Democrats versus GWB in 2004, how's it going?

[Beagle]

Some quotes from the first debate.

I watched enough of this on C-SPAN to say a couple things. One, there was a mud-slinging contest between Kerry and Dean. It did not make either one of them look particularly good. Two, Al Sharpton looked reasonable by comparison.

[Frostillicus]

Ask me this question in the Fall of 2004 and I can give you an answer.

[AHunter3]

Bill Bradley.

There does exist a Bill Bradley.

C'mon, Bill, put your hat in the ring. You know you want to.

You're gonna listen to this guy, or read in the newspapers what he said, and you're gonna say to yourself, "Now THAT'S Presidential" This was the only serious Democratic competitor to the preanointed Al Gore. I'd stack him up against any Democrat. I'd stack him up against McCain on the Republican side (whom I admire, BTW).

I would say that I'd put him up against George W Bush but that kinda goes without saying. Hillary Clinton gets my vote if she runs as the Democrat against GWB. Al Sharpton get my vote if he runs against GWB. At this point Newt Gingrich gets my vote if he declares himself a Democrat and ends up the candidate du jour against GWB. And if Robert Byrd decides to run, he's got my vote too. I'm about as close as you can get to an "Anybody But Bush" voter. I would probably prefer Bush to David Duke, but even that would be a close one.

[Sam Stone]

Man, this bunch looks weak. John Stewart had a grand time making fun of them last night.

George Will had an interesting point in his column today. Usually, the primary season gives the best candidate time to build on early wins, or to erase flukey losses. But the Democratic primaries are all bunched together next year, which raises the 'variance' factor - an oddball candidate could win the first primary and build enough momentum to pick up the others, before their essential flakiness has a chance to sink them.

It's going to be an interesting election year.

[Deathstatic]

I have heard numerous times that Al Sharpton is veiwed by even democrats to have skewed views...? Is this true or has the democratic party been able to reel him back in? If it is true, what specifically has he been saying or doing?

[John Mace]

I agree that there are too many variables between now and the election. Remember that one reason Clinton got such a good start against Daddy Bush is that many Dems were reluctant to jump in the race while Bush had such a high approval rating. Kind or ironic, isn't it? Clinton might have been well known among Dem politicians, but I think the general public had no idea who he was at the time. I've never liked Clinton, but I always gave him credit for plowing ahead when others were bailing. (Of course, he didn't have much to lose, either.)

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Deathstatic
I have heard numerous times that Al Sharpton is veiwed by even democrats to have skewed views...? Is this true or has the democratic party been able to reel him back in? If it is true, what specifically has he been saying or doing?

It's the Tawana Brawley (sp?) incident that most people talk about. There is some kind of video floating around. On the issues he's just left of center.

[Airblairxxx]

There's no point in even running in 2004. None of these guys have any kind of chance. Shrub could get caught diddling a preschooler in the Oval Office; within three days we'd get Rush Limbaugh blaming the Clintons, a Fox News special called "Operation Diddle Patriot", and Michael Savage calling the preschooler a slut on national radio.

I do NOT say this as a GWB fan, if you couldn't tell. I just don't see how any Democrat could get his message out above the din of the right-wing media, which has done a nifty job of intimidating the mainstream press.

I am depressed.

[Semp]

Originally posted by Airblairxxx
There's no point in even running in 2004. None of these guys have any kind of chance.

I'd disagree here. If the economy is still in the tank in 16 months El Presidente is in deep doo doo. Hell, if the economy is as sluggish as today I'd say even Carol Mosley-Braun has a chance.*




*A chance. I said a chance. Not that she'd win, but that she'd have a chance. There'd also be a chance that Fox News supported her... well, ok, no chance in that.

[Sterra]

I'd say that Dean has a good chance of winning. His website is actually good

http://www.deanforamerica.com/

He has had some pretty good successes in Vermont and he seems to appeal to democrats and a lot of conservatives who don't like Bush. His anti-war stance will probably help him because it shows he is actually willing to stand up for something and the victory from Iraq will be old, but all the problems with it will still be new and fresh.

