Quick, get that commenter an emergency Downs primer! Stat!

On the other hand, Bush was pushed right from the beginning as the most electable candidate. The left might have learned the message that beating the Republican is more important than which specific Democrat gets the nomination.

For example, don't expect a major Ralph Nader run, or far-left claims that there is no difference between the two major party candidates.

BTW, I am extremely dubious of the anti-Clark folk saying it's too late based solely on the fact that this election cycle is different. Usually, things are not different.

Bush had the name and the money, and was considered an attractive candidate. None of the other Reps that year, save McCain, really ever got any traction. That often happens, where there is a clear front runner from the beginning. Kerry was supposed to be that guy this go 'round, but not so much.

In re: Clark-it isn't that he has no chance, but that his chances are severly curtailed. The other candidates have been raising money and visiting Iowa and NH for a long while, and for a new candidate to break in, he/she would have to really be able to wow the voters and bust through a lot of the noise. I think, for example, that Mrs. Clinton could do that. I don't think Clark can. Despite his military career he is a true neophyte politcally. They tend to stumble in these types of situations.

Get yer offensive Dean People Suck merchandise right here: http://www.cafeshops.com/deanpeoplesuck.7402842

This is just Steven's shtick--he wouldn't be devoting so much time to Clark if Clark had no chance. If GEN Clark were PFC Joe Blow, we wouldn't have heard peep one from Steven.

But Clark concerns Steven because a Clark neutralizes Dubya's campaign theme. As such, it would require Dubya to try and run on his record--which ain't good.

Actually, what it boils down to is when students don't understand the first time, one has to repeat the material in a different way.

Don't fret, I am sure you will get the hang of it eventually.

I am the rocket scientist in question. And since I suppose you must want a long argument, here we go.
You claimed Clark had no constituency. I attempted to say that his constituency is those Dems looking for a guy that is likely to beat Bush. It is a large constituency. I have heard 'I will vote for anyone who can beat Bush' many times.
First, you claimed we don't know how good a campaigner Clark is. True. But we know he is more telegenic than Dean. We know he will be very hard to smear on security matters. I'm not guaranteeing a Clark victory, but he has a good chance. My post was a hypothetical. He might suck, but based on what we know, there is a constituency.
Second, the primary process does seem to usually lead to the most electable candidate. Unless you're arguing that Steve Forbes or Pat Buchanan were more electable than Dole (I just read a great book about this.) I have sadly forgotten the details of that exciting '88 primary, but wasn't that the one where the seven dwarves line came from? McGovern may support your case (great book about this too) but again, it was an awful field.
Third, yes there will be disagreement about this, but a lot of lefties have been making the 'Clark is electable' case well recently. I have not heard this 'X is electable' about any other candidate, really.
Fourth, I think the guys in California are mad becuase Arnie does not support them on their priority (which apparently is social conservatism). Dem voters' priority issue, as evidence by the Dean surge, is opposition to the war on Iraq. Clark has that (and he is looking fairly prescient these days, too). The Dem partisans may be loyal to their candidate, but they could leave him for someone with the same positions who can win. We will find out.
"Really, there appear to be a lot of people who really do not understand the primary process."
I hope that wasn't directed as me (I just read two books about the subject!). And why'd you say 'really' twice?
"Quick, get that commenter an emergency Downs primer! Stat!"
Please do, as I have no idea what that is. I started my first poli-sci class this very day (a class studying elections, of course). I guess it's all uphill from here. This arguing is good practice, anyways.

(pause for breath) And furthermore, I would like to discuss the 'It's Too late for Clark' idea. You just linked to a post saying that Dems do not know who the candidates are, let alone have already picked one. In Iowa and NH I'm sure they've given more thought to the matter, but there are still lots of undecided, and I bet many will switch their preference if Clark looks good out there.
There are still also a lot of endorsements to be handed out, including one from a certain Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas who said Clark would make a good president (IIRC). So let's not count the General out just yet, Ok?

Sym,

My thanks for your thoughtful response.

However, a couple of points, which I may elaborate on on the main blog at some point:

1) The fact of the matter is, not all democratic primary voters are going to agree on who it is who is best able to beat Bush. And, to be fair, just because you haven't heard people say X or Y on candidates means nothing.

2) You make my point with the Arnie thing--it is entirely possible, indeed likely that any given candidate will alienate some segment of a given set of voters--why should Clark be any different? YOu are amusing the best of a blank slate. This is especially true in the primary process when there are lots of choices.

3) I am glad you have read some nifty books, but that isn't much of an argument. If the issue is number of pages read on these topics, trust me, I win.

4) I probably typed "really" twice in that sentence because I typed that post at 6-something in the morning whilst eating breakfast. I confess to not always being the best copy editor of my own work.

5) Endorsements are relevant, but so is fundraising, and ESPECIALLY getting established in NH and Iowa. As bizarre as it may seem, the most important issue at this stage is not national polling data.

Oh, and Matthew was referring to Anthony Downs and his theorie on voting and voter behavior.