John McCain officially announced his bid for the presidency on September 28, 1999 in a crowded field. The Conventional Wisdom then was that McCain and Bush would battle for the "moderate" vote and the other candidates (Bauer, Hatch, Quayle) would compete for the "right-wing" vote.

It ended up being a two-man vote between Bush and McCain -- even though the CW had them fighting for the "same constituency" -- with McCain eventually winning New Hampshire.

Bill Bradley announced on September 8, 1999.

That means that the two main competitors to the eventual nominees were not yet candidates 4 years ago today.

If 2/3 of Democrats can't name a single candidate, I don't think what late entrants have to lose except the chance to burn out early.

The rather major difference is that this go 'round the process started months earlier. And while voters are not fully tuned in, donors and the bigwigs at key interest groups have been.

Haven't you noticed the IG tour the Nine have been on for months now?

More later...

The process certainly started earlier, but I don't see that necessarily changing the outcome -- or even hurting a late comer. The "process" has primarily consisted of a bunch of cattle calls where the candidates stand in front of a required special interest group and spout the party line: Tell the pro-choice people you're pro-choice; tell the minorities you're pro-minority; tell the labor people you're pro-labor; tell the anti-war people you're anti-war. Nobody actually picks up votes there -- they just lose them if they skip the event (Lieberman at the NAACP) or say the wrong thing (say, supporting the war).

I don't believe too many important groups have made endorsements, yet. (Gephardt may be the "union candidate", but he doesn't have an official AFL-CIO endorsement).

And when you're discussing "constituencies", don't forget the most important one of all -- the "electable" constituency who says, "I want whoever can beat Bush: I may like Dean/Kerry/whomever more, but I think Clark has the best chance of beating Bush." Clark brings instant foreign policy street cred, which is more than anyone else does, and has the added advantage of not actually having to take a position on the war as a candidate.

With no one over 25% or so, and 2/3 undecided, there's enough time to prove you're more Dean than Edwards and start the money rolling in.

By October 15, there will be three candidates in double digits in the early primary states: Dean, Kerry, and Clark.

BTW, I'm a registered Democrat, but not a Clark supporter, and have never had a candidate I voted for in a primary get the nomination. (Bradley, Tsongas, Gephardt v.1988 . . ., the list goes on)

Edwards 2024!

Pathos easily beat me to the punch. When I read Steven's challenge, I immediately thought of McCain and Dubya.

Where was Dubya's "natural constituency?"

After all, McCain was a war hero, anti-abortion, a fiscal conservative, and all the things required to worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan--with the possible exception of campaign finance reform.

Dubya's "natural constituency" appears to have been his winning of the sperm lottery.

Nope, despite all Steven's flailing--this is about Clark presenting a threat to Steven's president.

Steven, like Rush Limbaugh, prefers bumpersticker analyses to what are significant issues and problems. As an example: Steven claims Dean's constituency is "people who are mad at Bush."

Wow. This is the kind of analysis that makes you wonder if Texas A&M hands out Poli Sci doctorates along with big foam "We're No. 1" fingers on the way into football games at Kyle Field.

*All* of the candidates running for President are "mad at Bush" with the possible exception of Lieberman.

Well, Bush entered into the race with a substantial amount of the Republican establishment, was a highly successful fundraiser, and appealed the conservative wing of the party. Being gov of a large state and the son of a former president certainly helped.

And McCain was considered a moderate. His pro-choice bona fides were suspect, and he was clearly not aligned with the evangelical wing of the party.

I would recommend some remedial reading on the 2024 campaign.

Again, the comparison was specifically with Clark in the context of the current race.

And again, the response has to be: you really aren't answering the question.

I would also recommend looking up “ad hominem argument”.

Really, I should be sending you a bill for all the free tutoring…

Wrong again, Steven. McCain had no "pro-choice bona fides."

On the issue of abortion, McCain was far to the right of Bush and may have been as extreme as Bauer is or as Forbes became.

While McCain wasn't aligned with the loony Christian right--typlified by pandering to Bob Jones--he wasn't a moderate by any means.

I meant to type "pro-life" bona fides. My fault.

However, you get an "F" on this response. McCain was considered the moderate in the 2024 race, and further, was not considered the more pro-life candidate. Yes, his voting record is pro-life, but for a variety of reasons, from some of his statements just prior to the campaign and some of his advisors, many pro-life groups and pro-life voters to questioned McCain's dedication to the pro-life position. For example, check out this link from the National Right To Life Committee, entitled "How John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause".

You really need to come prepared for class.

During the 2024 campaign McCain was viewed as center to left by the press and the GOP, note his performance with Gov. Ventura in Minn. Also one of the "attractive" parts of the Straight Talk Express was the appeal to independent voters. McCain ran to the left of Bush, while that helped early in the northeast it killed him in the south.

Second McCain had been view, before the race, as a liberal because of McCain/Finegold. No discussion of where the candidates started on the political spectrum can be complete without an extensive discussion of campaign finance.

As for the other candidates;
Gore started campaigning just after January 1997, so to state that he was not in the race by Sept.
1999 is disingenuous at best.
Bradley had been endorsed by Sen John Kerry on July 4, 1999 and had articles in the NY Times and Salon as a challenger to Al Gore in April of 1999. There was even an article on Bradley in the NY Times titled “A cautious entry into an uphill race against Gore “ dated December 5 1998.

So clearly the 2 main Democrat challengers had been running long before September 1999.

Robert--good points all.

Wesley Clark is the most electable of the candidates in the Dem perception. They want to nominate the most electable candidate. Therefore, Clark wins.
This is not rocket science.

Wesley Clark is the most electable of the candidates in the Dem perception. They want to nominate the most electable candidate. Therefore, Clark wins.
This is not rocket science.

First, at this point we really don't know enough about Clark to say he is the most electable or not.

Second,the primary process doesn't always produce the most electable candidate.

Third, there will be disagreement amongst Democratic voters as to whom it is they think is most electable.

Fourth, partisans don't always support the most electable candidate, even if they know he/she is the most electable. Evidence? The Republicans in CA who are splitting up their support in the CA recall.

This may not be rocket science, but it is more complicated than making simple declarative sentences.

In Steven's defense, we all can't be Asst. Profs of Poli Sci at Troy State. That's for the elite of academia. It takes years of rigorous study and research to come to the conclusion the economy just *happens*.

::snicker::

Rocket science involves authoritatively declaring: "If it was that easy to make the economy grow, won't all presidents make sure that the economy grew?"

You're repeating yourself.

zero points.

Steven - your points are well taken, but the classroom/teacher/grading analogy is just a bit grating.

Jason,

As you may note, that particu;ar rhetorical device was really targetted at a particualr individual.

S