I am Curious: Who do Dopers think will win the Democrat nomination?
I have no interest in your comparative morality between the Democrat party or canidates between themselves or Pres. Bush. I simply want to know who you think will win the nomination, not the general election.
Please, no grandstanding for your canidate. I just want to know who you think will win and why.
Inquiring 'Pubbies want to know. 
IMO Dean has it sawn up. I was mightily unimpressed with Clark’s speech yesterday declaring his candidacy, and by all accounts Clark’s clout and background were the only thing standing in the way of a Dean nomination. Unless Clark turns out to be a Clinton-like campaigner, and I am almost certain that he is not, his candidacy will die an early death.
Howard Dean
Half of the reason he will win is because as a candidate he is quite good. He has a lot of political skill, he is a doctor so he automatically gets a strong plus on healthcare, in his governing of Vermont he is extremely popular. And most of all he doesn’t have very many negatives. Overall he is rather centrist while occasionally leaning liberal or leaning conservative.
The other half is grassroots. As far as determining politics goes if Dean had nothing, but grassroots he would be a competitive candidate.
Well, IMO I think it will be between Dean and Clark. I think we will have to see how Clark comes out on the domestic issues, and how well he does in the debates. From what I have seen of him, he seems impressive to the people, but unless he can debate the issues with Dean, Dean will have it in hand.
I think Clark’s entry has really thrown the race wide open. I think there is going to be real push by the party establishment to rally around one person to beat Dean. Clark looks very attractive for that purpose because unlike , say, Lieberman he is acceptable to the activist base and he can unite the party more than any other candidate. However Clark has yet to prove himself on the campaign trail.
Also the other candidates aren’t out of it by any means. Kerry or even Edwards could still surge. So I am totally unsure who is going to win. Dean is probably still the front-runner but with only a small lead and several competitors who could easily beat him.
Hillary. Hands down.
Think she’s not running? Why? Because she promised to serve her full six-year Senate term? (Like she’d be the first pol to lie about such a thing, sheesh)
Ol’ Bill came out today, and when asked about said possible run, hinted that Hillary “might” indeed run, and such decision was “up to her”. Sounds like a definite “maybe” to me, which isn’t that far from an outright “yes”, in politics.
My guess is she’s waiting to see how Bush is doing long about, oh, December/January timeframe. If he’s still hurting in the polls, I think she’ll go for it. Think about it; no way in sam-hell does she want any other Dem to beat Bush in an upset, ala Bush 41. That’d mean another eight years before she’d get a shot, and that’s a whole 'nuther lifetime away.
Nope, it’s '04 for Hillary. I’ll even take bets; my limit’s a quarter. (Never bet more than you can afford to lose, after all.)
It will be Dean who wins. Therefore, GWBush will be re-elected, since he can just pummel Dean on being a stereotype Democrat.
I want Clark to be the candidate, but he’s not part of the party machine.
NaSultainne: is that a quarter for everyone who takes you up on it (if, of course, Hillary ends up not running) or just one quarter to divide among us? I’m pretty sure that she won’t run, but will make a shot at it in '08.
(If I’m wrong, I’ll send $15.00 to the state Republican Party committee of your choice!)
Trinopus
It’s moot. Whoever wins the nomination will either be “too anti-Bush” for the country & therefore lose; or be insufficiently distinct from Bush & therefore a pointless change of power. Bush will win next year, it’s already doomed.
Unless, someone can find an issue that the great Middle will decide Bush is wrong enough on that he’s got to go. Since Bush won because he is “the great Middle” personified, I just have to say:
Lotsa luck, kids, and thank god for presidential term limits.
You realize Bush approval ratings have been on a steady decline, right, foolsguinea? I see nothing in the immediate future that’ll help him, either.
Dean in a walk away. And if he is smart, with Clark as VP. Can’t beat a war hero on the ticket.
Although I’m a Kerry partisan, I’m convinced Kerry or Clark will be the nominee for precisely the reason foolsguinea intimates. Only someone with military experience can plausibly say, to the great American Middle that has no interest in “us vs. them” sniping and merely wants to live a good, quiet life:
“You’ve gone along with what Bush has been doing because you trust your leaders to keep you safe. So hear me: I’ve bled on the battlefield. I’ve lost friends on the battlefield. You can be damn sure I’m not going to tell you anything that won’t keep you safe. So when Bush says that raising your water’s arsenic levels or giving millionaires a tax cut while depriving your children of schoolbooks is part and parcel of keeping you safe, trust me when I say: it isn’t. And I have a better way.”
I think the primary electorate will begin to see the merit in such a nominee, now that Clark’s entry into the race will give his and Kerry’s “patriotic” credentials much more media currency.
And indeed, Marley23 is correct – GWB’s numbers have so thoroughly eroded, that I’d say he’s handily beaten if the eventual Democrat’s national security credentials are unassailable.
If I may agree with Saxman, and by proxy, myself, (;)) I’ll add that national security appears to still be Bush’s strong point right now. No bin Laden, Omar, Hussein or WMD, to be found, sure, but he’s got the two wars under his belt. I’d say if the Democrats can stand toe-to-toe on that issue, they can probably beat him on the economy and others. The general election is still 14 months away, and I think they’ll have more ammo as time goes on.
As always, IMO, until the first five or so primaries are settled, it’s a bit of a crap shoot. Clark’s candidacy is interesting, but I think his ultimate value in the election would be just as high if he ran as veep as if he went for Pres. Kerry, I guess, has a lot of the Demo establishment backing him, but I lean toward Dean based on his credentials and ability to articulate issues in ways that, well, people like me tend to side with. Hillary is something of a wild card; very interesting indeed if she were to break the gender barrier as a presidential candidate, but too many seem to personally dislike her to give her a reasonable shot at snagging the top job.
Overall prediction: Dean or (maybe) Kerry for Pres, Clark or (maybe) Rodham Clinton for veep.
Hmm. Kerry/Clark is interesting, although I’d wonder if that might be overplaying the military/national defense angle.
When it started, I was thinking Kerry/Dean. That rapidly changed to Dean/Kerry (Kerry is another Gore in a lot of ways, don’t believe me look at his position on Iraq). Now I’d love a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket I think either can beat Bush. Remember were in a recovery but so far it’s jobless. A recovery don’t mean sh%t if you ain’t got a job. That will be the issue, National Security will be a a close second which Clark would satisfy in either position.
Sorry!
I refuse to think about it until it narrows down to 3 or 4 people. It is just a time wasting media circus until then.
No one thinks Edwards has a chance?
Am I the only one worried at the possibility that we might have a VP Clark?
Eh, it’s just bad memories of the last one.
Still a few months too early for predictions. But not for odds-laying:
Dean 3-2
Kerry 3-1
Edwards 4-1
Clark 8-1
Others not.
Ask again in January.