Dean leads Kerry 40-17 in NH.
I know a lot of you disagree...but Dean winning is exceptionally bad for Democrats. They're best chance is either Clark or Kerry.
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=750
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=750
Comments
Clark/Dean should be the ticket. But Dean seems like a all or nothing candidate with all his "I am the only candidate that opposed the war, is above middle height AND at the same time wears black shoes"-rhetoric. Okay Kuchinich is worse but still I don´t think Dean would accept going out of the race to become vice president.
Originally posted by Anders
Can´t stand Kerry
Clark/Dean should be the ticket. But Dean seems like a all or nothing candidate with all his "I am the only candidate that opposed the war, is above middle height AND at the same time wears black shoes"-rhetoric. Okay Kuchinich is worse but still I don´t think Dean would accept going out of the race to become vice president.
I agree with you on that
It's not about who I'd like to win (obviously). I just saying that I think there are a lot of Republicans PRAYING for Dean to win.
It will be interesting to see how the field handles the new economic data showing a basically normalized economy with (now) strong growth projections.
Just have to say that a Clark/Powell ticket would be a dream. If for nothing else to give Powll a chance to clean his hands.
Originally posted by Anders
Derailing. I know.
Just have to say that a Clark/Powell ticket would be a dream. If for nothing else to give Powll a chance to clean his hands.
It would be a good ticket. Though it won't happen, obviously.
All partisanship aside, I am really wondering what is going on in the Democratic party right now. I'm not trying to start another flame fest here, but this is how I see it.
With the rapidly improving economy, the only real issues for the Democrats in 2004 are:
1. Iraq---And for it to be an issue, they have to hope it doesn't go well.
I think most agree it's going better than reported...I guess
we'll see where it's at next year. Attempts to paint it as
Vietnam II are probably not going to work....since we lost
60,000 men in Vietnam and we've lost 350 in Iraq.
2. Healthcare---OK, probelm is....what's their "idea"? If Bush gets his
medicare prescrip. benefit....what's realyl left that
people are going to care about? I'm not saying there
are no issues left...but ones people will vote on?
ALL other issues..and agree there are a lot...are not going to be enough to run on. These two things are what people are going to care about in lieu of a tanking economy...which does not exist in any form right now.
Now, the real problem: The candidates themselves. Let me share with you:
Dean---Exceptionally popular, but far too liberal too win. His anti-war, anti-tax cut, positions aren't going to play well outside of guilty white liberal metro areas. I actually like his personality...but that's what I think. Verdict: Great personality and charisma. His stance on issues will drive nearly all Republicans and many swing voters away.
Kerry---Increasingly unpopular. His flip-flop on supporting war resolution will kill him. He has a nauseating tone and I'm wondering what type of concrete his face is made out of. Verdict: A factor in the race, but his personality will turn people off.
Gephardt---Personally, I don't like him because of his whining, sickening tone. Politcally, he doesn't seem to catch on...no matter when he runs. Verdict: Not a factor.
Clark--Made a big splash because of his title. Has quickly lost popularity. His campaign has been run by Gore-ites and has been a disaster (personal feelings aside about Gore...his campaign was pretty bad). The tapes of him prasing Bush just 15 motnhs ago and his fundrasing for Republicans is going to kill him. I also think he is rather bland personally. Politcally, he's more moderate and doesn't have terrible ideas. Verdict: He will challenge Dean and possibly get the nomination...though it's not looking good right now. If not, he will probably be the VP nom. The republicans will rip him up and down for his past support and subsequent flop, as will his own party. Word also has it that he didn't leave the service in an ideal way...which will also kill him.
Lieberman---Not polling well. Poltically the most moderate, his whining is not good for him. I think he's a decent guy. Honestly, though, his faith pretty much makes him unelectable---even in today's day and age (and that's unfortunate). Verdict: Not a factor.
I think we all know that Dennis "Dept. of Peace" Kucinich, Carol "Where the **** did I come from?" Mosely-Braun, the Reverend "I'm a convict on a hunger strike, oh, and we don't have the right to vote in this country" Sharpton are not factors.
