Boston, Massachusetts
July 26, 2004

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean glared angrily out the hotel window. He didn’t at all like what he was hearing.
“What did you say?” he asked his campaign manager, his voice almost a growl.
“Governor, you’re not going to be elected President: not this year anyways.”
“What the hell are you talking about? We’re only a half-dozen points behind Bush, and we haven’t even gone through the convention yet.”
His campaign manager shook his head,
“I didn’t say that a Democrat wasn’t going to be elected President: it’s just that you aren’t.”
“We’ve got 40% of the pledged delegates!”
“On the first ballot, Governor: after that they can vote as they please. Once they do their legal duty and vote for you, they’re going to jump to someone else: Hillary or Gore, take your pick.”
Governor Dean sighed inwardly before slamming his fist onto a nearby table,
“Get Al Gore on the line,” he said.

How could we come to such a scenario? Simple: have the Democratic Primaries produce a divided result, leading to a situation where no individual holds a majority to delegates going into the convention. This, depending upon how well President Bush is doing in the polls at the same time, could mean that the 2004 Democratic National Convention is Massachusetts will be the most exciting in decades.

Because of the way that this year’s primaries are scheduled, it is very possible that no clear winner will emerge from the Democratic Primaries, leading to a situation where the nominee is uncertain going into the convention and nearly irresistible pressure will mount on the two most popular non-candidates in the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, to enter the race in order to ‘save the party.’

The Iowa Caucuses are less than two months away. It is clear that Gephardt and Dean are the front-runners in Iowa, with Gephardt having a slight (and apparently growing, if recent polls are to be believed) edge. Let us stipulate that Gephardt manages to win Iowa, but Dean turns in a respectable second-place showing. Edwards and Kerry follow behind- far behind, with Clark and Lieberman even further back. Sharpton, Kucinich, and Mosley-Braun barely even register.

A week later, Howard Dean will almost certainly win the New Hampshire Primary. However, given that this has been a foregone conclusion for months, the real questions will be as follows: how will Dick Gephardt do, given his win in Iowa, and will John Kerry perform well enough to remain a serious contender? In any case, I would argue that the importance of the primary in New Hampshire in 2004 will be severely diminished by the seven primaries and caucuses which will be held a week later on February 2nd, when Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina all go to the polls.

Polls show Dean trailing badly in the South. He is apparently focusing his time and efforts on the Virginia Primary the following week to prove that he can win in the South- meaning that he has already basically conceded Oklahoma and South Carolina. In fact, of all of the February 2nd Primaries, Dean can only be considered the front-runner in one: tiny Delaware. The most likely result is that February 2nd will produce a split decision: Dean will win at least one, and possibly two or three primaries, and the others will probably be split between two or three candidates: perhaps with Lieberman winning Arizona, Clark winning Oklahoma, Edwards winning South Carolina, Gephardt winning Missouri, and New Mexico and North Dakota being won by one two of the above. Barring a miracle, the February 2nd Primaries will effectively kill the campaign of John Kerry. Meanwhile: Dean’s momentum will have been blunted by a confusing and split election which will receive extensive coverage in the media.

The rest of February features primaries and caucuses in Michigan, Washington, Maine, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Idaho, and Utah. Because of the varied geographical and ideological nature of these states, it is again likely that they will split between several different candidates.

March 2nd is the decisive day of the Democratic contest. If a nominee does not emerge from the primaries and caucuses in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont: then it is highly unlikely that one will be decided upon entirely by the will of primary voters. If one candidate does perform fairly well on March 2nd (if, say, Dean took the majority of states) but had yet to fall out of reach, it seems likely that, between March 2nd and March 9th, there would be a frantic series of ‘stop Dean’ deals made by the surviving candidates, heading in the voting in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas on the 9th: all states where Dean is unlikely to fare well.

By March 10th, the Democratic Party will be left in one of four situations:
1) With a solid nominee, ready to move and fight through the summer and into the general election.
2) With a wounded-front runner, likely to win the nomination but lacking a clear majority and still facing one or more opponents.
3) With two fairly strong candidates (probably Dean and a ‘stop Dean’ candidate) each unable to gain a majority, battering eachother through the later primaries (which are unlikely to be decisive) and into the convention.
4) With a divided field of candidates, none capable of gaining the nomination by their actions alone.

Any of the last three scenarios invites, if Bush looks vulnerable, the entry of another prominent Democrat into the race in the interests of rescuing the party from a debacle. Both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are ideally positioned to serve this role. In fact, if one gets into the race, I think that it’s highly likely that both will, as allowing the other to win the nomination (and possibly become President) would foil the ambitions of the other.

What should Republicans hope for? I, for one, am divided: I suspect that Howard Dean will, if nominated, be a worthy successor to George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis. But I am not certain. The Dean campaign has successfully done two things: used new technology and tapped the feelings of the post-American left. Though I believe it to be beatable, that does not mean that I wish to take any chances.

At the same time, the best chance the Democrats might have would be to discard their present field and to find a new nominee who can be rebranded to play the role of the ‘generic Democrat’ acceptable to all factions of the party. Frankly, I suspect that, come July of 2004, Al Gore might play that role even better than Hillary Clinton. In any case, a fresh face, injected into the race with much excitement and fanfare, would be a real danger to the President.

The best scenario is a long, bloody, and draining primary battle which ends with Howard Dean emerging as the Democratic nominee. If you think that Republicans are bad-mouthing Dean now, wait until you hear what Dick Gephardt’s people will have to say about him at the end of February 2004. If the Republicans are smart, they will borrow a trick from Gray Davis’ re-election campaign in 2002 and seek to run ads designed to interfere with the Democratic primaries. Ideally, the rigours of the campaign will disgust many of Dean’s more naïve followers while, at the same time, raising his level of stridency. From what I’ve seen, I don’t believe that Governor Doctor Howard Dean is a man who has an easy time taking anything lightly.

While it is still possible for the Democrats to pull off a victory in 2004, all signs increasingly point towards next November being a historic disaster for the Democratic Party. This does not mean that we should rest on our laurels and wage a campaign based upon feel-goodism. The greatest mistake of the Reagan campaign in 1984 was how it failed to capitalize upon the opportunity afforded to it. We do not wish to simply temporarily pin the monster that is the Democratic Party: we wish to slash its throat and eviscerate it.