# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/81 "2003-10-11T05:53:07Z")
There is almost no “left” in the US and certainly no “far left”. Democrats would be called Center-Center Right in any other part of the world. ---
**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, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/82 "2003-10-11T06:09:35Z")
Left as it pertains to the US. Sure, you could go the other way and say that all Americans are liberals, compared to the Saudis, who are either fascist or merely far right religious conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/83 "2003-10-11T06:13:46Z")
Still it was a point worth noting… some americans tend to think that anyone to the left of the democrats (including some democrats I should say) is a communist… when in fact there are few “real” leftists in the US. (As pertains to the “rest” of the world of course). ---
**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, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/84 "2003-10-11T06:16:44Z")
Well, that would be going to far, to call anyone left of Democrats a communist. I guess you could say there are social democrats, then socialists, then communists. Did I forget anyone? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/85 "2003-10-11T20:54:20Z")
Posted by **John Corrado** : > [@](#): > > 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. **John,** I am totally confused by this analysis. Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton are extremist Democrats – extremists by the standards of that party, in their placement along the spectrum of views represented in it. Jesse Jackson was an extremist. Henry Wallace, who bolted the part and ran as a Progressive in 1948, was an extremist. By what standard are you classifying Dean, Mondale and Dukakis as extremists? They are not extremists, they are centrist moderates, all of them. Posted by **Adaher:** > [@](#): > > Well, that would be going to far, to call anyone left of Democrats a communist. > > I guess you could say there are social democrats, then socialists, then communists. Did I forget anyone? Yes, you forgot the Greens, who are not exactly Reds even though they draw on that tradition. Actually there are two Green parties in the U.S., one of which is more Marxist than the other. The more moderate party ran Nader in 2000 – and has announced that if Kucinich wins the Democrat nomination, it will not run its own candidate but will back Kucinich in 2004. From the “Political Parties” page of [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm](http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm)): > [@](#): > > Green Party of the United States (Green Party) [http://www.gp.org/](http://www.gp.org/) - The Green Party – the informal US-affiliate of the left-wing, environmentalist European Greens movement – scored a major achievement when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore’s campaign – answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%) – seemingly depriving Gore of wins in some key states. More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning that the party will still be ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004 (Note: a third Nader run is still possible as he said “I haven’t ruled out going in 2004” in February 2002). Until 2001, the Greens are largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. This faction – formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) – is the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The ASGP voted in 2001 to convert from an umbrella coordinating organization into a formal and unified national party organization. Other useful Green Party links and information can also be found at the Green Parties of North America (unofficial), Green Information (unofficial), Green Pages (official online magazine), Green Party News Circulator (official - recent news clippings about the party) and Green Party Election Results sites (unofficial). The official youth wing of the party is the Campus Greens. Strong local Green Parties exist – with ballot status – in a handful of states. The Green Party Platform 2000 sets forth the party’s official views. The Green Alliance is an officially sanctioned, national network of Green Party political clubs. > > The Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) [http://www.greenparty.org/](http://www.greenparty.org/) - The G/GPUSA is the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. While the GPUSA also nominated Nader for President in 2000, Nader rejected the G/GPUSA nomination and embraced the other Green party. Prominent Nader campaign strategist Jim Hightower described the two Green factions as follows in 2001: “There are two Green party organizations – the [Green Party of the US] whose nomination Ralph accepted and the much smaller one [G/GPUSA] … on the fringes … [with] all sorts of damned-near-communistic ideas.” Some in the G/GPUSA protested that Hightower’s comments were a bit unfair – but read the G/GPUSA 2000 Platform and decide for yourself. While the Green Party and the rival G/GPUSA appear to be very similar – they advocate tactical (and some ideological) differences and somewhat compete with claims to the titular leadership of the national Green movement. