The power of the Incumbency and choice of candidate=Clark

[andym]

The incumbent has a tremendous advantage unless at least one is true:

1. The economy is bad and trending down
2. Foreign policy has led to a disaster
3. Strong 3rd party candidate splits the vote

Incumbents who lost in the last century:
Taft: T Roosevelt ran as 3rd party candidate

Hoover: Economy in the sewer and trending down

Johnson: Foreign policy disaster in Vietnam

Carter: Economy bad with downtrend-- didn't start getting better until years later + Iran hostage crisis.

Bush: Economy was in downtrend, but started to rebound a few months before election. Perot took 19% of the vote, especially in pro-Bush regions. Lee Atwater, brilliant evil political strategist was dead.

Bush II (hopefully):
Economy lost 3 million jobs, but is expanding more than 1 year from election. Uptrend is a positive indicator for those Americans with jobs (90%). Unclear how the economy will play out, but right now it won't hurt Bush enough to lose.

Foreign policy: "War on terror" Taliban defeated in Afghanistan, but Bin Laden on the loose. Iraq war causing American casualties but Saddam captured. If war is going really badly, it will hurt Bush, if casualty rate is down by the summer, then Bush will play the Commander in Chief role to great effect.

Third Party: If Nader runs, he mostly siphons off votes from the nominee. It is unclear how much of a factor this will be.

At the moment, he would be re-elected easily. If the nominee can be
painted as untrustworthy in any way, then * would win in an historic landslide. It will be hard for the nominee to paint Bush as untrustworthy unless one of the scandals breaks open (Traitorgate) because he has already been stereotyped in the popular culture as "honest" and not smart enough to be manipulative. Ironic, given the reality, but ....

To win our candidate will:

1. have to get a few breaks (Bush scandal, or bad events)
2. be perceived as a great guy, honest and consistent, and very personable to at least break even with the Bush myth-making
3. neutralize Bush as Commander in Chief. Be impressive on foreign affairs.

In this analysis, barring large changes of fortune, only Kerry or Clark have a real chance to defeat Bush (due to point 3--foreign policy) unless he/she gets some "lucky" breaks. And both will have a difficult time. Only Clark also fulfills 2(personable, charismatic), although several of the candidates are very charismatic/personable: Dean, Edwards and Sharpton stand out. In fact, perhaps Dean is the most charismatic of all, given the strong reactions to him, both positive and negative.

Remember Bush is only hated by those who understand who he has been, who he is, and what he has really been doing. Without a scandal adjudicated by a neutral party, all charges against him will be reduced to partisan political attacks and will not stick.

This is why I believe Clark would make the best nominee (pts 2+3 above) if we plan to win the General Election.

[andym]

1. Countering the myth of Bush's honesty

It will be important to try to break the myth of Bush's honesty. But it is very difficult, and it must be done politely, with the tools of myth-making. The groundwork must be laid first. To set the groundwork requires some subtlety. The Bush's problems should first be characterized as incompetence, before the theme of dishonesty can be introduced. That is to prevent charges of partisanship from muddying the message.

In addition, the message is best delivered with regret, some sadness and even respect. For example, "we're sorry to inform the American people, but it looks like someone in the Whitehouse has committed a traitorous act resulting in the deaths of CIA agents. How could this happen? Someone must have made a terrible mistake." Again, partisanship cannot appear to play a serious role or it will be dismissed.

[andym]

2. Defeat of wartime President is difficult as well

There is less history here, but defeat of a wartime President is difficult. Only Johnson lost in the last century (he declined to run), and Vietnam was much more unpopular than the Iraqi war is: Vietnam had a draft that could could have affected every American family with young men.

Again, I think this must be taken into consideration:
we have two ongoing wars:
1) the ill defined war on terror
2) the Iraqi War
and we have a President who is not seen as losing them (yet).

Our candidate must at least equal a sitting "Commander in Chief" to neutralize *'s advantage. This will play strongly with non-partisan voters. This is a strong reason to nominate Clark, a former general, although Kerry has the foreign policy gravitas to match up well against Bush as well.

[TorchTheWitch]

5. in case you were unaware

We're also fighting a war in Afghanistan... remember that one? The one where we're being thoroughly trounced?

[andym]

6. You mischaracterize the situation in Afghanistan

First, the Taliban, and Bin Laden's forces were driven from power.

Second, we helped fight a proxy war there, most of the actual soldiers were Afghanis.

Third, the current problems derive from the second point, the militias that won the battles control most of the country.

Fourth, there is an insurgency supported by the Taliban, Bin Laden, and a pro-Iranian militia leader, but at the moment, they are not threatening to take back the country.

It is the third point, that details the main problem, that many people outside of Kabul are not happy about the future of their country.

Now, in terms of political implications for Bush:
right now he is getting credit for defeating the Taliban/Bin Laden.
It is only if the isurgents can manage to take back Afghanistan would Bush be blamed and suffer consequences. There are far more American troops in Iraq than Afghanistan. So the potential for casualties is far less in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

[ViognierSipper]

3. Clark concerns me

I hear plenty from Clark about his foreign policy experience but hardly anything about what he will do domestically. I am voting for Kerry because I do not think Clark has a good domestic plan

[andym]

4. Clark, Kerry and domestic policy

First, I think Kerry has the best domestic policy experience of all the candidates and would do an outstanding job as President.

Second, to address your concerns, Clark has a very reasonable set of policy statements describing what he would do. Here's a place where you can learn more about Clark:


http://clark04.com/vision/
http://clark04.com/issues/
city policy
http://clark04.com/issues/cities/
child welfare policy
http://clark04.com/issues/childpoverty/
higher education policy
http://clark04.com/issues/highereducation/
universal preschool
http://clark04.com/issues/preschool/
etc


Now his experience as a politician is limited, but I take him at his word. His former job required strict adherence to an honor code, and he comes across as someone who says what he believes.