We are currently operating under the assumption that Bush is very vulnerable. This is a very dangerous assumption.
Tonight I saw George Stephanopoulos speak. He said two things which do not appear very often at this website, but which we would be very well advised to take seriously. First, Stephanopoulos argued that Bush is in a very strong position. As we have all been watching his numbers slide with the mess in Iraq, it may seem to us that he is very vulnerable, but we should be very careful about this assumption. Stephanopolous pointed out that Bush's approval rating is historically high, beating Clinton and Reagan at this time in their presidencies. In polling, Bush also does better than these two former presidents against prospective rivals in polls. As hard as it may be for us to believe, Bush does historically well in his numbers on integrity and honesty, as well as on the question of whether he is a strong leader. Stephanopoulos also pointed out that Bush has really solidified his base (he has 90% support among Republicans) by taking bold stances (as if he had a mandate) on the right wing agenda. The tax cuts especially had this effect. Also, Stephanopoulos said that tomorrow the government would announce that third quarter growth was very strong coming in at higher than 6%, (see also
http://slate.msn.com/id/2090498/>) which may be the beginning of the end of the president's economic troubles. If all of this were not bad enough, don't forget that Bush will raise more than 200 million dollars for the general election. Anyone who thinks that Bush will be easy to beat is making a
BIG mistake.
Aside from the facts, which show that Bush will be a formidable candidate, I would like to offer the following piece of strategic advice: There is too much at stake in this election. Regardless of Bush's actual strength, we should act as if Bush will be a very strong opponent. If we act as if Bush is strong, and he is actually weak, then we will win by a large margin. But if we act as if Bush is weak, and he is actually strong, then we are courting disaster. Bush could not just win, but win by a landslide, giving him a mandate like we have never seen.
I mentioned that Stephanopoulos said two things. The second thing was about Dean. Overall, I feel that Stephanopoulos was quite favorable towards Dean. He did not come close to endorsing any candidate, but Stephanopoulos said he thought Dean would be the most likely to win the nomination. However, he pointed out that Dean is running on repealing all of the Bush tax cuts, not just the tax cuts on the rich, and if Dean wins the nomination, this will be a major campaign issue. Let me grant, for the sake of argument, that Dean is right in his argument that the benefits that Dean will provide in terms of programs will outweigh the small tax cuts received by the middle class. Even so, he will never be able to sell this in the general election. Bush will simply say that Dean wants to raise EVERYONE'S taxes. Dean will have to admit that Bush is right. Then he will go on to explain why this is better for the middle class, but at that point he will lose most of the audience. The admission will be tremendously damaging. Add to that the anger which Dean has tapped into among the Democratic base. I have said this many times before. The Democratic base is angry. I am angry. But the nation is not angry. Many people feel that we are going in the wrong direction, but this is very different from anger, and the majority is not angry. Anger is an emotion that appeals to those who are angry but turns off everyone else. The RNC has already run commercials with Dean screaming in rage: "I'm sick and tired of the fundamentalist preachers telling me what to do!" Think about how that will play in the Red states. Also, think about how that will play in many of the Blue states. Imagine Bush just uses his 200 million to play this clip over and over.
If Dean is the candidate, the combination of "raising taxes on everyone" and anger could add up to the perfect storm for Democrats. Bush could not only win, but win with a landslide, and this would give him a mandate like we have never seen. Imagine Bush with a real mandate. It is a scary thought.
So that people know where I am coming from, I am a Clark supporter. I went into the nomination process thinking that I would support whichever candidate had the highest probability of beating Bush, and I was pleasantly surprised that the candidate that I thought had the highest chance of winning was also the candidate I liked most. I think that it is clear that Clark has the highest probability of beating Bush. I won't rehearse all the reasons, but I urge everyone to act as if Bush is very strong, and select the candidate that you honestly think would be most likely to beat Bush in the general election.