Like everyone else, I listened to DeSantis’s botched Twitter Spaces launch, but then reached some conclusions about the trajectory of his campaign at New York:
Before long, the laughter over the technical glitches that marred Ron DeSantis’s official presidential campaign launch with Elon Musk on Twitter Spaces will fade. We’ll all probably look back and place this moment in better perspective. Political-media folk (not to mention DeSantis’s Republican rivals and Democratic enemies) tend to overreact to “game changing” moments in campaigns when fundamentals and long-term trends matter infinitely more. Relatively few actual voters were tuned in to Twitter to watch the botched launch, and even fewer will think less of DeSantis as a potential president because of this incident.
It mattered in one respect, however: The screwed-up launch stepped all over a DeSantis campaign reset designed to depict the Florida governor as a political Death Star with unlimited funds and an unbeatable strategy for winning the GOP nomination. The reset was important to rebut the prevailing story line that DeSantis had lost an extraordinary amount of ground since the salad days following his landslide reelection last year, when he briefly looked to be consolidating partywide support as a more electable and less erratic replacement for Donald Trump. For reasons both within and beyond his control, he missed two critical strategic objectives going into the 2024 race: keeping the presidential field small enough to give him a one-on-one shot at Trump and keeping Trump from reestablishing himself as the front-runner with an air of inevitability about a third straight nomination.
To dissipate growing concerns about the DeSantis candidacy, the top chieftains of his Never Back Down super-PAC let it be known earlier this week that they had a plan that would shock and awe the political world, based on their extraordinary financial resources (fed by an $80 million surplus DeSantis transferred from his Florida reelection campaign account). The New York Times wrote up the scheme without questioning its connection to reality:
“A key political group supporting Ron DeSantis’s presidential run is preparing a $100 million voter-outreach push so big it plans to knock on the door of every possible DeSantis voter at least four times in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — and five times in the kickoff Iowa caucuses.
“The effort is part of an on-the-ground organizing operation that intends to hire more than 2,600 field organizers by Labor Day, an extraordinary number of people for even the best-funded campaigns….
“The group said it expected to have an overall budget of at least $200 million.”
In case the numbers didn’t properly document the audacity of this plan, Team DeSantis made it explicit. The Times report continues:
“‘No one has ever contemplated the scale of this organization or operation, let alone done it,’ said Chris Jankowski, the group’s chief executive. ‘This has just never even been dreamed up.’” …
At the helm of the DeSantis super PAC is Jeff Roe, a veteran Republican strategist who was Mr. [Ted] Cruz’s campaign manager in 2016. In an interview, Mr. Roe described an ambitious political apparatus whose 2,600 field organizers by the fall would be roughly double the peak of Senator Bernie Sanders’s entire 2020 primary campaign staff.
Clearly opening up the thesaurus to find metaphors for the extraordinary power and glory of their plans, one DeSantis operative told the Dispatch they were “light speed and light years ahead of any campaign out there, including Trump’s.”
Now more than ever, DeSantis’s campaign will have to prove its grand plans aren’t just fantasies. Those doors in Iowa really will have to be knocked. Thanks to Trump’s current lead, DeSantis will absolutely have to beat expectations there and do just as well in New Hampshire and South Carolina before facing an existential challenge in his and Trump’s home state of Florida. And while DeSantis had a good weekend in Iowa recently, picking up a lot of state legislative endorsements even as Trump canceled a rally due to bad weather that never arrived, he’s got a ways to go. A new Emerson poll of the first-in-the-nation-caucuses state shows Trump leading by an astonishing margin of 62 percent to 20 percent. And obviously enough, Iowa is where DeSantis will likely face the largest number of rivals aside from Trump; he’s a sudden surge from Tim Scott or Mike Pence or Nikki Haley or even Vivek Ramaswamy away from a real Iowa crisis.
