by Nicholas Beaudrot of electoral Math
There have been a lot of these, so I will try to keep mine brief. Contra Neil, I think it's a stretch to read "devious strategic malice" into Karl Rove's various tactical moves during the 2004 election. To repeat a point that's been made before, Rove is one butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County away from being in permanent exile from GOP politics, having wasted millions of dollars and the last weekend of in-person candidate appearances on his ridiculous "bandwagon theory". Rove does seem to have correctly identified that the relative cost of mobilizing a base voter was cheaper than previously estimated, and that the internet and viral marketing techniques can help (e.g. microtargeting, making sure GOTV volunteers stayed close to home and were a demographic match for their voter universe), but that was a short term advantage that Democrats quickly matched through vigorous organizing. The 50%+1 legislative strategy of pandering to the base and striking fear into the heart of moderate Democrats to get just enough votes to pass your agenda worked like a charm for 2002, 2003, and 2004, but in most (not all; witness the FISA vote) cases, it's imploded just like a Ruined Hedge Fund.
So, this ex post facto analysis of Rove's intervention into the 2004 Democratic primaries seems like, well, not a fabrication, but, maybe one of those "exaggerations". I don't really recall any statements from the Bush White House or the RNC making a big difference; edwards was simply short on resources after the Iowa caucuses, and both the donor and the activist class were eager to end the primaries with any electable candidate and get on with the business of taking down George Bush. Nor, I think, should we read his statements that Dean was a weak general election candidate to mean that he necessarily would have been a strong one. The best thing to do is let Rove ride off into the lecture circuit and book writing sunset. To quote a wise man, "Sometimes they just have no idea what they're doing."