So, I see a three way battle between Dean, Clark and Kerry...with Dean most likely winning.
Economy? With a debicit like that nothing is under control. Its funny that the perverted Keynian policy that put a lot of european social democrat lead states on the edge of bankruptcy in late 70s/early 80s is reintroduced with a trickle down edge that didn´t´work in GB in the 80s
Before we get to point one, Iraq, there is the mess that Iraq is part of. The war against terror. Not going that well is it? Even Rumsfeldt is admitting that now (The way the administration is handing this little incident is quite honest BTW). There is no overall goal in the fight and the small goal are either not achieved (Catching Osama and Saddam) or achieved causing more problems (taking responsibility for Afghanistan and Iraq, feeding the terrorist groups with new volunteers, helping other dictators in former USSR republics and making the population your enemies, costing billions of dollars). WHat is the goal of the war against terror? I still have a paranoid fear that the purpose of the war is war itself. Keeping people in line a la the neverending war in 1984.
Iraq: Compared to what was said one year ago about the post war periode its going really really bad. Not as bad as some predicted three month ago. But compared to the pretty picture promised by the administration a year ago it isn´t looking good.
Healthcare: Sorry I am from another culture. Anything less that 100% coverage single payer system is third world stuff to me. Dean got one of his strongest points there (even if he doesn´t want to go all the way).
And a lot of errors along the way paintning a picture of the administration as anything but humble to the american population (esp. the "Don´t critisis us or you are not doing your patriotic duty"-stuff up to the Iraq war) can be used against Bush. Just like Clark is doing with his "new patriotism" idea.
Two basic facts about the Bush years that will not change by the election:
1. The only president since the Great Depression to show a net loss of jobs.
2. The largest deficit in the history of the universe.
Iraq? I think it's a wash. The only part of the electorate who really thinks it was a great thing are those who believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Another small part of the electorate is highly energized against it. The rest of us have views that can be summed up as: "OK fine. But was it really necessary?"
Originally posted by Anders
Derailing. I know.
Just have to say that a Clark/Powell ticket would be a dream. If for nothing else to give Powll a chance to clean his hands.
So true.
Originally posted by SDW2001
2. Healthcare---OK, probelm is....what's their "idea"? If Bush gets his
medicare prescrip. benefit....what's realyl left that
people are going to care about? I'm not saying there
are no issues left...but ones people will vote on?
According to this:
rtsp://12.170.145.134:554/idrive/project/c04/c04102003_health.rm?cloakport=8080,554,7070
1: Two thirds prefer single payer system over the current one
2: Bush proposal will only cover 3-6 million more.
Healt care could end up being a hot hot issue.
With no Republican primary this year, most of these 'independents' will come out and vote. Many of them consider themselves to be 'centrist', not to the left or to the right, but in terms of how they vote, they lean more to the conservative side. People might say that because I'm more of a liberal, but it's plain to see that a state with no income tax, no sales tax, and a state legislature that gets no pay has a population leans more towards the conservative side on economic issues.
Regardless of this, I'll give you the rundown of candidates as I have seen them (because I have seen most of them at one point or another).
Gephardt is a very strong candidate up here but the thing that has really set him back was the fact that he voted for the war. As a result, he's really hurt himself politically. Many see him as one of the Democrats that didn't have the guts to stand up against the war when they had the chance, and now he's paying for it.
Kerry is supposed to be a strong candidate here, but again, he voted for the war. He also has very little to say and most people realize that he thinks that people should vote for him just because he's from Massachusetts. I've met him before and was on my old town's Democratic Committee with his parents, but I'm definitely not going to vote for him. He's just not a strong candidate and is paying way too much attention to the polls. You can't have a President that is going to vote based on popularity polls.
Dean is far and away the frontrunner in New Hampshire, *even* with Independents. This includes conservatives at this point. We don't have trash collection in NH, so when I was at the dump today, there was a large group of 'Independents against Bush' holding signs on the way out. That's the first sign I've seen of a backlash against the President up here. It actually really surprised me because Hollis is a fairly affluent community with a fairly conservative base. Unless he does something really foolish, Dean will get the nod up here in January.
