# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/101 "2003-10-20T17:34:18Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > LIEBERMAN & CLARK QUIT IOWA CONTEST. Democratic Presidential hopefuls Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman each announced this weekend that they would not compete in the January 19th Iowa Caucuses. Instead, each plans to focus on other early contest primary states. “We have made the decision that we don’t have the time or the money to compete there,” said Clark’s spokesperson. Clark believes that Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt are too well organized for Clark to be competitive against them in the state. “After much consultation, we decided to focus our resources on where they will prove most effective,” said Lieberman’s campaign manager. Lieberman is opening four new offices in New Hampshire, staffed in part with people he’s pulling out of Iowa. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/102 "2003-10-20T20:09:18Z")
Interesting. Lieberman doesn’t surprise me but Clark? At least I don’t live in Boston anymore so I don’t have to sit through the innumerable TV ads for all these people–you don’t have a vote but you’re in the catchbasin of the NH antennas–it’s soooo frustrating. Molly Ivins has a phrase she uses: Candidates like John Kerry “lack Elvis”. That’s a sort of charisma that pulls voters in and sometimes makes them want to overlook the guy’s indiscretions; Clinton is the prime avatar of political Elvis in her book, although she admits that Bush has some too. Kennedy was also at the Clintonesque end of the Elvis spectrum, with the nadir being Nixon and such. When I see the current Dem crop, I see little Elvis–Al Sharpton has some (and be aware that there’s some negative aspects to having Elvis, those being slickness and a seeming or actual insincerity in some cases), Dean has it in strong flashes, Clark is trying, etc. I agree with Molly that Kerry has little Elvis but I still like him; there are some voters like me who the Elvis candidates put off initially–I want to look under the hood and read more about them lest I be dazzled by sheer Elvis (_cough_Governor Ahnuld_cough_). So, Dopers, who’s got Elvis, who don’t? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/103 "2003-10-21T13:01:22Z")
You’re baiting me, aren’t you? Only Dean has any Elvis in him, and Bush has lost his. For better illusttration, says Skid Roper in his classic song [_Elvis is Everywhere_,]([http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/83494/](http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/83494/) Nixon\_Mojo/Elvis\_Is\_Everywhere/ ) > [@](#): > > Everybody’s got Elvis in them! > Everybody except one person that is… > Yeah, one person! > The evil opposite of Elvis. > The Anti-Elvis > Anti-Elvis got no Elvis in 'em, > lemme tell ya. > Michael J. Fox has no Elvis in him. Sorry, John Edwards fans, your guy looks too much like Michael. Molly’s right, but there’s no need to stray from the traditional word “charisma”. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/104 "2003-10-21T14:50:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > **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. Nope, economics. And the Dukakis factor. Dean is much like Dukakis, where rather than listen to what peoples concerns are and then try to come up with practical solutions, he comes back with theory and bar charts, not reality of experiance of having been there. No one who comes off as some kind of academic has a chance, it would be like dolphins in the wild electing a dolphin who had been raised in captivity. Academics, self proclaimed ivory tower intellectuals; these people have developed their theories in the midst of an artificial environment, so rightfully not many outside of acadamia will trust them to know what the hell theyre talking about. Plus, he was the governer of Vermont, which isnt exactly known for its dynamic economy and loads of opportunity for those willing to work. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who comes out acting nervous about NAFTA or free trade in general has no chance. Bushes biggest bitch factor (aside form the war) is his economics; his willingness to inflict tarriffs and other protectionist measures, and its this that helps explain why the economy is so slow to take off. Yet for the most part the Dems, and especially the Greens, are for more of exactly that which is to an extent hampering the economy right now - tarriffs, protectionism. Bushes protectionist trade policies are his biggest achilles heal, but since the Dems for the most part share them, they wont attack him there. Hell, some of the Dems misread the situation so badly they argue that his protectionism doesnt go far enough! Talk about living in la la land. Those blue collar/white collar people who are anti-free trade/pro-protectionism are much like the religous right in that their volume is far out of proportion to their actual numbers. The Dems who make the mistake of thinking that protectionism - or “fair trade” as some like to delicately label it- is the choice of the vast majority of working americans are making one hell of an error in judgement. Dean is from New England. In New England, most all blue collar workers are union (they have to be or they wouldnt be able to legally work in the trades). Many east coast liberals make the mistake of thinking that all blue collar people are either pro-union or wish that they could be. But the west is a vastly different animal. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/105 "2003-10-21T18:33:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > You’re baiting me, aren’t you? Only Dean has any Elvis in him, and Bush has lost his. Hafta disagree here – even though he’s tosshing Iraqi horsepoop like nobody’s business these days, George W. Bush still can turn on the ol’ Elvis whenever he wants to. I even got a good laugh from Bush during his recent visit to see Arnold Schwarzenegger last week: “Arnold and I have many things in common – 1. We’re both governors, 2. People have problems understanding our pronounciation, and 3. We both have big biceps. Okay, two out of three ain’t bad.” While I’ve always maintained that GWBush is an empty-headed putz, the fact remains that Elvis-like charm is one of his few legitimate talents. He’d make a great greeter at Wal-Mart - too bad that’s not the job he’s doing now… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/106 "2003-10-21T18:51:13Z")
I meant that it’s turned against him among too many people by now to help him, not that it’s gone completely. There is a dark side to Elvis - his persona isn’t just friendly, it’s also dumb. When the job he’s responsible for turns to shit, he’s left without the ability to make people confident he can fix them. This time, with the knowledge of our loss of peace and prosperity determining factors, a simple air of bland competence combined with an air of concentrated determination to dig in and fix things will have a charisma all its own for a candidate who projects it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/107 "2003-10-21T20:40:12Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > NEW POLLS FROM NH, IA AND AZ. Dick Gephardt recaptured the lead in Iowa, John Kerry is narrowing the gap in NH, and Howard Dean is holding a wide lead in Arizona. That’s the news from three independent polls out Monday. Here are the numbers … IOWA: Gephardt-27%, Dean-22%, Kerry-15%, John Edwards and Wesley Clark at 11% each, and Joe Lieberman at 4%. Dean lost his narrow lead here. Clark and Lieberman both announced Sunday that they were withdrawing from the Iowa contest in order to focus their efforts elsewhere … NEW HAMPSHIRE: Dean-25%, Kerry-19%, Clark-11%, Lieberman-8%, Gephardt-6%, Edwards-4%, and 23% were undecided. Kerry narrowed the gap with Dean by 3 points since the last poll … and ARIZONA: Dean-32%, Clark-24%, Lieberman and Kerry at 15% each, Gephardt-8%, Al Sharpton-4%, and all others at 1% or less. More bad news for Lieberman, who has said a good showing in Arizona is “make-or-break” for his campaign. Posted by **ElvisL1ves:** > [@](#): > > I meant that it’s turned against him among too many people by now to help him, not that it’s gone completely. There is a dark side to Elvis - his persona isn’t just friendly, it’s also dumb. When the job he’s responsible for turns to shit, he’s left without the ability to make people confident he can fix them. > > This time, with the knowledge of our loss of peace and prosperity determining factors, a simple air of bland competence combined with an air of concentrated determination to dig in and fix things will have a charisma all its own for a candidate who projects it. Well, let’s see. Who among the Dems projects a non-Elvislike air of “bland competence” and “concentrated determination”? I guess that would come down to Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, and just possibly Clark. Kerry is too wishy-washy, Edwards too boyish, and Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton too angry and passionate to meet these criteria. Boy, I remember in 2000 when we got watch the \*\*vice-\*\*presidential candidates debate – Lieberman vs. Cheney – talk about bland competence! I remember thinking – “Is it too late for us to have the candidates and their running mates switch places? These guys are such grown-ups!” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/108 "2003-10-21T23:21:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > This time, with the knowledge of our loss of peace and prosperity determining factors, a simple air of bland competence combined with an air of concentrated determination to dig in and fix things will have a charisma all its own for a candidate who projects it. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voting public; look at the folks who still believe Saddam had ties to al Qaeda, or the guy who just got elected governor of California. 😉 Seriously, though, you can buy a lot of re-election bullstuff with a $400+ million warchest. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/109 "2003-10-23T17:10:30Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > MORE NEW POLLS FROM NH, IA. New polls confirm Gephardt’s narrow lead in Iowa, wider Howard Dean lead in New Hampshire, and John Kerry having big problems breaking out in either of those two crucial states. That’s the news from three more independent polls out Tuesday and Wednesday. Here are the numbers … IOWA: Gephardt-22%, Dean-21%, Kerry-9%, John Edwards and Wesley Clark at 7% each, Joe Lieberman at 5%, and Dennis Kucinich at 1%. [Source: Zogby poll.] Another poll earlier this week also showed Gephardt had recaptured the see-sawing lead from Dean … NEW HAMPSHIRE: Dean-33%, Kerry-18%, Clark-14%, all others in the single digits, and 18% were undecided. [Source: Concord Monitor poll.] Kerry is slipping further behind, Lieberman also in big trouble here … and NEW HAMPSHIRE #2: Dean-33%, Kerry-19%, Clark-7%, and all others at 4% or less. [Source: Franklin Pierce College poll.] More bad news for the Dean challengers. > > EX-NADER RUNNINGMATE ENDORSES KUCINICH. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s Presidential campaign last week picked up the endorsement of Native American activist Winona LaDuke. Who? LaDuke was the Green Party nominee for Vice President on Ralph Nader’s ticket in both 1996 and 2000. “Dennis is not a Green, but he’s a Green in his heart,” said LaDuke at the Minnesota Kucinich rally. Also on the third party front, Kucinich was previously endorsed by three-time Natural Law Party Presidential nominee John Hagelin. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/110 "2003-10-23T21:21:11Z")
It is a mistake, I think, to focus too much on the Iowa and New Hampshire races. Of course, it is a media tradition to do so, but when is the last time those states produced the ultimate nominee? (Excluding incumbents.) Those early primaries can _eliminate_ some candidates. For example, I don’t see how Lieberman or Kerry can stay in the race if they lose badly in their “back yard” (New Hampshire). Ditto for Gephardt in Iowa. Still too early to count out Edwards. He continues to hold a strong lead in the early primary state of South Carolina. Winning there could get him some free ink, which (you never know) could light a fire under his campaign. Clark _theoretically_ undercuts Edwards’ support in the South, but I don’t see much evidence of that yet in South Carolina polling, at least. Thing is, you never know what’s going to happen to someone in the primaries. A sex scandal can pop up (like the one that derailed Gary Hart, and the one that almost derailed Clinton). The candidate can implode. Some dark secret from the past can emerge. Edwards, I’d say, is still in a tenable position, at least if one or two of the other candidates should stumble. I’m still thinking Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry may fold their tents after Iowa and New Hampshire (Kerry might hang on a bit longer), which would leave Dean, Clarke and Edwards as the remaining (serious) contenders. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/111 "2003-10-24T18:03:26Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > DEAN LEADS IN NEW MICHIGAN, N.Y. POLLS. Howard Dean is now leading in Michigan and New York, according to two new independent polls. Here are the numbers … MICHIGAN: Dean-21%, Wesley Clark-15%, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry at 13% each, with all others in the single digits. [Source: Detroit News EPIC/MRA poll.] Gephardt needs to perform much better on February 7th in this heavily union state or he’s in big trouble. The nine Democratic candidates hold a televised debate in Detroit on Saturday night … NEW YORK: Dean-18%, Joe Lieberman-16%, Clark-14%, Gephardt-10% and Kerry-8%. [Source: Marist College poll.] More big problems for Joe Lieberman – he held a 10 point lead over Dean here in last month’s tracking poll, but now trails Dean. Lieberman also lost five of his top campaign fundraisers in recent days. Official spin: “The campaign is streamlining” itself. If I were a betting man, at this point my money would be on Dean to get the nomination. A more interesting question is who his running mate would be. Clark or Edwards would balance the ticket with a Southerner, which is probably a political necessity. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/112 "2003-10-24T19:36:55Z")
