this event knocks hilliary out, with the dems beating each other her "rescue" of the dems may come at the convention but she won't budge. i thought she would throw her scarf into the race but not now, she'll wait till o8 for sure
exactly. anyone who would vote for dean will be happy to vote clark if they need to. many people who will vote for clark won't vote for dean. dean is not the best canidate to give the democrats a chance in 2004.
I actually struggled with this for a bit. I realize that Clark is more electable by the right and many moderates than Dean is, but I don't believe in supporting someone based on my desire to see his opponent lose. I believe Dean would be better for the country, so I will support him. Your point is well taken though, most Dean supporters would vote Clark if he got the presidential bid. I would like to see a Dean/Clark ticket, but that is a whole other story.
1. Barring anything catastrophic or jus totally out of left field, Bush will be reelected. Mark my words.
2. Hillary will not run for President in 2004. The Clintons do NOT want the Dems to win 2004. They want an open shot in 2008.
3. Hillary may run with Clark as a VP candidate. She could easily blame a defeat on him...and come back in '08.
4. Hillary will never, ever be President. The reason is her unfavorables amoung WOMEN, yes, WOMEN are too high. The first woman President is going to need like 80% or better support from women. Hillary's unfavorables among men are really high...to the tune of about 60% I believe. It is simply not going to happen.
5. Dean is unelectable. The Republicans have been praying for him to be nominated.
Let me summarize why Bush won't lose again.
1. Bush has not done what is father did..raise taxes. He has cut them and now the economy is really picking up strongly. He will be credited, just as he was blamed for the downturn which he didn't create. Did he cause the upswing? Perhaps. But it doesn't matter becase he WILL get credit.
2. There is no strong third-party candidate. No Mr. Perot this time.
3. There is no strong Clintonesque figure for the Dems. Dean is popular among the left and left-center of the party. They simply do not constitute enough votes for Dean to beat Bush. Bush will get his base, plus swing voters due to the economy and WOT and the medicare bill.
4. Bush has a huge advanatge of funds and is running unopposed. He also has a huge network of supporters signed up (over 6,000,000) to Dean's 600,000. The Dem nominee will be battered and at least a little broke when it's time for the general election.
5. Bush will be seen as the strong leader through a time of national crisis.
6. The military, or 90% of it LOVES Bush.
7. The Dems have nothing to run on. I have heard almost zero new ideas from them regarding Iraq other than "more UN involvement". The economy? That issue has passed and will now count FOR Bush. WOT? Again, what would they do differently? Medicare? Well no, it is not a perfect bill in any sense, but if you honestly think peolemare going to hear anything other than "Bush signed a prescription drug benefit" you'rekidding yourself. The environment? Not a vote getting issue for most people. What's left? Bush will campaign on Social Security reform, making tax cuts permanment and so forth.
8. Bush's last tax cut has put his opposition in a really difficult position. They must now run on what amounts to a tax increase, whereas Bush will run on MORE cuts in essence...which he will be able to piont to as having already worked.
9. Deficit: Yes, a negative. But will people really vote on it? They are projections, not reality (mostly). I agree we are spending like drinken sailors, but I think people in this country are addicted to it. And mot peole believe such high debt and deficits don't matter...that's the truth.
10. Strength and organization of the parties: The Republicans are out register 3,000,000 new members of the party by the election. That's their goal and from what I heard they will reach it. The Demcrats are good at the get out the vote effort, but the party is not in good shape. Its fighting a civil war between the lefties and the Clintonites. Despite history being on his side, Clinton's team is losing the battle...especially Gore jumping in and endorsing Dean. Clinton knew in 1992 and 1996 that if he was going to win he had to move towards the center...or use what he clled "the third way". Dean is certainly not using this approach. His angry rants and anti-war stance may be popular in Seattle and Boston...but their not going to go over to big in Peoria, Illinois and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Anyway, the Dem party at the national level is a total mess and it WILL effect the outcome of the election.
8. Bush's last tax cut has put his opposition in a really difficult position. They must now run on what amounts to a tax increase, whereas Bush will run on MORE cuts in essence...which he will be able to piont to as having already worked.
