Nomination "Free For All"
Doesn't it seem that way at this point? Dean is tanking and others are gaining. I offer no comment about that, other than it makes things very interesting.
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/st.../23244233.html
and from New Hampshire:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/
Dean once had 20 point leads...even 25. I see Kerry making the most headway here. His campaign was basically DOA a month ago and now he LEADS in Iowa. Wow.
If I had to take a guess right now...I'd say Kerry will win in Iowa. Dean will finish a close second...which as we all know can be enough to really screw up a campaign (not finishing second in a primary in general, but the Iowa caucus specifically). I see Dean taking NH, followed by Clark and Kerry a very close third. From there it's a battle to the death.
It's too soon to tell, but the scenario of three or four Dems beating hell out of each other for the nomination, and then one emerging victorious (but broke and bleeding) seems to be possible here. Do you agree or disagree? All personal views aside, that's not a good thing for the Dems if that happens. If they're divided, there won't be a chance of beating Bush, who is running unaopposed, has an approval rating in the mid to upper fifties, and will be rich as sin through the Republican convention. I'm just being realistic here.
Anyway, if I was a betting man I'd have to say I'm predicting Kerry to win the nomination, followed by Dean, then Clark. I know some here would put Clark higher, but he's taking it on the chin from both sides because of his Congressional testimony about the Iraq war.
EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to ask: Regardless of who you plan to vote for, which candidate has the best chance of beating Bush? My answer is either Clark or Kerry.
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/st.../23244233.html
and from New Hampshire:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/
Dean once had 20 point leads...even 25. I see Kerry making the most headway here. His campaign was basically DOA a month ago and now he LEADS in Iowa. Wow.
If I had to take a guess right now...I'd say Kerry will win in Iowa. Dean will finish a close second...which as we all know can be enough to really screw up a campaign (not finishing second in a primary in general, but the Iowa caucus specifically). I see Dean taking NH, followed by Clark and Kerry a very close third. From there it's a battle to the death.
It's too soon to tell, but the scenario of three or four Dems beating hell out of each other for the nomination, and then one emerging victorious (but broke and bleeding) seems to be possible here. Do you agree or disagree? All personal views aside, that's not a good thing for the Dems if that happens. If they're divided, there won't be a chance of beating Bush, who is running unaopposed, has an approval rating in the mid to upper fifties, and will be rich as sin through the Republican convention. I'm just being realistic here.
Anyway, if I was a betting man I'd have to say I'm predicting Kerry to win the nomination, followed by Dean, then Clark. I know some here would put Clark higher, but he's taking it on the chin from both sides because of his Congressional testimony about the Iraq war.
EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to ask: Regardless of who you plan to vote for, which candidate has the best chance of beating Bush? My answer is either Clark or Kerry.
Comments
The political landscape on Tuesday morning in NH is going to be very different then it is right now. The winner of the Iowa caucus is going to get a nice bump in NH, and it's guaranteed that the polls in NH right now are going to be thrown out the window. But it's also true that the candidates are going to *live* in NH for the next week after Iowa.
Like Michael Moore said yesterday at the Clark rally, the Democratic party has a 'wealth of riches' this primary season with so many good candidates in the race (although he was quick to point out that he feels Clark has the best chance of beating Bush).
The one thing you underestimate, though, is that while people in the Democratic party are fighting for their candidate to win the nomination, every single candidate is going to get behind the nominee since the ultimate goal is to beat George W. Bush.
The wild card, as I see it right now, is John Edwards. Edwards could potentially sneak in a win in Iowa, and if he does, the south is going to look different. If Edwards wins in Iowa, Clark is going to have a tougher time in the southern states, which most people believe he has a very good chance of winning. If Dean loses Iowa, it's really going to test his support in NH. After all, this is the man who was supposed to be the first candidate to *ever* win both Iowa and NH. He's lost huge ground in Iowa, now running 3rd, and he's also lost huge ground in NH.
It's going to be really interesting to see how this unfolds, but this is the way it *should* be. A strong field of candidates, a very close race, and lots of people getting their message across. I know I'm gonna have a lot of fun over the next week just seeing everyone here in NH trying to get my vote.
Edwards and Dean are good people. I cannot understand why Edwards campaign doesn´t have more succes.
