Wesley Clark's Candidacy Would Be a Perfect Storm

[ignatiusr]

I believe Wesley Clark's candidacy would constitute the perfect storm of primary support. Whereas most other candidates are trying to appeal to their own specific camp (especially Dean), Clark would draw supporters from literally every major camp. Here is my scenario:

Alright, "Undecided" is consistently at the very top, or near the top, of almost all primary polls. So, why are people undecided? It can't be because there isn't a liberal enough candidate (Kucinich), or an anti-war candidate (Dean, Kucinich, etc.). Nearly every Democratic viewpoint is represented in these 9 candidates. So it must be that most of these undecided's reasons for indecision are not a matter of ideology, since there's already a massive spectrum of ideology in the race, but electability. They're still waiting for the candidate that they think can beat Bush. That said, Wesley Clark will be a rock star with these people. If they're looking for electability from a candidate outside the current nine, Clark is their one, solitary choice.

In addition, Clark will siphon votes from most other candidates as well:

Dean- The vast majority of Dean's supporters are there because of his tough, anti-war attitude. His political experience and/or domestic policies are secondary. If Dean didn't hadn't had that anti-war persona, his domestic strength would have only been enough to send him into Kucinich territory. However, no other candidate has a tough, anti-war stance, so Dean's candidacy forms one giant umbrella over all of these voters. Now, enter Wesley Clark. He has the same tough anti-war stance, but with massive credibility to go along with it, in addition to being more electable and telegenic. Dean supporters there for his anti-war policy now must make a decision between two anti-war candidates. Clark's charm, electability, and credibility would definitely draw a large group of former Dean supporters to his camp.

Also, Dean does have a loyal base, but not as loyal as some are trying to suggest. The latest primary poll I saw that addressed this question showed Dean in about 2nd or 3rd in terms of solid support. About 35% of Dean supporters described their support of Dean as absolute. This was good compared to most other candidates, but not spectacular. Gephardt had the most solid support, probably because he appeals to an exclusive worker/labor crowd.

Kerry- A much more simple scenario. He's running on the national security, electability ticket. Clark bests him in both these categories.

Lieberman- Running as a centrist. Clark's military background gives him automatic centrist appeal, even though he really isn't one.

Gephardt- Clark probably takes the least amount of supporters from Gephardt. People support Gephardt for his political and domestic experience, which is Clark's weakest point.

Edwards- Edwards supporters like him because he's a good looking, charming southerner who could beat Bush. So is Wesley Clark. Only he actually has a chance of winning the nomination.

Graham- Same scenario as Kerry.

I'm not saying Clark will assault the support of all of these candidates, I'm just saying that he will easily siphon some support from each of them. Say it's only 2-3 percent, on average. And say he attracts 2/3 of undecideds. He's still automatically in the 20+% range.

And none of this takes into account the two final pieces of the storm- media coverage and grassroots support.

The media will have a fit when he enters the race. They have very little to work with given the current crop. Clark will be the only good looking candidate in the race. And he has a very, very dramatic biography. War commander, 4-Star General, Rhodes Scholar, etc. etc.

Second is grassroots support. We currently have a little less than 1/10th of Dean's grassroots support. But here are some stats that color this fact in a different light-

First, look at the Alexa rating (Alexa tracks the amount of web traffic to a specific site) of DraftWesleyClark.com and DeanforAmerica. They are virtually even. And yet, Dean has a much larger amount of internet supporters. What this tells me is that an enormous amount of core Democrats are interested in Clark, but he hasn't announced his candidacy yet, or even his party, so they are not yet willing to throw in their support. Visitors to DeanforAmerica are showing interest in an extremely established, declared candidate. So they either show their support or they don't. But when Clark enters the race, all of those visitors that have been eyeing the draft movement and hesitating (plus a huge amount more, given the surge in media coverage) will make their commitment.

