Democratic Divide

Peter Beinart, whose work in the New Republic I generally like, has an excellent article (subscription required) on how the real divide in the Democratic party isn't ideological, its class. He argues the middle class reformers reject machine politics, favor campaign finance reform, are fiscally conservative, and particularly dovish (though dovishness also correlates well to geography). The working class democrats see machines as their defenders, regard reform with suspicion, receive a disproportionate share of entitlements, and are hawkish (again geography needs to be consulted). Dean is the darling of the middle class reformers and Gephardt is the champion of the working class traditionalists. Kerry has displeased both, and no one else is poised to grab either of these key constituencies.

Looked at this way, Gephardt is the stronger candidate in the national election, since its much more likely that Dean would lose culturally conservative, gun-loving, hawkish labor to Bush than it is than Gephardt would lose the middle class reformers, who would certainly defect to a Republican like McCain, but not Bush.

The thing is, I just don't see Gephardt getting the nomination. Its Dean's to lose, and such a loss might resurrect Kerry. However, nationally, Dean will hemorage culturally conservative, gun-loving, hawkish labor to Bush. How badly will depend upon how well Dean can woo labor. Dean is already shifting his candidacy towards frontrunner geniallity towards fellow dems and moderating certain views. Our system of primary-national election always forces candidates to run away from the center and then back toward it. Both to unify their wing of the electorate as well as appealing to independents. As I say, its Deans to lose.