In business, its called "hot money", money that has rushed in looking for a fast return, but which can rush back out again at a moment's notice. It is clear from Dean's stumble and Kerry's fast rise that most of the Democratic primary electorate is "hot support", which flows behind who ever has the rising stock.
We are back in the old rules of politics - everyone hoping for a stumble. But Kerry is no more inevitable looking that Dean was, and he's shown the ability to be thin skinned and stumble - already missteps and misstatements have come out of the campaign. He may yet be the nominee - a possibility that seemed remote two months ago, but if he is, he will be the least loved nominee in history.
But people are hanging in there, and there are good reasons why.
The first is the aforementioned hot support - if Kerry can get it, if Dean can get it, then someone else can too. They aren't sold on Kerry as a rockstar any more than they were sold on Dean as a rock star. It's more like they are trying him out, because the band that had occupied number one for a long time just fell off the charts.
The other factor that is keeping people in the hunt is simple: Bush has lost this upcoming election. That doesn't mean the Democrats can't lose it right back - but looking at a president who has two great quarters of growth behind him and a string of seeming foreign policy victories whose negatives and positives are dead even at 47%, says that whoever takes the nomination has, at least, a punting chance at the big prize.
This is why it is time for sensible Democrats to start refining message with respect to "Beat Bush". Every time you say it, the solid Democrat who is a non political junkie hears "unify behind the front runner". This is not a good idea. For the average independent or swing voter, it is still important to pound on it to drive up Bush's negatives. But it isn't a one size fits all.
This is important because the very reason that it is urgent to get rid of the current executive, and to change the leadership in Congress, is because Bush hasn't just been a bad placeholder, he has done positive damage with borrow and squander policies, and a foreign policy which can only be described as the worst of any major nation since Kaiser Whilhelm II of Germany. The people who have decided to participate in the primary process - the "electorate's electorate" if you will - have to realize that this is not a time to hysterically line up behind whoever looks inevitable today.
This means that the obsession Democrats should all share, and especially those who are well informed, is governing. Winning the White House will be very good for people lined up for patronage jobs or positions in the Cabinet. Last I checked, that isn't most of us. Governing well is what will make the big difference. It will do us no good to dethrone George, and then elect an individual who cannot govern. Call it "the Gray Davis" mistake. Saying "well anything is better than the Republican" isn't a winning strategy in the long run, becuase the Republicans will, at first chance, simply steal the office right back with someone who is a little less unacceptable. And make no mistake, Ahnold stole the election by making millions of illegal campaign loans to himself.
So when someone talks to you about Beating Bush, make a judgement call: if the person isn't a likely primary voter - then affirm that message, make them go away with "miserable failure" ringing in their ears. But if you are talking to a primary voter, tell them that "after a Nixon or a Hoover, you need the best, and American is counting on us to pick the best President".
Who is this? We all have our opinions, and that is why campaigns are waged. For myself - I pick Wesley Clark as being the combination of intellect and experience - but we all have to make the case so that when the convention roles around, we aren't stuck with everyone's third choice, but with someone who will be everyone's first choice.