# Curious: Who do Dopers think will win the Democrat nomination? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2003, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438 "2003-09-18T19:01:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/61 "2003-09-29T11:12:02Z")
The only way Hillary would jump in is if no candidate achieved a majority of delegates. Then she could jump in and save the convention from chaos. Gore could serve the same purpose. I dare say that if no candidate won a majority of delegates, that they would pretty much have to go with a candidate they could mostly agree on, and only Hillary and Gore fit that description. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/62 "2003-09-29T13:55:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avalonian \* > In my view, most people are less affected by “direction” and more affected by how their personal experience was and/or is. In short, an analysis of “I had a good job when Bush came into office, and now I’m unemployed,” would come into play… not a positive thing for Bush, and it probably won’t be looking much better next year, either. Don’t expect to rebuild in a year what it took three years to dismantle. I think this is pretty insignificant. The actual number of additional people who are unemployed as a percentage of the population is very low - maybe 1-1.5%. Not enough to bother with. What is more important is the feeling of the majority of the population that they might become unemployed, or have fewer options etc. This depends on direction and sentiment, as above. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/63 "2003-09-29T19:31:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > I think this is pretty insignificant. The actual number of additional people who are unemployed as a percentage of the population is very low - maybe 1-1.5%. Not enough to bother with. The number of people unemployed don’t take into account folks whose careers have backslided – folks who manage to stay employed only by taking a salary cut, for instance. And it’s also worth reminding that the unemployment figures don’t take into account unemployed folks who have given up looking for work, also. I suspect that that’s not an indignificant number of disgruntled voters right there. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/64 "2003-09-29T21:05:18Z")
Yep. There are plenty of _under_employed folks out there, not accounted for in unemployment statistics- folks who used to pull down the large green, but who are now greeters at Wal-Mart, or ticket-takers at the local theater, or are maybe struggling through various low-grade forms of self-employment. But hey, I hope the Republicans keep trying to tell Americans the employment market is in good shape. Then voters will realize that Bush '04 is just as out-of-touch with the real world as was Bush '92. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/65 "2003-09-30T13:58:28Z")
**rjung & spoke-** , Of course there are people who have taken pay cuts or lower paying jobs. There are also people who have gotten pay hikes and better jobs. On a larger scale you have to look at the numbers instead of relying on anecdotes. I imagine that pay raises have been pretty low over the last few years, though still positive overall, and magnified compared to very low inflation. And I doubt if there has been a big increase in Wal-Mart greeter jobs as compared to better paying ones. If you guys have any actual numbers, feel free to whip them out. What is of greater significance on your side is that a lot of people have not lost their jobs but are nervous about this possibility. Or feel that their career options are limited by the general downsizing environment. The bad news for you is that this is one of the first things to turn around. Pretty much as soon as companies start hiring more people than they are letting go, the mood changes in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/66 "2003-09-30T15:10:39Z")
Keep on whistling, **Izzy**. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/67 "2003-09-30T15:26:46Z")
The official unemployment rate is 1.5% right now? Really? I’d actually like to see a cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/68 "2003-09-30T17:49:39Z")
I said “ **additional** people” meaning the amount more than in 2001. Actually in looking up the data (linked on page 1 of this thread) I see that it is more like 2%. Still a very small number (and one that could well be lower by election day). ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/69 "2003-10-01T12:47:05Z")
