The Delegate Campaign
John Pettitt, one of the CFA core group, sharpens Joe Trippi's earlier argument about the supposed futility of the Dean Delegate campaign. Unlike Trippi who explicitly said he isn't discouraging the delegate campaign, Pettitt argues it's an absurd waste of time:
where I disagree with John (and, it seems, with the general concensus over at CFA) is in the bold part above. Delegates for Dean WILL change politics, because delegates are the only currency of influence we have.
John Kerry is the presumptive nominee. Edwards is running at a momentum disadvantage and even if all Dean supporters gave their vote to him it would still not be enough for him to prevail. Kerry's delegate total is more than Dean's and Edwards' combined.
So our delegates, spent on Edwards, are already a waste. And frankly whether Edwards or Kerry is preferable is an open question - Kerry has already previewed strong lines of attack against Bush that Edwards can't seem to match, and Edwards is completely untested in the face of the media onslaught whereas Kerry has already weathered the storm of smear attacks from the RNC.
Dean delegates mean that Kerry recognizes us as a still-active force within politics. It means that to claim a leadership mandate he has to address our concerns. It means that DFA v2.0 has real influence because it can deliver on the only currency that matters - votes.
Without delegates, all we are left with is a bunch of blogs and farm retreats.
But it's one-sided to discuss whether or not to vote Dean. We should also be asking those who say it is futile, what's the alternative? That's exactly what I've done in tha CFA thread:
I am sure John will respond, and I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Trying to get more Dean delegates is a waste of effort. Partly because of the 15% issue (he'll be lucky to get 15% in any district) and more importantly because even if he does get more delegates it won't change anything. The convention doesn't decide anything important any more (apart from the nomination) and having additional delegates for a candidate who has dropped out of the race won't make a real difference.
where I disagree with John (and, it seems, with the general concensus over at CFA) is in the bold part above. Delegates for Dean WILL change politics, because delegates are the only currency of influence we have.
John Kerry is the presumptive nominee. Edwards is running at a momentum disadvantage and even if all Dean supporters gave their vote to him it would still not be enough for him to prevail. Kerry's delegate total is more than Dean's and Edwards' combined.
So our delegates, spent on Edwards, are already a waste. And frankly whether Edwards or Kerry is preferable is an open question - Kerry has already previewed strong lines of attack against Bush that Edwards can't seem to match, and Edwards is completely untested in the face of the media onslaught whereas Kerry has already weathered the storm of smear attacks from the RNC.
Dean delegates mean that Kerry recognizes us as a still-active force within politics. It means that to claim a leadership mandate he has to address our concerns. It means that DFA v2.0 has real influence because it can deliver on the only currency that matters - votes.
Without delegates, all we are left with is a bunch of blogs and farm retreats.
But it's one-sided to discuss whether or not to vote Dean. We should also be asking those who say it is futile, what's the alternative? That's exactly what I've done in tha CFA thread:
John P,
I am firmly commited to the Dean Delegate campaign. I would like to ask you, if you think that it is an "absurd waste" and an excercise in futile Naderesque purity, then what is the alternative you propose?
I vote in Texas. What is your advice for me to do if I decide that you're right about the delegate issue?
--Aziz
I am sure John will respond, and I look forward to seeing what he has to say.
Comments