PDA

View Full Version : Which American Democratic President Would You Reccommend?


Siege
01-17-2004, 06:38 AM
It's time I got serious about candidate shopping. I'm registered as a Democrat and sooner or later I'll be casting my vote for one in my state's primary. I'm afraid that voting for Bush is not an option because I do not vote for major party candidates for President and even if I did, I am far from a Bush supporter, so I'd prefer to leave his merits or lack thereof out of this and focus on reasons to vote for on of the Democrats. I know there are innumerable reasons to vote against any of them, but I dislike negative campaigning, although I do appreciate balance.

So, tell me what you think of them, who you'd recommend and why, and who you would not recommend and why, although, as I said, please hold the victriol. I would like to see cites. While I have one I'm leaning toward, I feel I don't have enough facts about him or the rest of them, so I'd like to gather more while keeping an open mind.

I'm looking forward to reading your responses.
CJ

Michael Ellis
01-17-2004, 08:23 AM
If you want Bush to get another term easily, vote for Dean.

Otherwise, your best choices are probably Kerry, Clark or Lieberman.

Airman Doors, USAF
01-17-2004, 08:48 AM
I'm confused. You are going to vote for a candidate in the primaries but not in the general election?

If that's the case, don't vote for Dean in the primaries or you'll be killing the Democrats twice. Once by nominating him, and twice by not being one of the 30% that are going to vote for him.

Anyway, the guy that I would vote for in the primaries, were I able to vote in a primary, would be Kerrey. Other than his weaseling on his war statements, he's someone I could vote for.

E72521
01-17-2004, 09:54 AM
I would vote for any candidate that hasn't been convicted of rape, murder, kiddie porn, or selling crack to minors over President Bush*.

By the time the primaries get to my state, the frontrunner(s) will have been decided. I've sent money to Dean and Clark, but if I lived in NH or IA, I'd go with Clark. Why? He's an outsider, extremely intelligent, willing to admit to his mistakes, understands the concept of war, understands the concept of not paying the Visa bill with the Mastercard, is not beholden to any special interests, and I feel in my heart that he is motivated by his love of country. I admire Dean too, I just feel General Clark is the better choice.

I cannot wait to see any of them debate President Bush*. But I have this sick feeling that the Chickenhawk-In-Chief will somehow weasle out of any debate that he's not privy to the questions to be asked far in advance. Bets?

John Mace
01-17-2004, 10:14 AM
Since the only indication you've given of your politics is that you don't like Bush and you don't like negative campaigns, you probably should look at Edwards. He's a pretty moderate Democrat trying to keep his message positive. I personally think he's too inexperienced for the job, but then you don't intend to vote for the guy in the general election anyway.

On the other hand, I might infer that you vote Green (registered Dem, but don't vote for major party condidates) in which case Kucinich is your guy. He doesn't stand a snow-ball's chance in hell of getting the nomination, much less winning, but if you vote for 3rd party candidates all the time, you should be used to that.

Diogenes the Cynic
01-17-2004, 10:20 AM
There really isn't that much diffrence between them but Dean would probably be the most aggressively anti-Bush and he's the one that the Pubbies most fear.

Kerry has the military cred and the the long-term political experience but he voted for the war in Iraq.

Clark has even more military cred plus he has brains (well, they're all smarter than Bush but Clark is way, way WAY smarter than Bush) but it's hard to tell how liberal he is and the conservatives have proven themselves to be complete hypocrites onthe warhero thing. Military experience only counts if your a Republican and draft-dodging is only bad if you're a dem. The fact that Kerry and Clark are both combat veterans who would be running against a draft-dodger and a wartime deserter should mean something to conservative voters but it doesn't. The military thing is just a weaopn to club liberals with, they don't acually believe it when it comes to a clear choice.

It's hard to tell who would have the best chance in a general election. Kerry probably looks the best on paper but he hasn't generated much excitement. Dean, at least, looks like he would bloody Bush in the debates and call him on his war crimes.

