So was Clinton. Carr can’t be all that keen a student of US politics, then. We do generally pick either governors or VP’s as Presidents, every time since Kennedy at that, and the size of the state is not that relevant to us - the challenges faced are not that different. He also has no basis for saying Dean is a fraud - he’s done what he’s said he’s done, hasn’t he? Further, his comment about Vermont, or any state, “having made no contribution” is ignorance on the hoof.
So you’re right, that’s worthless, and so apparently is your Premier.
Except that independents can vote in some of these states too, and that Dean’s supporters mostly identify as liberals. Kerry’s tends to come from across the spectrum and include more moderate Democrats who might have more in common with the swing voters.
So far, Dean’s not doing anything down South, so I’m not sure why you think he’d do well there. You say he can appeal to the working class types, but he’s proposed raising their taxes, which is a funny way of appealing.
I’m not sure why you have such a bug up your ass over this. He hasn’t abandoned anything, he’s campaigned quite hard there so far. To say he’ll ‘abandon the field’ based on one comment is ridiculous.
Taken at face value that can sound pretty damaging (asssuming liberal = bad). But if you look at their web site, you’ll see that the vast majority of their ratings cluster in the single digits (for Dems) and in the 90s (for the Pubs). A scale like that doesn’t actually have a lot of information in it.
Dean is a moderate who has positioned himself as a liberal in the primaries (with the whole “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” thing). Looked like a smart thing to do at first, but he may have succeeded too well, convincing people that he is too liberal.
Thing is, in a general election, Dean has a record (fiscal conservatism, good standing with NRA, etc., etc.) which would have allowed him to run back to the center to pick up swing voters. He was following the classic “run to the left in the primaries, run back to the center in the general election” campaign.
What derailed him was the “electability” issue. Dean did such a good a job of convincing primary voters that he was a “liberal” that they decided that he was “too liberal” and that they needed someone “more moderate” to face Bush in the general election.
The irony is that Kerry, whose record is quite liberal, has somehow convinced primary voters that he is a moderate. (I’m guessing primary voters are defining “moderate” as “someone who has served in the military,” because Kerry does not otherwise qualify.)
I don’t think Kerry will be nearly as successful convincing general election voters (and swing voters in particular) that he is a moderate, particularly when that $200M Republican war chest is put to work dredging up and harping on his liberal record. Unlike Dean, Kerry doesn’t have a moderate political record which would allow him to successfully “run to the center.”
I don’t think Dean is the best candidate to face Bush. (I’d prefer Edwards or Clark), but I DO think Dean could do much better than Kerry.
Kerry is a liberal, and a big stiff (a la Gore) to boot. Maybe he will prove me wrong, but I see disaster for the Democrats if (as it now seems will be the case) he is nominated.
Good. Make sure he isn’t. Do what I’m doing: give money AND TIME and voice to Clark. Or even Edwards. (But Clark needs it more, is more electable, and would make a better president.)
incidentally, I had dinner with a table full of moderate Republicans yesterday (in Atlanta). Without any prompting from me, they expressed astonishment that Democrats were blowing a good shot at the White House by making Kerry the front-runner for the nomination.
On the subject of gay marriage, it was said that when the question is framed properly, it emerges that gay marriage falls somewhere around 14 or 15 on most people’s list of concerns. yeah, they care, but it doesn’t make a difference in their lives.
On gay marriage, this is something I was independently thinking and they talked about: it was only a few decades ago that interracial marriage was illegal and considered disgusting and unnatural. California was the first state to change this, and the rest of the country gasped in horror. Gay marriage will follow a similar path.
Bush can lay claim to a historic first: this year was the first time in history, per the show I was watching, that a President’s approval ratings have gone DOWN the day after the State of the Union. Woo Hoo! Go Bush!
In the last week is also the first time that I’ve seen a named Democrat beat Bush in the polls. (An unnamed Democrat has beaten him many times.) The name? Kerry. The percentage? Varying, but as much as 8%. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm (Interestingly, the only poll that fails to find some version of the same result is Fox News. I’m shocked.)
“When the question is framed properly”, you can get a majority of people to say that Hitler had some good points. I know, I studied the science of polling as part of my Poli-Sci degree.
I have no doubt that you are absolutely right, 100% correct, and that will be a great day indeed for this Grand Old Republic. The chances of that happening before November are exactly zero.
A couple of points is a meaningless statistical nothing (see above). I don’t know what figures you’re using, but unless it’s more than 5%, I’m not impressed. If you can be objective, you’ll have to admit that you read a lot more into things than there necessarily is, because of how partisan you are.
