The Green[e]house Effect: a Weblog

Stop This Train

I have to get down to the state capitol, but not before taking a second to urge my friends here in Georgia -- Deanies, Edwards fans, whoever — to pull out the stops to block Kerry from winning the March 2 primary. His cruise to the nomination looks like a total mistake, and I want to head it off before we end up shaking our heads in the fall.

My problem? The elbow he threw at Edwards today — unfit to be vice president, the job worth less than a bucket of warm spit? — has me annoyed. I also feel less than cheery about his under-the-table attack ad on Dean. I want to win, folks, but do we need to make fighting dirty our tactic of first resort?

My alarm bells got going, though, because of the degree to which this wave of poplarity Kerry keeps riding reminds me of a pyramid scheme. William Saletan of Slate puts it well [emphasis added]:

Are these "can defeat Bush" voters [who support Kerry] correct? Is Kerry the most electable Democrat?

It's a hard question to answer, because most of the evidence is circular. If people support Kerry because they think he's electable, he goes up in the polls, which makes him look more electable. The best way to filter out this distortion is to focus on the voters least likely to make their decisions in November based on electability. These happen to be the same voters who hold the balance of power in most elections: independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans. They aren't principally trying to figure out which Democratic candidate can beat Bush, because they don't necessarily want the Democratic nominee to beat Bush. They're trying to decide which Democratic candidate, if any, would be a better president than Bush.

How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards.

Kerry gets votes, in short, because people think others will vote for him. If second something happens to change that impression — if something turns conventional wisdom against him — what will he fall back on?

Two things, from what I can tell: (1) his tissue-thin message, and (2) the Bob Torricelli playbook. Against the president, that's just not going to be enough.

This might sound old school, but to me, candidates win or lose their campaigns on the basis of how they frame and argue the issues. A campaign needs to have a theme, a message; otherwise, its raison d'être comes across as little more than gratification of the candidate's will to power.

I don't hear a message coming from the Kerry camp; I just hear pleasant, but meaningless, slogans. Pardon my saying so, but we can do better than that — and for now, we still have time to.

My friends who support Kerry, I still hold in the high respect. But put me on record for Edwards.

Posted by Greg Greene at February 12, 2004 12:56 PM