Catching votes

The 2004 presidential election may not be the critical national vote as some have been in the recent past, or as some probably will be in the future, but there is a sense that the period we’re now in is as momentous as we are likely to live through. The nation is at war. There have been casualties. Our foes play by no rules. Invisible threats seem permanent. Technological change is everywhere. The world we thought we knew is gone and passed into the squabble of history.

We might think that an election in such a time has to have in its cast of characters extraordinary figures. That is the paradox of 2004. The Democratic Party has evidently not produced great figures to contest this election. Of course, one of these persons will be their nominee, and it is always possible that, if elected, this person could rise to the occasion. This already happened in 2000, when the election seemed less than historic, and the candidates also seemed a cut below many of their predecessors.

Not even his best advocates suggested that George W. Bush was destined to have the opportunity to be one of the major presidents in American history. Neither the times in 2000, nor the man, overtly suggested it. History’s incessant debate will later evaluate what President Bush has done, and if re-elected,what he might yet do. But there is little doubt that, as all presidents who lead us through major threat and war, he will be judged by large standards.

This may seem to be a ponderous introduction to my last discussion of the 2004 nominating campaign before the first votes are counted, but I have done so deliberately. From the dust of the dire charges and countercharges, the angry verbosity, the treble and bass of the noisy jeremiads — it is necessary to remind ourselves that beyond the game of politics, and the indulgent speculation about it, there are serious events unfolding in this world of billions of persons scattered over our allegedly overheated little planet.

Our apparently overheated contest for the Democratic nomination for president now confronts a rapid series of small but significant tests. Within days, the traditional first two tests will take place. The first one, Iowa, may well be more critical than in previous years.

The media, faced with the possible runaway nomination of a dark horse candidate, Mr. Dean, predictably has raised doubts in the days before the Iowa Caucus, Jan. 19, about the certainty of his success. This is not entirely a self-serving act. It is a simple truth at all times, and in particular in these sudden times, that obvious conclusions cannot be successfully reached until they happen. The greatest citizen philosopher of our age, the unmistakable Yogi Berra, caught this notion and made it his most famous dictum.

But this does not prevent some of us from saying something about outcomes before they happen.

I would suggest a few points. First, the very attempt to portray the Iowa race as closer than it might be may result in an opposite effect. Iowa was always going to be relatively close. Howard Dean has emerged there, as he had elsewhere, and worked long and hard in this Midwestern state, but Dick Gephardt and John Kerry had done so as well, and were better known. John Edwards has also campaigned there energetically.

A landslide in the Iowa caucus is just not in the political cards. Nevertheless, Mr. Dean’s momentum had been building, and his lead in New Hampshire had become so large, that an expectation, fair or not, was growing that he might win a big victory in Iowa that would be followed by a bigger one in the Granite State, and the contest would be over. I am suggesting that it probably could not have worked that way, that even in winning Iowa by several points, it would not be considered to have furthered his momentum.

But now there is an expectation that Iowa will be very close. Some are even suggesting that Mr. Gephardt will overtake Mr. Dean, and others are saying that Mr. Edwards has begun hurtling towards the front, possibly finishing much higher than the expectations for him. Latest rumors are that Mr. Kerry is “catching fire.”There are observations that many caucusgoers are undecided.

This is, so far, all talk. The reality is that Mr. Dean has an army of devotees marching toward the state this weekend. Other candidates will be bringing in volunteers, too, but the evidence is that they will not come close to matching Mr. Dean’s efforts. Mr. Gephardt is formidable in Iowa, thanks to organized labor, but Mr. Dean managed to secure some notable union endorsements that involve a number of Iowa workers (and caucus voters). Mr. Dean’s now-celebrated verbal blunders have given the media and his rivals fodder for attack, but these have only seemed to inflame his grass-roots supporters more.

Caucus voters who have doubts, often do not show up. This is an event that requires several hours of one’s time at night in cold weather. Caucuses are won by the candidate whose supporters are the most motivated.

No one holds the proverbial crystal ball about an election. But that does not prevent us from cleaning our glasses and taking a good look at what we can see. If Mr. Dean wins, it is likely to be greater than the expectation that now exists just prior to the voting in Iowa. Mr. Clark, who also has been heralded as “coming on” in recent days, but who will be shut out from the favorable publicity from Iowa, would have to galvanize incredible support in what will be only hours before New Hampshire. Of course, if Mr. Dean loses in Iowa, the contest would be turned upside down. The more likely surprise is that either Mr. Edwards or Mr. Kerry might overtake or come close to Mr. Gephardt in second place, and this “momentum” would overshadow Mr. Clark’s efforts to be the anti-Dean candidate in New Hampshire and beyond.

Is it absolutely certain that Mr. Dean will win in Iowa? No, but I am willing to write it down that he will. If it does turn out differently, the letters to the editor of this publication will be filled with rebuke. So be it. But I will not ever go back on my belief that Mr. Berra knew how to catch a baseball. It’s the umpires who get yelled at, and elections, after all, are not a game.

Barry Casselman has reported on and analyzed national politics since 1972.