Dean v. Kerry.
Jul. 17th, 2003 12:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've never followed a presidential race as closely as I'm following this one. When you look closely, the machinery really is quite visible behind the red-white-and-blue backdrops.
John Kerry, for example, never gives a quote about Howard Dean and his supporters without pushing one of two messages: ultra-liberal minority, and angry. Neither does anyone else on Kerry's staff. They quite literally never say a public word about Dean that's not on-message - even if the message doesn't make sense in context.
Take Dean's second quarter fundraising totals, for example. He raised $7.6 million - far more than anyone expected, and more than any of the other Democratic candidates. So Kerry was quoted saying that everyone knew Dean's support was deep, but the question was whether it was broad. On message once again: Dean supporters are a tiny radical fringe - he has no broad support.
Now the FEC's released the full second quarter details.[1] Dean had 73,000 individual donors in the second quarter. Kerry had 23,000. Kerry was arguing that Dean had less broad support in the same quarter that MORE THAN THREE TIMES as many people donated money to Dean.
I researched Kerry before deciding to support Dean. I went to his Senate web page (he didn't have a campaign page yet), and bounced right off it. It felt as if every sentence there was crafted to appeal to donors and voters - it was all so slick and opaque. And Kerry's speeches and press releases still read to me like Extruded Political Product. I don't have a clue about what he really thinks - I can only tell what the talking points are supposed to be. That bothers me.
Sure, I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination - I mean, against this administration, I'd pretty much vote for a yellow dog - but I wouldn't be happy about it. I've grown accustomed to more.
[1] (A fascinating breakdown of campaign finances can be found in an interactive chart here.)
John Kerry, for example, never gives a quote about Howard Dean and his supporters without pushing one of two messages: ultra-liberal minority, and angry. Neither does anyone else on Kerry's staff. They quite literally never say a public word about Dean that's not on-message - even if the message doesn't make sense in context.
Take Dean's second quarter fundraising totals, for example. He raised $7.6 million - far more than anyone expected, and more than any of the other Democratic candidates. So Kerry was quoted saying that everyone knew Dean's support was deep, but the question was whether it was broad. On message once again: Dean supporters are a tiny radical fringe - he has no broad support.
Now the FEC's released the full second quarter details.[1] Dean had 73,000 individual donors in the second quarter. Kerry had 23,000. Kerry was arguing that Dean had less broad support in the same quarter that MORE THAN THREE TIMES as many people donated money to Dean.
I researched Kerry before deciding to support Dean. I went to his Senate web page (he didn't have a campaign page yet), and bounced right off it. It felt as if every sentence there was crafted to appeal to donors and voters - it was all so slick and opaque. And Kerry's speeches and press releases still read to me like Extruded Political Product. I don't have a clue about what he really thinks - I can only tell what the talking points are supposed to be. That bothers me.
Sure, I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination - I mean, against this administration, I'd pretty much vote for a yellow dog - but I wouldn't be happy about it. I've grown accustomed to more.
[1] (A fascinating breakdown of campaign finances can be found in an interactive chart here.)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-16 10:24 pm (UTC)But even apart from that, I can't picture him being an effective president. I mean, okay, a lot of his personal beliefs are similar to mine. But I'm not trying to decide whether to invite him over to dinner, I'm trying to decide whether he could push through broad policy initiatives on the national level. I just don't see him working the system effectively. Do you?
(Not to mention that I don't think he's got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election. And yes, I think that should matter. This administration has utterly disproved, a thousand times over, Nader's lie that there's no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.)
Kucinich has been reading alt.poly...
Date: 2003-07-16 10:35 pm (UTC)He wants us all to be more highly evolved, and he knows just how to demonstrate it! It's all so clear now! :)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 03:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-18 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 05:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-18 12:31 pm (UTC)That said, I think it's very important to also have a positive message. I don't think we should be sweeping the disasterous effects of the current administration under the rug at all, but I do think that the Dems need to give people the sense of a real alternative, something to hope for, something to believe in. We don't want to be the party of bitterness.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 05:32 am (UTC)-J
no subject
Date: 2003-07-18 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 11:09 am (UTC)Kerry was arguing that Dean had less broad support in the same quarter that MORE THAN THREE TIMES as many people donated money to Dean.
Yes, but number of donations doesn't give you any information about breadth of support.
Broad support is support from many different types of people. If you've supporters from all parts of the country, from all racial groups, from people of many different religious and economic backgrounds, and so on, you have broad support.
So, in order to say whether or not the candidate has broad support, you don't need to know how many people are donating. You need to know what kind of people are donating, and that question isn't addressed by the numbers you present. Instead, the numbers above more simply bring into question whether Kerry has enough support overall, whatever it's character.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 05:12 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-07-17 06:47 pm (UTC)I'm not saying Dean doesn't criticize other candidates, and Kerry does - I'm saying that Kerry's criticisms sound scripted to me, like he's trying to align to a set of talking points.
Re:
Date: 2003-07-18 08:10 am (UTC)