He is sort of like the McCain for the left. He even actually looks like McCain.

[John Mace]

AirBlair: You are correct about one thing. As long as the Democrats keep thinking their problem is the "right wing media" they will never win.

[elucidator]

Go you one better, aHunter3. I'd be willing to vote for Lieberman, if it comes to it. I'd have to lean against a tree to puke for a couple of days, but I'd do it.

Right now, early going, my money is on Kerry. His SO's rolling in bucks, which is as needs be, helps even out the advantage the Pubbies get from being the tireless servents of Moloch.

Got the combat vet/war hero thing going. Next to him Fearless Leader looks like Commander Bunnypants. Kerry's probably too much of a gentleman to mention GeeDubya's Lost Year in the Tex. Nat'l Guard. What kind of campaign ribbon do ya get when you wander off base for a beer and forgot how to get back? How does that shine next to....what was it, Silver Star?

Plus Kerry was instrumental in forming the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. I would just love watching the Bushistas trying to make an issue out of that!

Alas, he has the scintillating charisma of Al Gore, and the TV lens hates him. He looks like one of the Munsters more or less normal cousins.

I would be more kindly inclined to Edwards if he didn't remind me so much of Dan Quayle. I genuinely like that Kucinich guy, but no matter how intelligent and well-meaning, America will not elect a man who looks goofy. I think he would make a splendid President, but he has about as much chance as Carrot Top.

Whom I would also vote for. If I had to.

[capacitor]

This has not been a good week for the Dems so far. While two candidates brought detailed plans on how to fix the economy, all the Washington Dems talk about is the Bush stunt on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

[Beagle]

Early prediction: another close election in 2004. It's much to early to write the Ds off. However, as noted, in the battle of the photo ops., this week clearly went to President Bush.

I think the Democratic candidate that subjects him or herself to the talk show circuit might have an early advantage. They need to get in the public eye somehow.

[Sam Stone]

I wouldn't hold out George Bush I as an example of how a very popular president can crash in a short period of time. While it's possible, it's not very likely in this circumstance. Consider:

• While Bush I had very high approval ratings after the Gulf war, the 'war bounce' he got had no legs, because once the war was over, the issue faded from public view. This time, Iraq is still going to be in the press, and the war on terror will be continuing.
• National security was a non-issue for Bush I. The cold war had ended, and people were tired of the military and tired of hearing about defense. Everyone was talking about the 'peace dividend'. That played to Democrat's strength. This time around, national security is still going to be the #1 issue, and all of the candidates except for Leiberman and Gephardt are seriously flawed when it comes to defense.
• George Bush I ran one of the most inept campaigns in my memory. Remember, "Message: I care!"? How idiotic was that? Bush I was so lackluster in his re-election campaign that many speculated he didn't really want the job any more. Bush the younger, on the other hand, has the svengali powers of Karl Rove behind him.
• Bush I was up against Bill Clinton, who was one of the best natural politicians of the 20th century. None of the current Democratic challengers have anywhere near the charisma and sense of timing of Bill Clinton. On the other hand, Bush the younger is a MUCH better natural politician than his old man.
• The economy was MUCH worse under Bush I.
• George Bush I had Dan Quayle. Junior has Dick Cheney. Which one doing you think brings more to the ticket?
• Even with all of Bush I's liabilities, the 1992 election was very close.

Now it's true that anything can happen in an election. Especially during volatile times like this. A major terrorist attack, big problems in Iraq, a scandal, or a crumbling economy could bring Bush down. But an honest assessment right now would have to conclude that Bush is a HUGE favorite. And all the indicators are moving in his direction. The economy is improving, the war on terror is showing real progress (last year there were fewer terrorist attacks in the world than at any time since 1970), the war against Iraq was fought brilliantly and the outcome looks to be very good. And the people really like the guy. Not only are his approval ratings over 70%, but when interviewed even people who oppose him often say he's a likeable man, and they're proud of the job he's done on defense.