ElvisL1ves
01-17-2004, 11:59 AM
You could do worse than to read the suggestions here by the Bush supporters, some of whom may even be well-meaning in their suggestions to you, and then decide the opposite. But only you know what's important to you in a President, both in policies and in leadership ability. List those attributes, then check their bios and campaign literature, and a variety of news sources, and see who matches best.

minty green
01-17-2004, 12:00 PM
Ah yes, calling Bush "on his war crimes." Yes, that's the way to win the general election. :dubious:

Seriously, which candidate to vote for depends on which primary you're voting in and who the viable candidates are when and where that vote occurs. The legitimate candidates in Monday's Iowa caucuses are not the same candidates who will be viable a week later in New Hampshire. Ditto for South Carolina shortly after that.

Assuming that you don't want to piss your vote away on Dean--and it looks like increasing numbers of people are figuring out that Dean's a sure-fire loser in the general election--I would look to Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. All three are centrists whose politics will appeal to swing voters. I tend to think that Clark in particular will trump Bush's perceived advantage on national security, which of course will be the number one issue for voters this fall.

ElvisL1ves
01-17-2004, 12:16 PM
minty, it's a little odd to see you join the "Dean can't win" contingent. Mind sharing with us what leads you to that conclusion?

minty green
01-17-2004, 12:23 PM
Dude, I've ALWAYS been on the Dean-can't-win ticket. Sure-fire, guaranteed dead man if he wins the nomination. If the search engine worked, I'd conjure up the old threads.

Siege
01-17-2004, 12:40 PM
OP checking in here, with a radical thought. You see, I'd like to vote for the candidate whose views most closely match mine, regardless of his chances of winning. What I'd like to know is what the candidates stated views are and how their actions match those views.

As for the whole not-voting-for-a-major-party business, let me explain. Given the candidates available to vote for for president during my voting lifetime, I haven't seen any I particularly cared for, although Bob Dole looked better in hindsight. I have more beefs with the Republican Party, obviously, but I also lived in a state dominated by a Democratic Party machine. As a result, I consider both parties pretty much hopelessly corrupt. I also have Libertarian tendencies, an anarchist streak, and a determination to get my money's worth out of the fees I had to pay and the bureaucratic hassle I had to endure to become a U.S. citizen. My first choice is always to vote for a candidate whose views match mine and who will be concerned about the common man, rather than large corporations or the wealthy. I don't see either major party doing more than paying lip service to that, therefore, I usually vote Libertarian, and I've only voted for an incumbent once, and that was because his opponent was worse.

I'm also not above calling candidates at home, asking why I should vote for them, and using their answers as one of the things I take into consideration when I cast my vote. If I vote for someone who's doomed this fall, that's par for the course. On the other hand, I would like to be an informed voter and make my choice based on facts, not political ads.

Don't tell me who to vote for; tell me why I should vote for him.

CJ

Paco
01-17-2004, 12:51 PM
Do any of you know of any good non biased web sites detailing each candidates stance of some of the important issues? Thanks in advance, Paco

rsa
01-17-2004, 01:27 PM
Paco, this might be a good place to start (http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/dnet/?gridid=57361).

ElvisL1ves
01-17-2004, 02:11 PM
:shrug: Conventional wisdom in Jan 92 was that Clinton couldn't win. Opinions are cheap.

SteveEisenberg
01-17-2004, 02:13 PM
I'd like to vote for the candidate whose views most closely match mine, regardless of his chances of winning.

Me too. Not living in a village, the chances of any election I vote in being decided by one vote are so slim that ALL my votes are "wasted." I just vote to express my opinion.

Which Democrat? Well, compared to most countries, the range of opinion of electable politicians in the US is not great. For example, Mr. Dean was in favor of the first Gulf War. I view this as a strength of the American system. The fact that the Democratic candidates say they are far different from Bush is, well, their chosen profession requires saying that.