And one question: Why can´t I see Clark anywhere in Iowa
Like Michael Moore said yesterday at the Clark rally, the Democratic party has a 'wealth of riches' this primary season with so many good candidates in the race (although he was quick to point out that he feels Clark has the best chance of beating Bush).
A "wealth of riches"? Jesus H. Christ, Fran...you have got to be kidding me. Support who you like, but that statement is as delusional as the rest of Moore's bunk.
The Democratic Party is freaking nightmare right now. Every single candidate has a major, major weakness AND/OR has serious personality and character problems. In addition, there is nothing short of a civil war going on in the party between the centrists and leftists...and the leftists are winning.
The Big Four:
Clark: Like the rest, he has flipped more than a pancake that is too thick. Look at his Congressional testimony about the war. He's openly praised Bush and his team. The once promising star looks like a closet Republican. He comes across as awkward and stale. He too makes odd statements that have to be clarified later. He has some chance of beating Bush...but only a small one.
Dean: Dean has courted the ultra-left, no matter what you say. He's angry, and now inconsistent about "unilateralism". He's losing ground, and quite frankly, I'm not sure the man is stable. I do like his brash approach, but his statements and revisions are just ridiculous. There has been a clarification of a statement at least once a week. He shoots off his mouth, and he might be starting to self-destruct. He's wondered aloud in public about the Saudi's warning Bush of 9/11...and suggested bin laden shouldn't be pre-judged. Nice job, Dr. Dean. The majority of Americans still support the war, btw.
Kerry: He's a statue and he looks like Skeletor. He voted for the war and then tried to say he only voted for the THREAT of force. Give me a break. Of the four big candidates, he's the least insane...I'll say that for him. He might win the nomination, but his tired, ho-hum face and monotone speaking style will kill him vs. Bush.
Edwards: He's a decent guy by all accounts, but is too boyish looking and just doesn't have a commanding enough personality. He has no chance against Bush...and he's too unknown. He'll be seen as untested and too young...even though he's 50.
Wealth of riches? Please. I do not believe ANY of these guys has a chance. And that's not to say no one could beat Bush....but Bush will be incredibly strong...and it would take a someone with a new agenda and real strength on national security to do it. "We'll beat George Bush and we hate war" won't go far in the general election.
They're against each other now, because it's the primary. They're supposed to be against each other, because it's the primary. When one is victorious, they'll all join hands and sing happy songs together. What evidence do you have that the division of the party is anything more than typical primary politics? If you have evidence of that, then there might be a story. Otherwise it's the same partisan BS from you over and over.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Clark: Like the rest, he has flipped more than a pancake that is too thick. Look at his Congressional testimony about the war. He's openly praised Bush and his team. The once promising star looks like a closet Republican. He comes across as awkward and stale. He too makes odd statements that have to be clarified later. He has some chance of beating Bush...but only a small one.
Complete rhetorical BS. You don't like democrats, everyone knows it. So what?
The Clinton/McCauliffe and Dean/Gore wings of the party are at war. Clinton represents a shift to the center, being more pro-business, etc. Dean represents a harder left, tax cut repealing, domestic program pushing and anti-war agenda. He's the candidate of Seattle and San Franciso. He despises McCauliffe....and McCauliffe and the Clintonistas despise him, because if he somehow wins, Hillary will not have an open shot at the Presidency in 2008. Surely you can see that is coming?!?
Why the Democrat war is bad: The party has no clear direction. It has no concise and forward looking agenda. There is in-fighting and a lack of organization. Meanwhile the Republicans are goal-minded and anything but overconfident. Led by Rove, they are out to register 3,000,000 new Republicans by election day. The Democrats are still wondering if anyone can even beat Bush. I'll say it again...the Republicans have a clear agenda...whether or not we agree with it. What is the Democrats' agenda? Repealing tax cuts? Calling Bush Hitler? Saying the President is a liar? Giving away copies of "Earth in the Balance"? Even when they find an issue anyone would care about on election day, it's prefaced by an attack on Bush. It's tired....and it's not going to do the job.
