Democrats Wrestle With 'Electability'

by JOHN F. HARRIS

The Washington Post, January 16, 2004, page A1

OELWEIN, Iowa -- As his supporters roared approval, Howard Dean told Democrats to look past next week's Iowa caucuses and think about November: "We are the only campaign that has a chance of beating George Bush."

So contends the candidate who rival Democrats say has the smallest chance among the major contenders of defeating President Bush if he wins the party's nomination.

The issue of Dean's electability, which loomed in the background for months as the former Vermont governor surged to the lead of the Democratic contest, is at the forefront now, days before voting finally begins and with Dean's once-solid grip on the lead loosened here and in New Hampshire.

The question haunting Dean, raised in various ways by all his main rivals in recent days, is whether he stands any chance of exerting appeal beyond core Democrats who share his strong opposition to the Iraq war and his liberal social views, and who raise their fists in agreement with his biting attacks on Bush.

The answers offered by the competing campaigns reveal two starkly different notions of how Democrats win, both in the popular vote and in a small roster of states on which any close election is likely to hinge -- states in which rival campaigns warn that Dean's style and background may make him radioactive this fall. More than specific issue contrasts, Democratic voters in caucuses and primaries are asked to choose between two visions of how to resolve the perennial tension between principle and pragmatism in nominating contests.

Dean is vowing that he would defeat Bush by energizing his party and drawing new voters with a bolder, brasher and less defensive alternative than Democrats have offered in recent years, including when Bill Clinton was president. Speaking here the other day, Dean expressly rejected the constant focus on moderate swing voters that was Clinton's hallmark.

"Our strategy is not to go to swing voters first and hope everybody else will come along," Dean explained to his audience. Of young people and other nonvoters, he said, "The reason they don't vote is because they can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and we're going to show them that there really is a difference."

Such an approach, many Democratic strategists believe, could represent a historic miscalculation if Dean retains his precarious lead and carries the Democratic banner. All of Dean's major competitors are arguing that they are better positioned to pivot from a nominating contest to a battle with Bush for moderate voters in critical states.

These include Pennsylvania and Michigan -- swing states that broke decisively late in the 2000 election for Democrats -- or in Ohio, Missouri or West Virginia, which were states Bush won even though Clinton carried them twice. Even many independent strategists maintain that Dean's background from a liberal small state, his identification as a peace candidate, and his opposition to even that portion of tax cuts that benefited the middle class leave him vulnerable in such places.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), whose apparent surge in Iowa is a principal reason for Dean's recent troubles, raises the question of electability at every turn. "The fact is that Al Gore would have been president of the United States today without one southern state if he'd simply won West Virginia or New Hampshire or Ohio," he said Thursday.

A Vietnam veteran, Kerry warned that Bush is going to wage "another one of these culture-of-fear elections," in which a candidate such as Dean with no national security background would be especially vulnerable.

Skeptics in several campaigns said Dean's idea that Democrats can spark a liberal renaissance by dramatically increasing turnout is a hope to which many have clung for decades -- a dream that never dies but never comes true. Even if it worked, the new voters would probably not be in states where it would make an electoral difference.

"We don't need to make the blue states bluer," said Matt Bennett, communications director for retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's campaign, referring to that portion of the electoral map -- dominated by the Northeast and California -- that went decisively for Democrat Gore in 2000.

"There's not enough base to motivate in Arkansas and West Virginia," Bennett continued, referring to two states that Clinton carried twice but Gore lost. "Tell me the states that Gore lost in 2000 that Dean thinks he wins with new voters."

Like most of Dean's major rivals, Clark thinks his biography -- in his case, a military background and southern heritage -- as well as a more modulated ideological profile would give him an advantage in appealing to moderates. "It's very hard to reach these people without sharing their values or in some way identifying with them," Bennett said.

Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), drawing an unspoken contrast with his northeastern rivals, boasts, "I can beat [Bush] in all regions of the country, including the South."

A strategist for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), pollster Mark Penn, argued much the same on behalf of his candidate. Although Dean is exciting parts of the Democratic base, whose voters are clamoring for change, Penn said moderates regard removing an incumbent president as a calculated risk -- one they won't take without strong confidence in the maturity and national security judgment of the challenger.