The tax cuts have not worked. They did not stimulate the economy. It took the tax cuts, plus hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending, plus near-zero interest rates to do that. As a stimulus package, the tax cuts failed. Miserably. All they've succeeded in doing is creating a vast and immoral deficit that any American with half a soul should see as an abomination.
1. Barring anything catastrophic or jus totally out of left field, Bush will be reelected. Mark my words.
Are you as sure of everything on this list as you were about Dean not being able to win the nomination? Your lists are based out of your emotions, not rationale. You can't separate yourself from your semi-zealous Bush fanaticism.
Are you as sure of everything on this list as you were about Dean not being able to win the nomination? Your lists are based out of your emotions, not rationale. You can't separate yourself from your semi-zealous Bush fanaticism.
What a joke. I am quite sure about my list. Argue a point or don't. It has nothing to do with zeal for Bush. And to be clear, at this point Dean is probably going to win the nomination...though he's not a lock. I meant he cannot win the election.
Kirkland:
Quote:
The tax cuts have not worked. They did not stimulate the economy. It took the tax cuts, plus hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending, plus near-zero interest rates to do that. As a stimulus package, the tax cuts failed. Miserably. All they've succeeded in doing is creating a vast and immoral deficit that any American with half a soul should see as an abomination.
Really? How would you determine that? I agree there have been other factors like interest rates...but can you honestly say they haven't worked? Many families I know personally have seen their net incomes go up by $200 a month with both cuts combined....how is that "not working"? You can't prove they did or didn't....but it doesn't matter anyway because the POINT is he will GET CREDIT for them working because the economy improved dramtically after they were enacted.
Please, someone take the crack pipe away from these guys.
The economy has barely improved DESPITE the tax cuts. Companies have increased productivity... growth is 4%. Jobs are at about a 360k to 380k loss... while only generating 150k...
the dollar is in a slump. 80¢ to the euro.
500 billion a year deficits.
We know what's coming next year... when they try to drown the beast.
Wow...you are amazing. 2004 is predicted to be the best economic year in 20 years. Growth is astounding right now...and btw, even 4% is considered very good growth.
With all due respect, most of you are missing the point. You are looking at this from an intelligent and analytical perspective. Elections simply do not work that way. I'm not saying the American people are stupid. I'm saying that whether or not this justifies the war, stops attacks, leads to WMD stockpiles, etc. is possibly politically irrellevant. Politics is about clear, uncomplicated satements of accomplishment and intent, not grand academic analyses.
Yeah, sometimes we can forget that the idiots need a voice on AO, too. SDW is that voice.
With all due respect, most of you are missing the point. You are looking at this from an intelligent and analytical perspective. Elections simply do not work that way. I'm not saying the American people are stupid. I'm saying that whether or not this justifies the war, stops attacks, leads to WMD stockpiles, etc. is possibly politically irrellevant. Politics is about clear, uncomplicated satements of accomplishment and intent, not grand academic analyses.
Bush will be able to point to some major victories come election time. He will be able to say we liberated Iraq and captured Saddam. He will say by then that Iraq has a new provisional government and is on its way to becoming self-sufficient. Bush will also point to the ouster of the Taliban and his leadership through 9/11. He will then campaign on making permanment the tax cuts that will be seen as having stimulated the economy, since it is now predicted to be the strongest it has been in 20 years for 2004. He will hammer his oppenent with the medicare victory, and campaign on partial priviitization of Social Security. He'll even tout Education reform. In other words, he's going to say "I did what I said I'd do...I cut taxes, I freed the Iraqi people and liberated Afghanistan, and I signed a prescription drug benefit on top of it" .
The point is not whether you and I agree with these things, though I do agree with most of it. The larger point is the above WILL happen. Democrats cannot run on an epitaph platform ("we WERE in a recession, we COULDN'T get Saddam for awhile, the war WAS wrong"). People won't vote on the environment and being anti-war, at least not anyone outside the far left. The medicare issue is politcal history. The economy is now surging.
