Dean wins Iowa

[BlackMage]

What if Howard Dean had won the Iowa caucus in 2004 by about the same margin as John Kerry did in OTL? I became interested in politics afterwards, but reading through articles of the time (and even polling) he was obviously expected to be the front-runner. Then...not so much.

Would he still have imploded? (Would he have screamed at all if he'd expected to win 'New Hampshire, and so on, and so forth'?) Would the momentum from an Iowa victory have been enough to win him the nomination?

 

[Electric Monk]

One of the interesting things about US primaries is that it's a race. Now, admittedly, there's a far cry between 17 states spaced out reasonably and a Super-duper Tuesday (heck even the 1992 Super Tuesday was considered an extra-large one) but—unlike a national primary—momentum matters, to an extent.

I don't have the book in front of me at the moment but there's a pretty good math model of objective and subjective chances of winning in a US Presidential primary.

Off the stuff in my head Dean winning Iowa hurts Kerry (my POD to have this occur would be no Margolis and his excellent ads that, along with an Iowa focus, won Kerry that state) and will shift people towards Dean in New Hampshire.

However Super Tuesday is the real fight. Plenty of people win the early contests and then die (Bush in '80, for example) and so it's down to that. If Super Tuesday states go for Dean based on momentum (possible, but not always) then he wins. If they go for Kerry (say he gets second in Iowa, second or first in New Hampshire) then he gets the nod, most likely.

However a split Super Tuesday is possible and then you have a big fight on your hands. Perhaps not all the way to the nomination (Kennedy/Carter, or Reagan/Ford style) but certainly for some time.

It might well be an Edwards/Dean battle actually. Either way it would probably be Dean versus somebody at the Super Tuesday firewall, and then we see what happens.

Who would win at Super Tuesday? I don't actually know. Dean may well, riding off momentum, but it's certainly possible that Kerry or Edwards does well (less likely to sweep, though). Well enough to get the delegates and polling numbers required to fight on? That I don't know.

 

[OatEatingMule]

What if Howard Dean had won the Iowa caucus in 2004 by about the same margin as John Kerry did in OTL? I became interested in politics afterwards, but reading through articles of the time (and even polling) he was obviously expected to be the front-runner. Then...not so much.

Would he still have imploded? (Would he have screamed at all if he'd expected to win 'New Hampshire, and so on, and so forth'?) Would the momentum from an Iowa victory have been enough to win him the nomination?

Dean was considered a bit to loony for most moderate Dems.
Because of slippery slope nature of the Democratic nominating process (the GOP has built in party mechanicisms to stop outsiders from taking the nom... i.e. after Buchanan took NH, the party stepped in to support Dole in South Carolina).

Had Dean taken the Dem Nom, Bush would have won by a larger margin.

Either way, history isn't altered much.

 

[Derek Jackson]

No he was not a loony.

Thinking that the war and occupation of Iraq was an error seems to me to have been notably sane.

He was not that far to the left of mainstream us opinion.

The 'I have a scream' was at least in part consequence of the way sound equipement worked.

In OTL Kerry came over as deeply unclear about what he was about.

I think a candidate with a clearer point of view might easily have done better, and he only needed to do 1.5% better..

 

[Marky Bunny]

No he was not a loony.

Thinking that the war and occupation of Iraq was an error seems to me to have been notably sane.

He was not that far to the left of mainstream us opinion.

The 'I have a scream' was at least in part consequence of the way sound equipement worked.

In OTL Kerry came over as deeply unclear about what he was about.

I think a candidate with a clearer point of view might easily have done better, and he only needed to do 1.5% better..

I have to agree, Dean would have been a better candidate than Kerry.
Kerry was very mixed, "I voted for it, before I voted against it" etc, Dean actually quite moderate, the Karl Rove machine spun it that would have liked to have faced Dean, but he was the one candidate that could have done damage.
Don't forget the Dem 2006 mid-term Dem camapign was run by Dean as chair of the DNC , and well run clear message campaign against Bush in 2004 could I think swung the campaign for Dean.
Prior to the Primary campaign it was rumoured that Dean if the Dem Candidate was going to offer the VP slot to Wesley Clark. A former General from the south as a running mate would have been a good choice, the other name mentioned was Former Florida Governor/Senator Bob Graham. Either of these would have been excellent VP picks.
Dea

 

[BlackMage]

Well, in OTL Kerry was at 8% nationally on January 11, 2004, whereas Dean was at 26%. Whereas by the 28th, Kerry was at 42% and Dean was at 11%-a huge shift in public opinion. So Kerry went from coming fifth to winning nearly every primary.

So yeah, if Dean can just maintain his earlier momentum and prevent an upset victory, I don't see how anyone can gain enough momentum to stop him. Without a Kerry victory in Iowa, New Hampshire is pretty much Dean's, and from there he can probably get the nomination.

 

[David bar Elias]

Hmm....I'll guess that Dean would have had a pretty adversial relationship with the press (particularly FOX)--I remember from late '03 and 2004...the media didn't like Dean...the right-wing "Noise Machine" would have ruthlessly gone after him. I also doubt that Bob Shrum will be around to run Dean's campaign into the ground, which is good.

But then there's the danger that if he loses, the DNC will be taken over by someone far more ineffective, and someone who won't be inclined to listen to Dean's suggestions for a 50-state strategy.

 

[Electric Monk]

Hold up here. Dean's 50 state strategy effective? Hah.

Just because the state level parties like him for the free money doesn't mean it was any good, there was something like 20 House seats up for grabs that the Democratic Party lost. In no small part because Dean insisted on dumping money in states and races where there was no chance of winning. I'm on the DCCC's and Rahm Emmanuel's side on this one—they're the reason the Democrats won the seats they did, not the DNC and Dean.

I agree that gradually building out a proper infrastructure is a good move but you don't jump to 50 states—you look at the next 50 most completive races and you don't lose winnable races because you're spending resources in places where Democrats aren't going to get elected.

To be fair, aside from 50 state nonsense, Dean is a very good chairman of the DNC with fund raising and other strategy.

 

[MarkWhittington]

Most people on the right were very sad that Dean self destructed too soon. If he had won Iowa, he might have gotten the nomination on the basis of momentum as people suggested. But I could see him doing his "I gotta scream" speech at the convention, which would have locked in his well justified image as a lefty loon. Of course Dean also has a record of saying quite a few other alarming things as well, so the fall race might have been entertaining, but a landslide for Bush.

The effect might (and I used that word deliberately, since it can be argued either way) have provided Bush with more of a mandate to do things like social security reform and getting the tax cut permenent. Still, there's no way of getting around the discontent over the Iraq War (which I think the Dems are frankly overreading), but if Bush pulls into more Repubicans into Congress in a Bush vs Dean landslide, the GOP might escape losing Congress (or at least the Senate) in 06.

 

[Electric Monk]

Hmmm. I suppose if Bush decided to push through a flat tax America would be better off, but anything short of that is mere gimmickry given the US tax code. However pushing down the top rate is just sensible economics—it's doing so when you also increase spending massively (Reagan and Bush 43) where you run into problems. Note that tax revenue doubled under Reagan, but he spent so much on defence that it didn't matter. Also note that the rich pay less as a percent of their individual income, but contribute—as a group—more of the total tax revenue as it's less worthwhile to dodge paying taxes.

I do know that Rove's staff was looking forward to fighting Dean but I think it was Rove who said it wasn't going to be him. It might be vice versa, I can't remember the source at the moment. Wait. If anyone else remembers someone (Newsweek?) got access to the campaign and did a short book about the inside of the campaigns that was kinda gossipy.

Anyway I think Dean would likely do worse then Kerry in the general (and I continue to insist that either Kerry or Edwards placing second in both Iowa and New Hampshire would count as major momentum given their previous polling positions—given expectations sometimes it's enough to be second) but that the '06 midterms were gonna be bad for the Republicans regardless.

However a big enough victory in '04 may be able to stave off defeat in the Senate (and just think we might have Allan running for President, yuck IMO) although I think the House is probably changing hands.

Assuming, of course, that Iraq proceeds as per OTL which there's no real reason to doubt. The only competent forces in Iraq, and their lessons, have been ignored to this day. There's a couple good articles about the success of some units, mostly due to their commanders, and then I look at the overall picture and just sigh.

Obviously the United States does need entitlement reform. 80% of the budget is taken up by that and defence and it's not like the budget is balanced or anything. Not to mention trillions of dollars of debt, and projected deficits/debt levels that make economists want to kill themselves. Whether the Bush plan would actually curb costs is unlikely given his previous record—prescription drug plan that was nearly twice what he told Congress it was (and he knew beforehand) and either way was completely unaffordable.

