Preview of next year's election campaign

in General Discussion edited January 2014
We already know how Dean campaigns against Bush and Republicans in general. How will Republicans campaign against Dean? We know Bush will try and paint Dean as too far to the left, but how?

Here's a preview.


  • Reply 1 of 3
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    More Dean threads!

    Seriously, this article by Patrick C. Doherty in Common Dreams is the best I've read so far about what he can do win over those moderates and conservatives.
  • Reply 2 of 3
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member

    The outline of that sustainable American economic engine is simple and clear: we must shift from suburban sprawl to metropolitan smart growth; from regressive income taxes to waste taxes; from industrial subsidies to subsidy free markets; and from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

    That article took more time beating around the bush (pun intended) than I could practically tolerate.

    If that is how Dean could win the election, good luck.

    Urban spraw happens for one reason. Everyone wants a single family home. As someone who has lived and owned in a condo complex, it is quite hard to see the value relative to your own home. We had an association. We had to pay our monthly dues to it. The votes sometimes went against what you wanted and you were assessed dues. (read charged money) You had tons of rules governing what color screen door you could even install, and of course all renovations had to go through the council.

    Likewise good luck winning an election telling everyone, "You were stupid for wanting that house you save and slave away for, elect me and I will require something different."

    I wonder how well you liberal parents would take to being told they and their $400k house are the PROBLEM.

    Regressive income taxes?!? We go from literally the lower 50% paying 4% of the taxes. The rate starts at 10% and goes to 38.5% last time I checked. (might have been lowered to 35%) Anyone who calls that regressive is insane. Likewise the most regressive tax we have is social security and good luck getting electing telling everyone that they have to pay even more just to get back a small subsidy that likely won't be there when they do retire.

    Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I don't want just 13% of the first $86,000. I want 13% of all of it the whole million. In return I promise you will get $600 a month when you retire, if the system isn't bankrupt by then.

    Sure that one will get him elected....

    Subsidy free markets, simplify the tax code, Republicans have been trying to do this for years. Think about how absurd it is to say make more progressive and also simplify at the same time. The reason, in part it is so confusing now is because you have to declare income, then deduct living expenses to insure you are not one of the wealthy, and other lobbied for credits and cuts by both parties, and then pay your taxes. How do you simplify (read remove the credits and cuts, and breaks) make it it even more progressive (read a top rate likely well in excess of 40-50% of income since it is at 38.5% now) and get elected.

    Now understand you, under that filthy friend of the rich, Bush, are "rich" and paying at the 30% tax bracket when you earn a little over $100,000 which btw happens to be two teacher salaries.

    So I would love to see Dean elected telling all the "rich" of this country (read any couple making over $100,000 that they need to give up all their breaks and give about 10% more in federal income tax so please vote for me.

    Good luck,

  • Reply 3 of 3
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Here's a nice preview...



    A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state.

    Bush gets 57 percent to Dean's 30 percent among registered voters in the American Research Group poll. In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent

Sign In or Register to comment.