Lieberman isn't doing very well up here because he never shows up. Instead, he sends his wife and kids around to campaign for him. Plus, he's not a very energetic guy, and seems to be copying most of other people's ideas. With nothing original, it's hard to find a reason to vote for him. Next week, though, he is going to stop in at my Aunt's restaurant at some point for one of those meet and greet things. We aren't sure when he will stop by, just that he will.
Clark is getting killed in the polls because he is a Republican. He has very conservative ideas and his main issue has been another AmeriCorps, only that you serve for 2 or 4 years to serve in national emergencies (forest fires, nuclear disasters, medical emergencies, floods, etc.) His praise of the Bush administration in the past has really hurt his reputation up here.
Braun, Kucinich, Sharpton, etc. aren't doing well up here at all for fairly obvious reasons. Most think they will drop out of the race sooner rather than later.
If the primary were held today, Dean would win by 40 points in NH. He would get over half of the vote in the state. The reason the numbers are varied is because a large portion of voters (I think I heard it was 20% or so) haven't made up their minds yet, but I know that my parents called me yesterday and said they were voting for Dean. Up until then, they had been leaning towards Gephardt. I'm still surprised that they chose Dean because they too were under the impression that if Dean was the nominee, Bush would beat him in the general election.
Here's the thing that impresses me about Dean and why people have him wrong in terms of why he can beat Bush. In NH, most people want a more 'centrist' candidate over one that's more 'liberal', because they want Bush out of office. Bush's approval ratings in NH are very poor at this point with the news saying that almost 88% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of the President, and that 70% of Independents have an unfavorable view of the President. Bush is unpopular with many Conservatives as well due to his record which includes record high Federal Spending, a huge national deficit, the increasing size of the Federal Government (more growth than in the entire Clinton presidency), and what many people consider to be poor national defense (spending more time fighting wars overseas than focussing on defense at home).
Still, even though most people in NH want a 'Centrist' candidate, they are going with Dean over one of the other candidates that supposedly are more 'Centrist' like Clark or Kerry.
Things are going to be very interesting in the next few months, but it looks like Dean is going to get the nod and the Republicans at this point are underestimating both Dean as a candidate, and the fact that many people will vote just to vote against Bush.
Edit: Forgot about Health Care. Clark was in Nashua yesterday (which is a city on the border with Hollis) and there were reporters talking to people after they met him. These people have met all of the candidates, but no one is really tackling the issue that's important to them, and that's health care. People don't understand how we can be setting up a health care system in Iraq when we don't have one here. People also don't understand how we can be building new schools, fire houses, police stations, and municipal buildings in Iraq when the ones here are underfunded or in need of serious repairs.
Health care is a serious issue in the US that has to be addressed. My grandparents pay hundreds of dollars a week for medicine, and when my grandfather (who worked in a public school system for almost 60 years) dies, my grandmother (who had been promised health care for life) will lose her remaining benefits because of cutbacks that they've made.
Just have to say that a Clark/Powell ticket would be a dream. If for nothing else to give Powll a chance to clean his hands.
Why? In a time of crisis he stood before the world and lied.
I know a lot of you disagree...but Dean winning is exceptionally bad for Democrats. They're best chance is either Clark or Kerry.
America has the unfortunate luck of being a Democracy - he who gets the most votes wins the nomination.
Originally posted by Rick1138
Why? In a time of crisis he stood before the world and lied.
Thats why the cleaning hands part was in there.I believe in giving people a second chance which you obviously don´t.
You have some good points about New Hampshire. But here's the thing: New Hampshire doesn't represent what's going to happen nationally.
If the debate is one of Dean vs. Bush...I have to disagree. The Republicans are going to take Dean's exceptionally liberal record and anti-war views and ram it down his throat over and over and over again.
Bush is going to outspend Dean...probably four to one. Bush is running unapposed, and won;t spend a dime fighting off the wolves in the Democratic field like Dean will.