Door knocking aside, a focus on Iowa, with its base-dominated caucus system and its large and powerful conservative Evangelical population, will likely force DeSantis to run to Trump’s right even more than he already has. The newly official candidate did not mention abortion policy during his launch event on Twitter; that will have to change, since he has a crucial opportunity to tell Iowa Evangelicals about the six-week ban he recently signed (similar, in fact, to the law Iowa governor Kim Reynolds enacted), in contrast to Trump’s scolding of the anti-abortion movement for extremism. DeSantis also failed once again to talk about his own religious faith, whatever it is; that will probably have to change in Iowa too. He did, however, talk a lot during the launch about his battle against the COVID-19 restrictions the federal government sought to impose on Florida even during the Trump administration. That will very likely continue.
The glitchy launch basically cost DeSantis whatever room for maneuvering he might have enjoyed as the 2024 competition begins to get very real — less than eight months before Iowa Republicans caucus (the exact date remains TBD). He’d better get used to spending a lot of time in Iowa’s churches and Pizza Ranches, and he also needs to begin winning more of the exchanges of potshots with Trump, which will only accelerate from here on out. All the money he has and all the hype and spin his campaign puts out won’t win the nomination now that Trump is fully engaged, and it sure doesn’t look like the 45th president’s legal problems will represent anything other than rocket fuel for his jaunt through the primaries. So for DeSantis, it’s time to put up or shut up.
When people talk about Clark not being ready for primetime they’re just repeating the media. What, of any real substance, is this based on? I think the media, the DNC (and probably the RNC, i.e., media) are all too eager to end this. I wonder if the recent support for Kerry is because people just don’t want to do their homework and check out the candidates. Kerry counts on veteran support, yet he didn’t bother to vote on the Omnibus bill (neither did Edwards or Lieberman) that passed by 3 votes. This bill included ending overtime pay which will include veterans too. He’s never liked affirmative action and hasn’t supported increasing minimum wage. He voted for the No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and the Iraq war (Edwards too). It was up to them to lead the way to be able to dissent yet they had no backbone. It took Dean to wake them up. Why would we want someone who has been in the Congress this long with so little to show for it?
I don’t know how so many bloggers and others online don’t seem to get why Kerry appears to be “electable”. Perhaps it is the lingering pain of having Dukakis branded as a “Massachussets Liberal”?
From the very beginning, I’ve asserted that National Security and Foreign Policy are going to be the “tickets to admission” this cycle. Yes, I realize that they aren’t the things at the top of the lists based on exit polls, but remember, these are Democrats for the most part being polled. Domestic issues have always been at the top for these voters.
It is very clear that the Bush/Cheney re-elecction strategy will be one of strength in national security. “Willing to do what it takes to keep this country safe.” Clark and Kerry are the only ones that can compete with that. When Kerry was tanking last year (failing to respond quickly to the changing nature of the campaign due to Dean’s innovative tactics), Clark was “recruited” to provide this contrast against Dean. And if Dean had emerged victorious out of Iowa, Clark would have become the “anti-Dean”.
But Kerry’s campaign did two things right. From the beginning, they developed the behind the scenes support necessary to run an effective GOTV effort (which, unlike Dean they didn’t tout every day, just remained confident in) and managed to get their candidate to start to connect with voters – most notably on credibility issues. They were ready when people started to try to visualize Dean AS a president, rather than a fighting candidate.
So, if putting Clark or Kerry up is going to allow the 2004 race to be about something OTHER than national security – and we can GET to the economy, education, health care, etc., then the only one who remains really credible on the domestic side is Kerry. Clark isn’t a politician, which many folks say they want – someone who ISN’T – but that has also allowed him to make some pretty serious mistakes. Rising to the bait from Bob Dole about him being a “general” and Kerry being a “Lt” (he, can’t spell that word), was a horrible mistake if he was looking for the veteran vote. Lots more grunt veterans than Generals, you know?
I’ve long thought that Kerry was not only the most electable candidate, but believed strongly that he would make the absolute best President in this time.
I’m sorry if I’m being too blunt here, but I really don’t understand how an intelligent person can support Edwards. We’re at war. Our soldiers are dying in Iraq at a rate of over 1 a day. How is a one term senator the guy to fix that? How about the North Korea situation? The Middle East? John Edwards just doesn’t inspire confidence here. For that matter, how is qualified to manage the economy? The only economic committee that he’s on is Small Business. How does that prepare someone to deal with the federal budget?