With a strong economy, and barring any stained dresses, Bush will be unbeatable. There is simply no reason to think otherwise, no matter what your political affiliation. Vote for who you like, but at least admit the political reality.
Yes, yes, yes, we've heard this mantra before. The thing you've never looked at is the last election was very close because of low record turnout. A lot of people have been burned by Bush and won't be apathetic this time around. The economy surging is an over statement at best. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY CAN RUN ON. tHE BIGGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY! That's going from a surplus to deficit in just a few short years. And they can't blame it on Clinton. This happened during Bush's administration. Just because the economy is improving doesn't mean people will forget. There are still lots of people out of work out there. There will be more after Xmas. Bush's policies still either do nothing or make matters worse ( another 87 billion ). I don't see this as cut and dried at all. Saddam is a temporary gain.
Wake up SDW! Bush barely won last time against another milktoast candidate ( he didn't win the popular vote ).
The New York Times's Louis Uchitelle is distressed by the fact that the Bush tax cuts--sold as "jobs programs"--are remarkably inefficient as ways of stimulating aggregate demand and give surprisingly little economic stimulus bang for their mighty deficit-creating buck:
Economic View: As Stimulus, Tax Cuts May Soon Go Awry: ...70 years of experience has demonstrated that rising demand is crucial, and must come first. Only then do suppliers really become active, to satisfy the customers knocking on their doors. The Bush tax cuts encourage this customer demand, though not efficiently. They work best if every dollar of forgiven taxes is spent. Unfortunately, only a third is being spent, according to Joel Slemrod and his colleagues at the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan. The rest has been saved or used to pay down debt, the office found in recent surveys. By this reckoning, the Bush tax cuts will not do much to lift the economy. The $117 billion in fiscal 2003 gives birth to only $40 billion in effective stimulus. Much more of the cuts, perhaps every nickel, would have been spent if the money had been channeled to the states instead, to pay the salaries of teachers who were fired to balance [state] budgets...
BTW: It's pretty easy to see that SDW knows very about reading markets. I'll be slightly nice and not say how you can easily tell. He's clearly one of the bipolar trader types.
The tax cuts went into effect well before the absurd, irrational, irresponsible increase in spending. They didn't do anything. It took the addition of deep-deficit spending (made possible through the utterly irresponsible scrapping of the Pay-Go controls that had led to the 1990s surpluses) before the economy began to swell again.
Quote:
I agree there have been other factors like interest rates...but can you honestly say they haven't worked?
Yes. Because I've studied economics and Federal budgeting in depth. I know how these things work. Tax cuts are poor stimulus, particularly when concentrated on those who need them least -- the wealthiest bracket -- like Bush's cuts were. The bang-for-buck ratio is pathetic.
Quote:
Many families I know personally have seen their net incomes go up by $200 a month with both cuts combined....how is that "not working"?
$2,400 a year? They must make a lot to begin with. I call bullshit on this proclamation, unless you can prove it. Their gross incomes, number of family members and housing situation would likely be enough to back up your claims.
Quote:
You can't prove they did or didn't....but it doesn't matter anyway because the POINT is he will GET CREDIT for them working because the economy improved dramtically after they were enacted.
Over two years later. Proper stimulus does not take two years. So either the tax cuts were poor stimulus and just happened to now kick in over a year and a half late, or the more recent factors -- deficit spending being the chief -- are actually the stimulus whose effects we're seeing here.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Hillary is another Dean. The core loves 'em but they can't win.
But the fact is that they do win.
Originally posted by midwinter
Indeed. The problem is that at the moment the Democrat candidates are too busy piling on Dean...
the public has a short memory span, what's said in the primaries usually remains there.
the coiner of "voodoo economics" ("fuzzy math's" dad) became vice president to the voodoo man himself.
How many times has she said... NO I'm NOT running!?
37 times on Tim Russert last week.
She's NOT running.
She NEVER was.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hillary running for President in 2004 is another strawman put up by the republicans.
How many times has she said... NO I'm NOT running!?