We have an interesting situation here that I can't believe some Democrats like yourself cannot see. Bill Clinton said twelve years ago that there was a "third way". He recognized that the only way his party would recapture the White House was to run on a centrist platform (though there were other factors like Perot and the tanking economy...not to mention GHWB's lousy campaign). Now, what we have here is Dean...a dyed in the wool Liberal who will and has courted the far Left for his politcal base. and don;t me wrong, he's done a FANTASIC job courting it. It may even get him the nomination with people like McCauliffe, Daschle and Pelosi in charge of things.
The fact of the matter is that the big boys in the Democratic party do not want Dean to win. They know he's too liberal to have a decent shot. The Republicans, on the other hand, think he's ideal. He's not going to going to become moderate for the generla election jno matter how hard he tries.
There are even some who say the Clintons are responsible for Clark getting in....with the goal of creating chaos so Hillary can jump in and "save" the party. Interesting. At this point, I'd say it's more likely Gore would jump in...but now it's getting late.
Fran, I know you support Dean, but you have to realize what the national electorate is like. Do you honestly imagine the "Bush Country" states going for Dean? The big industrial states? Florida? How do you think he'll do with the military. Bush just has too many advantages. And if the economy keeps going the way it is, it's going to be even harder for Dean...or any Democrat for that matter.
But here's the thing: New Hampshire doesn't represent what's going to happen nationally.
Oh, but that's where you are wrong. The entire state is full of independents. The state is full of swing voters. These voters went with Bush last time. Had Gore won NH, Gore would be President. But this time, voters aren't going to go with Bush.
You're wrong about Dean too. He is running on a centrist platform. Have you heard half of what he is saying? He's blasting the President using the same tactics Bill Clinton is using. Those tactics being to use the Republican party's platform against them, pointing out the President has done a record amount of spending, increased the Federal Government more in 2 years than Clinton did in 8, saying that we need to build schools, fire houses, and new municipal buildings in the United States instead of Iraq, saying we need to look at our own national healthcare problem before that in Iraq, and saying we need a stronger national defense at home.
He was anti-war when it was 'unpopular' to be anti-war. Now you have the military media (Stars and Stripes) saying that the overwhelming majority of the troops in Iraq would characterize their morale as 'low' to 'very low'. You have tours of duties being doubled and triple, hazard pay going out the window, and the media has been barred from recording the coffins coming back to the United States. Many families of those who are in the Armed Forces are blasting the President for trying to put a good face on the war when things are going so horribly wrong. 28 wounded yesterday in an attack on a convoy, 2 dead. They say there are 'hundreds of attacks' on American soldiers each day.
Not only that, but our foreign policy is so bad that we can't even get other nations to sign on at this point to help rebuild the country.
You say he's not being 'moderate', but he sticks to his guns and he's going to give Bush a hell of a run. The big problem, as you said, is that the Republicans are going to donate a ton of money to Bush. They are going to raise a lot of money and they are going to spend a lot of money.
But Dean, even though he is a liberal, is going to really hit Bush hard on the issues. Bush has very few successes in his first term. The economy is bad, the war in Iraq is going badly, spending is up, troop morale is down, national security is in dire shape (according to Rumsfeld), and foreign policy is abysmal.
If Dean gets out there and makes his platform clear, he will beat Bush. Bush cannot run and win on 9/11, it's just not going to happen. From his latest speeches, it's all too apparent that 9/11 is all he has to run on. Heck, even the military isn't going to support him with the way they've been treated under the administration. We find those WOMD yet?
Bush will claim that Dean is running a 'negative campaign' right off the bat, because Dean is going to use Bush's own record from his first administration against him. Seriously, what has gone right for this country in his four years in office? Even with a Republican Congress, things are not getting better.
The Republicans are going to get a big wake up call in the next few months after the Democrats are set. They think that since people have said consistently that they would 'love' to run against Dean, and they think that since people have said that 'Bush would destroy Dean', that it's true. But the truth is that Dean is not going to run on an ultra-liberal platform, but more on an anti-Bush platform.
The questions that should be posed: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? 2 years ago? Last year? Last month? The overwhelming majority of Americans are going to say 'No'. This includes the military for obvious reasons and the average American worker since so many are unemployed or living in fear that they will lose their jobs. Very few people are going to say they are better off or that they feel more confident in the government.