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majorty of the G/GPUSA delegates voted that the party’s 2001 convention to merge into the Green Party of the US – but the motion ultimately failed for lack of the required 2/3 majority. That outcome prompted many of the G/GPUSA activists to independently jump to the Green Party of the US – forming a new leftist caucus within the Green Party of the US – and leaving the G/GPUSA as a sizably diminished and more dogmatically Marxist party. You also ignored the Labor Party ([http://www.thelaborparty.org/](http://www.thelaborparty.org/)), which is not nominally socialist but is committed to fighting for the interests of the working class as against the interests of the rich. From [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com): > [@](#): > > Labor Party - The Labor Party is a liberal entity created in 1996 by a sizable group of labor unions including the United Mine Workers, the Longshoremen, American Federation of Government Employees, California Nurses Association and many labor union locals. The party says it was formed because “on issues most important to working people -– trade, health care, and the rights to organize, bargain and strike -– both the Democrats and Republicans have failed working people.” Ideologically, they seem close to the style of the late, labor-friendly Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Senator Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party circa 1960s. A new party, they endorsed their first state and federal candidates in 1998 in Wyoming (“Green/Labor Alliance”) – and two more candidates in local races in California and Ohio in 2001. This group seems closely aligned ideologically with the New Party. The Labor Party neither fielded nor endorsed any Presidential candidate in 2000 – but has adopted a policy of “running candidates for positions where they can help enact and enforce laws and policies to benefit the working class and where we can best advance the goals and priorities of the Labor Party.” The party also gets involved in local and state ballot initiatives. The Labor Party held a national convention in 2002 and seems to be making some efforts to revive itself. Then there’s the Natural Law Party ([http://www.natural-law.org/](http://www.natural-law.org/)), but I don’t know if it can be classified as being to the “left” of the Democrats or not. Judge for yourself (from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > Natural Law Party - Along with the Libertarian Party, the NLP was been steadily gaining votes over the past few years (although they lost some ground in the 2000 elections). The NLP – under the slogan “Bringing the light of science into politics” and using colorful imagery – advocates holistic approaches, Transcendental Meditation ™, “yogic flying,” and other peaceful “New Age” and “scientific” remedies for much of our national and international problems. Nuclear physicist John Hagelin was the NLP Presidential nominee in 1992 (ballot status in 32 stares - 39,000 votes - 0.04%), 1996 (ballot status in 44 states - 7th place - 110,000 votes - 0.1%) and 2000 (ballot status in 39 stares - 7th place - 83,000 votes - 0.08%). Hagelin and the NLP also made a failed bid to capture control of the Reform Party in the course of the 2000 campaign – working with the Perot forces to thwart Pat Buchanan’s efforts – although the NLP did attract some supporters from the breakaway factions within the disintegrating Reform Party. The NLP also made a brief grab for control of the Green Party, but that effort quickly fizzled. In the end, the Reform/Green moves in 2000 helped Hagelin capture quite a lot of headlines but produced less results for the party than the 1996 campaign. For 2002, it appears that the NLP is trying a new strategy of stealthy infiltration by running NLP activists as candidates under various party labels including NLP, Democratic, Republican, Green and Libertarian. Although started in the US, there are now NLP affiliates around the globe. In addition to the national ticket, the NLP regularly fields fields a good amount of Congressional and local candidates throughout the nation. The NLP was founded by followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (the founder of the TM movement – a movement that some have labeled as a cult) – and many of these TM/Maharishi folks still play a major role in the leadership, although the NLP now claims that many others outside the TM movement are also active in today’s NLP leadership. The NLP youth affiliate is the Student Natural Law Party Club. The Institute of Science, Technology & Public Policy think tank is also closely associated with the NLP. The Natural Law Party recently endorsed Dennis Kucinich’s presidential bid. Whether that is good news or bad news for his campaign, I don’t know. There are also several non-socialist left-progressive parties which, at present, exist only at the state or even town level: E.g., the Progressive Party of Vermont ([http://www.progressiveparty.org/](http://www.progressiveparty.org/)); the Working Families Party in New York (); Progressive Minessota ([http://www.progressivemn.org/](http://www.progressivemn.org/)); and Progressive Dane (Wisconsin) ([http://www.prodane.org/](http://www.prodane.org/)). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/86 "2003-10-11T20:57:47Z")