Unless I am mistaken ( and correct me if I’m wrong, please ) Dukakis was out polling Bush Sr. in February, and we all know how that turned out. It’s all meaningless until a) The Dems have a definite candidate and b)The Pubbies start campaigning. Show me some numbers in September and then we can talk.
Indeed, it is, if that’s what you want to see, rose tinted glasses, etc…Otherwise, to quote Rob Lowe; “It’s all St. Elmo’s Fire”.
Well, Dave, I keep hearing how dems are dreaming, no matter what the polls show or people say. I keep hearing directly and indirectly about independents and Republicans that are either planning to vote Democrat or stay home. I keep reading and hearing about how both sides of the aisle are, to one degree or another, appalled by Bush’s fiscal policies.
What exactly is it you think is so unstoppable about Bush? Who are the hoards who are so crazy about him?
Polls are less than meaningless at this point. Hell, Dukakis had a 13-point advantage over Bush Sr. at one stage. But then the Republican attack machinery cranked up. This year, Bush has over $100M worth of mud to throw. Much of it will stick.
It is not at all unusual for the “out” party to have a polling advantage during their primary and nomination process. During that process, they are getting a lot of publicity, and using it to attack the incumbent. Polls for the challenger generally rise during the primary process, then start dropping after the convention.
Stoid, Bush still has a lot of support out there. Understand that you can’t judge by what you hear, because (I gather) you don’t encounter very often the type of folks who are Bush supporters. Some of his support is strong, and some of it is of the “hold your nose and vote Republican” variety. In fact, I’ve heard that phrase a couple of times from conservatives. They may not be crazy about Bush, but they still regard him as better than the alternative. (Far better, if the alternative is Kerry.)
Don’t forget, also, that you have hordes of Democrats out there working for the various candidates, who can all agree that GB is the Devil’s lieutendant. There will be more noise than usual, and some are not above calling themselves Republicans/independents who have come around to the Demmies.
And the president will answer: “If I recall correctly, you were happy to send troops there, too. If you call me a damned devil, you share the blame. If it was not worth it, you were responsible for killing innocent Americans.”
This won’t help matters. What they hell does this mean, anyway?
I don’t think Bush is unstoppable at all, in fact he’s a lot more vulnerable than I would have thought even 6 months ago. What I am saying is: a) I don’t think Kerry is the man to do it. Too many people look at Kerry and think “Same old Ted Kennedy/Mike Dukakis/Massachusetts liberal as always”, no matter what you may think his record shows or his policies are. A vast number of people don’t vote based upon those things, they vote based upon their “feelings” about each candidate. b) We’re right smack dab in the middle of a hotly contested Democratic Primary season which is getting tons of press, I’d be shocked if the Democratic frontrunner (whoever he might be) wasn’t polling well. c) Bush has either 200 or 300 (I’ve seen both figures)million dollars to spend. That’ll pay for a lot of politicing between now and November. Basically Kerry is showing a 6-7 point lead against “Bush sucks” 9 months before the election. That’s awfully thin to my mind, because the conservative electiorial machine is barely warming up.
Look, you’re a fanatical leftie. This is certainly an exciting time for you, as the your candidate is “forged in the fire of the primaries”, and defines himself for you and as you come to accept him (especially if he wasn’t your first choice). It’s natural to get swept up in euphoria. All I’m saying is don’t be misled because you’re surrounded by groups of people who think like you do. Everybody you know hates Bush. Fine, but it’s a long way from that to electing someone else, don’t be fooled into believing that the opinions of the true leftie believers reflect a majority of the population.
Given the nature of your opinions, it’s a wonder you’re bothering to post on this thread at all, prior to September. Might it be that we are well aware that our opinions are speculative, and that it is in fact FUN and sometimes useful to speculate.
I do agree the that Pubbies are holding off their big guns until they have a single clear nominee to aim at. Good strategy, but I think they are lacking in substantive ammo. This election will come down to whether Americans can recognize genuine pain when they are feeling it, as opposed to the pseudo-pain the Pubbies will manufacture for them to feel. It’ll be informative if nothing else.
[quote]
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I now predict (without fear of being proven wrong) that if Kerry is the nominee he will not win a single Southern state in the general election. It doesn’t matter who his vice-presidential nominee is. Kerry’s performance in the South will be a repeat of fellow Vietnam vet Al Gore’s. (By the way, does anyone who is from the South disagree with my perception on this? If so, what Southern state do you think he can win?)
[quote]
I posted that challenge way back in the OP of this now-lengthy thread, and so far no Southerner has come forward to disagree. Any takers?
For that matter, I don’t believe Kerry can win Ohio, Pennsylvania or Missouri in the general election.