Why the Dems won't win: Despite our personal feelings on any issues (that's not the point), the Dems have nothing to run on with the general population. They're running an epitaph/eulogy campaign. True, we had a recession....and that's over now and things are getting better, even if not perfect. True, we went to war and not everyone agreed...but we went and now we've gotten Saddam as well. True, there remain questions about WMD...fine. But, it's all in the past. What do they run on that people will vote on? Bush passed two tax cuts, a sweeping Medicare bill (which in the end will help him, regardless of its problems) and has a 68% approval rating on the WOT. The Democrats are running on "beating George Bush" and being "anti-war". They're running on repealing tax cuts...even all of them, to balance the budget...which btw, people aren't going to vote for b/c most people don't think the deficit affects their lives. And Bush? Well, he's going to run on yet MORE tax cuts, by making the cuts permanent. He's going to propose Social Security reform. He's going to be seen as tough and experienced on national security. And if we get OBL by election day...you might as well forget about even having this debate anymore.
Besides having a lack of votable issues to run on, the candidates are generally weak. Dean is angry. Edwards is a boy. Kerry is, well..Kerry. And Clark? Well maybe I was a bit hard on him...but he doesn't seem to be catching on. Perhaps he will...but his public statements and contradictions as of late are going to kill him.
I'm waiting for someone to please, please explain to me: Regardless of your personal feelings, show me how Bush loses against one of these guys. While you're at it, show me how the Democratic party is NOT a nightmare right now...with losing in 2000, 2002 and don't forget California's governor too. The party is on the verge of total irellevance.
Go ahead. I'm listening.
On a side note, George McGovern endorsed Wesley Clark today. Closet Republican, huh?
You make it sound like all the Democratic candidates are extraordinarily weak, but Bush is in *no way* invulnerable. He has been an embarassment not only to the country, but has many people in his own party trying to figure out what he's up to since he won't take a firm stance on *anything* controversial.
You're naive to think that Bush can't be beat, especially with the election still almost a year away. The Democrats are going to rally behind their candidate and have a good shot at winning many moderate votes, especially, IMO, if General Clark is the nominee.
Like I said, Pats game calls, I'll have more time to respond ot SDW's posts later. It's very telling that SDW, like many Republicans, want to write off the Democratic party for the 2004 election before the first votes have even been cast in a caucus or primary (Washington DC was non-binding).
Well for starters Democrats have won the popular vote for the presidency in each of the last 3 elections. They lost the congress by something like .5% of the national vote the past couple of times. The Repubs were a lost party in 1992, and then again in 96 and 98 when Gingrich resigned. You're simply exaggerating wins and losses and parties being in disarray and all that.
There's no doubt that Bush will be hard to beat, especially if things go well in Iraq and on the economy. But those are big ifs. It's going to be tough going in Iraq for quite some time, I think most people would agree. And the economy may have peaked too early for Bush, politically, and raised expectations too much. The growth rate that Repubs trumpeted a month or two ago just cannot sustain. And Bush has run up the deficit so much that it's quite possible that will start to show negative effects before November '04. The odds are in Bush's favor, but I think those two issues are pretty fragile. Remember that just before we caught Saddam, Bush was losing "re-elect" polls, his approval was below 50%, and most people said they disagreed with Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. You're not being realistic if you think it's impossible that those kind of numbers could come back.
And like it or not, a re-election of an incumbent is always going to be mostly a referendum on that incumbent's policies. Bush has governed as the world's policeman, a nation builder, a social conservative, and a fiscal liberal, the exact opposite on all counts of what most people in the US say they like. Dems simply run on how they're going to take the country in a different direction than where all of those Bush principles have taken us.
BTW, I think you're wrong about Kerry winning the nomination. He's doing well right now, but what happens after NH? He basically needs to win both Iowa and NH in order to get enough momentum to win subsequent states like Arizona, MI, SC, etc. The reason Clark is set well is that even if he comes in 2nd in NH, he will probably do well in those states in the week after. But at this point, you'd have to say Dean has the best chance.