37 times on Tim Russert last week.
She's NOT running.
She NEVER was.
in a different interview, she got flummoxed when asked if she'd accept a vice presidential nod. she didn't say no.
Why didn't they ask her if she was going to become secretary general of the UN? If she was asked...
BECAUSE THAT AINT GONNA HAPPEN EITHER.
Originally posted by alcimedes
exactly. anyone who would vote for dean will be happy to vote clark if they need to. many people who will vote for clark won't vote for dean. dean is not the best canidate to give the democrats a chance in 2004.
I actually struggled with this for a bit. I realize that Clark is more electable by the right and many moderates than Dean is, but I don't believe in supporting someone based on my desire to see his opponent lose. I believe Dean would be better for the country, so I will support him. Your point is well taken though, most Dean supporters would vote Clark if he got the presidential bid. I would like to see a Dean/Clark ticket, but that is a whole other story.
2. Hillary will not run for President in 2004. The Clintons do NOT want the Dems to win 2004. They want an open shot in 2008.
3. Hillary may run with Clark as a VP candidate. She could easily blame a defeat on him...and come back in '08.
4. Hillary will never, ever be President. The reason is her unfavorables amoung WOMEN, yes, WOMEN are too high. The first woman President is going to need like 80% or better support from women. Hillary's unfavorables among men are really high...to the tune of about 60% I believe. It is simply not going to happen.
5. Dean is unelectable. The Republicans have been praying for him to be nominated.
Let me summarize why Bush won't lose again.
1. Bush has not done what is father did..raise taxes. He has cut them and now the economy is really picking up strongly. He will be credited, just as he was blamed for the downturn which he didn't create. Did he cause the upswing? Perhaps. But it doesn't matter becase he WILL get credit.
2. There is no strong third-party candidate. No Mr. Perot this time.
3. There is no strong Clintonesque figure for the Dems. Dean is popular among the left and left-center of the party. They simply do not constitute enough votes for Dean to beat Bush. Bush will get his base, plus swing voters due to the economy and WOT and the medicare bill.
4. Bush has a huge advanatge of funds and is running unopposed. He also has a huge network of supporters signed up (over 6,000,000) to Dean's 600,000. The Dem nominee will be battered and at least a little broke when it's time for the general election.
5. Bush will be seen as the strong leader through a time of national crisis.
6. The military, or 90% of it LOVES Bush.
7. The Dems have nothing to run on. I have heard almost zero new ideas from them regarding Iraq other than "more UN involvement". The economy? That issue has passed and will now count FOR Bush. WOT? Again, what would they do differently? Medicare? Well no, it is not a perfect bill in any sense, but if you honestly think peolemare going to hear anything other than "Bush signed a prescription drug benefit" you'rekidding yourself. The environment? Not a vote getting issue for most people. What's left? Bush will campaign on Social Security reform, making tax cuts permanment and so forth.
8. Bush's last tax cut has put his opposition in a really difficult position. They must now run on what amounts to a tax increase, whereas Bush will run on MORE cuts in essence...which he will be able to piont to as having already worked.
9. Deficit: Yes, a negative. But will people really vote on it? They are projections, not reality (mostly). I agree we are spending like drinken sailors, but I think people in this country are addicted to it. And mot peole believe such high debt and deficits don't matter...that's the truth.
10. Strength and organization of the parties: The Republicans are out register 3,000,000 new members of the party by the election. That's their goal and from what I heard they will reach it. The Demcrats are good at the get out the vote effort, but the party is not in good shape. Its fighting a civil war between the lefties and the Clintonites. Despite history being on his side, Clinton's team is losing the battle...especially Gore jumping in and endorsing Dean. Clinton knew in 1992 and 1996 that if he was going to win he had to move towards the center...or use what he clled "the third way". Dean is certainly not using this approach. His angry rants and anti-war stance may be popular in Seattle and Boston...but their not going to go over to big in Peoria, Illinois and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Anyway, the Dem party at the national level is a total mess and it WILL effect the outcome of the election.
