Opinion: Political observations

I'm a observer, I watch people, the news, all kinds of stuff. I get a piece of information here, a hint there, and then sometimes, after a bit of time, it comes together. It's worked well for watching things in Preble and I've been using it to watch the goings on of the national scene too. I'm going to talk about my observations of the process the democrats are using to select a candidate for President. As a Republican I don't much care who they chose but if you watch as much TV news and listen to as much talk radio as I do it is impossible not to know something about what they are doing.

Let me give you some points of interest that have helped me understand what is going on. The first one is from just after the 2000 election, probably in January 2001 or so. I was watching Chris Mathews on Hardball, a MSNBC program, and they were discussing what the dems might do for the next election in 2004. Mathews used to work for a high ranking democrat whose name I can't remember and is a known dem with presumed contacts in the party. The question came up about Gore running again in 2004 and Mathews laughed and said words to the effect that the 'machine' only lets you have one try at it and Gore would not get another. Besides they were mad at Gore for losing what they thought he should have easily won. Remember that Gore had a 25 point lead going in and he even lost his own state. Florida would never have been an issue if he just won his own state. Anyway, the power boys at the dems were mad at Gore according to Mathews.

Now we fast forward to an event about a year ago in Florida hosted by the dems for some reason I also can't remember. Gore gave a speech that was memorable because he was sweating while giving it. And not just a little sweat either. He had his coat off and sweat was staining his shirt from his armpits down to his pants! This was very odd. It was Florida and every hotel has great air conditioning so why was he sweating at this event. Then it occurred to me that the 'machine' was sending him a message that they didn't want him and they turned the air conditioning off to embarrass him with the media. So why didn't Gore get the message? He's a young man, who's whole life was geared towards being President. His father was a Senator and he believes he was destined to be President. He came so close and yet he lost it. He's not going to just go out in a pasture and eat grass. He keeps trying and will keep trying to get back in the game so he can run again. Now we come to 2004 and Gore decides for whatever reason not to run, perhaps he was promised something, perhaps he's bidding his time for 2008. Whatever the reason he announces that he's not running and all these other guys are fighting for it. Gore decides to endorse Dean. Dean is not the pick of the 'machine' either so perhaps Gore's decision was to try to help another outsider and poke his finger in the machine's eye. Whatever the reason, it doesn't change anything much either way.

I've previously said that Edwards is the 'machine's' pick and I stand by that. Just today we hear that some are questioning Edwards contributors. I think the machine is the source of his money. Drudge is even reporting that he overspent in NH, interesting isn't it.


Polls from Fox News 4.7% error rate.
........Jan....18-20....19-21....20-22....22-24
Kerry...........27%.....30%........37%.....37%
Dean...........29.........25...........19........22
Clark...........18.........19...........15........11
Edwards........8...........8...........11........12
Lieberman.....5...........7............8...........8

Notice the trend. I've said previously that the machine doesn't want Kerry but they may have to take him if he makes it. But watch for the actual numbers on Tuesday. If Edwards wins or shows a strong second then my predictions still hold. Edwards should do better in the south and the next big day is Feb 3rd when a whole bunch of states have their primaries. While Dean would have been the dream candidate for Bush another possibility exists and that is a tie. If no candidate gets the required number of delegates to the convention then all hell will break loose. If the dems don't decide on a single candidate then they will be spending all their time and money fighting each other until the convention and that would be a disaster for them. If they pick one candidate then that person can spend the summer running ads and stuff against Bush instead of beating up on each other. I prefer the former because I always like to watch turmoil in the democrat party and it would help to ensure an even bigger win for the reps in November.

The thing to consider about 2004 is not which candidate you prefer but which one those in the middle prefer. The core groups in each party will vote their party line. That is about 25% for each party. Then the next 15% for each party is softer but likely to vote the party line. A weak candidate could lose some of that 15%. The last 20% are those unaffiliated voters who will make the real difference. I think the dems are making a huge mistake saying they want to rescind the tax break, even though some of them say only for the rich. Many people will think that while they 'say' it is only for the rich they could easily change their minds and raise their taxes too. You can't win any election telling the voters you're going to raise their taxes. Also the anti-war talk will be perceived by some to think that the dems are weak on providing safety for the homeland. Whether these are true or not the fact that the dems are making such an issue of it will cost them votes from the middle in November. I think the real problem for whoever the dem candidate is all the statements made in the primaries will be remembered and used in the general and that can only hurt them.

But then, that's just my opinion.