Kucinich for 2004

November really boils down to one choice: Anybody But Bush. But since we’re in the primary stage, why not have a little bit of fun?

Kucinich doesn’t stand a chance in hell, but he’s got my vote in the primary. Despite what scaredy-cats decry as a wacko platform, Kucinich hasn’t managed his campaign with incompetence. Kucinich has never wavered from his stance. Kucinich has never had to clarify a comment or sleep with the Gore 2000 boys to save his bacon. Because Kucinich has a bigger pair of balls than Dean. He’s against the Patriot Act (unlike Dean). He’s audacious enough to end Star Wars and NAFTA. Kucinich has stayed in the race and remained true to his convictions.

I had problems with Dean’s position on the death penalty and his loose stance on civil liberties, as well as his intricate health care plan (compared to, say, a clear-cut Canadian style one). But I had contemplated voting for Dean because he had what I perceived to be courage. Now it turns out that Dean has been flying by the seat of his pants in nearly every capacity. And that’s no way to run a campaign or a country.

So while I’ll vote Anybody But Bush in November, I’m voting with my conscience in the primary. Do any of you lefties have the balls to do the same?

Dean’s Dead in the Water

New York Times: “Tricia Enright, the campaign’s communications director, said Dr. Dean was forming ‘a new creative team’ to overhaul its television advertisements. She said the campaign was not firing its media firm, in which Mr. Trippi is a partner. Many Dean supporters have been critical of the ad campaign, particularly in Iowa. Some questioned the arrangements by which Mr. Trippi forfeited a salary as a campaign manager but collected commissions � said to be as high as 15 percent in some cases � based on advertising buys.

Forget the Iowa yell. The Dean campaign’s financial incompetence stinks of cronyism and irresponsibility. And Trippi’s profiteering comes on the heels of the depleted war chest and Dean telling his 500 staffers to skip their paychecks for two weeks.

I’d say at this point that Dean’s goose was cooked. If Dean can’t manage the finances of his own campaign, then how can he manage the budget? Stacked against Bush’s deficit, Dean certainly comes across as fiscally conservative.

Okay, Howard Dean is Almost Finished

To call Dean’s second place finish in New Hampshire “close” is to approach a cliff face, jump off, and attempt to land on the ground without so much as a bruise. But apparently it’s worse than that. Howard Dean is now down to $5 million. Barring a Missouri win next Tuesday, it looks like we may stuck with Kerry. Unless Dean musters up Robert Kennedy-like support in California and many of the big states, and reenergizes his campaign. Kennedy, however, was more of an idealist than Dean is. And it ain’t exactly 1968.

However, while I woefully miscalculated the percentage points, I was dead-on in my place predictions.

[UPDATE: Dan Spencer has compiled all blog NH predictions with success and failure rates.]

[1/21/06 UPDATE: Apologies for the introspective aside, but I’m truly astonished by the idealism here. Not entirely surprised, mind you, because wildly optimistic notions enter fresh upon my noggin on a daily basis, with several acted upon during any given week. Indeed, I can safely confess that, since I turned thirty, life has been a process of trying to hold onto any and all scraps of hope, bonhomie and idealism, as the wise and sober forces of adulthood demand me to be serious and responsible (I am to a great degree, but I maintain that one can be both!). Granted, there’s still plenty of helium in the Zeppelin, with the only real Hindenburg being my inevitable death, I suppose. But this is what it means to be a committed “optimistic realist” at 31. On one hand, and tying this into Howard Dean, it would be foolish to discount the role of the Internet in disseminating Howard Dean’s Muskie moment. The conservatives guffawed and remixed that twenty second holler and played it over and over and effectively obliterated Dean’s momentum. But let us also consider how refreshingly genuine Dean’s yell was from the stiffs. Here was a man who was ultimately punished for expressing a genuine moment of excitement during the 2004 presidential election. And how much of a telling statment is that of what the United States political process has become? Little wonder that we have no real candidates to choose from anymore. American media, and those who react to it, is particularly unforgiving when it comes to genuine enthusiasm.]