This is especially true for Dean with one group in particular. "It's very difficult for him to make progress with the white males, who took the country from what had been a dead-even election in 2000 to what was a plus-five Republican nation" in congressional elections in 2002, he said.

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a blunt former Democratic Party chairman, said such predictions may be too dire -- or not dire enough, depending on the circumstances. "This is basically a referendum on the incumbent," said Rendell, who has no plans to endorse but said he would probably nominate Lieberman if the choice were his. Rendell added that if the economy continues to improve and Iraq stabilizes, "it almost doesn't matter who our candidate is -- it's going to be very hard for our side to win."

The good news, as Rendell sees it, is that any of the major Democrats could carry Pennsylvania if the election were held this month. He also believes that Republicans, and fellow Democrats, are mistaken if they think "they can make Howard Dean into a flaming liberal."

Dean's blunt style, he said, conveys toughness, and his budget-balancing record in Vermont as well as the fact that he is a family doctor could combine to win over moderates who some strategists are saying he cannot reach.

In one sense, the strategic question facing Democrats about how to beat Bush amounts to a debate between Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, and Penn, a principal author of Clinton's political strategy from 1995 onward.

That strategy was built around a constant focus on the preferences of swing voters skeptical of both parties. Penn's premises about the primacy of independents and how to engage them are shared by several other Democratic campaigns.

In an interview, Trippi said, "The established way is to go after the middle, even if it means depressing your base." He said that swing voters will look at large issues -- the war and the budget -- but that policy positions are secondary to the larger mood and promise Dean conveys.

That promise, in the campaign's view, is a revival of grass-roots democracy to challenge Bush's alleged coziness with corporate special interests. Independent voters don't necessarily gravitate to the most moderate candidate.

"There's something very appealing about taking a party back, and that crosses party lines," he said. "The middle tends to go the most energized party."

Penn said there is no evidence for this. "The real swing voters are not members of either party, and they are not excited by 'political momentum,' " he said. "They make up their mind without reference to political parties."

Trippi maintains that Dean's grass-roots appeal gives him another advantage most other Democrats can't match. Dean, like Bush, has declined federal matching funds and the spending limits that go with them for the primaries. His base of contributors means he would have money to compete between winning the nomination in the spring and the convention in the summer.

No matter which strategy the Democratic nominee embraces this fall , the party will still be focused on one number that never changes in presidential politics: 270. That's the number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Gore won 266, an agonizingly close result.

While the national electorate may remain closely divided, most states are not. Twenty-three states with 194 electoral votes went so solidly for the GOP -- by more than 6 percentage points -- that there is no reasonable prospect that Democrats will seriously contest them this time. Democrats have their own fortress states -- a dozen dominated by the Northeast and California -- with 168 electoral votes. Only seven states, with a total of 70 electoral votes, were decided by within 3 points. Widening the filter -- to include states that were within 6 points four years ago -- adds only nine states, with 106 electoral votes.

The Democrats' goal is easy to describe: Hold on to every state Gore won, and take one big one or a few smaller ones out of Bush's column. But this may be hard to do, given Bush's large pile of cash raised and his approval ratings, which are high by historical standards. In addition, some states that were close in 2000 -- most famously, Florida -- trended solidly GOP in 2002.

Still, Democrats have reason for optimism. For one thing, the last time Republicans defeated Democrats in the popular presidential vote was 16 years ago, in 1988. Moreover, the electorate has more decisively chosen up sides in recent years, said Mark Gersh, who studies election trends for the National Committee for an Effective Congress.

A rout on the scale of Richard M. Nixon over George McGovern in 1972, or Ronald Reagan over Walter F. Mondale in 1984, is probably not possible anymore. "I think it's very difficult for either party to lose with less than 45 percent of the vote or win with more than 55 percent," Gersh said.

But Gersh cautioned that even if there are fewer swing voters, they are more important than ever: A small number of voters in a small number of states hold the key in a close election. These voters like Democratic positions on health care and education, he said, but need strong reassurance from Democratic candidates on national security.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, author of a recent book on the electorate, agreed. "A base strategy is likely to win you your base," he said. "That leaves you with something less than a majority."