Though there's something I dislike about all the candidates, there's also much I like in all of them. You take Kerry, for instance. Yeah, he's a little stiff and maybe comes across as too earnest, but the dude drove his patrol boat straight into a Veit Cong ambush, leapt off onto the shore and personally killed some of the ambushers. I mean, Holy Shit, with a capital H.S. Whatever you're gonna say about him, he's got a big pair of brass balls, which should stack up nicely against Mr. Fighter Pilot Action Figure. And remember what Dubya looked like at this point in the campaign in 2000. Everyone who hadn't donated money to him (and many who had) were convinced he was an blathering idiot, and he was failing pop-quizzes on foreign leaders every time he talked to a reporter. Having such a wide-open primary field will only make the ultimate nominee stronger and better equipped to win the general election.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Why the Dems won't win:
This thread should simply be locked. It offers absolutely nothing to discuss and nothing we don't already have threads about.
What you see right now SDW is a good thing. But no matter what it is, you can't separate reality from your rhetoric. Everything for you is "The Dems can't win because...I say so" and "Bush can't lose." It's a total waste of time.
This thread should be locked.
We ask that everyone be open to discussion, given that this is a discussion board, not a soap box. Please refrain from repeating yourselves if people don't respond or if they don't respond they way you like. That goes for everyone. If you're getting nowhere with someone, let it go. If the implicit purpose of this thread has been spent, it can drop off the page. But we can try to refocus it a bit first, that OK with everyone?
We abhor dogma here in the AO.
Originally posted by bunge
This thread should be locked.
Let me just offer this:
The thread was opened in a decent manner by the author however a few posts into the thread people start to "minimize" others. I am not getting into the examples but it is clear to any who read over this thread some tactics of "publicly minimizing" others views has been implemented.
This kind of thing must stop in AO
The weight of any topic should be carried by the merits of the issues at hand, NOT via public display of attempting to minimize another poster for their view.
I think all of us can do a part to live up to this minimum standard.
Take the focus off members and personal attacks and focus on the issues. If the issues are void of any meaningful thought or need then skip over it.
Just some thoughts for now.
Fellows
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge, give me a break. You can't be this blind. I don't even mean that as an insult. I just can't believe it.
The Clinton/McCauliffe and Dean/Gore wings of the party are at war. Clinton represents a shift to the center, being more pro-business, etc. Dean represents a harder left, tax cut repealing, domestic program pushing and anti-war agenda. He's the candidate of Seattle and San Franciso. He despises McCauliffe....and McCauliffe and the Clintonistas despise him, because if he somehow wins, Hillary will not have an open shot at the Presidency in 2008. Surely you can see that is coming?!?
Why the Democrat war is bad: The party has no clear direction. It has no concise and forward looking agenda. There is in-fighting and a lack of organization. Meanwhile the Republicans are goal-minded and anything but overconfident. Led by Rove, they are out to register 3,000,000 new Republicans by election day. The Democrats are still wondering if anyone can even beat Bush. I'll say it again...the Republicans have a clear agenda...whether or not we agree with it. What is the Democrats' agenda? Repealing tax cuts? Calling Bush Hitler? Saying the President is a liar? Giving away copies of "Earth in the Balance"? Even when they find an issue anyone would care about on election day, it's prefaced by an attack on Bush. It's tired....and it's not going to do the job.
Why the Dems won't win: Despite our personal feelings on any issues (that's not the point), the Dems have nothing to run on with the general population. They're running an epitaph/eulogy campaign. True, we had a recession....and that's over now and things are getting better, even if not perfect. True, we went to war and not everyone agreed...but we went and now we've gotten Saddam as well. True, there remain questions about WMD...fine. But, it's all in the past. What do they run on that people will vote on? Bush passed two tax cuts, a sweeping Medicare bill (which in the end will help him, regardless of its problems) and has a 68% approval rating on the WOT. The Democrats are running on "beating George Bush" and being "anti-war". They're running on repealing tax cuts...even all of them, to balance the budget...which btw, people aren't going to vote for b/c most people don't think the deficit affects their lives. And Bush? Well, he's going to run on yet MORE tax cuts, by making the cuts permanent. He's going to propose Social Security reform. He's going to be seen as tough and experienced on national security. And if we get OBL by election day...you might as well forget about even having this debate anymore.
Besides having a lack of votable issues to run on, the candidates are generally weak. Dean is angry. Edwards is a boy. Kerry is, well..Kerry. And Clark? Well maybe I was a bit hard on him...but he doesn't seem to be catching on. Perhaps he will...but his public statements and contradictions as of late are going to kill him.