Foreign policy is mostly determined by historical forces (economic, political, social, ideological), and the personalities of the leaders do not have much to do with it. So logically the OPer should focus on domestic policy.

Now Dennis Kucinich is another story. I think he really would stand astride history. Thank God he won't get the chance. As a Republican, I have to say all the rest are fine with me. Sharpton might get impeached for corruption, but I'd trust him with his finger on the button.

furt
01-17-2004, 02:53 PM
I put a very high price on my perception of a candidate's personal honesty and integrity, and on those Kucinich and Lieberman both win a lot of points. Clark and Dean, IMO, are anything-to-get-elected types.

Sam Stone
01-17-2004, 03:54 PM
Furt is right on the money. As is Minty Green.

Putting on my 'political operative' hat and trying to objectively rate these guys in terms of danger to Bush, I'd order them:

- Kerrey
- Clark
- Dean
- Edwards
- Lieberman
- The rest don't matter

Clark is a wild card here, because he's a political novice, and hasn't been run through the meat grinder of a major political campaign. There could be any number of skeletons in his closet we don't know about yet, and if I were a democrat I'd be terrified about the fact that Clark's superiors do not like him one bit. I think there's a lot of red meat for Karl Rove in Clark's behaviour in Europe. He's also been wildly inconsistent in his views on the war, despite his claim that he's always been opposed to it.

If Rove manages to trot out someone like Schwartzkopf, who the America people love, who says that Clark cannot be trusted as president, Clark is in big, big trouble. And if Clark went after Stormin' Norman, he might find someone like Hugh Shelton going after him too. That bit about wanting to attack the Russians and having a British general tell him that he's not going to start WWIII for him could be a big deal in a general election campaign.

On the other hand, Clark was supreme NATO commander in Europe, and that is a damned impressive credential. But he's a risk.

Dean is a mess. He's a hotheaad with a big mouth. He's already provided Rove with hours of material for attack ads, and the campaign has barely started. He's just too unpolished and too arrogant to keep his mouth shut, and that's a deadly combination. Plus, his vehement opposition to the war, which plays well with hardcore Democrats, is going to go over like a lead balloon in middle America.

Kerrey is a pro. He's got gravitas. He's got a great military record. He's been under the microscope for years, so there's probably little dirt left to dig out over him. He's carefully straddled the fence on the war. He should be the candidate to beat by a mile. His big problem is simply that he's run a pretty inept campaign so far, and he has an off-putting demeanor. But don't count him out.

Of the three front runners, only Kerrey can go toe-to-toe with Bush, in my opinion. Unlike some of you, I'd LOVE to see a Bush-Dean debate, because I think Bush will chew him up. Clark, on the other hand, would give Bush a tough time if he's prepared well. Kerrey would give him the toughest time of all.

Lieberman shouuld be a contender, but he's not. His big problem is simply that he comes across as a lightweight. Call it the Dukakis disease. Just looking at him, it's hard to picture him as president. That's an important thing to the electorate, even if it shouldn't be.

Edwards is a long shot, but I really like the way he's run his campaign so far. He's stayed away from the dirt, he's stayed positive, and he's stayed honest. He refused to shy away from his position on the war even when it was costing him, and he refused to attack Clinton when that was also costing him (back when the party was trying to run from the 'Clinton legacy'). That tells me he's got integrity. He's a little too inexperienced to win this time around, but I think he's position himself very well for a shot at the VP spot, or perhaps for another run in 2008. I think he's got a bright future.

minty green
01-17-2004, 03:54 PM
:shrug: Conventional wisdom in Jan 92 was that Clinton couldn't win. Opinions are cheap.That's nice. But just so you know, I called Clinton as the nominee and winner of the general election in November '91. So color me unimpressed with your who-knows-what-the-future-may-bring argument. Dean = Dead man.

Duke
01-17-2004, 04:12 PM
A slight hijack, but after reading [b]minty[b]'s last post, I was reminded of it. I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh also picking Clinton as the likely Democratic nominee in November '91 (though not, of course, as the next president-elect) because of his "moderate views." Heh heh.

