Pundits and pollsters say that John Kerry's victories in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters, wanting an "electable" nominee, have decided that Howard Dean does not fit the bill. If the definition of "electable" is "a candidate who can win enough vote to beat George Bush", what makes Dean less electable than Kerry? Is it anything more than John Kerry's saying so? There are several very real reasons why, with respect to "electability", Howard Dean is the best candidate.
Howard Dean has the best chance of any candidate to win votes from moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. As governor of Vermont, Dean constrained the spending habits of legislators, paid down the state's debt, and produced balanced budgets. No other candidate for President - certainly not George Bush - has demonstrated successful fiscal management experience. Howard Dean was called "soft on defense" for his position on Iraq, but as the Bush Administration's various "justifications" for war in Iraq continue to be invalidated, Dean's position is vindicated. John Kerry, however, has been exposed as vulnerable to attacks on domestic security issues; his legislative record includes votes to reduce funding for both military and intelligence programs. Howard Dean will win the votes of moderate Republicans who, deceived into believing that George Bush was a moderate, voted with their party in 2000.
Howard Dean, running as a Washington outsider and delivering real change to the political process, minimizes the chance that a third party run from the left draws votes away from the Democratic candidate. Ralph Nader made allusions that he would stay on the sidelines if Dean were the Democratic candidate. Howard Dean will win many of the 3.9 million votes that went to Nader in 2000.
Howard Dean is the only candidate that is luring the support of significant numbers of voters who did not go to the polls in 2000. The Dean for America message is attractive to many of those 50 million Democrats whose apathy or cynicism has alienated them from the electoral process. They will only reengage en mass with a candidate who has demonstrated, not just promised, political change. With his record as a governor who balanced fiscal prudence, managed partisanship, and responsible expanded social protections; as well as his record as a candidate who has proven that individuals can once again affect the electoral process; Howard Dean will win the votes of many whose ballots went uncast in 2000.
A couple million votes (or a few thousand (hundred!)) will decide the outcome in November. Howard Dean's experience, record, and message, more than those of any candidate, is poised to win the votes of large numbers of these 55 million people who fall into one of the categories above. By my count, if voters are looking for an "electable" candidate, that makes Howard Dean their best choice.