It’s completely a moot question. Bush is an idiot and a lousy Prez., but unless the economy goes totally Herbert Hoover he’ll be re-elected regardless of what duo the Dems throw at him.
But then again:
I’ve warned the dumbass lefties about this before. Bush is NOT the friend to gun owners the NRA makes him out to be, but as long as there is a Republican congress he’ll be managagable.
Come up with a REAL pro gun candidate (one who supports handguns & “assault weapons”) and he’ll kick the shit out of Bush.
Even a Black, female, Jewish, lesbian, tax & spend, abortion rights candidate who unconditionally supported the 2nd Amendment could beat Georgie!
Surrender completely on the gun issue, and the White house is yours for a long, long time.
Don’t believe me??
Meet me back here circa June, 2004 (give or take a month).
When the “assault” weapons ban comes up for re-newal, you’re gonna see one motherfuckingofaGoddamnsonofabitch of a political fight.
The Presidential race hasn’t even begun! Just wait my friends!
When that law comes up for re-newal! You will all see politics like you have NEVER seen before!!!
I promise you!
19% of seniors support it. There will be cross over voters. They will be conservatives who don’t like big goverment.
And pkbites I agree with you on the gun issue. The only difference is while I think it would be good for democrats to go further than Bush simply being equal to him works as well. I like http://sierratimes.com/03/12/05/ar_carlworden.htm that article on the subject. And of course I think its easy to compare Bush to Herbert Hoover on the economy.
Clark has already stated that he will not run as Dean’s VP, which is just as well if you ask me.
I think Graham is the obvious choice; Edwards is also a possibility.
The only way Gore gets on the ticket is as the Presidential candidate in the event that nobody wins on the first ballot. He’d be a fool to run for a third term as Vice President.
Whatever he thinks, as long as he’s serious about appearing to run for President that’s what he has to say. Nobody ever declares they’re running for VP - that’s something you accept when the big prize is out of reach. Clark could still accept, and it wouldn’t be hard to explain acceptably.
pkbites, I doubt that hardcore anti gun control is as strong nationally as it may be in your part of the world, and that’s putting it mildly. I do think it won’t tip the balance for Dean either way.
You’re absolutely incorrect. You need to look at 1994 and 2000.
This is one of the Republicans strongest base issues. If the Democrats change positions they would gain more voters then they would lose because of it.
The point is not that liberals will cross over, but that some Democrats will. There are plenty of traditional Dem voters – Union hard hats, socially conservative African Americans – that already are somewhat ill-at-ease with the progressive elements of the Democratic party. You’re crazy if you think that a staunch anti-war ticket won’t lose votes among these groups. Hell, even Dean knows that they Dems can’t win elections as just the “liberal” party, as evidinced by his “confederate flag” comments.
And while PKBites seems a bit overstrident, I think he’s mostly correct … a lot of those factory workers hunt. As it is though, I thing the Dems are going to mostly avoid it. The big-city people and the true liberals will fight over it, but the guys from rural states will say/do nothing.
Um, what’s your point? In 2000 gun control was not a big issue (except for the people who view it as the only issue). In 1994 it may have been a big issue in certain races, but the Republican’s platform was built with economic issues as the central component. The NRA will endorse the Republican candidate even when the stances of the candidates on all gun issues are pretty similiar (they showed as much in 2000), there’s little to be gained for the Democrats by trying to wing farther pro-gun than bush, and there’s plenty to lose among those middle-class female voters.
What party will they cross over to? The small government Democratic party? Hey, I’m no fan of the way Bush has grown the government. But I think you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Republicans who beleive the Dems will shrink it.
Nonsense. The Democrats would overall gain many more voters than they lose by changing their stance. The Dems core voters of minorities and blue collar workers are not going to walk because of the issue. On the flip side, they have isolated many voters who may vote Democratic if it weren’t for one or two major issues, gun rights being one of them.
Pro-gun democrats seem to do very well over all. Except in a few places, gun control has begun to become a losing issue for the Dems.
I dissagree. After all can you argue that Bush has been that socially conservative? All Dean has to do is point out that even Cheney thinks that same sex marrage should be done by the states. I do think an anti-war ticket would lose votes, but an anti-Iraq war is more likely to gain votes.
I think you can count a smaller number who believe that Republicans will shrink it. You can count a much larger number who believe in govermental gridlock.
Jesus Christ! That bitch on the ticket is the only thing that would keep me from voting Democrat! I’d vote Libertarian instead.
She’s as bad as Bush – a lying shill for big business and the evil of corporate america. Eff her. You think Lieberman was a problem for Gore? Try a woman on the ticket. No way that flies, not in this country.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for women in politics. My theory has always been that we should elect the least effective politicians possible – that way they don’t do much. See, not much needs to be done, not really. Most of the ‘lawmaking’ is just so much legal masturbation. We don’t need more laws, we need fewer laws, better enforced.
I still think we should have a national lottery for the job. $100 a ticket, enter as often as you like. Take care of the national debt, and get a new president too. Couldn’t be worse than the idiot we have now, right?
No, but he’s said the right things to placate the base.
**
Maybe, but that’s the party’s whole problem; they haven’t had a coherent post-9/11 foreign policy to put up against W’s “remake the Middle East” plan. They’ve mumbled vaguely about “more diplomacy” and “involving the UN,” but that’s it. And at this point, it’s too late to go back on Iraq; better or worse, we’re in, we have to stay till it’s done. I think the Dems can win if Dean switches over and runs the same as Bush, or even to his right, on Iraq: “I had no part in getting us into this mess, but by God I’ll finish it.” I don’t think he’ll lose much of his base, and it’ll sell with centrists.
As I read awhile ago, his quick temper might actually help him: in 2003 many Americans probably WANT a president who can get pissed.
Dean’s VP? Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. Bayh is rather moderate, and from the midwest which may be close enough to the south to work for Dean. Even though he is moderate to conservative (for a democrat) he also has the legacy of his liberal icon father, Birch Bayh. Hopefully, this wouldn’t hurt the ticket too much.
Placate the base? To an extent. I would not, however, call unions and African Americans his base.
Well, yes Dean has said that. However I dissagree that Iraq will be a big election issue like that next year. Mostly because Bush can go for democratic elections in the middle of next year and be mostly out before the next election.