Second, Clark hasn't spent one day or one penny campaigning, and yet he has already achieved 10% of what Dean has. An argument could be made that the draft movement has been working on his behalf. However, here is a stat that negates that argument- DraftWesleyClark has spent one half of one percent as much money as Howard Dean has. Getting 10% as much support while only spending 0.5% as much money is a huge bang for your buck. Think what Clark will be able to do once the millions start coming.

I am of the opinion that these scenarios are not outlandish, but based on very real scenarios. And when you bring them all together, you have a hugely popular candidate.

[xray s]

1. One other thing going for Clark

Assuming Bush does not face a primary challenge, I think Clark may pull alot of moderate Republican voters into the Democratic primary.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Well thought-out analysis.

Clark would be very strong, and I agree has the wide appeal that will be needed to win both the nomination and the general. I think Edwards has it in spades to beat Bush in the general, but not sure he can get the nomination (I'm still hoping). Kerry will be hard to take down though.

It's so early, anything can happen. And somehow, I get the feeling it will.

[Mz Pip]

3. Grassroots support

for Clark is growing. Once he declares, this will be his race to lose. I would love to see him in a debate with Bush. He would demolish him.

MzPip
:dem:

[quirked]

24. Great to see so much Clark support at DU

Keep up-to-date on Wesley Clark news at http://wesleyclark.blogspot.com

[RichM]

4. These Clark threads are hilarious in their ridiculousness.

What a pathetic sloppy mess the Democratic Party is, that some of its confused members need to resort to the idea of running a career military man (& investment banker on the side), for electoral salvation.

Don't you think there is enough emphasis on the goddamn military already in American life? Don't you think there is enough emphasis on investment bankers already? You think these characteristics need yet more elevation?

Why don't we just cut the agony short, and say that from now on, the Democratic Party is committed to devoting 95% of the federal budget to the Pentagon and Wall Street. We can have rallies where we worship the military; everyone can strut around waving American flags and dressed in shiny uniforms. Let's make it so when the public hears the word "Democrat" the first thing they think of is armies, troops marching, rooting out evil-doers. Sure, why not. Let's try to out-Republican the Republicans in cultivating nationalism & militarism as a religion. And let's try to outdo the rightwing in keeping the public terrified of possible foreign enemies, too. After all, it worked for the rightwing, why not for us? What a great idea.

If we try, we can defeat Rush Limbaugh by moving the Democratic Party to his right. Nominating a general/investment banker would be a great first step in this glorious process. Let's show everyone that the Republican world view is exactly right, except that they don't go quite far enough.

(Another suggestion: We can prove to America that the Dems are not anti-business, by proposing MORE giveaways to big corporations than the Republicans. Yeah, that's right: let's compete with the Repubs to show who loves big business more!!)

[disgruntella]

6. ok, i'll bite...

2003: The U.S is at war. I do not support the war; I think Bush and his administration are morally wrong about this issue (amongst so many others); I do not think the U.S. should be in this situation. But we are at war. And anti-war rhetoric is not going to get us out of this situation.

Now enter a retired general with actual (i.e. non-AWOL) military experience running as a Democrat, with Democratic positions on domestic issues to back it up. Who better to lend credibility to the "Democrats can beat Bush in 2004" movement? Maybe he won't win the primaries but the support that I believe he will get (along the lines of the original poster) will be sufficient for serious consideration as a VP. (I would love a Kerry/Clark ticket!)

I don't think having an anti-war stance is sufficient for a Democratic candidate in 2003. I think having the experience to get us out of the current war we are in is much more important, and not just politically. Does Dean have the experience? Does Clark? I can't give a definitive answer, but I'm a lot more intrigued by Clark than Dean at this point.

That said, I am glad that Dean and the grassroots movement behind him are happening. For one thing, I think the Dean campaign is politicizing people who may not have voted Democrat in 2004. I just hope that the extraordinary commitment that Dean supporters have for their candidate will not drop into apathy if their candidate doesn't make the cut in the primaries.