I don’t mean to rag on the guy too much, but experience matters and he doesn’t have it. Once people attack him on this, it will seriously damage his electability vs. Bush, probably beyond repair. All the slick talking with a Southern accent in the world ain’t gonna make up for “he can’t keep you safe”
Unfortunately, we seem stuck with a process that will get us a nominee quickly (as Terry McAuliffe desired), but with no guarantee that it will be the right nominee. Would you really trust the opinion of Democratic primary voters when it comes to picking the “electable” nominee? Didn’t we (well, really, you, since I wasn’t eligible to vote until ’96) also believe that Mondale and Dukakis were “electable”? If the big thing going for John Kerry right now is that Democratic voters think he’s “electable,” what will it mean if they suddenly stop believing that?
I’m about where TedL is in his post: I’d like to get a good long look at Kerry, Edwards and Clark and not see another rush to judgment.
It it ends very soon it hurts us more than it helps. Kerry needs to continue improving his campaign style (I never thought I’d see him do as well as he has of late in that regard) and will improve more with stiff competition than a cakewalk to the nomination from this point forward. If that competition leaves him looking less attractive than others we should want to know that in the next couple of months rather than in September.
The most interesting data from Ruy’s post that Bill Schneider didn’t put out on CNN last night was that Edwards did better among independents than he did among Democrats.
I agree with Ted that an effective President has to be able to win enough public support to keep from being jerked around too much by the Congress. And Edwards seems to offer more promise of being able to do that.
Kerry went on too long in his victory speech last night, with the result that CNN cut away to go to Clark’s speech. Howard Kurtz’ Washington Post media column cited some as saying Edwards starting his victory speech at 7:58 pm, just two minutes before the networks were going to call a bunch of other races, was a tactical mistake.
I thought Edwards’ victory speech was brief, to the point, and effective. I’m 44, following politics closely now for 25 years or so, and have never heard a presidential candidate talk about poverty like he did and have it come off as uplifting, inspiring–and not politically suicidal.
I know we don’t win on that issue. Still, it was a 1968 Bobby Kennedy-type speech (with a Southern accent, of course). I thought I could almost see and hear RFK’s former aide, Jeff Greenfield, have that reaction.
Regarding Ruy’s posts on message the slight (and maybe implied) refinement in Edwards’ message that maybe works best for us is that we need to bring the two Americas together into one opportunity society for all Americans. Kerry last night instead talked about fairness, rather than opportunity, for all.
In next Tuesday’s Virginia primary I am leaning towards voting for Edwards because I think his upside potential (that’s all it is at this point), both to win the election and be an effective president, is higher than Kerry’s, and because I don’t think we know enough yet that we should be comfortable hopping on the Kerry bandwagon yet.
We don’t know yet whether, with more exposure, Edwards is capable of generating as broad across-the-board appeal as Kerry has demonstrated among Democrats so far. We also don’t know how deep and therefore durable Kerry’s appeal is at this point.
Image is everything these days, and I think Kerry looks solid. Put Kerry on the platform with Bush, and Bush shrivels up like the wicked witch of the north (should be “south”in this case). Edwards is terrific, but lite on experience. This year people are too nervous to elect someone so inexperienced. Kerry is homely, but in a craggy, Abe Lincoln sort of way. He looks trustworthy and he doesn’t smirk.
“However, Edwards strikes me…”
Based on the description and the contrast later in the paragraph with Edwards, was this a typo? I expect this was meant to be “Kerry”?
We have the embarassment of riches – several credible candidates. Remember the episode of the “seven dwarfs”? Not this time. However, Edwards strikes me as a hollow candidate because his senatorial record has been unremarkable, his personal history apparently includes some extramarital dalliance, and he has the unfortunate habit of lapsing into bureaucratic speak – last evening’s finale was too long, too detailed, and wide of the reality that Congress is still all Republican all the time. Both Clark and Edwards are squeaky clean and far less inflated by media hype. They don’t have Kerry’s image as a national figure, however, so maybe Kerry will remain primus inter pares and be the eventual nominee. ABB means that Democrats and Independents are seriously exercised. The general election is theirs to lose.