Still too early to count Edwards out. The [latest poll](http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/6898130.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) of South Carolina Democrats shows him with a 9-point lead (though there are still a lot of “undecided” voters). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/70 "2003-10-02T16:50:29Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > CLARK, DEAN LEAD IN N.Y. PRIMARY. A new Quinnipiac University tracking poll of New York voters has Wesley Clark and Howard Dean locked in a tight race for the lead in the Presidential race. The numbers: Clark-18%. Dean-17%, Joe Lieberman-13%, John Kerry-12%, Al Sharpton and Carol Braun tied at 6% apiece, Dick Gephardt-5%, John Edwards-4%, Dennis Kucinich-2%, and Bob Graham in last place with less than 1%. In general election match-ups, President Bush would currently lose in the state against any likely Democratic nominee. > > I’M THE KING OF THE (MONEY) WORLD! September 30th marked the end of the 3Q 2003 fundraising period and Howard Dean is the undisputed king of the money hunt. He led all other Dems for the quarter, raising an astounding $14.78 million. John Kerry’s campaign estimated that raised somewhere between $4.5 to $5 million in 3Q. The others: Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt - approximately $4 million each, John Edwards - “less than” $3 million (which includes a large transfer from his aborted Senate re-election campaign), Wes Clark - $2 million “or so”, Bob Graham - around $2 million, Dennis Kucinich - $1.5 million; and no numbers were readily available for Al Sharpton of Carol Braun. Of course, President Bush busted all records: he raised an estimated $50 million during the quarter. The media “Drop-Out Watch” is already picking up steam. The combination of weak fundraising and anemic poll results places Graham at the top of the watch list. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/71 "2003-10-02T21:32:39Z")
I think it’s already down to Dean, Clark, and Lieberman, with an outside (but genuine, IMHO) possibility of a deadlocked convention that begs Gore to re-enter the race. Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton never stood a chance. Graham’s not excited anyone. Edwards has actually _lost_ most of what support he had over the past several months; if he’d had any brains, he would have declared for Senate, rather than for President, the other day. Kerry and Gephardt are still alive in terms of money, and have stable poll support. But neither can seem to expand his popular support. In Gephardt’s case, I think that’s too bad - despite his lack of personality, I think he’d make a good President. I’d handicap it like this: Dean, Clark: 2-1 against. Lieberman: 4-1 against. Convention draft of Gore: 12-1 against. Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards: 30-1 against. Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, Sharpton: odds too long to compute. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/72 "2003-10-02T21:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > If you guys have any actual numbers, feel free to whip them out. I’m a nonparticipant in this one, but the Census released [Income in the United States: 2002](http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf) just last week. Have fun, everyone. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/73 "2003-10-04T19:46:27Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > GRAHAM POLITICAL DEMISE APPARENTLY POSTPONED. Mired in a virtual tie for last place in both levels of support and in money raised, US Senator Bob Graham’s (D-FL) Presidential campaign appeared late Thursday to be in its final days. Graham’s campaign spokesman resigned Thursday – and CNN reported later in the day that Graham was in the process of “letting go” other senior staff members. Graham also canceled a Thursday night fundraiser, but a campaign aide said one scheduled for Friday would likely go ahead as planned. In 3Q 2003, Graham estimated he raised just under $2 million – less than half of his announced goal. Graham, his wife, and campaign aides were meeting Thursday night to discuss the campaign’s future. “We’ll make a decision shortly,” said Graham as he left the meeting. Several Democrats are already actively seeking Graham’s US Senate next year, although all have pledged to withdraw if Graham re-enters the race. One top Democratic Senate hopeful for the seat told Politics1 that he understood Graham would soon exit the Presidential race and announce his intention to seek re-election. According to recent polls, Graham would be strongly favored to win re-election for the seat. Both Fox News and AP also reported Thursday evening the Graham told a Senate colleague that he would withdraw from the race, possibly as soon as Friday. Graham’s Senate spokesman denied the reports and claims Graham reconsidered and will continue the race but with a new – but yet undetermined – strategy. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2003, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/74 "2003-10-05T07:13:44Z")
I guess I was wrong about Graham. I really don’t understand how he’s failed. He’s been saying all the right things to the base, while still being a moderate in his Senate career. He’s from a southern state, a very successful two-term governor, and the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at one time. And yet Democrats are swooning over the supposed qualifications of Wesley Clark. Clark has nothing on Graham when it comes to being qualified to be President. I’d put Dean over him too, Dean’s served many terms as an executive. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/75 "2003-10-09T15:01:59Z")