[ignatiusr]

7. Rich

You really need to tone down your messages. You're not winning yourself any favors. And please, please, please read up a little more on Clark before you continue commenting on him. You lack an even basic understanding of his policies. I'm up for a civil, informed debate any day of the week, but not this nonsense.

In response to your allegations, first- There IS a war on terror. That's not the argument. All you have to do is look to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered a year and a half ago to know that that's true. The problem here is not a fictional war on terror, it's a president doing a hideously poor job waging it. He's using it as a fear tactic to throw his weight around and drive his own ideological, unrelated agenda. It's not giving in to Republicans to want someone with strong defense credibility. We DO need someone with national security credibility in this race. The only time we give in to Republicans is when we DELIBERATELY ignore candidates with national security credibility, even when it's vitally important, just for fear of what the Republicans will say if we do so.

Also- Clark is not conservative economically. He's anti-Bush tax cut, and has said that he generally agrees with the economic plans that boosted the economy in the 90's. Being an investment banker doesn't automatically make you a conservative. I think everyone understands that.

Secondly- Clark is NOT a Pentagon man. He worked for the Pentagon, yes, but he had severe problems with those at the top. The old Pentagon Republicans relieved him of his post in 2000 due to ideological differences.

[RichM]

11. Hello, Mr 28-posts-on-DU-in-his-entire-life -- Please do prattle on &

tell me more of what I "need to do" about the tone of my posts. I really do have the greatest respect for your obvious authority on that subject. After all, who would have more expertise in this area than you, who just got here yesterday?

About Clark: it doesn't mean a thing what the guy is like personally. It's the IDEA of nominating a military person.

In case you haven't noticed, there is a dearth of truth in today's USA. To cure that problem, you need leadership willing to speak the truth -- not leadership that continues maintaining the lies of the past.

One of the great lies of the past is that US military and/or CIA interventions overseas have generally been justified. They have not actually been justified. Almost every one of them was a criminal action based on lies. For example, Vietnam was a crime. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala & Chile were crimes, as was the recent Iraq atrocity. There are another 3 dozen I could name. Military men are not going to help cure this country of the delusion that the use of our military has generally been justifiable. Rather, nominating a military man is going to reinforce in the public mind the notion that whichever political party has fewer uniforms strutting around, is "weak on defense" and probably consists of commies & traitors.

As for your argument that there IS a "War on Terror" -- that's undiluted bull. 3000 Americans amounts to a large traffic accident. It was unfortunate, but it's not really that big a deal, & people who keep hyping it are doing the country no favor. (The fact that it was 3000 was mostly a fluke, anyhow, because no one could have predicted that the towers would actually FALL. That was mostly a lucky break for Osama -- the best he could logically have anticipated was a few hundred deaths.)

The only required response is having reasonable security at airports -- PERIOD. No military response is required, or is going to do the slightest bit of good. Nominating a general will send the public the message that the US should always first & foremost be looking to the military to "protect us." The truth of course, is that WE are the aggressors, & the rest of the world needs protection FROM US. This is the kind of thing the public will never understand, if both political parties continue promoting the delusion that WE are the ones in need of protection. Our country needs LESS military spending, less military thinking, less militarism, a severe cut in the military-industrial complex & its repulsive filthy influence on the national life.

[disgruntella]

13. so i assume between this post and the previous one

... you read up on Clark and his actual positions on the role of the military? Or were you too busy crafting an insulting response? I suspect the latter. :eyes:

I hate to sound cliched, but: "It's not the number of posts, it's what you do with them that counts." I agree with some aspects of your post but the patronizing tone is bunk.

[Mz Pip]

17. 9/11 a large traffic accident???

Oh that will go over really well, with like about 4 people. That will win back the White House FOR SURE. GO for it.

A fluke, probably.
Not that big a deal? Hardly.

THis is where we live. And the majority of the people in this country don't buy the notion that we were the agressors and had this coming.

BTW, Clark is very critical of the war on Iraq.

