stock market doesn't melt, the dollar doesn't collapse and Iraq doesn't explode. Too many things would have to go wrong, simultaneously, for him to lose, and that doesn't look likely.
But then again, that is precisely what the political terrain must have looked like to Mr Al Gore in January 2000 - and look what happened to him.
straitstimes.asia1.com.sg |