That's not a formula for a close election. That's a formula for a landslide.

[Zoe]

Sam Stone said:

This time, Iraq is still going to be in the press, and the war on terror will be continuing.

Your post in general was very thoughtful. But I'm not so sure that the above section bodes well for Bush even if it is true.

As for myself, I've voted for my last all white male ticket. I will probably go Green if there is an alternative to be found there.

[RD]

I think Gephard has the right idea- it's not enough to knock the tax-cut because it's a giveaway to the rich. You have to say what the trade off is. In this case the tax cuts prevent health care for the working poor, and the health safetynet currently goes to the cities, all of who's mayors would love some help right now.

[Klaatu]

There were what, nine Dem candidates down there?

Sure, several of the weaker ones will drop, but if they can't come up with a cohesive agenda and a strong challenger, GW wins in a walk.

The dems appear to be somewhat lost, as far as uniting the party. They are rightly IMO hammering on the economy and domestic issues, but the pubbies will probably be able to ride out any domestic dem gains on the strength of the war dividend.

As was said, unforseen happenings could change the climate.

[litost]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This time, Iraq is still going to be in the press, and the war on terror will be continuing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That too was made fun of by Jon Stewart. I am incredibly disappointed in how national security has become conflated with the war on Iraq. Democrats on C-SPAN were taking credit for supporting the war. Not a single person on the panel boldly and openly questioned the direction Bush is leading the country in by wondering aloud if the nation is indeed more secure. Dean just touched upon it, I think. I can't imagine any Democrat winning based on a new health care plan.

Please, wake up! Bush can be criticized without necessarily bringing up Medicare.

[sezyou]

Damn! Why so pessimsistic? We have an administration that despises the the working class. The current Powers That Be don't care much for personal liberties, for example the "Patriot Act". Ken Lay is walking while the rest of the Enron stooges get hand slaps. If you aren't a CEO in a cozy relationship with oil you certainly aren't one of the "good old boys"

Iraq is just now starting to get down to brass tacks. Where is it going from here? All the cruise missles in the world won't change the mood of a "Democratic" Iraq

Economy? Real Americans love jobs. Patriots love jobs. The sheep love to watch the stock market and decide how happy they are, even if they are not involved personally.

Short of another war (which is entirely possible) I don't see Bush winning the hearts of the masses,

As a side note, I as a devout Dem will state right now if Colin runs, I will vote for him. He makes more sense and has more values than all of the rest of the field of mediocrity, Pubs and Dems alike.

[middleman]

I get the impression that Fastow will be getting a bit more than a handslap...

[Shodan]

If Lieberman runs, I would even consider voting for him.

No one who didn't support the war on Iraq has a chance. No one who supports a big new spending plan (like universal health care) has a chance. I rather suspect that the front runners (as silly as it sounds to talk about a front runner a year and a half before the election) will cut each other up while Bush goes about his business looking Presidental.

The liberal wing of the Democrats all shot themselves in the foot carping about how Bush was going to handle the war on Iraq. The moderates have no one to speak for them, and the conservatives get shouted down.

Their best chance is an outsider, and only if the economy does not recover.

Of course, a party that takes the candidacy of Carol Mosely-Braun or Al Sharpton is not a party that needs to be taken seriously.

I read today that Dick Cheney is on the ticket in 2004 for the Republicans. Too bad in a way - I was hoping for Condoleeza Rice. It may still happen if Cheney has any more heart problems.

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

How's it going? Not spectacularly, so far. But it's early.

The way I see it, there are five candidates who could plausibly win the nomination: Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, and Leiberman, and Graham's a longshot. Dean's managed to fight his way out of obscurity and into the second tier, and he's way ahead of the Kucinich-Braun-Sharpton ragtag, but he's not gonna win.