MzPip
:dem:

[ignatiusr]

18. Oops

I wasn't aware that the amount of posts you've made on Democratic Underground was a litmus test for your credibility on political issues. I like DU, but I really didn't know it had that much influence.

I don't think much of a response is necessary. You're arguments against Clark are obviously bizaare and irrational. No one needs me to point them out. I truly think that it's only going to inspire more Clark supporters.

[Kahuna]

28. 9/11 a large traffic accident? Just so you know, you are on ignore..

so don't bother responding to any of my posts because I won't see you.

[Kahuna]

29. On second thought , I won't put Rich on ignore. It'll be

more fun watching him twist in the wind...

[The Lone Liberal]

31. If we persist in putting forward a candidate

that is not strong on security issues we will lose.

The one thing that Joe Liberman ever said that I agree with is that statement. We will not only lose the presidency, we more than likely will lose more seats in the house and senate. If Clark is willing I for one will back him and work for his election. Weighing Clark against the others, Clark is the only one who could excite and draw in those who the Democrats need to win. I for one do not want another McGovern or Dukas. The country cannot stand four more years of Bush. If we lose this time, we may well be out of power until the next century, if then.

[StandWatie]

35. ouch..

People freak when you don't go into fainting spells at the notion of the airliner attacks but compared to a bad day in the global south it really doesn't add up to much.

[patcox2]

41. Oh, its "I have 1000 posts and you don't, therefore you are an idiot" now.

Thats "rich", Rich. Please tell me how your post count here somehow makes you more or less credible about anything? Most people with high post counts get them by constantly posting "you go girl" or the intellectually vacuous equivalent over and over and over. Your ciriticism of this person because he doesn't have enough posts to matter in your pathetically parochial view is ludicrous. You make me laugh.

You know whats pathetic is that on occasion I have mentioned that I have more than one post-bac degree in politics and law and that I have worked for several campaigns in policy and message roles, and whenever I have done so, I have been attacked as an elitist bastard and braggart. But bragging that you have posted here a few thousand times brings no reproach from any of the cadre of people with no time to do anything but post "me too" idiocy here. Thats the spirit, we don't need to hear from anyonw who knows anything, we want more shit about death rays shooting down wellstone and how there was no airplane that hit the pentagon. Pathetic. I am getting sick of this place, despite that it helped me so much in the dark days imediately after the 200 election.

[Kahuna]

9. Your guy is polling 1%. Don't call us pathetic.

:eyes: When Clark is added at least he gets 2% to 3%. While Kucinich remains at 1%.

[hamsterhuey]

10. can you offer anything besides hot rhetoric?

i'd like to know how clark would push the dems to the right? so far everything clark's said has been pretty left. i dont know how many conservatives would say allowing gays in the military would be OK. And anti-tax cuts? How conservative is that?

You obviously have a strong dislike of the military. The fact that Clark served in the military is not a reason to hate him. Whatever your dislike of the military is, your views don't represent 90% of the American public.

[amazona]

12. clark is not on the right

We don't need to assume that everyone in the military is on the right. Clark has taken a lot of **** for not being a Republican and not playing the game of saying what it is politically popular or convenient to say. Clark actually took on a genocidal maniac (Milosevic) and brought him to a public trial. Not every soldier is a right wing psychopath; some people go there because they take that stuff seriously about protecting others.

[elfin]

5. Agree

Have wavered between Dean and Kerry for months - like Dean for his passion, like Kerry for his experience and the depth of his advisers - esp. Rand Beers.

Am now thinking a Clark Graham ticket is the way to go. Esp. fter CSPN this AM with Clark supporters.

I just hope he is not too late to make his mark in Iowa and New Hampshire to get the ball rolling.

There is alot I do not know about him on environment, choice, UHC, etc. But electability is the key for us as long as the candidate is not too conservative on these other issues.

What will it take to get him to commit?

