More news from Politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com):
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 (coughGovernor Ahnuldcough).
So, Dopers, who’s got Elvis, who don’t?
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/ Nixon_Mojo/Elvis_Is_Everywhere/ )
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”.
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.
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…
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.
More news from Politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com):
Posted by ElvisL1ves:
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!”
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.
More news from Politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com):
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.
More news from Politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com):
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!”
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
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…
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
(Also, updated employment news: Jobless Claims at Lowest Level Since April)
More news from Politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com):
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.)