John Mace
01-17-2004, 04:19 PM
Dean = Dead man.

Dean, Dukakis Democrat Deathwish.

I think you're right, but that doesn't mean Dean won't get the nomination. I would not discount his charisma, which goes a long way in any election. And that's one of Kerry's biggest drawbacks. The guy is (as per Bill Maher) the talking tree from the Wizard of Oz. I think that more than any other election, Americans vote for the man as much as his specific policies when it comes to the president. (Or the woman, when that time comes.)

Clark is indeed the wildcard. If he gets Clinton to endorse him and campaign for him, he could give Bush a serious run for his money. But he needs to not make the war the linchpin of his campaign. That's a losing straegy (unless things in Iraq take a serious turn for the worse). Bush will want that to be the #1 agenda item, so he'll have to work especially hard to turn the focus in another direction.

furt
01-17-2004, 05:59 PM
FurtI'd LOVE to see a Bush-Dean debate, because I think Bush will chew him up.He'd chew himself up. Doesn't anyone remember how Gore lost votes for sighing audibly? What's gonna happen when Dean gets pissed and says "You're lying?"

Lieberman shouuld be a contender, but he's not. His big problem is simply that he comes across as a lightweight.I'd likely vote for him over Bush. He'd have short coattails. leading to a split government which would control spending.

His biggest downside, in my eyes, is his voice. He sounds like Elmer Fudd whining about his head cold. I just don't see him inspiring confidence in anyone.

John Mace
01-17-2004, 06:08 PM
I'd likely vote for him over Bush. He'd have short coattails. leading to a split government which would control spending.

Ah, the virtues of gridlock. I'm a big fan as well-- much to be said about having them too busy fighting each other to actually do anything.

Mr. Moto
01-17-2004, 08:20 PM
Which American Democratic President Would You Reccommend?

I'd recommend Grover Cleveland, myself.

He's a far better President than any of the current Democratic candidates would make today.

Siege
01-18-2004, 06:42 AM
I know, I know. I missed a key word from the thread title.

Look, people, let me make it clear to you. I do not care about the horse-race aspects of the election! If I did, I could read the newspaper watch the evening news, and follow the polls. I am, by nature, an anti-conformist, so one of the better ways to make me reconsider doing something is to tell me "Everybody's doing it." It's probably a character flaw, but at least I'm aware of it and I make allowances for it.

I've seen the names of the usual suspects here, and I actually have heard of these guys, believe it or not. I'd also prefer not to rehash the last several elections; they were bad enough the first time, especially the last one.

Give me a reason to vote for one of these candidates other than, "I think he can win." Please.

CJ

Marley23
01-18-2004, 07:08 AM
Give me a reason to vote for one of these candidates other than, "I think he can win." Please.
You have to realize, Siege, that this is an extremely important issue for many voters. Given what happened in 2000, a lot of Democrats are willing to compromise somewhat on a candidate if they think he will win because they find most anything preferable to Bush.

I don't know who I'm behind right now. If you look deeper than out-of-context quotes culled by the GOP and Matt Drudge, you'll find Clark has not changed his views about Iraq. He argued before the Senate prior to the war that while Saddam needed to be dealt with at some point, Al Qaeda was a much bigger priority. I'm not saying that as a Clark partisan; I was making the same complaint until recently. If you take the whole of what he said, he may or may not agree with your personal position (and like a lot of people he seemed to buy most of the stuff about WMDs), but he hasn't been so inconsistent as portrayed.

Lieberman shouuld be a contender, but he's not. His big problem is simply that he comes across as a lightweight.
I think his problem is that he's not much of a Democrat. A friend of mine told me recently that 'he would do everything the same as Bush except the economy.' And that was praise. Save for the fact that he's pro-choice, I agree with that assessment, and I despise the guy. He's not a viable candidate because he has so much in common with Bush. The Democrats could make hay with Bush's foreign policies (alienation of our friends, etc.), and that would be impossible if Lieberman were the candidate because he agrees with them.

