There's a lot of chattering out there about how nominating Dean could be a catastrophe for Democrats because he supposedly won't win in the general. It's obvious, they say, he's got a lot of deep support among his followers, but won't be able to translate it into broad support.
If that were true, then it would be true that he's only leading right now because the rest of the vote is split between so many other candidates. Dean isn't above 20% in most of the states.
Here's the part I don't understand. If the split vote is making it more likely that Dean will win, but Dean is clearly going to be a catastrophe for the party, why aren't any of the other candidates stepping aside early to consolidate their power?
I'm think primarily of Lieberman and Kerry here, since they are the two candidates with significant support that also have virtually no chance of winning, either in terms of popular support or primary scenarios. If they're that concerned, why don't they endorse Gep or Clark or Edwards in an effort to generate a stronger anti-Dean to control the message?
Rhetorical question, obviously. I think it's either because the Dean Is Unelectable meme is crap, or, it's because the Democrats are still a squabbling bunch of insiders that can't settle on a strong message and are playing an active part in destroying themselves even more.