the dean strategy
There has been some interesting posts at Off-the-Kuff and at CalPundit regarding the presidential campaign strategy of Howard Dean. Charles Kuffner at Off-the-Kuff compares it to bridge strategy and makes a pretty nice argument that events could turn it into a long-shot winning hand. At least it sounded convincing to someone like me who has never played bridge. If I understand his argument correctly, he is saying the Dems have such a bad hand that they have to play for the long shot. Dean is betting that enough bad news will start to come out of the Iraqi occupation and hindsight on the war that public opinion will start to turn, and then he will be seen as the only candidate who took the right position from the start.
There is still a lot that could happen before a candidate has to be chosen so I guess it is good to have that base covered. I'm glad all the Dems are not betting on the same strategy. Mostly I have liked what Dean has had to say, except I have been bothered by the squabbling with Kerry. That doesn't seem necessary to me.
Posted by Bill Hopkins on June 5, 2003 08:53 PMIf I understand his argument correctly, he is saying the Dems have such a bad hand that they have to play for the long shot.
Not quite. I'm saying that Dean has already placed his bet on the invasion of Iraq being a bad idea, going back to before we invaded. He needs to act as though that not invading remains the right idea, even though right now the odds (in terms of public opinion) would seem to be stacked against him. If events do prove him right, he will be well placed to cash in. If events prove him wrong, he was probably never going to win anyway. My point is that Calpundit's statement that Dean's anti-war stance makes him unelectable is wrong.
Other Dems who supported the invasion can and will take a different stance. Their odds of success are inverse to Dean's in a sense. I was specifically addressing Dean's chances, rather than those of the Democratic field.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner at June 7, 2003 12:07 PMThanks for the clarification on that. I had misread your posting
Posted by: Bill at June 7, 2003 05:04 PM