Originally posted by SDW2001
8. Bush's last tax cut has put his opposition in a really difficult position. They must now run on what amounts to a tax increase, whereas Bush will run on MORE cuts in essence...which he will be able to piont to as having already worked.
The tax cuts have not worked. They did not stimulate the economy. It took the tax cuts, plus hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending, plus near-zero interest rates to do that. As a stimulus package, the tax cuts failed. Miserably. All they've succeeded in doing is creating a vast and immoral deficit that any American with half a soul should see as an abomination.
Blah blah blah... Bush unbeatable...
Blah blah blah... Democrats can't win...
blah blah blah... everything is great...
blah blah blah... I am republican hear me roar.
zzzzz
Where's Snoopy and Woodstock when you need them?
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Barring anything catastrophic or jus totally out of left field, Bush will be reelected. Mark my words.
Are you as sure of everything on this list as you were about Dean not being able to win the nomination? Your lists are based out of your emotions, not rationale. You can't separate yourself from your semi-zealous Bush fanaticism.
Originally posted by bunge
Are you as sure of everything on this list as you were about Dean not being able to win the nomination? Your lists are based out of your emotions, not rationale. You can't separate yourself from your semi-zealous Bush fanaticism.
What a joke. I am quite sure about my list. Argue a point or don't. It has nothing to do with zeal for Bush. And to be clear, at this point Dean is probably going to win the nomination...though he's not a lock. I meant he cannot win the election.
Kirkland:
The tax cuts have not worked. They did not stimulate the economy. It took the tax cuts, plus hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending, plus near-zero interest rates to do that. As a stimulus package, the tax cuts failed. Miserably. All they've succeeded in doing is creating a vast and immoral deficit that any American with half a soul should see as an abomination.
Really? How would you determine that? I agree there have been other factors like interest rates...but can you honestly say they haven't worked? Many families I know personally have seen their net incomes go up by $200 a month with both cuts combined....how is that "not working"? You can't prove they did or didn't....but it doesn't matter anyway because the POINT is he will GET CREDIT for them working because the economy improved dramtically after they were enacted.
Please, someone take the crack pipe away from these guys.
hehe... yeah right!
I wanna know what tax bracket they're in.
Cuz it isn't mine.
The economy has barely improved DESPITE the tax cuts. Companies have increased productivity... growth is 4%. Jobs are at about a 360k to 380k loss... while only generating 150k...
the dollar is in a slump. 80¢ to the euro.
500 billion a year deficits.
We know what's coming next year... when they try to drown the beast.
And as far a $2400 a year goes, it's true.
Originally posted by SDW2001
With all due respect, most of you are missing the point. You are looking at this from an intelligent and analytical perspective. Elections simply do not work that way. I'm not saying the American people are stupid. I'm saying that whether or not this justifies the war, stops attacks, leads to WMD stockpiles, etc. is possibly politically irrellevant. Politics is about clear, uncomplicated satements of accomplishment and intent, not grand academic analyses.
Yeah, sometimes we can forget that the idiots need a voice on AO, too. SDW is that voice.
Originally posted by SDW2001
With all due respect, most of you are missing the point. You are looking at this from an intelligent and analytical perspective. Elections simply do not work that way. I'm not saying the American people are stupid. I'm saying that whether or not this justifies the war, stops attacks, leads to WMD stockpiles, etc. is possibly politically irrellevant. Politics is about clear, uncomplicated satements of accomplishment and intent, not grand academic analyses.
Bush will be able to point to some major victories come election time. He will be able to say we liberated Iraq and captured Saddam. He will say by then that Iraq has a new provisional government and is on its way to becoming self-sufficient. Bush will also point to the ouster of the Taliban and his leadership through 9/11. He will then campaign on making permanment the tax cuts that will be seen as having stimulated the economy, since it is now predicted to be the strongest it has been in 20 years for 2004. He will hammer his oppenent with the medicare victory, and campaign on partial priviitization of Social Security. He'll even tout Education reform. In other words, he's going to say "I did what I said I'd do...I cut taxes, I freed the Iraqi people and liberated Afghanistan, and I signed a prescription drug benefit on top of it" .