If there is a God, we will get a Clark/Dean ticket. I think that’s the one that can win. The Elvis factor is make-or-break in today’s (insane) political climate, and those are the only two who have it. I happen to think that they balance each other’s strengths and weaknesses. I’d prefer a Clark/Dean, but I’ll take a Dean/Clark. ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/113 "2003-10-24T20:40:44Z")
I think Dean will get the nomination, unless the voters in the primaries keep their heads in the sand. Yes, Edwards and Kerry have a lot of support from the core party, which is bad for Dean because he really has a lot of support from people who don’t necessarily identify themselves as Dems, but I think that Dems have a great deal of potential in Dean and Clark. Personally, I’ve narrowed my vote down to those two. And I don’t think the Dems should ignore Dean’s grassroots power. He has raised a truly astounding amount of money, mostly through donations under $2000. Also, he has stated that something like 90% of his contributors have not even contributed the max of $2000, which means that if he actually gets the nomination, there is a huge base of people that have already shown support for him and would probably be willing to give even more, especially to defeat Bush. And they will need money to defeat Bush. Clark as VP would add the image of experience and credibility. As far as Dean being extremist, uh, take a look at Kuchinich. He even makes some of us hard-core California liberals a little uncomfortable. Dean is a suit compared to that guy. What I really don’t understand is why so many Dems don’t like Dean. Why is he such an outsider? In many ways he seems an ideal opponent with a doctorate, political experience, balanced budgets under his belt, and opposing the war, not to mention charisma and fund-raising mojo. Is it the anti-war thing? ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/114 "2003-10-25T06:03:47Z")
> [@](#): > > It is a mistake, I think, to focus too much on the Iowa and New Hampshire races. Of course, it is a media tradition to do so, but when is the last time those states produced the ultimate nominee? (Excluding incumbents.) This primary schedule is going to be entirely different though. After NH there are 8 primaries I think. South Carolina will be one of a lot of states. And from what I have seen is that most Dems do like Dean. A lot of that comes from the fact that he is an outsider I am sure. Really the mere fact that he has a very good shot of taking both Iowa and NH shows just how broad his appeal is especially considering that he has risen in both places out of nothing against two favored sons. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/115 "2003-10-25T14:46:14Z")
**Ghanima** , I’m not sure it’s that so many Democrats don’t like Dean as such, but that they’re not convinced he’s as likely to win as one of several other candidates. I think you’re seeing simple pragmatism at work. That said, Dean does have a temper and has displayed it in public on several occasions (I’ve seen debate footage of him mouthing “Fuck you” while his eyebrows clenched as Gephardt asked him a question, for one example) - that also translates into electability if he blows up. Agreed that the front-loading of the primary schedule, small-d democratic principles aside, will make the winner of the first few the winner of most of them and therefore the nominee. There won’t be enough time for early losers to recover. But things can happen on a pretty compressed schedule if need be. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/116 "2003-10-26T03:07:51Z")
People complain about Bushs’ diplomacy, wait until Dean gets elected. NOt that I mind. I’d get a kick out of Dean telling Jacques Chirac to go jump in a lake. Or even better, make an “axis of FU” speech. Dean would say, “Iran? I hate their guts. Syria? I really think they suck. North Korea? Bite me, little man!” ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/117 "2003-10-27T17:37:45Z")
First Zogby poll of Georgia Democratic voters was released today: 39.1 % Undecided 13.1 % Wesley Clark 11.5 % Dick Gephardt 9.0 % Joseph Lieberman 7.4 % Howard Dean 5.4 % Carol Mosely Braun 4.9 % John Kerry 3.8 % John Edwards 3.3 % Al Sharpton 1.6 % Someone Else 0.8 % Dennis Kucinich [Full Results](http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/27bushpoll.html) Several interesting things there: It confirms that Wesley Clark has displaced John Edwards as “The Southern Candidate.” Looks like (even if he wins South Carolina) Edwards may have to pack it in early. The fact that Gephardt turns up at #2 and Lieberman at #3 suggests to me that a lot of this poll’s results are name recognition. (Those guys have the highest name recognition nationally). Every Democrat I talk to in these parts who is paying attention to the race favors either Clark or Dean. (Note the huge number of undecideds. I suspect few are paying attention.) Gephardt’s union support probably accounts to some extent for his strong showing (though Georgia is not a state with strong unions). Bad news for Democrats in this poll is that Bush still has strong support in Georgia. That’s not good, because Georgia has been a swing state in recent years; it went Democratic in '92 and Republican in '96 and '02. If Bush is strong in Georgia he will only be more so in other Southern states. Still a lot of time left before the polls open though… ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/118 "2003-10-27T18:26:16Z")