So I’m pooring over the results trying to make heads or tails of who to support in Washington’s caucuses this weekend.
I perceive Kerry to be nothing more than a warmed over version of Gore and expect the results would be about the same – general election spread of no more than 2%. Okay he’s got some silver on his shoulder, but he’s also from New England. Dean would get out the base, but the Guns, God & Gays would kill him in the middle. Also, neither of these candidates are positive about the future or speak to me.
This leaves me with Edwards & Clark – both of whom I like, but for different reasons. (This relates to the threshold theory.) Clark can’t lose on national security but seems to forget the people at home. Edwards is the best campaigner and speaks to me with the optimism & Wealth v. Work messages.
At this point I think I’ll be supporting Edwards, but I’d go for Clark if I thought he could unseat Kerry as the front runner. (Why couldn’t Edwards have just won OK and taken some headlines?)
Any thoughts on taking out Mr. Bland?
On a separate note, Dean was the big loser last night. Why is he still considered No. 2? Or maybe it’s just the WA perspective since he’s in town.
-DS
Why is a candidate dismissed when he wins a primary in a state unlikely to be carried in the fall? Winning there suggests the ability to win in swing states, too.
But candidates who win where their party will likely carry the state have proven only that they can preach to the choir.
Kerry’s electability claim is based only on the votes of Massachusetts Democrats and Democrats elsewhere who are dedicated enough to vote in primary races. Edwards at least got elected in hostile territory in 1998. Kerry’s chances will be slim if he cannot make military service the main issue in Nov.
I respect Dean a lot, but I don’t know how anyone can think he’s more electable than Kerry, Clark or Edwards. His appeal is limited to liberals, even though his record as Vermont governor was quite centrist. In primary after primary, Kerry has shown the broadest support, from Dems of all stripes to independents. I think Edwards and Clark are strong candidates, too. If Bush’s ratings stay below 50 percent, any of the top has a chance. BTW, I suspect an October surprise with Osama will just backfire because the timing will be too obvious. but I wouldn’t put it past them trying it.
Personally, I’d like to see Edwards and Kerry on stage for a good long debate, and maybe Clark as a third. Get a good long look at them without wasting our time on Kucinich or Sharpton, so we can see the contrasts more clearly.
The general election is a two-man debate, and our nominee has to stand up to a lot of scrutiny. It would be great to see our choices in close proximity for at least a few weeks.
It’s amazing, though, how events seem to be conspiring against this. The most likely outcome is that Kerry takes Michigan and Washington, while Edwards and Clark split VA and TN — which means that the nomination belongs to Kerry.
Hopefully that will work out alright, though I worry for the reasons Ruy identifies. A President, above all, has to be an effective communicator. He’s got to be able to go over the heads of Congress (particularly this Congress) to the people in order to get things done. Edwards shows promise; he might have that talent, and would clearly represent an improvement in policymaking; everybody likes his policy positions. Kerry, well, it’s not usually seen as his strength. I hold out hope, given the improvement in his performance lately. But it’s a concern.
i can only conclude that my process has been different from many of the people i read on line. i started out really liking dean and when clark came into the race i gave him a good close look. as iowa appraoched i was torn between these two candidates but leaning toward dean because it looked like clark could not run an effective campaign to me. then dean fell, and fell hard in both iowa and nh (what happened to all that money?). it was then i began to question dean’s ability to run a campaign. so, i started to look at kerry and edwards.
yesterday morning (about 6:15am) i’m walking into the polls and i have no idea who i’m gonna vote for. I recall liberal oasis urging people to vote with their gut and their heart and not simply on the electability issue. I voted for kerry. My wife was surprised. We watched dean on meet the press and it was enough reasure her vote for him.
after i left the polling booth and was driving to work i began recalling the other primary seasons and my thoughts about those candidates. I remember 1984 and 1988 and 1992 – each of these years i felt this sense of dread about the democratic candidate. i’d say to myself, “this is a pipe dream. this guy hasn’t got a chance.” i was wrong about clinton. this year is different for me. when i walked into the polling booth i did not know who i would vote for – not because i was feeling dread or did not like any of my choices. I had a hard time because i liked all of them.
maybe its just me but i feel a change coming on in our political system. i don’t mean to be all rosey here, i know we have a hard fight ahead of us. but i think any of these candidates have a good solid chance of beating bush. i will support anyone of them.