The Dems should have the guts to kick Al Sharpton off the stage. There's really nothing he can do that can atone for his role in the Tawana Brawley business, and his presence on the stage with the other candidates damages the party as a result. If a few of the major Dem contenders got together and said, "We refuse to share a stage with this bozo," and threatened to hold their own set of debates if the party refused to see it their way, they could force the party to go along. If no one of them has the balls to pull a Sister Souljah moment by himself, then maybe they could do so collectively.

Despite my having been against the recent war, I agree that the Dems had better nominate a candidate who supported it. Iraq may still be a muddle in 2004, but it won't be worse off than it was under Saddam. Regardless of all the other relevant factors, the public is going to see just that one, and it will conclude that going to war in Iraq when we did was a Very Good Thing.

I agree with Sam that the Iraq issue will have much more staying power into 2004 than it did in 1992.

I think the Dems need to wrestle with what we should do with Iraq now that we've got it. (And maybe take a closer look at Afghanistan, while we're at it.) Just questioning the Administration's plans (if it can settle on any), or ignoring the subject altogether, shows their lack of seriousness in foreign policy. Where's a Sam Nunn or a Scoop Jackson when you need one? A Presidential candidate doesn't have to take the lead here, but if nobody else does, one of the candidates needs to.

I disagree with Shodan about the political merits of big spending plans. Opposing tax cuts simply to keep the government fiscally sound is wonderfully responsible and I'm all for it, but it won't win many votes. Having something else to do with the money instead, that has some political appeal, is the only way to get there. If the other candidates are going to diss Gephardt's proposal, they'd better be prepared to have something in its place.

Looking at the political geography, I've got to like Graham (FL) and Gephardt (MO). I think Gephardt, despite his lack of charisma, would play well in the Rust Belt, which I think is where the election's going to be decided: the Dems have the NE and California, while the GOP has the South, Plains, and most of the Rockies. They need a candidate who can do well in places like PA, WV, OH and MI. (I'm thinking Kerry's not that man.) I'd rather have a candidate like that than one (Edwards) who may pick up better-than-usual support in the South, but may still not carry many states in that region.

Most of all, I want a Dem candidate who runs in a way that gives voters a reason to vote for the party, not just the man.

Of course, I'd vote for any of the nine except for Sharpton if they won the nomination, and Sharpton doesn't have a prayer.

George Will had an interesting point in his column today. Usually, the primary season gives the best candidate time to build on early wins, or to erase flukey losses. But the Democratic primaries are all bunched together next year, which raises the 'variance' factor - an oddball candidate could win the first primary and build enough momentum to pick up the others, before their essential flakiness has a chance to sink them.

I didn't read Will's column - I almost always know what he's going to say ahead of time, and it'll be dumb, so why bother? - and he's wrong on this too. The bunching of primaries makes early money an essential condition of victory, because you don't have the time to raise money for later primaries on the basis of your showing in earlier ones, if the 'later' primaries are in March, rather than May and June. So you can't be on TV and radio in many states before they vote, and if your candidacy's invisible, you don't win. So even if, say, Kucinich won in Iowa and NH, there would be no Kucinich snowball.


Aside: even if Cheney's health goes south, GWB's not going to choose a VP that would pose a threat to brother Jeb's likely run in 2008.

[Sterra]

Originally posted by RTFirefly
How's it going? Not spectacularly, so far. But it's early.

The way I see it, there are five candidates who could plausibly win the nomination: Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, and Leiberman, and Graham's a longshot. Dean's managed to fight his way out of obscurity and into the second tier, and he's way ahead of the Kucinich-Braun-Sharpton ragtag, but he's not gonna win.

I don't see why you think that Dean doesn't have a chance. In New Hampshire he tied with Kerry.

Even if Iraq does have staying power I sincerely doubt many people are going to say "Hey look how Bush is helping the Iraqi people I think we should vote for him again" unless they are Iraqi or possibly very liberal. I don't see why most people would care about Iraq.

The fact that Dean is willing to stand up for that position helps him much more than the actual position hurts him. Kerry was instrumental in forming Veterans against the war, but he says he is pro war. I don't think that people want another democrat who says "I agree with Bush" at the beginning of every speech.