Sorry, flubbed a link. The New York Working Families Party is at [http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/). ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/87 "2003-10-12T03:41:12Z")
**BrainGlutton** : My definition of ‘extreme’ is based upon how that person is represented across the broad spectrum of issues. “Extreme” does not merely mean being off the left edge of the map in terms of any specific issue, but also in being on the left edge of the map on nearly every issue. Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis held no extreme positions, but they came across as liberal upon every issue, even to the point of idiocy- Mondale averring that he would raise taxes, for example. Conversely, moderates like Carter and Clinton tend to be liberal upon many if not most issues, but temper that vocally with conservatism on other issues- Carter on anti-Communism and budget balancing, Clinton on social issues and free trade. I call Humphrey a ‘moderate’ in 1968 because while most of his positions were unabashedly liberal- in fact, he was the poster-boy for ‘liberal’ for the '60’s and '70’s- he spent much of his campaign defending the Vietnam War and didn’t make any noise about possible maybe wanting to end it until five days before the campaign ended. By those same tokens, I call Reagan and Goldwater extreme because of their conservatism upon nearly every position; compared to, say, the American Nazi Party or the Michigan Militia, both are extremely mainstream, middle-of-the-road types. As for Dean, I’ll admit that I don’t know very much about him. But every position that I have heard attached to him- pro-gay marriage, anti-defense spending, anti-tax cuts, etc.- puts him with Mondale and Dukakis in the “if it’s an issue, he’ll take the liberal view” category. If you consider that ‘mainstream liberal’, feel free, but I think you misjudge where the stream actually flows. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/88 "2003-10-12T06:18:16Z")
Yeah, but the Greens, Labor, and Natural Law all seem to fall into the same statist category, left of Democrats but right of socialists. There is very little difference that I can see in their platforms. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/89 "2003-10-12T18:19:14Z")
Posted by **adaher:** > [@](#): > > Yeah, but the Greens, Labor, and Natural Law all seem to fall into the same statist category, left of Democrats but right of socialists. “Statist category”? We’re **all** statists here, **adaher,** except for the Libertarians, the anarchists, and the militiamen. The Greens, however, are distinguished from traditional socialists by being decentralists – in fact, “decentralization” is one of their Ten Key Values – which actually gives them some common ground with many kinds of conservatives, such as the right-wing populists of Buchanan’s America First Party. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/90 "2003-10-12T22:22:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Corrado \* > \*\*As for Dean, I’ll admit that I don’t know very much about him. But every position that I have heard attached to him- pro-gay marriage, anti-defense spending, anti-tax cuts, etc.- puts him with Mondale and Dukakis in the “if it’s an issue, he’ll take the liberal view” category. If you consider that ‘mainstream liberal’, feel free, but I think you misjudge where the stream actually flows. \*\* In Vermont he always favored balancing the budget over everything else. He also had a 95% rating from the NRA. The DLC claimed that he showed a great example of how moderate governors can do very well. He does have the occasional liberal view like being pro civil unions, but he is not anti-defense spending. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/91 "2003-10-13T00:24:29Z")
Clark. he got the Pepsodent smile. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/92 "2003-10-15T01:38:07Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > DEAN LEADS IN MICHIGAN; BUSH NAT’L NUMBERS UP. A new independent poll of likely Michigan Democratic caucus voters shows that Howard Dean has captured the lead in that key early state. The numbers: Dean-21%, Wesley Clark-15%, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry tied with 13% apiece, Joe Lieberman-12%, and all others scoring in the low single digits. Recent independent polls also show Dean leading in Iowa, New Hampshire and California. In somewhat related news, a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday shows that President Bush’s approval rating has bounced back a bit since last month. In the poll, 56% of Americans approve of Bush’s performance as President – up from his low point of 50% recorded last month. Despite Bush’s rise, the poll also found a significant increase in the number of Americans who describe themselves as politically discontented or angry. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/93 "2003-10-15T04:03:21Z")
