Ouch

John B. Judis, a senior editor of The New Republic and co-author with Ruy Teixeira of "The Emerging Democratic Majority," has this new article in Salon Premium: The Trouble with Howard Dean. In digest form below:

Dean is the quintessential candidate of the college-educated professionals that began coming into the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and are now one of its key voting blocs. He expresses their political outlook better than any other Democratic presidential candidate.

As the proportion of professionals in the workforce grows -- driven by the transition from an industrial to a postindustrial capitalism -- a candidate like Dean may eventually command a majority of the national electorate. Positions that now seem maverick -- like Dean's support for civil unions -- will eventually become mainstream, as women's rights and support for environmental protection have become. If Dean himself can gather a modicum of support from blue-collar and minority Democrats, he might even be able to win the Democratic nomination for president and face George W. Bush in the general election. The Democratic field this year is pretty mediocre. But if that does happen, it could lead to a long and unhappy fall for Democrats. Some of the factors that make Dean attractive to Democrats will not endear him to independent and Republican voters.

Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq may help him in the primary -- and has certainly helped make him a credible candidate -- but it is likely to hurt him against Bush. Even if the United States remains bogged down in Iraq, and even if popular doubts about the invasion and occupation grow, Americans are still likely to credit Bush with trying to wage a vigorous war against terror. And they will consider voting for a Democratic candidate only if they believe he can do likewise. The Republicans will argue that an antiwar candidate like Dean who has no foreign policy experience is ill-equipped to protect the country from attack. And a lot of people will believe those charges. At the least, a candidate like Dean will have to spend a vital part of his campaign defending his credentials on homeland security and the war against terror rather than attacking Bush's economic program.

Dean's support of civil unions for gays would hurt his candidacy among culturally conservative voters who might otherwise back a Democrat. Another Democrat might be able to get away with supporting civil unions, but Dean is already closely identified with the issue, as Al Gore was identified with environmentalism in 2000. In general, Dean's antiwar stance and his identification with gay rights would cause him difficulty among white working-class voters in the Midwest and the South. Democrats don't have to win majorities among these voters, but if they can't win at least 40 percent, they won't be able to win traditionally Democratic states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Bill Clinton was successful because he could speak to professionals in Silicon Valley and autoworkers in Fenton, Mo. Gore couldn't win those states largely because he was too culturally identified with the Northeast, with college-educated professionals, and with postindustrial social liberalism. Dean suffers from the same political disability.

To put it in regional terms: Dean, a culturally libertarian New Englander who opposed the war, could virtually forget about winning any Southern or border states. Southerners are willing to support a Southern Democrat like Clinton with whom they can identify, but they will not vote for a Dukakis or Dean. Dean would not simply get trounced in the South: His candidacy would allow Bush to take the entire South for granted and move all his resources into states like Michigan and Pennsylvania that the Democrats have to win. In the end, Dean would be lucky to hold on to Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, D.C., Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, California, Oregon, and Washington.

Wouldn't the other candidates do just as poorly? If Bush's popularity remains high, they might also be trounced. If, however, the economy continues to falter, and if Americans become skeptical about the benefits of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a Democrat could defeat Bush -- though only if the election pivots on Bush's successes and failures and not on the qualifications of his Democratic opponent. The Democrats would be much better off in that case with a blander, more faceless, less exciting Kerry, Gephardt or even Lieberman (perhaps with Edwards, Florida Sen. Bob Graham, or retired Gen. Wesley Clark as running mate) than they would be with a fiery, controversial Dean.

Just as the country was not ready for McGovern in 1972, so it is probably not ready for Howard Dean in 2004.

~~~~~
My response.

Ouch, because I am now firmly committed to Howard Dean. As a white, college educated, professional Dean pushes my buttons – a social liberal or libertarian but fiscal conservative, just what the country needs. But as a market research analyst with experience in geodemographics and a degree in behavioral science, I respect John Judis' political-demographic analysis.

I think the Democratic Party needs the enthusiasm, organization and new volunteers Dean is bringing into the party. I also think Dean is right on the issues. We clearly need his "Give'em Hell Howard" attacks on the GOP and Bush compared to the Democratic mainstream wimps. So the question is given the political demographic facts, how can Dean win in 2004?

Dean will have to project more conservative in the general election, he needs to campaign as the fiscally responsible candidate. He also needs to deflect attacks on his not supporting the military by countering with the facts of Bush lack of support for the military and Bush's irresponsible and unproductive unilateralism.

He will need a VP who has very strong military, security, and/or foreign credentials who should also appeal to blue collar and southern voters. He needs to have highly organized high-profile representatives leading major efforts for minority, labor, and women voters. An outreach to small business and modern technology companies is also possible, the Bush tax efforts have been targeted to old industries, large monopolies and the military complex.

He needs to have representatives to approach Ralph Nader and the Green Party to prevent a repeat of Nader's campaign that was more against Gore than Bush in 2000. After the experiences under a Bush administration the Greens must realize there is a big difference between living under heel of the GOP and living with the Democrats. A Green Secretary of the Interior might be possible but no United States President can be anti-capitalist and anti-corporate. A President can be anti-monopoly, pro-consumer and pro-worker and clearly back that up with legislation and action.

He needs to make mass media and direct approaches to reach out to the non-voters that Jesse Ventura tapped into in Minnesota. Howard Dean's libertarian social agenda combined with fiscal responsibility is similar.

Dean needs to also project and use the images of optimism, patriotism and forward thinking that all successful candidates have.

Given all this, can Dean win in 2004? I don't know, but I would like to help him try. Dean reminds me more of Harry Truman than George McGovern and nobody expected Truman to win.