Good point.
How do you reconcile the fact that Bush Jr won a larger majority in 2004 than in 2002, despite all the things the Dems thought were going against him: no WMDs found, escalating deaths in Iraq, his apparent lack of intelligence, a strong challenger in Kerry, etc.
Correct, but Al Gore, circa 2005, is no longer a moderate. See his comments above.
Richardson would be an excellent choice, but, at present, any dem candidate likely to win nationally is going to have a hard time in the primaries. I take Bayh’s vote against Rice as a sign he intends to pander to the base.
The truth is, that nominee and especially general election winners are usually not the big names who get mentioned at the outset. There needs to be some element of “fresh face-ness” to them. Both Gore and Clark fail that test.
Clark is a war criminal, and the only one of the Democrats in contention last year who I wouldn’t have voted for just to kick Bush out.
If the Democrats pick him in 2008 I might never vote for them again.
Are you talking about the use of depleted uranium during the Balkan wars? But…that would make him attarctive to swing-voters.
I’m sure if General Clark is to blame for using depleted uranium, but some sure is.
Depleted uranium harms the bad guys AND THE GOOD GUYS!!! Radioactive dust, once inhaled…well, you know the rest.
That the US leadership loves and supports its soldiers who put themselves in harms way to defend freedom and democracy…rings hollow when the US leadership knows that the soldiers are getting sick and are dying from inhaling depleted uranium dust. And don’t quote me any Pentagon reports to challenge the facts about ingesting depleted uranium dust.
It’s unbelievable how the power of patriotism blinds people to the health crisis reality facing the combatants and civillians.
Oops. That shoud have read:
I’m not surte if General Clark is to blame for using depleted uranium, but someone sure is.
He mobilized his base better and won a tight election. A Bush victory alone isn’t enough to support what you say, especially when it’s 51%-48%. And fully half the population “embraces” abortion, so that doesn’t make elections unwinnable for them either.
Actually, he might be talking about the standoff with the Russians over the Kosovo airport in 1999.
Not exactly a war crime, but it might have turned really ugly if he had his way. Not exactly someone I’d want to vote for.
Edwards has a good shot in 2008. He’s almost sure to run, he’s got great name recognition from his VP run, he’s a younger guy. Right now Edwards is the favorite.
Hillary is the other main contender. If she ran she has a good shot of winning the primary. She’s smartly positioning herself as a moderate. Her main problem is that she doesn’t have good political instincts. Her biggest plus is that she’s tough as nails, that’s why so many people hate her. But that also could make her a good president. Hillary would be a crapshoot. I honestly have no idea how well she’d do…whether enough people still hate her and everything they think she stands for, or if enough people actually like her.
Then we have the middle pack…the standard moderate southern governors and senators mentioned above.
Then we have the also-rans.
Howard Dean. He’s not going to run. He didn’t fail because of his scream, he failed because no one voted for him in the primaries.
Wesley Clark. Soooooo 2004. The theory that being a general or a veteran will immunize a candidate from attacks by the right-wing has been proven wrong.
John Kerry. He lost, and he’s done. His only appeal was that he could beat Bush, and he failed to beat Bush.
Al Gore. He lost, and he’s done. Nixon didn’t run in 1964 because of Kennedy’s assassination, he didn’t want to make himself a punching bag for Johnson. And do you really want Nixon as your role model? Nixon came back because he spent years building the republican party in California. Gore hasn’t done that, he’s essentially retired from politics. The fact that he almost won in 2000, or would have won in 2000 without the well-hashed-out irregularities is irrelevant. What does Al Gore bring to the table? Nothing.
Reconcile it with what? I didn’t make a claim, you did. I just asked why, if the United States is “predominantly conservative”, did more Americans vote for the Democratic candidate in three of the last four Presidential elections?
Offhand, if I were to make a claim on this subject, I’d say that Americans are more likely to vote for personal issues rather than ideological ones, and they’re likely to vote for a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate in 2008 based on who the individual candidates happen to be.
Politically speaking, Al Gore is now the Democratic equivalent of Dan Quayle. The problem with being a former Vice President is that you’re too big to be involved in regular political activities. You get a one-term grace period when the stature of being part of an administration can carry over into your own candidacy. After that, you end up being a figurehead for your party rather than a viable candidate.
Oh, when he nearly started WWIII? Nahhh. Shows toughness. Resolve. Swing-voter magnet!
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Reconcile it with what? I didn’t make a claim, you did. I just asked why, if the United States is “predominantly conservative”, did more Americans vote for the Democratic candidate in three of the last four Presidential elections?
2004 - Bush majority
2000 - Gore majority
1996 - Clinton majority
1992 - Clinton minority
Well, it all started in 1992 when Perot prevented Bush from getting re-elected. Clinton slid in. If 1992 was strictly Bush Sr vs Clinton, Bush would have won.
What I should have said is that America is becoming more conservative. The Repubican vote has increased in each of the last three elections.
Why not both? They could call it the Wes/Al ticket.
If you can toss out Perot, logically you can toss out Nader in 2000, making Gore’s win even more convincing. Of course neither one makes sense.
So has the Democratic vote.
All the polls of Perot voters in 1992 showed an even split between Dems and Repubs (ie, potential Clinton v. Bush voters). Also, check out this state-by-state analysis, from fairvote.org:
No, I was talking about the deliberate targetting of non-combatants in Serbia, specifically the bombing of a television station which killed 20 journalists and office staff, who Clark subsequently claimed were legitimate targets.
The depleted uranium and his looney gung-ho attitude toward the Russians doesn’t help though.
(And I’m a she.)
[QUOTESo has the Democratic vote.[/QUOTE]
The Democratic vote has increased in each of the last three elections? Yes, this is true. It’s gone from 44.8, to 47.4, to 50.4 to 59 (millions.) At the same time, the Republican vote has gone from 39.10 to 39.19 to 50.4 to 62.0.
In terms of % of the vote, the Dems have gone from 42.93 to 49 to 48.38 to 48.3.
The Republicans have gone from 37.38 to 41 to 47.87 to 50.8.
Without a doubt, the Republicans have increased their % of the vote in each of the last four elections. At the same time, the Dems gained once then declined and stayed about the same. They’ve stalled.
So, I still stand by my belief that the conservative vote has increased in the last three elections.
2004:
Bush 62,028,772, 50.8%, 286 electoral votes
Kerry 59,026,150, 48.3% 252
2000:
Bush 50,456,002, 47.87%, 271
Gore 50,999,897, 48.38%, 266
Nader 2,882,955, 2.74%
1996:
Clinton 47,402,357, 49%, 379
Dole 39,198,755, 41%, 159
Perot 8,085,402 8%
1992
Clinton 44,908,254, 42.93%, 370
Bush 39,102,343, 37.38%, 168
Perot 19,741,065, 18.87%
Wpg, you can massage the figures all you like but I don’t think you’re going to get your happy ending.
By your own figures the best the Republicans have done in sixteen years in popular votes is a single victory where they led by 2.5%. In a campaign where conservatives have been trumpeted that their candidate was immaculate and the other guy was inept. If the country is predominantly conservative, why didn’t Bush get re-elected with the kind of numbers Reagan got in '84?
Ah, I wish I’d thought of that. Wpg, I submit that despite the fact that Republicans have increased their vote percentages, by your own logic the country is less conservative than it was in 1980 through 1988, when George H.W. Bush won more than 53% of the popular vote and won the election by almost 8%. Compare to this year when George Bush got less than 51% and won by about 2.5%.