[U.S. Economy: Jobless Claims Decline as Growth Strengthens](http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=a7Z7T5ifbcyI&refer=home) > [@](#): > > Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) – Initial applications for unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest in more than eight months, suggesting companies are retaining workers as the U.S. economy strengthens. > > First-time jobless claims dropped to 382,000 during the week that ended Saturday from 405,000 a week earlier, the Labor Department said in Washington. That’s the lowest since 378,000 in the week ended Feb. 8. > > September was the first time in eight months that the economy added workers, indicating the labor market may have started to rebound after losing 2.6 million jobs since President George W. Bush took office. Employment gains are needed to add fuel to the economic expansion, economists said. > [@](#): > > The Conference Board said its measure of business confidence rose to 67 in the third quarter, the highest in a decade, from 60 in the previous three months, according to its survey of 100 chief executives. A reading above 50 indicates more company officials are optimistic about the economy than pessimistic. > > About 55 percent of chief executives surveyed by the 190- member Business Council said they expect economic growth of more than 3 percent next year, faster than 2.4 percent in 2002 and the 2.8 percent economists forecast for this year. > [@](#): > > The U.S. added 57,000 jobs in September the government reported last week. The increase was the first since January and may be a turning point in the labor market, economists said. Of course, it goes without saying that these are tentative signs and the labor market could turn down again. But again, the general consensus of economists seem to be cautiously optimistic, and the signs to this point seem to confirm this optimism. The next number to look for would be next month’s consumer confidence figures, to see if the economic optimism is spreading to the public at large. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > I’m a nonparticipant in this one, but the Census released [Income in the United States: 2002](http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf) just last week. Have fun, everyone. That’s a pretty comprehensive report full of all sorts of extraneous data. I’m not sure if you are actually claiming to have support for any position in there or are just helpfully directing interested parties in a useful direction. For myself, I have no intention of reading this unless you can point to anything specific that you think is relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/76 "2003-10-10T06:27:37Z")
Well, all the flow charts, pundits etc aside (Im an Independant by the way) , if the Dems want Bush to have a second term, nominate Dean. Youre kidding yourselves if you think he has a chance, and I dont mean that in an insulting way; just trying to be pragmatic. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/77 "2003-10-10T18:26:20Z")
Posted by **Voodoochile:** > [@](#): > > Well, all the flow charts, pundits etc aside (Im an Independant by the way) , if the Dems want Bush to have a second term, nominate Dean. Youre kidding yourselves if you think he has a chance, and I dont mean that in an insulting way; just trying to be pragmatic. **Voodoochile,** could you please expand on that? **Why** is Dean less electable than the other Democratic candidates? Because he’s against the war? I think you’ll find that wins him more votes than it loses him. I’m a Kucinich man myself, because he represents my own views and values better than any of the other eight candidates, but not because I’m genuinely optimistic about his prospects. I fear that if Kucinich ran against Bush in 2004 he would lose, sure as McGovern lost to Nixon in 1972, and for the same reasons: The American people are not ready for a sharp turn to the left. But I do have hopes that if Kucinich stays in the race through the primary season and makes a respectable showing, we might be running a Dean-Kucinich ticket in 2004 instead of, say, a Dean-Clark ticket, and a Dean-Kucinich ticket could **win,** because it would get the centrist vote as well as the leftist vote – labor, the Greens, everything. Besides, I hate to say it, but Dean **looks** like a president. He looks a lot more like a president than GWB does. Kucinich looks like Alfred E. Neumann. Looking at it from my point of view, it utterly confuses me when so many people compare **Dean** to McGovern! Dean may be against the war but he’s not any kind of radical or pacifist. He’s a centrist, just like the whole crop of Dem contenders, except for Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun. Dean is, at most, one or two degrees left of the Democratic Leadership Council. But you, **Voodoochile,** apparently are looking at the race from an entirely different perspective point. What is it about Dean that makes him resemble McGovern in your eyes? Or, more broadly, what is it about him that makes him unelectable? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/78 "2003-10-11T04:05:27Z")