[ignatiusr]

8. Commitment

I think he has already commited. He's just waiting for the opportune time to announce, which is generally accepted as after Labor Day. He recently told his staffers to "crank it up" in terms of a potential campaign.

[Nashyra]

14. ignsastur

Thank you for your well thought out post. Just because some one has posted here over and over again does not mean that they are always right. I agree with you about RichMs post, it is easier and more educational to have a civil post and tell us what it is about the candidate you are backing rather than bashing the others, while there is nothing wrong with posting why you approve or disapprove of a candidates stand there is no reason to be so harsh. All the candidates running I think have a real love of their nation and are adamant about removing * from office. That's why we have primaries and if any one was smart or strong enough to run against * in the Republican primaries he would probably win.

[disgruntella]

15. me too

Thanks for the post, it was very well said, and welcome.

[ignatiusr]

20. Yeah

Thanks. The great thing about these arguments, similar to the great thing about Bush's "The economy is turning around" and "We're making good progress in Iraq" arguments, is that eventually, the proof will be there, regardless of how much debate there is. I'm almost positive Clark is going to run, and I'm confident that he'll win the nomination as well as the general election. And he'll be a fantastic president.

[tameszu]

21. We're sure about the following:

-Abortion: Pro-choice
-Environment: Opposes drilling in ANWR. Helps head Wavecrest, a company devoted to alternative energy technologies. Speaks in terms of taking, along with a short term view, a "100-year view," where the only issues important from that POV are the environment and the Constitution.
-Gay rights: Opposes Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but wants to have a solution implemented by the armed forces.
-Universal health care: Fuzzier, but has spoken highly of the Army's universal promotion of health care.
-Civil rights: critical of the USA PATRIOT Act.

What will it take him to commit? He has to know that he has a lot of supporters out there, and that it is likely that he will make a significant contribution to getting rid of Bush.

[w4rma]

16. He may do well as a Vice Presidential candidate if he will be willing to

stand up and say that he supports the Democratic Party, unamibuously. Until he is willing to do so, I concider him a *political* coward.

[ignatiusr]

19. Party

I think it makes him less a politcal coward, and more a political strategist. He's trying to draw support from every party before he makes his announcement. As soon as he does, he will obviously also announce that he's a Democrat. It would be nice if he would announce his party affiliation now, but in the long run, I think not doing so until his major announcement will increase his chances of defeating Bush. And in the end, that's most important.

[The Lone Liberal]

22. Solid analysis, there is plus one thing

Clark’s candidacy would create such excitement that he could well provide the coattails for re-capturing the Congress. I can feel a ground swell arising that the Bush team will not be able to answer.

[bluestateguy]

23. Clark v. Bush

I predict Clark would win 53%-44%, carrying every state Clinton carried in 1996 minus Kentucky, plus Colorado and Virginia.

[ReadTomPaine]

26. Florida would be hard to deliver w/o the proper running mate...

Expect exactly the same tactics as 2000 to be used regarding suppressing turnout.

[chaska]

30. I think Clark could be very strong in Fla

There are a lot of oldsters in Fla, and they like the military. That's why I don't think he'd really need Graham - who is looking to be a weaker candidate by the day. Hopefully, if Graham wasn't the veep candidate he would stay in the Senate, where he will be very much needed.

Bill Richardson, if he were the nominee, would be enough of a safety margin (he's Hispanic) to deliver Fla. Strong contender.

Lately, I'm pondering a Clark-Edwards ticket. With Clark at the top, Edwards could concievably deliver North and South Carolina (both went for Bush last time). I don't think it's a likely scenario though. Because Clark doesn't need someone as green as Edwards. It would point to his own lack of experience in elected office.

Mary Landrieu. First female vp. Too risky.

Hillary. Won't happen.

Dean. Won't happen. He doesn't deliver any state that wouldn't go Clark's way anyway. I think there would be too many ego problems. Clark would help Dean much more than the other way 'round.