ITR champion
01-18-2004, 11:49 PM
Give me a reason to vote for one of these candidates other than, "I think he can win." Please.


Howard Dean. Let me put it this way. The country's current financial policy is a recipe for disaster. We have incurred huge deficits already, and we're promising to pay out huge amounts of money through the Social Security and Medicare systems once the baby boomers start retiring. Neither Bush nor any of the other Democratic candidates seems to care. Bush has basically said that he thinks the economy will grow fast enough to take care of the problem, and Kerry or Lieberman would doubtlessly say the same thing once they got elected. The problem is that federal deficits always grow faster than the official projections and that Congress always comes up with new ways to spend money even when we're already running a deficit (and that Bush refuses to even consider vetoing spending bills). Dean has a proven record of fiscal responsibility in Vermont, and he wouldn't be afraid to take on Congress and fight for less spending.

Siege
01-19-2004, 05:09 AM
That's actually one of my biggest concerns. I'm not a Baby Boomer, more leading edge of Generation X, and from what I can see, even though I've been paying into Social Security for over 20 years now, there's going to be little or nothing left by the time I get to retirement age. I'm also seeing the effect of Bush's tax cuts -- among other things, my state's income tax is going up and my city has doubled its parking tax, including doubling the rate you pay at parking meters. Some of that's due to gross financial mismanagement, but some of it's also due to less Federal funding.

I am not in Iowa, by the way, and my primary's not for some time, so please keep the advice coming, although the morning news has already told me who's doing better in the polls.

CJ

John Mace
01-19-2004, 09:38 AM
That's actually one of my biggest concerns. I'm not a Baby Boomer, more leading edge of Generation X, and from what I can see, even though I've been paying into Social Security for over 20 years now, there's going to be little or nothing left by the time I get to retirement age.

Keep in mind that SS is not a retirment program. You are not paying into some fund in order to withdraw money later. It is, by design from it's inception, a method for current workers to finance current retirees. If there isn't anything left when you retire, it'll be because the system is designed poorly. So, if this is a significant concern, look for candidates that talk about changing the system.

I'm also seeing the effect of Bush's tax cuts -- among other things, my state's income tax is going up and my city has doubled its parking tax, including doubling the rate you pay at parking meters. Some of that's due to gross financial mismanagement, but some of it's also due to less Federal funding.

Also ask yourself if these things should be paid for out of federal funds in the first place. Ask yourself if the people in another state should be paying for your state's services. In some cases (especially federal mandated programs) this is the case. But in most instances, it is not. Parking fees, for example, most likely are for city or county services, most of which should be funded at the local level.

Shodan
01-19-2004, 10:08 AM
I'm registered as a Democrat and sooner or later I'll be casting my vote for one in my state's primary. I'm afraid that voting for Bush is not an option because I do not vote for major party candidates for President...I think this says all that needs to be said about the Democrats's chances in the general election. Reminds me of the Will Rogers quote -I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

That having been said, I was impressed with Lieberman during his debate with Cheney in the last election. Seemed a thoughtful candidate, and I expect he would have the best chance of being able to work with a Republican-controlled Congress over the next five years.

FWIW. I am trying to leave aside all the "horse race" considerations for now. And, on request, I will not list the reasons to eliminate the other Democrat candidates.

Regards,
Shodan

Mr. Moto
01-19-2004, 10:17 AM
Very reasonable and correct observations, John Mace.

People who generally agree with them, especially on notions about local funding of local matters and Social Security reform, won't be voting in Democratic caucuses and primaries, so it's a moot point.

minty green
01-19-2004, 08:00 PM
CNN put up a very handy guide to the positions (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html) of the folks running for the nomination. It's sortable by candidate and issue.

jshore
01-19-2004, 10:23 PM
Also ask yourself if these things should be paid for out of federal funds in the first place. Ask yourself if the people in another state should be paying for your state's services. In some cases (especially federal mandated programs) this is the case. But in most instances, it is not. Parking fees, for example, most likely are for city or county services, most of which should be funded at the local level.