Steven Hawking dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter meets him at the Pearly Gates and says “Welcome, Dr. Hawking. We didn’t expect you quite so early, so unfortunately your room isn’t ready yet. You’ll have to stay with a few other men in a dormitory until the painters finish up.” “That’s fine,” says Hawking. It’ll give me a chance to make some friends. When he gets to his room, his new roommates are obviously honored to be sharing quarters with the great Steven Hawking. “I’m very pleased to meet you, sir,” says the first. You’ll be happy to know that my I.Q. is 180." “Great!” says Hawking. “We can discuss unified string theory.” The second approaches and shakes Steve’s hand. “How do you do, Dr. Hawking? My I.Q. is 145.” “Excellent!” Hawking responds. “I’d love to hear your thoughts on history’s great works of literature.” The third roommate sidles up to the great man sheepishly. “I’m also very honored to meet you, Dr. Hawking,” says the man, “but I’m afraid my I.Q. is only 95.” “Terrific!” says Hawking. “Tell me, who do you think will be the Democratic nominee in 2004?” ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/94 "2003-10-15T15:17:35Z")
D’oh! _Something was said…not good…_ Dean or Lieberman, I think. The rest are fizzling out, except for Clark, and I think his people will go to Dean. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/95 "2003-10-16T00:32:16Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > NEW POLLS: DEAN LEADS IN MICHIGAN & N.H. … AND BASHES DC INSIDERS AS “COCKROACHES.” A new independent poll out Tuesday of likely Michigan Democratic caucus voters shows that Howard Dean has captured the lead in that key early state. The numbers: Dean-21%, Wesley Clark-15%, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry tied with 13% apiece, Joe Lieberman-12%, and all others scoring in the low single digits. Meanwhile, the latest Granite State/UNH monthly tracking poll out Wednesday shows Dean continuing to hold a solid lead in New Hampshire. The numbers: Dean-30%, Kerry-17%, Clark-10%, Lieberman-6%, Gephardt and Edwards at 5% each, Kucinich-3%, Braun and Sharpton at 1% each, “Other” at 2%, and the remainder undecided. Recent independent polls also show Dean leading in Iowa, California and elsewhere. Dean has also turned up his rhetorical heat this week. Dean told the New York Times that, if he wins, members of Congress are “going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches.” Gee, could that have anything to do with the fact that most of his main rivals are Congressional insiders? > > BUSH NAT’L NUMBERS UP. A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday shows that President Bush’s approval rating has bounced back a bit since last month. In the poll, 56% of Americans approve of Bush’s performance as President – up from his low point of 50% recorded last month. Despite Bush’s rise, the poll also found a significant increase in the number of Americans who describe themselves as politically discontented or angry. Also on Tuesday, the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Bush’s approval rating at 53% – virtually unchanged from their last tracking poll of two weeks ago. The President’s reaction: “There was a poll that showed me going up yesterday, not to be on the defensive. Actually, I’m in pretty good shape, politically. I really am. I didn’t mean to sound defensive. But I am [in good shape]. Politicians, by the way, who pay attention to the polls are doomed, trying to chase opinion when what you need to do is lead, set the tone.” To put this all this “reading the tea leaves” into perspective (or not): President George H.W. Bush was at 65% at this point in the 1992 re-election race (and he lost) and President Clinton was at just 52% at this point in the 1996 re-election race (and he won). ---
**Author:** ![NightRabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bbce88/32.png) [@NightRabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NightRabbit)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/96 "2003-10-16T19:51:52Z")
I think Dean is the first truly EXCITING candidate in a while. Therefore, I put my vote in his camp. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/97 "2003-10-16T20:21:17Z")
Doesn’t anyone think Lieberman has a chance? ☹ Damn, thats who I was planning on voting for. I have to admit I never follow things this early…until after California it just always seems so pointless. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/98 "2003-10-16T21:17:30Z")
Lieberman has no chance, and the sooner he realizes it, the better for the party. He has spent the last several debates attacking the other candidates and tearing them down. That annoys the hell out of me. We are supposed to be on the same team. Tell the voters what you want to do that’s good, not what’s bad about the other candidate. Lieberman has drawn boos at the last two debates for this crap. [/rant] In late-breaking news, I see that Clark leads Dean in California polling. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/99 "2003-10-16T23:25:44Z")
Leiberman is just George W. Bush with less charisma. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/100 "2003-10-17T04:57:16Z")
Aw c’mon, what better way to give the terrorists the finger than to elect a Jewish President? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438.md?page=6)