New Hampshire Predictions

Well, hell, if Oliver’s going to do it, then so am I. Here’s my New Hampshire prediction. And I’ll even throw up percentage points.

1. Kerry 30%
2. Dean 29%
3. Clark 16%
4. Edwards 13%
5. Lieberman 8%
6. Kucinich 2%
7. Sharpton 1%

[1/24/06 UPDATE: If anything, the propensity to offer wholly unsubstantiated predictions involving numbers strikes me as utterly foolish. Of what value does this serve? Does it feel better to stave off impatience and anxiety by fabricating numbers? Or is this sort an elaborate way of setting one’s self up for disappointment?]

More 1992 v. 2004 Primary Comparisons

Delaware: February 3, 2004 Primary

1992
Tsongas 30.2%
Uncommitted: 29.6%
Clinton: 20.8%
Brown: 19.5%

Missouri: February 3, 2004 Primary

1992
Clinton: 45.1%
Tsongas: 10.2%
Brown: 5.7%
Uncommitted: 39%

South Carolina: February 3, 2004 Primary

1992
Clinton: 62.9%
Tsongas: 18.3%
Harkin: 6.6%
Brown: 6.0%

Arizona: February 3, 2004 Primary

1992
Tsongas: 34.4%
Clinton: 29.2%
Brown: 27.5%
Harkin: 7.6%

New Mexico: February 3, 2004 Caucus

1992
Clinton: 52.9%
Brown: 16.9%
Tsongas: 6.2%
Harkin: 1.8%

North Dakota: February 3, 2004 Caucus

1992
Clinton: 46.0%
Tsongas: 10.3%
Brown: 7.5%
Harkin: 6.8%

Oklahoma: February 3, 2004 Primary

1992
Clinton: 70.5%
Brown: 16.7%
Harkin: 3.4%

So, if Dean loses New Hampshire on Tuesday to Kerry (giving Kerry a double win and putting Dean behind in the game), the big question here is how, or if, Dean will carry these seven states.

And here are some more Iowa-New Hampshire results:

1992 Iowa: Harkin (64.3%), Uncommitted (11.0%), Tsongas (10.7%)
1992 New Hampshire: Tsongas (33%), Clinton (24.8%), Kerrey (11.1%)
1992 Front-Runner: Clinton

1988 Iowa: Simon (34.3%), Jackson (21.9%), Dukakis (20.8%), Babbitt (15.5%)
1988 New Hampshire: Dukakis (36.4%), Gephardt (20.3%), Simon (17.4%), Jackson (8.0%)
1988 Front-Runner: Dukakis

1984 Iowa: Mondale (48.9%), Hart (16.5%), McGovern (10.3%)
1984 New Hampshire: Hart (37.3%), Mondale (27.9%), Glenn (12.0%)
1984 Front-Runner: Mondale

1976 Iowa: Uncommitted (37.2%), Carter (27.6%), Bayh (13.2%)
1976 New Hampshire: Carter (28.4%), Udall (22.7%), Bayh (15.2%)
1976 Front-Runner: Carter

1972 Iowa: Muskie (35.5%), McGovern (22.6%), Humphrey (1.6%)
1972 New Hampshire: Muskie (46.4%), McGovern (37.1%), Yorty (6.1%)
1972 Front-Runner: McGovern

So outside of Gore in 2000, who won both New Hampshire and Iowa, and incumbents, not a single Democratic presidential front-runner has won both New Hampshire and Iowa in the last thirty years. The only primary candidate to win both was Ed Muksie.

The interesting thing is that with Dean trying to emerge from the Iowa rant incident, we’re seeing something of a Muskie-McGovern reversal. In 1972, Muskie’s campiagn collapsed when he reacted to newspaper articles attacking him. He cried, lost his lead and was perceived as weak. But according to the latest polls, Dean doesn’t look as if he’ll win New Hampshire. And with the press nipping on his tails, Dean’s now trying to atone for the Iowa rant, which may very well go down in political history. Ironically, the Internet, the very medium that propelled him, may end up killing him.

The campaign isn’t over yet. The Dean campaign will have to do some serious work in the seven states. But barring a major Kerry revelation, it’s looking a bit grim.