Kerry. Too military heavy. Kerry probably wouldn't accept. Ego again. Again, doesn't deliver a state that wouldn't go Clark's way without Kerry. Stranger things have happened though.

Just some bedtime musings.

[gulliver]

25. He'll be the front-runner within a month

If Clark announces, he'll get the nomination and we can all say bye bye to Bush.

[Kahuna]

27. I don't know about a month. I'd give him 3 months.

But I hope you're right. :D

[MissouriTeacher]

32. I'm a Deanite...

who will jump to Clark's ship if he announces his candidacy.

I really admire Howard Dean, and I hate to seem disloyal, but I honestly think Clark has the best chance of beating Bush for so many different reasons.

[Kahuna]

33. This election isn't just about who can win the dem nod...It's about

beating bush. A lot of DUers make me believe that they don't care about beating bush. They just want their guy to win the nomination. How sad.

[ignatiusr]

34. Clark/Dean

Sorry to be bringing up a post that died a few hours ago, but I would really like to see a DU poll posted, and I thought this was an appropriate post to respond to with the suggestion. The question would be: What will you do if Clark enters the race? The answers would be "I am already supporting Clark and will continue to do so when he enters," or "I support Dean but will defect to Clark's camp if he enters the race, "I am Kerry supporter, but will defect," or "I support another candidate, but will defect." Then, 3 more options with the same candidate names, only saying "I support so and so and will remain in his camp, even if Clark enters." And lastly, an option saying "I will continue to support my candidate but will be open to defect as I learn more about Clark."

Dunno if anyone will read this, but if it hasn't already been posted, I think it would be a very interesting poll. My description is just a general suggestion, you can phrase the poll however you want. DU tells me I can't post my own poll.

[tameszu]

36. That poll might be interesting, but perhaps antagonistic

I like both Clark and Dean very much, and I am very willing to talk up Clark right now and promote his record, since I think he has a lot to contribute and people don't know as much about him yet.

But I don't think it's necessary to start a confrontation with people about how great Clark will be.

If he really is as good as we think he is, then they will come over on their own. I'm fairly confident that will happen, but I'm willing to wait for him to actually enter, rather than risk igniting a flamefest, as so many threads of that sort do, regardless of how good their intentions were when they started.

[ignatiusr]

42. Well

It would be antagonistic if the only poll answer options were "I will defect if Clark runs," but if the options also included "I will stay in my own camp," then it represents the entire spectrum of opinion. So it wouldn't alientate anyone. I've just heard several, especially Deanites, say that they would support Clark if he ran. I'd be really interested in seeing how many there actually are.

[Starpass]

37. A word to the wise

Been through these waters for 58 years and am laughing inside. Our "candidates" have come on too early and shot their wad and no one except a handful of their "faithful" know them or give a rat's ass. The smart one is the one who waits until labor day and comes on as "oh, my god, someone new...another one!!). Remember our beloved Andy Card in reference to the Iraq propaganda one year ago said that one doesn't introduce a new line in the summer. Dammit...a lot of potential with our nine and stupid, stupid political timing. Christ I was an old political science grad 40 years ago. Who...Who..Who is counseling these dumb asses. They sure aren't worth their six digit figures. Be it Clark of Micky da' Mouse, it's the guy who hasn't bored the face off of America who will be listened to after Labor Day.

[wndycty]

38. Here! Here!

:kick:

[Nashyra]

39. I am already a Clark supporter and will continue to be,

but I will support and WORK for any nominee we end up with.

[ewagner]

40. Great post Starpass

...us "old time" pol sci guys have the advantage of experience...

uuummm...unfortunately that also means we're getting old....

[quam]

43. Clark Participation in Primary Debates?

The debates begin September 4, if Clark announces his candidacy, as a Democrat, prior to 9/4, does he get to participate in all of the planned debates (assuming he wanted to participate) ?

[tom_paine]

44. Many would flock to Clark's banner. So would I.

The question is: Can he survive the Bushevik Vote Rigging that has been so successful thus far?