Kerry-Dean
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=834
Polls show Kerry would do best if he picked Dean as his running mate. That's right! According to new rumors at the DailyKos, Dean is now getting consideration within the Kerry camp.
Polls show Kerry would do best if he picked Dean as his running mate. That's right! According to new rumors at the DailyKos, Dean is now getting consideration within the Kerry camp.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
That would do even more to guaranty a Bush victory.
The SCIENTIFIC polls indicate otherwise.
Originally posted by rageous
It makes sense. Dean could push the ideas the most appeal to devout liberals, and Kerry can walk that center line more. Gives them the broadest range of appeal. For the most part, the people who think Dean would be a bad choice are Republicans, given how he was belittled in the media for his pep rally speech. But those people don't matter anyway as it is unlikely they'd vote for Kerry-Anybody.
Rageous is right. Personally I don't think Kerry will do anything as bold as selecting Dean. The Democratic establishment has too many members eyeing 2012 (Hillary) and doesn't want Kerry to pick someone who will want to spin the VP's office into the POTUS office. Fvcking DLC!
Anyway. Kerry probably wants to neutralize the Nader factor. Dean clearly shores up the left and ultra-left factions of the party. Dean is a money magnet as well (the money I reserved for Dean has not been given to Kerry yet). Dean's grassroots network is still in tact and ready to pounce once given marching orders. That's pretty powerful stuff.
But, the reason i don't think Kerry will pick Dean is because Kerry's campaign staff CAN'T STAND Dean or his legions of Deaniacs (of which I'm a proud member). They simply cannot separate the keyboards from the motivated liberal voters. Their loss.
Also, Republicans would probably be able to capitalize on the fact that TWO New Englanders are running. Which is why Edwards is still probably the number one choice (albeit with caveats as well).
Interesting. Very interesting.
Originally posted by Existence
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=834
Polls show Kerry would do best if he picked Dean as his running mate.
Not as I read the article. The Kerry-Dean ticket was only compared with Kerry-Gephard. No mention of Edwards, Clark or one of the other more likely candidates. The Kerry-Dean ticket is head to head with Bush-Old Man. Perhaps Edwards or Clark would wipe the floor with them
Originally posted by Northgate
Dean's grassroots network is still in tact and ready to pounce once given marching orders. That's pretty powerful stuff.
Yes we saw that at the primaries...
Kerry's best choice is Edwards. Honestly, I think Edwards would be a better Presidential candidate to challenge Bush. He's not extreme...he's positive, he's good looking (ehhh) and well spoken. I still predict Kerry will choose him to help carry the South.
The real surprise would be if Bush dumped Cheney. Then things would be interesting.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean does represent the ultra-left
Dean was a left-anarchist (libertarian socialism)?
Originally posted by SDW2001
The real surprise would be if Bush dumped Cheney. Then things would be interesting.
That would be interesting, and a good move for him.
Bush would be smart to court McCain*.
The problem is is that that administration wouldn't know what to do without Cheney . . . . assuming they know what to do now that is . .
*- in fact, the whole Republican party might consider nominating McCain over Bush . . .get some integrity back in its ranks in high places.
Originally posted by Existence
McCain has no integrity and values nothing on the left.
I would say that he has integrity
but not the same sort that you want . . . you want the quixotic sort that would throw a vote in the trashcan for false ideals
. . . not everything on the right is a nightmare and not everything on the left is a panacea!!
If those are your criteria for thinking politically then I would suggest some head-out-of-ass manoevering.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think Kerry will pick Dean. Regardless of that poll, Dean does represent the ultra-left, and that will only help Bush. After the meltdown (manufactured or not), Dean is over.
Kerry's best choice is Edwards. Honestly, I think Edwards would be a better Presidential candidate to challenge Bush. He's not extreme...he's positive, he's good looking (ehhh) and well spoken. I still predict Kerry will choose him to help carry the South.
The real surprise would be if Bush dumped Cheney. Then things would be interesting.
Since when has balancing a state or federal budget via sound fiscal conservatism been termed "ultra-left? Dean did that as Governor, and so did Clinton as Pres. Maybe running (federal) budgets wildly into the red (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.) could be termed ultra-right?
Edwards is an insipid, ersatz candidate. I saw him speak live in New Hampshire during the primaries and he is as wooden and stilted as Al Gore.
Kerry needs someone with more fire and passion. Dean or Clark would be my two (more pragmatic) choices.
But whatever happens veep-wise, we are left with a battle between Kerry and Bush. What a grim prospect, to choose between corruption as usual with a phoney "people-friendly" facade (like Clinton/Gore), or corruption as usual combined with in-your-face fear-based, theocratic, proto-fascist ,rightwing extremism. We can either clamber back into the frying pan to sizzle, or.....
Originally posted by pfflam
I would say that he has integrity
but not the same sort that you want . . . you want the quixotic sort that would throw a vote in the trashcan for false ideals
. . . not everything on the right is a nightmare and not everything on the left is a panacea!!
If those are your criteria for thinking politically then I would suggest some head-out-of-ass manoevering.
That's a different issue, pfflam. I think Existence brought up a great point. If you have integrity, how could you support the Bush Administration for four more years? I understand the issue is more complicated because members of congress are expected to vote for their party's candidate. I personally think McCain has a lot of integrity as a Republican Senator-- but his support of Bush seems kind of contradictory one level.
Originally posted by pfflam
If those are your criteria for thinking politically then I would suggest some head-out-of-ass manoevering.
, he's good looking (ehhh) and
Originally posted by sammi jo
Edwards is an insipid, ersatz candidate. I saw him speak live in New Hampshire during the primaries and he is as wooden and stilted as Al Gore.
Kerry needs someone with more fire and passion. Dean or Clark would be my two (more pragmatic) choices.
If you have integrity, how could you support the Bush Administration for four more years?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Since when has balancing a state or federal budget via sound fiscal conservatism been termed "ultra-left? Dean did that as Governor, and so did Clinton as Pres. Maybe running (federal) budgets wildly into the red (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.) could be termed ultra-right?
Edwards is an insipid, ersatz candidate. I saw him speak live in New Hampshire during the primaries and he is as wooden and stilted as Al Gore.
Kerry needs someone with more fire and passion. Dean or Clark would be my two (more pragmatic) choices.
But whatever happens veep-wise, we are left with a battle between Kerry and Bush. What a grim prospect, to choose between corruption as usual with a phoney "people-friendly" facade (like Clinton/Gore), or corruption as usual combined with in-your-face fear-based, theocratic, proto-fascist ,rightwing extremism. We can either clamber back into the frying pan to sizzle, or.....
Right, I forgot. Dean the Centrist. My mistake.
The "far left" brand was stamped on him by members of the Democratic party, who voted like crazy for him in the primaries. They still believe that the center is "Bush lite," and copying Bush will win them the most appeal.
Dean is a candidate who actually has an inspiring message. His message and methods of organizing caught the Democratic establishment off guard.
He should be leading the next generation of Democrats, but Terry McAuliffe and the fewer than 1% of US voters who are registered Democrats and voted in the "important" primaries decided Kerry is their man-still haunted by the spectre of McGovern and Dukakis, no doubt.
In my opinion, Kerry still has a pretty good chance of winning, just because people dislike Bush so much. But the Democratic party in general has lost touch with its roots, is rapidly losing its appeal, and will not survive for long as a major party without some sort of new direction.