Don’t Write Bradley Off

The counting is not complete, but it appears that, for the first time, TV pundits outnumbered voters in the Iowa caucuses on Monday. Since this rapidly growing mob is apparently controlling the message of Campaign 2000, it’s worth reviewing its take on Democratic candidate Bill Bradley, going into Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.

Here is my response to the mob consensus:

1) Bradley’s attack on Vice President Al Gore in the last New Hampshire debate was too little, too late. Maybe.

2) Bradley must win New Hampshire in order to remain a viable candidate. Wrong.

3) Bradley will encounter enormous pressure from Democratic leaders, urging him to step aside. Wrong.

4) If Gore wins New Hampshire, history says he’s locked up the nomination. Maybe.

Did Bradley’s attacks on Gore come too late? Not necessarily. Two observations: Had Bradley started elbowing Gore earlier, it would have looked desperate and probably would have backfired. Bradley can claim, with justification, that Gore forced him--reluctantly--to move from a positive-ideas strategy to a response strategy, given the all-too-obvious Team Gore decision to cut Bradley off at the knees. Second, Bradley’s tactical change was not as jarring as I expected. In politics, when you move from a positive strategy to an attack mode, the change is often so dramatic as to appear phony. I didn’t get that sense from Wednesday’s debate. In fact, Bradley appeared quite comfortable with the change and gave the impression of a candidate reinvigorated.

The idea that Bradley must win New Hampshire if he is to remain a serious candidate is just silly. Candidates rarely go quietly into the night, particularly when there is money in the bank. Bradley is the antithesis of a quitter. He has plenty of money available for the delegate-rich period of March 7-March 14--when 27 states hold Democratic primaries and caucuses with thousands of delegates at stake.

There are 35 days after New Hampshire without any Democratic delegates up for grabs--a lifetime in politics! New Hampshire will quickly fade from the minds of political writers, and Gore--should he win New Hampshire--will have to maintain an overwhelming front-runner status for more than a month. Given an invigorated Bradley with sharp elbows, a pundit mob that will not let Gore coast (“Both parties’ races can’t be over by spring! What will we do?”) and a campaign season dominated by shifting momentum, Bradley has every reason to fight another round.

The silliest mob prediction is that Democratic party leaders will pressure Bradley to withdraw. First, these are not the days of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the powerful labor bosses. The fact is political machines are all but dead in America. In their place are 30-second spots and a full roster of “spinners.”

To the extent that there are any Democratic leaders, they’re with Gore, anyway. Most of these “leaders” are in the House and Senate. Even when he was in Congress, Bradley exhibited an independent streak that often infuriated fellow Democrats. Bradley was not close to the Democratic leadership then, and he certainly isn’t now. He owes them nothing.

Finally, there is no historical evidence to suggest that winning New Hampshire will ensure Gore’s nomination. In 1992, Iowa and New Hampshire victories were split between Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, respectively. Neither received the Democratic Party nomination.

Though pundits argue that Democrats commonly reward vice presidents with the party nomination, this has occurred only twice in the last 50 years: Hubert H. Humphrey was nominated in 1968, and Walter F. Mondale in 1984. In that same time, only two other former vice presidents received national-ticket status: Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson. However, both had already inherited the presidency come election year. In any case, history is a poor guide in American politics--particularly in this new era of front-loaded primaries and massive media coverage.

In the end, will Gore win the Democratic nomination? Probably. But to write Bradley off now based on the consensus of the pundit mob would be a mistake.

Last summer, Gore was mired in low poll numbers and serious questions among Democrats about his viability against Texas Gov. George W. Bush. Gore rose from the near-dead then to become the overwhelming front-runner he is now. Can Bradley do the same? No one really knows. But ponder this question: What if he wins the New Hampshire primary?