By examining these years we have four possible examples to look at--a primary run-up for each of the two parties each year. However, since the 2003 Republican primary was a mere formality (with a Republican incumbent running for re-election), it does not serve our purposes.
Similarly, the 1999 Democratic primary is of less use to us, since Al Gore was the presumptive nominee for the vast majority of his second term as Vice President. As early as 1996, after Clinton secured re-election, Gore's advisors drew up a battle plan for a possible presidential run. Without question, Bill Bradley put up a respectable fight. Unfortunately for him, Gore was as close as one can come to being an incumbent without actually being one.
That leaves us two comparisons to look at: The Republican Year 3 of 1999 and the Democratic Year 3 of 2003. Let's take a look.
1999: George W. Bush came storming out of Texas with a collosal network of supporters across the country. He had name recognition, connections to million-dollar donors, and a strong conservative base with the so-called Religious Right in ascendancy. He was one amnog a number of candidates (namely, John McCain), but Bush always had the fundamentals it would take to win the White House. Having become intimitely familiar with the process as he watched his father lose to Bill Clinton in 1992, he was able to avoid the missteps losing candidates always make.
The Mainstream Media had crowned Bush the presumptive nominee in the summer of that Year 3, as evidenced by this June 21, 1999 Time cover:
Though everyone saw that he could win the White House, many, even then, though he was intellectually overmatched by the likes of McCain and would fall short. Indeed, a few months into Year 4, McCain nearly ousted the eventual 43rd President by defeating him in the New Hampshire primary, only to have Bush court value voters and come triumphantly back to win South Carolina--and the nomination--handily.2003: This Year 3 stands in strong contrast with 1999. All Year 3 long it was Howard Dean, a previously little-known governor from a small New England state, who captured the heart of the anti-war movement. The Liberal media made Dean their king, as he became the story of the year. He, too, made the cover of Time in the summer of his Year 3:
There were hopefuls who tagged along the whole way--Edwards, Lieberman, Bradley, Kerry, Gephardt, Sharpton, and the list goes on. None of the others even made a dent in the Dean campaign's front-runner status during Year 3. Dean got all the media attention, all the money, and therefore more media attention, which in turn led to more money. He had the base solidly in his corner.But the rest of the story has become all too clear. The Left, though in love with Dean, knew he could not win a race wherein he would have to turn at least one Southern state blue. The Dean Year 3 could be called a "bait and switch". Dean dominated the news, dominated fundraising, dominated travel, dominated in the image wars, yet in the end it was all for naught.
That should teach us not to put too much stock in Year 3 impressions.
On to 2003: So which Year 3 will it be? Well, possibly both. Unlike the past two Year 3s, neither side has an incumbent, or even a VP who is kind of like an incumbent. What might well happen is that the Dems could get a 1999 and the GOP a 2003. Maybe, just maybe, Hillary/Obama could ride their name recognition, media attention, and celebrity status all the way to the nomination, echoing back to Bush's 1999.
By the same token, McCain may well suffer Dean's fate. He might ride the horse named Frontrunner all the way through Year 3, only to have the primary voters reject him (though, of course, it would be for vastly different reasons than Democrats said no to Dean). He may be on the cover of Time. He may have the most money. He may be the media darling. But he may be destined for a Dean Year 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment