Not 7 I would argue but maybe 2 or 3 yes but the democrats say they are unelectable.
Sad I tell you.
Democrats give up on candidates who have vision for one who has hatred of Bush. Dean is an angry white male from a "white" state and will carry no more votes than that of angry white males in the general election.
The guy has no understanding of Christians, No understanding of "southerners" he has something to hide in his record as governor.
Mark my words this will play out in the general election.
Bush will win with at least a 20 point margin.
Fellowship
20 points? Really? 60/40? 55/35? Popular or electoral college vote?
No way 20 points. The country just is too divided. The Dems could run a Donkey and get 45% to Bush.
We tend to think elections are about swing voters, and that might be true. But:
1. Although right now Dean has an ultra-liberal label, when the general election rolls around people are going to see that he's really a populist rather than a principled liberal. He may appeal to more swing voters than people think right now.
2. Dean will bring in a lot of new voters. With the number of non-voters out there, the election might be more about energizing one's base than getting swing voters. I'm not convinced Bush will excite conservatives, because he has not governed as one. But I am certain that Dean will energize those dumb college kids that Maher mocks. They could be a powerful group.
2. Dean will bring in a lot of new voters. With the number of non-voters out there, the election might be more about energizing one's base than getting swing voters. I'm not convinced Bush will excite conservatives, because he has not governed as one. But I am certain that Dean will energize those dumb college kids that Maher mocks. They could be a powerful group.
History shows that the anit-war/young people candidate hasn't won once.
History shows that the anit-war/young people candidate hasn't won once.
Well Clinton won as a young people's candidate. Sure, McGovern lost to Nixon, but is Vietnam really like Iraq? Is there really a long-standing trend or principle there?
Well Clinton won as a young people's candidate. Sure, McGovern lost to Nixon, but is Vietnam really like Iraq? Is there really a long-standing trend or principle there?
Most political scientists (ug if there is one thing that is NOT a science it's politics) would argue that Clinton represented the "third way". A tough on crime, pro death penalty, and fiscally conservative branch of the Democratic party. Their most identifiable group would be the DLC. The fact that Clinton was also the young people's candidate was just gravy. These are the people that Dean called GOP Lite.
There was a trend that no candidate could get elected by being pro war pre Pearl Harbor. After that, no anti-war candidate has won the office of PoTUS.
Face it: the entire system is FUBAR, and in the end most of the Dems and GOP belong to the same country clubs anyway. If someone can give me one, just ONE reason to believe that our system is changing for the better and that a person's vote really means something more than it has in the recent past... I'd like to hear it.
It might even compel me to vote again this election.
Most political scientists (ug if there is one thing that is NOT a science it's politics) would argue that Clinton represented the "third way". A tough on crime, pro death penalty, and fiscally conservative branch of the Democratic party. Their most identifiable group would be the DLC. The fact that Clinton was also the young people's candidate was just gravy. These are the people that Dean called GOP Lite.
Yeah, and it makes me sick that Dean is basically running against the most successful Democrat we've had in recent years.
Quote:
There was a trend that no candidate could get elected by being pro war pre Pearl Harbor. After that, no anti-war candidate has won the office of PoTUS.
This is where I disagree. Each situation is unique, IMO. It just reminds me of one of those silly sports stats, where someone says "no one has ever lost a game in October at home after winning the previous two games when they were down at half time." The "trend" is based on such a small and unique set of circumstances that I doubt its predictive ability.
More specifically, being against the Iraqi war will depend on how the occupation is going next fall. And the war itself is not really ongoing, just the occupation - so one's position on the war won't necessarily be the most relevant policy, it will be the candidate's exit strategy.
Yeah, and it makes me sick that Dean is basically running against the most successful Democrat we've had in recent years.
This is where I disagree. Each situation is unique, IMO. It just reminds me of one of those silly sports stats, where someone says "no one has ever lost a game in October at home after winning the previous two games when they were down at half time." The "trend" is based on such a small and unique set of circumstances that I doubt its predictive ability.
More specifically, being against the Iraqi war will depend on how the occupation is going next fall. And the war itself is not really ongoing, just the occupation - so one's position on the war won't necessarily be the most relevant policy, it will be the candidate's exit strategy.
Quick question for you BRussell. What do you think the American electoral tolerance is with regard to Iraq. I think you are right that it isn't like Vietnam. There isn't a draft. The number of casualties with regard to soldiers is very small. (compared to Vietnam that is and I still wish it were zero of course) Likewise while I don't agree per se with nation building, the amount of time we will have been in Iraq will likely not even be a full 2 years by the time the election rolls around.
If you disagree with my characterization you are welcome to change it, but my point is, do you think this will have been long enough or the number of deaths heavy enough for it to create a Vietnam type thinking among most Americans?
While Maher can be an annoyance at times, I really have no problems with him giving his left-lib take on issues and I think his show should not have been "forcibly cancelled" as it was.
Speaking as a Christian, Maher did try to have the Christian Conservative view included on his panels, though his non-familiarity with the group as a whole meant he never got some of the CC's best thinkers.
However, I must confess at smiling when Leno cut off the interview abruptly when Maher start bashing the Pope. I'm not Catholic myself, but Maher seemed unable to "respectfully disagree" with those he opposes.
He looked really ticked when Leno abruptly cut off the interview with a "we'll be right back with...." in the middle of his rant. From the timing of the whole thing, it looked like Leno did this himself, unprompted.
Anyone know if Leno himself is Catholic? Or maybe he simply thought Maher was going too far.
Quick question for you BRussell. What do you think the American electoral tolerance is with regard to Iraq. I think you are right that it isn't like Vietnam. There isn't a draft. The number of casualties with regard to soldiers is very small. (compared to Vietnam that is and I still wish it were zero of course) Likewise while I don't agree per se with nation building, the amount of time we will have been in Iraq will likely not even be a full 2 years by the time the election rolls around.
If you disagree with my characterization you are welcome to change it, but my point is, do you think this will have been long enough or the number of deaths heavy enough for it to create a Vietnam type thinking among most Americans?
Nick
I'm not BRussell, but if you don't mind, I'll take a stab at it
I think the fall out from the war is pretty clear right now. 55-60% of Americans think that it was a good idea to go in and a good idea to stay in. The rest are opposed or indifferent. I don't see this changing much unless something terrible, god forbid, or something wonderful, from my lips to god's ears, happens. If it stays relativity stable as compared to today I don't really think that it will be much of an issue during the election. Rove is going to turn this into a debate about positivity, just like the 2000 election was turned into a referendum on the state of Washington politics.
I also think that the Democrats are making a strategic mistake by harping about the war so much. Most Americans think that it was a good idea to go into Iraq and there is nothing the American public likes hearing less than "You were wrong." A Democrat is only going to win by proving that they could handle the safety issues and present a positive domestic agenda. Consistently the Democrats poll higher on the domestic issues and that is where their strength lies.
While Maher can be an annoyance at times, I really have no problems with him giving his left-lib take on issues and I think his show should not have been "forcibly cancelled" as it was.
Maher is anything but left-liberal. He is very much a libertarian.
Anyone know if Leno himself is Catholic? Or maybe he simply thought Maher was going too far.
it's the "sinead o'connor" rule -- i bet anyone on NBC even remotely implying that they will diss the pope immediately gets yanked. in fact, the sinead episode of SNL will never be shown, as michaels has it in every contract for syndication that that episode is a non-negotiable commodity. it will never see the light of day again if he can help it. (i blieve this was recapped on an e! television special, not just something i'm making up, too).
What do you think the American electoral tolerance is with regard to Iraq.
In Vietnam, it was still up in the air as to whether we would actually win or lose the war. If you were against that war at that time, you were effectively in favor of us losing the war. That's quite different compared to now, I think.
I have a slightly different opinion than HOM on the public's perception of the war. Just a month ago, a majority of Americans disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Then Sodom was caught, and Bush got a nice bounce. It's hard to see that bounce sustaining - I'm sure we'll see more American deaths every week, and the poll numbers going back to below 50-50 for Bush.
I think the best is over now - the war being won, Sodom being caught - and now it's only hard stuff from here until the election. Well, I guess Bush could simply withdraw the soldiers as he's hinted, but that's risky too because I think everyone would agree that would be bad policy, and could lead to the situation in Iraq getting even worse.
So I guess I basically don't see it as a plus for Bush, but it could be a minus. Whether it's a plus or minus for an anti-war Democrat, I think it depends on who the nominee is. If, just to pull an example out of thin air, a four-star general is the nominee, I think the "you're unpatriotic" or "you don't support the troops" line would be harder to pull than it would be against, to pull another example out of thin air, a cocky governor from the Northeast.
Face it: the entire system is FUBAR, and in the end most of the Dems and GOP belong to the same country clubs anyway. If someone can give me one, just ONE reason to believe that our system is changing for the better and that a person's vote really means something more than it has in the recent past... I'd like to hear it.
It might even compel me to vote again this election.
So it seems that the lust portion of the Dean romance may be past, and now the members of the Democratic Party are stepping back to take a look at this man they've been dating. What do they see in him? Is it his laugh? The fire in his eyes? His cologne? Do they really love him? What about that lost summer with Joey Lieberman and his buddy...what was that guy's name?
Sure, my analogy is lighthearted...but it's not entirely inaccurate; some of Dean's supporters have had time to see him in action and modify their feelings for him accordingly. The race has AGES yet to go and there's plenty of time for all of the candidates to win or lose supporters.
And the reality is, a lot of Democratic voters still haven't even turned their attention to the race, let alone picking their man.
So when Bill Maher dismisses the Dean movement it isn't without a bit of consideration.
Re: Maher on Leno, Jay really seems to know how to handle Bill...seems to enjoy sparring with him just to get a rise out of him. Maher operates from an emotional kernel, so he's libel to say anything once he gets going. Jay knows it. It's the closest thing to the way that Dabney Coleman and Johnny Carson would bicker on the old Tonight Show.
Comments
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Not 7 I would argue but maybe 2 or 3 yes but the democrats say they are unelectable.
Sad I tell you.
Democrats give up on candidates who have vision for one who has hatred of Bush. Dean is an angry white male from a "white" state and will carry no more votes than that of angry white males in the general election.
The guy has no understanding of Christians, No understanding of "southerners" he has something to hide in his record as governor.
Mark my words this will play out in the general election.
Bush will win with at least a 20 point margin.
Fellowship
20 points? Really? 60/40? 55/35? Popular or electoral college vote?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Dean: "Why not sucka?" "You wanna piece of me?"
I don't want to derail this thread, but the man looks like Leslie Nielsen. Is it his new movie " is there a candidate for the president election ? "
Originally posted by HOM
20 points? Really? 60/40? 55/35? Popular or electoral college vote?
20 points popular. The electoral college will be a disaster for Dean.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
20 points popular. The electoral college will be a disaster for Dean.
Fellowship
You do realize that no PoTUS has won by that large a margin in nearly 50 years.
Originally posted by HOM
You do realize that no PoTUS has won by that large a margin in nearly 50 years.
Election night should be interesting
Fellows
We tend to think elections are about swing voters, and that might be true. But:
1. Although right now Dean has an ultra-liberal label, when the general election rolls around people are going to see that he's really a populist rather than a principled liberal. He may appeal to more swing voters than people think right now.
2. Dean will bring in a lot of new voters. With the number of non-voters out there, the election might be more about energizing one's base than getting swing voters. I'm not convinced Bush will excite conservatives, because he has not governed as one. But I am certain that Dean will energize those dumb college kids that Maher mocks. They could be a powerful group.
Originally posted by BRussell
2. Dean will bring in a lot of new voters. With the number of non-voters out there, the election might be more about energizing one's base than getting swing voters. I'm not convinced Bush will excite conservatives, because he has not governed as one. But I am certain that Dean will energize those dumb college kids that Maher mocks. They could be a powerful group.
History shows that the anit-war/young people candidate hasn't won once.
Originally posted by HOM
History shows that the anit-war/young people candidate hasn't won once.
Well Clinton won as a young people's candidate. Sure, McGovern lost to Nixon, but is Vietnam really like Iraq? Is there really a long-standing trend or principle there?
Originally posted by BRussell
Well Clinton won as a young people's candidate. Sure, McGovern lost to Nixon, but is Vietnam really like Iraq? Is there really a long-standing trend or principle there?
Most political scientists (ug if there is one thing that is NOT a science it's politics) would argue that Clinton represented the "third way". A tough on crime, pro death penalty, and fiscally conservative branch of the Democratic party. Their most identifiable group would be the DLC. The fact that Clinton was also the young people's candidate was just gravy. These are the people that Dean called GOP Lite.
There was a trend that no candidate could get elected by being pro war pre Pearl Harbor. After that, no anti-war candidate has won the office of PoTUS.
It might even compel me to vote again this election.
Originally posted by HOM
Most political scientists (ug if there is one thing that is NOT a science it's politics) would argue that Clinton represented the "third way". A tough on crime, pro death penalty, and fiscally conservative branch of the Democratic party. Their most identifiable group would be the DLC. The fact that Clinton was also the young people's candidate was just gravy. These are the people that Dean called GOP Lite.
Yeah, and it makes me sick that Dean is basically running against the most successful Democrat we've had in recent years.
There was a trend that no candidate could get elected by being pro war pre Pearl Harbor. After that, no anti-war candidate has won the office of PoTUS.
This is where I disagree. Each situation is unique, IMO. It just reminds me of one of those silly sports stats, where someone says "no one has ever lost a game in October at home after winning the previous two games when they were down at half time." The "trend" is based on such a small and unique set of circumstances that I doubt its predictive ability.
More specifically, being against the Iraqi war will depend on how the occupation is going next fall. And the war itself is not really ongoing, just the occupation - so one's position on the war won't necessarily be the most relevant policy, it will be the candidate's exit strategy.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, and it makes me sick that Dean is basically running against the most successful Democrat we've had in recent years.
This is where I disagree. Each situation is unique, IMO. It just reminds me of one of those silly sports stats, where someone says "no one has ever lost a game in October at home after winning the previous two games when they were down at half time." The "trend" is based on such a small and unique set of circumstances that I doubt its predictive ability.
More specifically, being against the Iraqi war will depend on how the occupation is going next fall. And the war itself is not really ongoing, just the occupation - so one's position on the war won't necessarily be the most relevant policy, it will be the candidate's exit strategy.
Quick question for you BRussell. What do you think the American electoral tolerance is with regard to Iraq. I think you are right that it isn't like Vietnam. There isn't a draft. The number of casualties with regard to soldiers is very small. (compared to Vietnam that is and I still wish it were zero of course) Likewise while I don't agree per se with nation building, the amount of time we will have been in Iraq will likely not even be a full 2 years by the time the election rolls around.
If you disagree with my characterization you are welcome to change it, but my point is, do you think this will have been long enough or the number of deaths heavy enough for it to create a Vietnam type thinking among most Americans?
Nick
Speaking as a Christian, Maher did try to have the Christian Conservative view included on his panels, though his non-familiarity with the group as a whole meant he never got some of the CC's best thinkers.
However, I must confess at smiling when Leno cut off the interview abruptly when Maher start bashing the Pope. I'm not Catholic myself, but Maher seemed unable to "respectfully disagree" with those he opposes.
He looked really ticked when Leno abruptly cut off the interview with a "we'll be right back with...." in the middle of his rant. From the timing of the whole thing, it looked like Leno did this himself, unprompted.
Anyone know if Leno himself is Catholic? Or maybe he simply thought Maher was going too far.
Originally posted by trumptman
Quick question for you BRussell. What do you think the American electoral tolerance is with regard to Iraq. I think you are right that it isn't like Vietnam. There isn't a draft. The number of casualties with regard to soldiers is very small. (compared to Vietnam that is and I still wish it were zero of course) Likewise while I don't agree per se with nation building, the amount of time we will have been in Iraq will likely not even be a full 2 years by the time the election rolls around.