But, the point is that when states and local governments are being squeezed harder to pay for various federal mandates, increased security costs after 9/11, etc. without the financial support from the feds, they are forced to raise fees and taxes in other ways. The fact these fees or taxes are not directly on services that the federal government ought to be providing money for is irrelevant.

But, Siege: You can comfort yourself by knowing that while your small portion of Bush's federal income tax cut is likely being eaten up by increases in taxes (and fees for services, tuition for colleges, etc.) on the state and local level, the same is not happening for someone who is in, say, the top 1% in income. Such a person is seeing vast reductions in the federal taxes they pay and only modest increases in the local and state taxes (which are nearly always less progressive taxes). I hope that this helps to warm your heart...Your sacrifices are not in vain! ;)

jshore
01-19-2004, 10:31 PM
OP checking in here, with a radical thought. You see, I'd like to vote for the candidate whose views most closely match mine, regardless of his chances of winning. What I'd like to know is what the candidates stated views are and how their actions match those views.


In that case, you might want to check out http://www.presidentmatch.com/ You take a survey of your opinions and they tell you to what extent each candidate matches your opinions. Don't know how good their algorithm and information is, but I got a 100% match with Kucinich and a 1% match with Bush, which sounds pretty accurate to me from what I know of these candidates! (I still am not likely to support Kucinich because I value "Can get the current occupant out of the White House" as much as agreement with me on the issues. After all, even Lieberman, the Dem I am by far the least enamoured on, had a 67% match with me on the issue.)

pantom
01-19-2004, 11:21 PM
100% match with Kerry. Didn't expect that.
Thanks for the site, jshore.

Shodan
01-20-2004, 08:42 AM
Thanks for the site, jshore, but they claim Bush never served in the military.

Still got 100% match with Bush (big surprise there) and a 62% match with Lieberman.

Regards,
Shodan

BobLibDem
01-20-2004, 10:16 AM
Bush may have served a portion of his National Guard obligation , but he did not complete his obligation. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state "Completed Military Service." Playing dress-up on an aircraft carrier doesn't count.

Nonetheless, that was a very interesting site that jshore provided.

Shodan
01-20-2004, 10:43 AM
You're right, it would be more accurate to state that Bush "completed his military service", since he was honorably discharged.

To say that he never served in the military is more on the order of an outright untruth.

Regards,
Shodan

John Mace
01-20-2004, 11:43 AM
But, the point is that when states and local governments are being squeezed harder to pay for various federal mandates, increased security costs after 9/11, etc. without the financial support from the feds, they are forced to raise fees and taxes in other ways. The fact these fees or taxes are not directly on services that the federal government ought to be providing money for is irrelevant.
Well, since I explicity said (in the part you quoted, no less) that I was not talking about federal mandated programs, I'm not really sure what your point is. If we discount federal mandated programs, or even increased security costs, is it still irrelevant who pays for what? If so why don't we just abolish all state and local taxes, and pay for everything on the federal level?

furt
01-20-2004, 03:29 PM
Give me a reason to vote for one of these candidates other than, "I think he can win."
My 7 reasons to vote for Joe Lieberman:

7) Free trade. AFAIK he is the only Dem candidate that has called protectionism for what it is.

6) He was against impeaching Clinton, but he was also gutsy and honest enough to to set aside 30 years of personal ties and publicly say that the affair was wrong and immoral before most other dems would.

5) He doesnít campaign on the Sabbath; some may not like the fact that heís religious, but at least with him itís no act.

4) He was a leader in creating the successful welfare reforms of the 90s

3) Liebermanís has a good chance of having a productive relationship with a GOP Congress. At the same time, a split government would inhibit truly massive spending Ė not that heís a big spender anyway.