I’ll vote for whomever the Dem nominee is. I’ll campaign for Edwards, Clark or Dean. Kerry just turns me off. I’m in Ohio and I don’t know anyone one here who likes him. My brother however, is in CO and really likes Kerry. Kerry is no more electable than any other of the 3 remaining viable nominees. Saying he is, is just making people think it – and those who are voting for “electability” may be in for a big surprise. Study after study shows that good looking people are chosen for jobs over average “Joes” again and again. Kerry is so unattractive – he’s downright homely. If Dean hadn’t taught him how to campaign he’d still be in last place – what’s going to happen to him when there is no more Dean to lead the way and to teach Democrats how to be democrats again? If it weren’t for Dean and his courage to speak the truth when it appeared politically unpopular, none of these Dems would be polling anywhere near Bush. Yes, they’ve all finally learned their lesson, but what will they do when Bush pulls OBL out of his hidey hole next October?
kerry will be a dead horse as soon as people start beating him. all the qualities he has that make him ‘electable’ date back to the seventies. this is, after all, the guy who lost the frontrunnerdom first, by tacking to political winds more frequently than the 24-hour news cycle. i mean, sure, he could probably take bush in a fistfight, but an election?
edwards is the guy to watch. he’s got a toolbox full of memes the average american can feel in his heart, and a life story that says all the right things about the america we all secretly love no matter how disappointed we are in the america that actually is.
george w bush: robber baron
john edwards: horatio alger story
which america do you want to believe in?
clark i also like, but he creeps me out a little bit in the same way that businessmen who talk like hippies creep me out; more importantly, although his learning curve is indeed impressive, he’s still not quite ready for prime time and he’s sure as hell not half the natural that edwards is.
I think Democrats should stop overthinking this. They are picking ‘electable’ guy over the guy who ‘cares about people like me’. But Democrats are all going to vote for the Democrat whoever it is, whereas swing voters in battleground states are going to go with the guy who ‘cares about people like me’.
We all know who the white house is scared of.
Donkey is certainly rising. The jockey however appears to be Clark or Edwards.
After dominating Iowa and New Hampshire, thus earning a slightly hotter seat, Mr. Kerry’s rivals are pulling him back towards oblivion. With two, and possibly three viable rivals, the seat will only get hotter in the week ahead.
As Eric E. rightly points out, Clark won Oklahoma while placing a solid 2nd in Arizona, New Mexico, and North Dakota. Edwards did well too, though not so well as Clark — he won impressively in South Carolina, the state of his birth, and placed a solid second in the show me state.
As to the relevance of these six states, Democrats can dare to dream of winning in three — Arizona, New Mexico, and Missouri. Again, the edge goes slightly to Clark rather than Edwards.
And finally, the unfortuante (unless ironic) characterization of Senator Kerry as Mr. Electability is laughable. The circular logic and tortured data employed to buttress this conclusion are simply ridiculous.
Kerry’s only winning card — inevitability — in the “electability” sweepstakes was played today, and came up two states short. The Southern Populist, the Southern General, and the Vermont Penny Pincher are all eminently more electable along other margins.
Now that Kerry’s horse has hiccuped, expect it to stumble in the days ahead.
In the battle for current 2nd place, I read tonight’s results as being a little bit better for Clark than for Edwards. The early returns look like solid 2nd places for Clark in AZ, NM, and ND, where Edwards only places in MO.
But then I’m just another “red state” voter, willing to be convinced of Kerry’s electability, but not quite there yet. I think the longer this nomination battle stays competitive, the stronger the nominee will be.