I'm waiting for someone to please, please explain to me: Regardless of your personal feelings, show me how Bush loses against one of these guys. While you're at it, show me how the Democratic party is NOT a nightmare right now...with losing in 2000, 2002 and don't forget California's governor too. The party is on the verge of total irellevance.
Go ahead. I'm listening.
True. But the administration is spending/squandering money at frightening rate. They really need to address this quick, and put the brakes on.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm waiting for someone to please, please explain to me: Regardless of your personal feelings, show me how Bush loses against one of these guys. While you're at it, show me how the Democratic party is NOT a nightmare right now...with losing in 2000, 2002 and don't forget California's governor too. The party is on the verge of total irellevance.
What does this have to do with the apparent nomination free for all?
bunge, give me a break. You can't be this blind. I don't even mean that as an insult. I just can't believe it. Personal attack
The Clinton/McCauliffe and Dean/Gore wings of the party are at war. I think it's fair to say the two "sides" disagree on some issues, but I think the characterization of a "war" is an overstatement Clinton represents a shift to the center, being more pro-business, etc. Correct Dean represents a harder left, tax cut repealing, domestic program pushing and anti-war agenda. Arguably correct. But I think you overemphasize their differences. He's the candidate of Seattle and San Franciso. Gross exaggeration! He despises McCauliffe....and McCauliffe and the Clintonistas despise him, because if he somehow wins, Hillary will not have an open shot at the Presidency in 2008.Another overstatement. "Despise?" Let's keep things in perspective, please. And I never really bought into any right-wing conspiracy theories about Hillary running for President. (I think she will, but not as part of some staged or deceptive series of events) Surely you can see that is coming?!?
Why the Democrat war is bad: The party has no clear direction. Good point. It has no concise and forward looking agenda.That's symptomatic of being a Democrat. Somehow, the party's agenda is not as simple as just tax cuts and strong national defense. I think it certainly could be though. Strong human and civil rights perhaps? There is in-fighting and a lack of organization. Good point. "What" Democratic establishment? Meanwhile the Republicans are goal-minded and anything but overconfident. Is that why Jim Jeffords defected and Paul O'Neil came forward? I think that statement is completely wrong, having a few embarrassments due (at least in part) to hubris. But yes, the Republican Party has been remarkably effective due to its control of the executive and legislative branches and its well funded think tanks and media outlets. Led by Rove, they are out to register 3,000,000 new Republicans by election day. The Democrats are still wondering if anyone can even beat Bush. I'll say it again...the Republicans have a clear agenda...whether or not we agree with it. SureWhat is the Democrats' agenda? Repealing tax cuts? Calling Bush Hitler? Saying the President is a liar? Giving away copies of "Earth in the Balance"? Even when they find an issue anyone would care about on election day, it's prefaced by an attack on Bush. It's tired....and it's not going to do the job. I don't think that's a fair assessment. What's wrong with finding an issue voters care about and showing how the current President failed in that regard? Isn't that the way things should be?
Why the Dems won't win: Despite our personal feelings on any issues (that's not the point), the Dems have nothing to run on with the general population. Gross exaggerationThey're running an epitaph/eulogy campaign. True, we had a recession....and that's over now and things are getting better, even if not perfect. True, we went to war and not everyone agreed...but we went and now we've gotten Saddam as well. True, there remain questions about WMD...fine. But, it's all in the past. What do they run on that people will vote on? Bush passed two tax cuts, a sweeping Medicare bill (which in the end will help him, regardless of its problems) and has a 68% approval rating on the WOT. The Democrats are running on "beating George Bush" and being "anti-war". They're running on repealing tax cuts...even all of them, to balance the budget...which btw, people aren't going to vote for b/c most people don't think the deficit affects their lives. And Bush? Well, he's going to run on yet MORE tax cuts, by making the cuts permanent. He's going to propose Social Security reform. He's going to be seen as tough and experienced on national security. And if we get OBL by election day...you might as well forget about even having this debate anymore. If we get OBL by election day, I'll start believing in God again. (Okay that's a lie.)