\*\*Well, all the flow charts, pundits etc aside (Im an Independant by the way) , if the Dems want Bush to have a second term, nominate Dean. Youre kidding yourselves if you think he has a chance, and I dont mean that in an insulting way; just trying to be pragmatic. \*\* Don’t be so sure. Dean is a man of a variety of ideologies, he’s not easy to pigeonhole. If he concentrates more on what he’s actually done in Vermont than railing on about Iraq, he has a chance. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/79 "2003-10-11T05:09:55Z")
Dean will win the Democratic nomination. **Corrado’s First Law of Nominations:** Divide each party into its moderate and extreme wings. If a candidate from one wing of that party loses the general election, the party nominates someone from the other wing next go-round. This has occurred in every nomination since 1960, with one exception. (1960: Moderate Nixon loses. Next time, extremist Goldwater is nominated. 1964: Extremist Goldwater loses. Next time, moderate Nixon is nominated. 1968: Moderate Humphrey loses. Next time, extremist McGovern is nominated. 1972: Extremist McGovern loses. Next time, moderate Carter is nominated. 1976: Moderate Ford loses. Next time, extremist Reagan is nominated. 1980: Moderate Carter loses. Next time, extremist Mondale is nominated. 1984: Extremist Mondale loses. Next time, extremist Dukakis is nominated. This is the only time the flip does not occur. 1988: Extremist Dukakis loses. Next time, moderate Clinton is nominated. 1992: Moderate Bush loses. Next time, extremist Dole is nominated. 1996: Extremist Dole loses. Next time, moderate Bush is nominated. 2000: Moderate Al Gore loses. Ergo: As Dean is the only _viable_ extremist candidate in the race, the nomination will fall to him. **Corrado’s Second Law of Nominations:** Whomever is _perceived by the media_ to win New Hampshire wins the nomination. Since 1972 (the first season primaries dictated the winner), this law has only failed once: in 1992, when Pat Buchanan was perceived as the winner for the Republican New Hampshire primary. There are really only three candidates in this race: Dean, Kerry, and Clark. Kunich isn’t even registering- no one I talk to (and most of the people I talk to are very informed about the race) remembers who the hell he is. Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely-Braun are splitting their base, and neither is doing much other than fighting the other for their base. Joe Lieberman is too conservative and religious for the party to deal with, and Dick Gephardt is too much of a loser (no offense, but he’s run and lost once before, and he’s the guy who couldn’t win the House back even after impeachement and the 2000 election fiasco.) Bob Graham has pulled out, and John Edwards is following a strategy that has never won any candidate the nomination. He’s holding back and hoping for a big Southern victory on Super Tuesday to pull in the support. Al Gore tried that and failed in 1988. -spoke is wrong: Bill Clinton didn’t do that. Bill Clinton was perceived as the winner of New Hampshire even though Tsongas got more votes; because everyone thought Clinton’s campaign was a train-wreck, his pulling out a close second was seen as a real victory, and Clinton got the bump that Tsongas otherwise would have. Edwards is hoping that he can end-run New Hampshire, and that trick has never worked. Never. That leaves Kerry, Clark, and Dean as the only viable candidates. But Clark isn’t nearly as viable as the numbers make him out to be; he may be the great white hope for the Democrats, but that’s because no one’s forced him to actually discuss the issues. It wasn’t four years ago that Clark self-identified as a Republican, and once Clark is forced to start naming his beliefs- or starts showing how inept one can be on the stump if you haven’t been training for it for a decade- his support will shrivel. So that means it’s Kerry v. Dean. But Dean has the left field all to himself; he’s the only candidate on the extreme side of the party being taken at all seriously. Kerry is fighting Clark- and Lieberman, and Edwards, and Gephardt- for the middle ground. So when NH votes, Kerry’s base will actually be split between five candidates, while Dean’s smaller base will be more unified, and Dean will come out looking strong. And again, as the media isn’t taking him seriously yet, that means he’ll be the upset candidate that is deemed the true ‘winner’ of NH. The only way Kerry will pull it out is if two or more of Clark/Lieberman/Gephardt/and Edwards pull out before January. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/80 "2003-10-11T05:47:22Z")
Great analysis. But I still dispute that Dean is that much of a leftist. He may be thinking the same way you are, to an extent. He needs to look like a leftist, then ditch that mantle when he wins the nomination. His actual governing of Vermont was not exactly a model of what the far left wants to see. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438.md?page=5)