Unless the country makes an amazing turnaround in the next year, Bush will not be President for another term.
Edit: I should also point out that the President is trying to hide the 9/11 documents from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. These documents would be turned over to the commission and would not threaten national security, but officials 'in the know' say that they are being withheld because the White House had briefings that such attacks could take place and that those warnings were ignored. If that came to be true, it can't help Bush.
Another plus in many eyes could be that he, contrary to Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, isn´t the "party administration man" (worked his way up, buddy buddy with the right people etc), but more like the lone ranger candidate, pointing out where the party have been wrong the last years and using the grass root campaign as an active for him. People sick of party politics, spin and the like is gonna love him.
Originally posted by Anders
Derailing. I know.
Just have to say that a Clark/Powell ticket would be a dream. If for nothing else to give Powll a chance to clean his hands.
McCain/Powell
Originally posted by Fran441
Oh, but that's where you are wrong. The entire state is full of independents. The state is full of swing voters. These voters went with Bush last time. Had Gore won NH, Gore would be President.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I am not a conservative.
Cheers
Scott
Unless the country makes an amazing turnaround in the next year, Bush will not be President for another term.
This is the most telling part of your post. With all due respect, I just don't see how you can believe this. It's just not logical. You can get all excited over poll numbers and pretend Dean is a centrist all you want...but if the economy continues in the direction it's now going your statement is jsut 100% false.
In reading the rest of your post, all I can say is that I never figured you for a Kool-Aid drinker. But, your post sounds like one. I'm not even sure where to begin.
instead of Iraq, saying we need to look at our own national healthcare problem before that in Iraq, and saying we need a stronger national defense at home.
""Better"? Fran, we fight the war there...or in the streets of Manhattan. I've made my choice.
Not only that, but our foreign policy is so bad that we can't even get other nations to sign on at this point to help rebuild the country.
That's crap.
Many families of those who are in the Armed Forces are blasting the President for trying to put a good face on the war when things are going so horribly wrong.
Many? How many is that?
instead of Iraq, saying we need to look at our own national healthcare problem before that in Iraq, and saying we need a stronger national defense at home.
ut Dean, even though he is a liberal, is going to really hit Bush hard on the issues. Bush has very few successes in his first term. The economy is bad, the war in Iraq is going badly, spending is up, troop morale is down, national security is in dire shape (according to Rumsfeld), and foreign policy is abysmal.
Now you're just being silly. Thje economy is now in normal growth (3+%) and projected to go to strong/robust growth (4-5%) by next year. Unemployment is dropping. The markets are up...bigtime. Give me a break. The War is not going badly...that's crap. There have been setbacks and I'll agree with tht 100%. Badly? Hardly. And on National Security: You can't possibly be making reference to Rumsfeld's memo, can you? That's just plainl intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Bush will claim that Dean is running a 'negative campaign' right off the bat, because Dean is going to use Bush's own record from his first administration against him. Seriously, what has gone right for this country in his four years in office? Even with a Republican Congress, things are not getting better.
Dean has been horrendously negative. He's been nothing BUT negative. Your last two sentences are just hilarious.
But the truth is that Dean is not going to run on an ultra-liberal platform, but more on an anti-Bush platform.
You just don't get it my friend, EITHER ONE of those will be a problem, especially the last one.
Edit: I should also point out that the President is trying to hide the 9/11 documents from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. These documents would be turned over to the commission and would not threaten national security, but officials 'in the know' say that they are being withheld because the White House had briefings that such attacks could take place and that those warnings were ignored. If that came to be true, it can't help Bush.
I should point how totally unsubstantiated your entire paragraph is.
Fran, I know you're all whipped up over Dean (and that's fine...though I don't like his positions at all), but get a grip. The real issues are going to be the economy and terrorism. Dean is courting the ultra-left anti-war crowd...and that's not going to play well in the "red" states. The military loves Bush, no matter how many Dateline NBC reports you listen to and his party is in much better shape to support him.
Support Dean, but don't be ridiculous.