Infinite Monkeys

The "protest vote" is a dubious idea--did the Democrats nominate someone more Nader-like because of that protest vote? Yes, they almost did, but there was no real move to assimilate the Nader vote.

Also, I seem to remember another reason why it's important that the vote not be close. How does that go again? It's hard to remember, but it's something like "If it's not close..."

I believe the quote is, "If it's not close, they won't change." A landslide Republican victory will result in a perceived "mandate" for the horrible pseudo-conservatism of the current administration.

And I think the Democrats HAVE worked to assimilate that vote. As you mentioned, Howard Dean almost won the nomination, and the Democrats have been actively courting and placating the far-left groups for years.

A close win doesn't send the message to a party that they need to move to assimilate the group that voted for the fringe candidate. It tells them that they need to shore up their base and go for the center. For example, President Bush's close win taught Karl Rove that he needed to get the Christian right (the theory is that they stayed home on election day because of the DUI late hit) and reach out for, say, seniors (with Medicare prescription handouts) and steelworkers (with protectionism). So you simply aren't going to get what you want with a close win.

And don't start telling me about how a loss teaches a party a "lesson." A President Kerry would be too dangerous, and look at history--did Nixon's loss lead to Goldwater, Goldwater's loss to Nixon, Nixon's disgrace to Reagan? That doesn't really make sense. The way to win is to win with ideas, and I believe free market ideas will come to the forefront again. Don't campaign against the President; campaign for Congressional and local candidates who share your ideas (and who can win) so they are positioned for the future.