OK, **rjung** , **spoke-** (& **RTFirefly** ), here are some actual numbers, and they’re not what you’ve been claiming. [Gains in Wages Expected to Give Economy a Lift](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/business/27WAGE.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=) > [@](#): > > Wage increases for employees at almost all income levels are giving important and unexpected support to the nation’s economy. If the gains continue, they offer hope that the rapid economic expansion of recent months could prove more durable than other spurts of growth over the last two years. > > Forecasters expect the Commerce Department to say in its quarterly report on Thursday that the economy grew about 6 percent in the three-month period ending in September, which would be the fastest pace since 1999. Most of that growth stemmed from a sharp rise in consumer spending, driven largely by a continuing boom in mortgage refinancing and checks that were mailed out as part of the recent tax cut. > > With those forces receding and business spending still slack, the economy will depend increasingly on regular paychecks, analysts say. Hourly wages have already surprised most economists by growing more quickly than inflation since 2001 in spite of the worst decline in employment in 20 years. > [@](#): > > According to an analysis of Labor Department data by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington research group, hourly wages have increased more sharply than at any time since early 2002 — more than 2 percent, after being adjusted for inflation — for a median of about $14 an hour. > > Another government survey suggests that wage growth is falling but remains above the annual inflation rate, which is roughly 2 percent. Wage increases trailed inflation for long periods during the 1980’s and early 90’s. (Also, updated employment news: [Jobless Claims at Lowest Level Since April](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/business/24ECON.html)) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/119 "2003-10-29T21:31:00Z")
More news from [Politics1.com](http://Politics1.com) ([http://www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): > [@](#): > > SHARPTON SLAMS DEAN. Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean clearly rattled Rev. Al Sharpton’s Presidential campaign this week by winning the endorsement of Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL). Jackson is the son of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, a 1984 and 1988 Presidential candidate. Rev. Jackson is also viewed as a longtime rival of Sharpton within the civil rights movement. On Tuesday, Sharpton attacked Dean for promoting an “anti-black agenda.” In support of that allegation, Sharpton noted a 1995 Dean comment saying that Affirmative Action should look at class and not race so as to help all underprivileged people. Sharpton further noted Dean’s support for the death penalty and his pro-gun rights record. Sharpton also attacked Congressman Jackson: “Any so-called African American leader that would endorse Dean despite his anti-black record is mortgaging the future of our struggle for civil rights and social justice.” A Dean spokesman refused to directly engage Sharpton, and instead merely noted Dean “has always been a strong supporter of affirmative action.” Jackson’s spokesman responded by saying the Congressman supported Dean because Dean ''doesn’t put his finger in the air to test the wind before he takes a stand." ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438/120 "2003-10-29T22:46:51Z")
I’m not sure how that necessarily refutes what I’ve said, **Izzy**. Incomes may be up across the board, but that doesn’t tell us how many people are _under_-employed. Say I’m an engineer now flipping burgers at McDonalds. Pardon me for not getting to exciting about the fact that burger-flippers are making more than ever. If you want to debate the implications of your cites, may I suggest you start a separate thread rather than hijack this one? (By the way- if you’re waiting for me to root against a good economy, **Izzy** , it ain’t gonna happen. I hope the numbers bode well. Maybe they do. We just don’t have enough information.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/curious-who-do-dopers-think-will-win-the-democrat-nomination/202438.md?page=7)