The point is not whether you and I agree with these things, though I do agree with most of it. The larger point is the above WILL happen. Democrats cannot run on an epitaph platform ("we WERE in a recession, we COULDN'T get Saddam for awhile, the war WAS wrong"). People won't vote on the environment and being anti-war, at least not anyone outside the far left. The medicare issue is politcal history. The economy is now surging.
With a strong economy, and barring any stained dresses, Bush will be unbeatable. There is simply no reason to think otherwise, no matter what your political affiliation. Vote for who you like, but at least admit the political reality.
Yes, yes, yes, we've heard this mantra before. The thing you've never looked at is the last election was very close because of low record turnout. A lot of people have been burned by Bush and won't be apathetic this time around. The economy surging is an over statement at best. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY CAN RUN ON. tHE BIGGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY! That's going from a surplus to deficit in just a few short years. And they can't blame it on Clinton. This happened during Bush's administration. Just because the economy is improving doesn't mean people will forget. There are still lots of people out of work out there. There will be more after Xmas. Bush's policies still either do nothing or make matters worse ( another 87 billion ). I don't see this as cut and dried at all. Saddam is a temporary gain.
Wake up SDW! Bush barely won last time against another milktoast candidate ( he didn't win the popular vote ).
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Louis Uchitelle Bangs His Head Against the Wall
The New York Times's Louis Uchitelle is distressed by the fact that the Bush tax cuts--sold as "jobs programs"--are remarkably inefficient as ways of stimulating aggregate demand and give surprisingly little economic stimulus bang for their mighty deficit-creating buck:
Economic View: As Stimulus, Tax Cuts May Soon Go Awry: ...70 years of experience has demonstrated that rising demand is crucial, and must come first. Only then do suppliers really become active, to satisfy the customers knocking on their doors. The Bush tax cuts encourage this customer demand, though not efficiently. They work best if every dollar of forgiven taxes is spent. Unfortunately, only a third is being spent, according to Joel Slemrod and his colleagues at the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan. The rest has been saved or used to pay down debt, the office found in recent surveys. By this reckoning, the Bush tax cuts will not do much to lift the economy. The $117 billion in fiscal 2003 gives birth to only $40 billion in effective stimulus. Much more of the cuts, perhaps every nickel, would have been spent if the money had been channeled to the states instead, to pay the salaries of teachers who were fired to balance [state] budgets...
Originally posted by chu_bakka
an extra $2400 a year?
hehe... yeah right!
I wanna know what tax bracket they're in.
Cuz it isn't mine.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that one, too.
BTW: It's pretty easy to see that SDW knows very about reading markets. I'll be slightly nice and not say how you can easily tell. He's clearly one of the bipolar trader types.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Really? How would you determine that?
The tax cuts went into effect well before the absurd, irrational, irresponsible increase in spending. They didn't do anything. It took the addition of deep-deficit spending (made possible through the utterly irresponsible scrapping of the Pay-Go controls that had led to the 1990s surpluses) before the economy began to swell again.
I agree there have been other factors like interest rates...but can you honestly say they haven't worked?
Yes. Because I've studied economics and Federal budgeting in depth. I know how these things work. Tax cuts are poor stimulus, particularly when concentrated on those who need them least -- the wealthiest bracket -- like Bush's cuts were. The bang-for-buck ratio is pathetic.
Many families I know personally have seen their net incomes go up by $200 a month with both cuts combined....how is that "not working"?
$2,400 a year? They must make a lot to begin with. I call bullshit on this proclamation, unless you can prove it. Their gross incomes, number of family members and housing situation would likely be enough to back up your claims.
You can't prove they did or didn't....but it doesn't matter anyway because the POINT is he will GET CREDIT for them working because the economy improved dramtically after they were enacted.
Over two years later. Proper stimulus does not take two years. So either the tax cuts were poor stimulus and just happened to now kick in over a year and a half late, or the more recent factors -- deficit spending being the chief -- are actually the stimulus whose effects we're seeing here.