If you disagree with my characterization you are welcome to change it, but my point is, do you think this will have been long enough or the number of deaths heavy enough for it to create a Vietnam type thinking among most Americans?
Nick
I'm not BRussell, but if you don't mind, I'll take a stab at it
I think the fall out from the war is pretty clear right now. 55-60% of Americans think that it was a good idea to go in and a good idea to stay in. The rest are opposed or indifferent. I don't see this changing much unless something terrible, god forbid, or something wonderful, from my lips to god's ears, happens. If it stays relativity stable as compared to today I don't really think that it will be much of an issue during the election. Rove is going to turn this into a debate about positivity, just like the 2000 election was turned into a referendum on the state of Washington politics.
I also think that the Democrats are making a strategic mistake by harping about the war so much. Most Americans think that it was a good idea to go into Iraq and there is nothing the American public likes hearing less than "You were wrong." A Democrat is only going to win by proving that they could handle the safety issues and present a positive domestic agenda. Consistently the Democrats poll higher on the domestic issues and that is where their strength lies.
How's that for a quick answer
Originally posted by Frank777
While Maher can be an annoyance at times, I really have no problems with him giving his left-lib take on issues and I think his show should not have been "forcibly cancelled" as it was.
Maher is anything but left-liberal. He is very much a libertarian.
Originally posted by Frank777
Anyone know if Leno himself is Catholic? Or maybe he simply thought Maher was going too far.
it's the "sinead o'connor" rule -- i bet anyone on NBC even remotely implying that they will diss the pope immediately gets yanked. in fact, the sinead episode of SNL will never be shown, as michaels has it in every contract for syndication that that episode is a non-negotiable commodity. it will never see the light of day again if he can help it. (i blieve this was recapped on an e! television special, not just something i'm making up, too).
Originally posted by trumptman
What do you think the American electoral tolerance is with regard to Iraq.
In Vietnam, it was still up in the air as to whether we would actually win or lose the war. If you were against that war at that time, you were effectively in favor of us losing the war. That's quite different compared to now, I think.
I have a slightly different opinion than HOM on the public's perception of the war. Just a month ago, a majority of Americans disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Then Sodom was caught, and Bush got a nice bounce. It's hard to see that bounce sustaining - I'm sure we'll see more American deaths every week, and the poll numbers going back to below 50-50 for Bush.
I think the best is over now - the war being won, Sodom being caught - and now it's only hard stuff from here until the election. Well, I guess Bush could simply withdraw the soldiers as he's hinted, but that's risky too because I think everyone would agree that would be bad policy, and could lead to the situation in Iraq getting even worse.
So I guess I basically don't see it as a plus for Bush, but it could be a minus. Whether it's a plus or minus for an anti-war Democrat, I think it depends on who the nominee is. If, just to pull an example out of thin air, a four-star general is the nominee, I think the "you're unpatriotic" or "you don't support the troops" line would be harder to pull than it would be against, to pull another example out of thin air, a cocky governor from the Northeast.
Originally posted by Moogs
Face it: the entire system is FUBAR, and in the end most of the Dems and GOP belong to the same country clubs anyway. If someone can give me one, just ONE reason to believe that our system is changing for the better and that a person's vote really means something more than it has in the recent past... I'd like to hear it.
It might even compel me to vote again this election.
This post is so true....
Fellows
Sure, my analogy is lighthearted...but it's not entirely inaccurate; some of Dean's supporters have had time to see him in action and modify their feelings for him accordingly. The race has AGES yet to go and there's plenty of time for all of the candidates to win or lose supporters.
And the reality is, a lot of Democratic voters still haven't even turned their attention to the race, let alone picking their man.
So when Bill Maher dismisses the Dean movement it isn't without a bit of consideration.
Re: Maher on Leno, Jay really seems to know how to handle Bill...seems to enjoy sparring with him just to get a rise out of him. Maher operates from an emotional kernel, so he's libel to say anything once he gets going. Jay knows it. It's the closest thing to the way that Dabney Coleman and Johnny Carson would bicker on the old Tonight Show.