Besides having a lack of votable issues to run on, the candidates are generally weak. Dean is angry. Edwards is a boy. Kerry is, well..Kerry. And Clark? Well maybe I was a bit hard on him...but he doesn't seem to be catching on. Perhaps he will...but his public statements and contradictions as of late are going to kill him.
I'm waiting for someone to please, please explain to me: Regardless of your personal feelings, show me how Bush loses against one of these guys. While you're at it, show me how the Democratic party is NOT a nightmare right now...with losing in 2000, 2002 and don't forget California's governor too. The party is on the verge of total irellevance. An overstatement for sure. But given that the party has seemingly become more irrelevant or powerless over the past four years, you are somewhat correct.
Go ahead. I'm listening.
Good. I think you tend to overstate things instead of relying on the soundness of your arguments. That said, I don't really have much to say on "electability" issues which you seem to have grown to argue more than anything else. I suspect that since your President does look strong, you think you can get away without discussing the issues. It's interesting for sure, but I think the better discussion is on the issues.
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge, give me a break. You can't be this blind. I don't even mean that as an insult. I just can't believe it.
The Clinton/McCauliffe and Dean/Gore wings of the party are at war. Clinton represents a shift to the center, being more pro-business, etc. Dean represents a harder left, tax cut repealing, domestic program pushing and anti-war agenda. He's the candidate of Seattle and San Franciso. He despises McCauliffe....and McCauliffe and the Clintonistas despise him, because if he somehow wins, Hillary will not have an open shot at the Presidency in 2008. Surely you can see that is coming?!?
Why the Democrat war is bad: The party has no clear direction. It has no concise and forward looking agenda. There is in-fighting and a lack of organization. Meanwhile the Republicans are goal-minded and anything but overconfident. Led by Rove, they are out to register 3,000,000 new Republicans by election day. The Democrats are still wondering if anyone can even beat Bush. I'll say it again...the Republicans have a clear agenda...whether or not we agree with it. What is the Democrats' agenda? Repealing tax cuts? Calling Bush Hitler? Saying the President is a liar? Giving away copies of "Earth in the Balance"? Even when they find an issue anyone would care about on election day, it's prefaced by an attack on Bush. It's tired....and it's not going to do the job.
Why the Dems won't win: Despite our personal feelings on any issues (that's not the point), the Dems have nothing to run on with the general population. They're running an epitaph/eulogy campaign. True, we had a recession....and that's over now and things are getting better, even if not perfect. True, we went to war and not everyone agreed...but we went and now we've gotten Saddam as well. True, there remain questions about WMD...fine. But, it's all in the past. What do they run on that people will vote on? Bush passed two tax cuts, a sweeping Medicare bill (which in the end will help him, regardless of its problems) and has a 68% approval rating on the WOT. The Democrats are running on "beating George Bush" and being "anti-war". They're running on repealing tax cuts...even all of them, to balance the budget...which btw, people aren't going to vote for b/c most people don't think the deficit affects their lives. And Bush? Well, he's going to run on yet MORE tax cuts, by making the cuts permanent. He's going to propose Social Security reform. He's going to be seen as tough and experienced on national security. And if we get OBL by election day...you might as well forget about even having this debate anymore.
Besides having a lack of votable issues to run on, the candidates are generally weak. Dean is angry. Edwards is a boy. Kerry is, well..Kerry. And Clark? Well maybe I was a bit hard on him...but he doesn't seem to be catching on. Perhaps he will...but his public statements and contradictions as of late are going to kill him.
I'm waiting for someone to please, please explain to me: Regardless of your personal feelings, show me how Bush loses against one of these guys. While you're at it, show me how the Democratic party is NOT a nightmare right now...with losing in 2000, 2002 and don't forget California's governor too. The party is on the verge of total irellevance.
Go ahead. I'm listening.
What dimension or parallel universe are you from?
How will they win? By bringing into the light everything Bush has been doing wrong.
God I hope there's a debate!
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by Argento
Two moderator posts in a row.....I've never seen so much moderation in my life.
Forgive Jimmac and SDW. They have quite the relationship together. Both are well-meaning, but they get carried away sometimes.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Forgive Jimmac and SDW. They have quite the relationship together. Both are well-meaning, but they get carried away sometimes.
We fight like women. No offense ladies.