2) Heís made all the obvious criticisms about Iraq, but he knows we canít cut and run now.

And the #1 reason to vote for Joe Lieberman Ö

Because itís not every day you get a chance to piss off the idiots at Stormfront AND the Democratic Underground with one swift stroke!

Marley23
01-20-2004, 04:02 PM
The PresidentMatch site gave me 100% on Kucinich too. It must be relative, because I think I disagreed on some issues, and I know I weakly agreed on some. But Kerry wasn't far behind, and there's no way I'm supporting Kucinich either - I wish him well personally but have been hoping he'd quit for some time.

Jon the Geek
01-20-2004, 08:56 PM
In that case, you might want to check out http://www.presidentmatch.com/ You take a survey of your opinions and they tell you to what extent each candidate matches your opinions. Don't know how good their algorithm and information is, but I got a 100% match with Kucinich and a 1% match with Bush, which sounds pretty accurate to me from what I know of these candidates! (I still am not likely to support Kucinich because I value "Can get the current occupant out of the White House" as much as agreement with me on the issues. After all, even Lieberman, the Dem I am by far the least enamoured on, had a 67% match with me on the issue.)

From that site: "Medicare Prescription Drugs Coverage By Private Insurers"
What is this? I can't quite parse it, and I have to admit I really don't know much about Medicare...

jshore
01-21-2004, 03:38 PM
Well, since I explicity said (in the part you quoted, no less) that I was not talking about federal mandated programs, I'm not really sure what your point is. If we discount federal mandated programs, or even increased security costs, is it still irrelevant who pays for what? If so why don't we just abolish all state and local taxes, and pay for everything on the federal level?

Well, what do you mean when you say you are not talking about federally-mandated programs? You implied in your original post that if parking fees increase, that has nothing to do with the federal government because costs for parking should be borne at the local level. My point is that if the local government is faced with ever-increasing costs for Medicaid, for police each time the feds raise the terror alert level, etc., then one way they may close the gap is to raise parking fees.

Look, anyway you slice it, the facts as I see them are these:

(1) Most people in the lower and middle classes are going to see much, if not all or more than all, of what they got back from the Bush tax cuts eaten up by increased taxes, fees, tuitions, etc. on the state and local level.

(2) Those in the top 1%, for example, are going to end up with the amount they save from the Bush tax cuts tending to dwarf these increases taxes, fees, tuitions, etc. (Well, at least, they'll make out a lot better.)

Ergo, the net effect is going to be that the top 1% end up better off while the bottom 75% are likely to be worse off (if not worse off directly, certainly once you consider the fact that the federal debt incurred isn't "free"). That is the way it works and you can argue other things until you are blue in the face...Hell, argue that the top 1% ought to get more of a break and the bottom 75% don't need tax relief. But, I don't think you can deny the reality of how this works out. (If you can, I haven't seen it.)

jshore
01-21-2004, 03:48 PM
The PresidentMatch site gave me 100% on Kucinich too. It must be relative, because I think I disagreed on some issues, and I know I weakly agreed on some.

Right, the site seems to do some sort of normalization at the end so that the top candidate gets 100%. I wouldn't have implemented the algorithm in this way personally because it leads to some rather bizarre results. For example, a colleague who looked into this told me that if I was one of the candidates, he would have obtained a score of 90% for me, whereas if he was one of the candidates I would have obtained a 55% score for him. (A mathematician would term this something like "non-commutative".) The reason is that I am consistently liberal so my "100% agreement" with Kucinich corresponds to really good agreement but he has a very eclectic mix of opinions on issues so his "100% agreement" (which was with Kerry) corresponded to really having only moderate agreement. So, by his standards, our agreement wasn't much worse than his top choice, but by my standards our agreement was a lot worse than my top choice.

Of course, another disadvantage of this normalization is simply the way it makes people believe they have much stronger agreement with their top candidate than really might be the case. He may just be the least of many evils for you.