I suppose a landslide in '04 depends heavily on his Congressional operators who started to back off from heavy support following that election and Iraq and the like. (Aside: has there ever been a theoretically small government Congress that has ever increased spending this much at the whim of the President?). Crushing Dean may keep them in line, but if Bush's opinion polls drop like OTL they may pull back as they did OTL.

As for Dean winning the general? It's unlikely. Of course he isn't stuck with Bob Shrum and there's a lot of talent Kerry dumped (Margolis, in particular) but frankly Dean—who was a pretty moderate governor—has to get back to that without being portrayed as a flip-flopper.

I don't if he can but he does have advantages over Kerry. He's tackling the Iraq war and national security head-on, he won't have to deal with Swift Vote, he's better on TV then Kerry.

Who's Dean's VP? I suppose Bill Richardson is looking damn good to him. Edwards… Maybe. Who else was on the list?

 

[Marky Bunny]

Hmmm. I suppose if Bush decided to push through a flat tax America would be better off, but anything short of that is mere gimmickry given the US tax code. However pushing down the top rate is just sensible economics—it's doing so when you also increase spending massively (Reagan and Bush 43) where you run into problems. Note that tax revenue doubled under Reagan, but he spent so much on defence that it didn't matter. Also note that the rich pay less as a percent of their individual income, but contribute—as a group—more of the total tax revenue as it's less worthwhile to dodge paying taxes.

I do know that Rove's staff was looking forward to fighting Dean but I think it was Rove who said it wasn't going to be him. It might be vice versa, I can't remember the source at the moment. Wait. If anyone else remembers someone (Newsweek?) got access to the campaign and did a short book about the inside of the campaigns that was kinda gossipy.

Anyway I think Dean would likely do worse then Kerry in the general (and I continue to insist that either Kerry or Edwards placing second in both Iowa and New Hampshire would count as major momentum given their previous polling positions—given expectations sometimes it's enough to be second) but that the '06 midterms were gonna be bad for the Republicans regardless.

However a big enough victory in '04 may be able to stave off defeat in the Senate (and just think we might have Allan running for President, yuck IMO) although I think the House is probably changing hands.

Assuming, of course, that Iraq proceeds as per OTL which there's no real reason to doubt. The only competent forces in Iraq, and their lessons, have been ignored to this day. There's a couple good articles about the success of some units, mostly due to their commanders, and then I look at the overall picture and just sigh.

Obviously the United States does need entitlement reform. 80% of the budget is taken up by that and defence and it's not like the budget is balanced or anything. Not to mention trillions of dollars of debt, and projected deficits/debt levels that make economists want to kill themselves. Whether the Bush plan would actually curb costs is unlikely given his previous record—prescription drug plan that was nearly twice what he told Congress it was (and he knew beforehand) and either way was completely unaffordable.

I suppose a landslide in '04 depends heavily on his Congressional operators who started to back off from heavy support following that election and Iraq and the like. (Aside: has there ever been a theoretically small government Congress that has ever increased spending this much at the whim of the President?). Crushing Dean may keep them in line, but if Bush's opinion polls drop like OTL they may pull back as they did OTL.

As for Dean winning the general? It's unlikely. Of course he isn't stuck with Bob Shrum and there's a lot of talent Kerry dumped (Margolis, in particular) but frankly Dean—who was a pretty moderate governor—has to get back to that without being portrayed as a flip-flopper.

I don't if he can but he does have advantages over Kerry. He's tackling the Iraq war and national security head-on, he won't have to deal with Swift Vote, he's better on TV then Kerry.

Who's Dean's VP? I suppose Bill Richardson is looking damn good to him. Edwards… Maybe. Who else was on the list?

Prior to the primary season when it looked almost certain Dean would be the nominee, the names he was looking where Wesley Clark, and Bob Graham. I think in Dean's case Graham would have been a good choice.

 

[Xen]

Prior to the primary season when it looked almost certain Dean would be the nominee, the names he was looking where Wesley Clark, and Bob Graham. I think in Dean's case Graham would have been a good choice.

I disagree, Clark would have been better. The Republicans would have tried to spin Dean as to being weak on defense and military strategies, Clark would have balanced this out.

 

[Marky Bunny]

I disagree, Clark would have been better. The Republicans would have tried to spin Dean as to being weak on defense and military strategies, Clark would have balanced this out.

In theroy yes, but also like Dean he could put his foot it!!!, but either him or Graham would been good choices.
Graham was also Kerry's other main contender for his VP.