Democratic Hopefuls in 2004

Great Debates
21

I tended to agree with the early CW that Dean was not electable but after watching him and reading about him I have changed my mind. He is very impressive and articulate and should do very well in the debates.

 He is also not that liberal. On Charlie Rose he had a good line that he was the real fiscal conservative because he had balanced budgets in Vermont (where the governor is not constitutionally required to do so).

 He seems keen to run a Bill Clinton Democrat on economic issues which is very smart thing to do IMO.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084178/
Here is Will Saletan ,who is a centrist, on Howard Dean:

"Dean is far and away the most interesting player in the race. Not since Clinton have Democrats seen a talent like this. Here’s Dean on the federal budget:

When Ronald Reagan came into office, he cut taxes, we had big deficits, and we lost 2 million jobs. When Bill Clinton came into office, he raised taxes without a single Republican vote; we balanced the budget; we gained 6 and a half million jobs. George Bush has already lost 2 and a half million. I want a balanced budget because that’s how you get jobs in this country is to balance the books. No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years. …You had better elect a Democrat, because the Republicans cannot handle money. … We’re the party of responsibility, and they’re not.

When you hear Dean talk like this, you wonder why no one else can make the party’s case so simply. If more Democrats spoke this way, maybe they’d control a branch of government."

As for his opposition to war I suspect it will be an asset in the primaries and maybe even the general election especially if significant quantities of WMD aren't found.

I think the Dems are making a big mistake if they think they can rely on a weak economy to beat Bush(not least because there could easily be some kind of recovery by next year). They need a coherent critique of his foreign policy as well. Dean ,along with Graham, are in the best position to do this.

In fact a Dean-Graham ticket could be very interesting for the Dems next year. Graham , with his Southern background and foreign policy experience, would be the perfect match for Dean.

22

The problem Dean could have, IMHO is his anti-war and pro-gay stance.

Many individuals are very pro-gay, but there has to be a reason that 37 states have voted for denying gay marriages.

And atm the general population still favors a strong defense and I don’t think they feel Dean would give them that.

But, who knows. a lot can happen if 2 years

23

I keep hearing that “Dean is a fiscal conservative”. Other than supporting balanced budgets, which is hardly a hallmark of conservatism these days, what does this mean? Does he oppose progressive taxation? Does he favor corporate welfare or deregulation? Does he oppose worker’s rights? What?

NOTE: I’m not trying to defend Dean from the canard of “fiscal conservative” or anything. I am interested in his positions rather than opinions of whether or not they constitute conservatism.

24

I’m intrigued by the possible candidacy of Gen. Wesley Clark.

I’ve read a fair bit about him but have yet to come across much about domestic policy. He makes a lot of sense when he contrasts his foriegn policy ideas with those of the Bush administration. He stresses the need to involve our allies in everything we do in the battle against terrorism. He argues that when a country has a stake in winning, it will fight harder to win. Backing that up, he points out that no elections in Europe currently hinge on a candidates support for the American led “war on terror.”

I don’t think the majority of Americans like this “go it alone” attitude. But I could be wrong.

As for the rest of the field…ugh.

Lieberman: Unelectable. Sorry, it’s superficial, but nobody that talks and looks that way can win. Also, he flipped on so many issues to run with Gore. Not a man of solid principle.

Kerry: So-so. Has the stature, record and is just moderate enought to win. But I don’t think he connects with the average citizen. The presidency is a popularity contest, no matter how gloomy that makes me feel.

Dean: No chance. I like him, but are guys like this ever nominated? He’ll be fun in the debates.

The others? Who cares?

25

The hell he can’t. Much or most of that fortune is now marital property, i.e., his money too (and Teresa isn’t going to argue if any of it might arguably be separate property). It’s quite well established that a candidate is legally entitled to spend as much of his own money money as he wants on his politicaly campaign. And the reason Dean is unelectable is that he is way, way to the left of the American mainstream. That stuff may sell to Naderites, but it won’t fly very far in the primaries and not at all in the general.

Elvis, not only did I think Clinton had a chance at this time in 1991, I was telling people that he would win both the nomination and the presidency. Put down the crack pipe, amigo. :wink:

26

By the way, you can check out Dean’s position statements. For yourself. While there’s an awful lot on there I agree with, he’s unabashedly left-wing, and those are the sanitized statements. I assure you, Dean would lose the election by 20 points if he runs on a platform of gay marriages, partial birth abortions, and socialized medicine.*
*Exaggerated because that’s how it would be sold by the Pubbies and received by swing voters.

27

And the thing about Dean is that his positions on the issues aren’t sanitized statements. He is actually unabashedly moderate and is only considered left wing because of his anti-war statements and the pro gay marrage thing.

28

This is the first thing that has given me any hope about the next election. Churchill lost that election.

29

Is that because, if he loses, you can hear him say “I’ll be back!”?

30

Precisely what I said.

And on Dean-as-moderate, you must surely be joking. The pro-gay marriage position, by itself, makes Dean entirely, completely, 100% unelectable. Tattoo a big ass “L” on his forehead, he’s done. (But good for him for raising the issue. Like I said, I’m with the guy on that one.)

But socialized medicine? War-under-no-circumstances? A social worker in every delivery room? Killin’ babies right up until they’re born?

Those are not the positions of a moderate.

31

I haven’t been paying attention to the runners yet.
I’d like to get some info from y’all though.

Who has the most money raised so far? Is that a good indication of money-raising ability or not this early?

I was barely old enough to vote in 1992, did Ross Perot take the Presidency away from GB1? I thought I remember Clinton not receiving even close to a majority, though I never saw numbers on which way Perot voters would have voted otherwise.
-k

32

FWIW, I signed up for the e-mail information from the Dean campaign (it’s on the Dean website) and get nicely formatted, brief and to-the-point e-mails about twice a week regarding Dean’s stand on the issues and where there will be Dean meetings in my area.

The one problem I have with his site is that the sign-up for volunteers produces no results – signing up twice and a direct e-mail to one of his top staffers have resulted in no response.

If anybody knows anyone actively involved in the Dean campaign, let them know they have a strong supporter who will give some volunteer time, or, if they still have paid positions open (they did when I signed up), is not actively employed and will work cheap and devotedly.

33

Well for example while Dean may be slightly behind kerry in New Hampshire he actually beat Kerry in South Carolina as far as polls go. I think it goes without saying that the Democrats in South Carolina are more conservative than Democrats in New Hampshire.

For gay marrage goes that really only pisses off people who would never ever vote for a democrat. His healthcare plan is about a third of the cost of Gephardt’s. He was against the Iraq war, but he is definately not a pacifist.

As far as partial birth abortions go the only difference between Dean and Republicans is that Dean claims that third trimester abortions are very rare. Not even Republican’s are pro-life at the expense of the mother.

34

While those are lovely rationalizations–indeed, I personally share one or two of those beliefs–they still don’t make Dean a moderate.

McGovern : Nixon :: Dean : Bush

35

Alright. One thing though minty green other than the Iraq war on which one of those positions would Kerry dissagree with Dean?

36

Dean supports gay civil union not gay marriage. I don’t think that is a big vote-loser. In general he is liberal on social issues but I don’t think social issues will be at all important in 2004 compared to foreign policy and the economy.

Iraq may like look a liability for Dean now but I doubt it will one year from now. The memory of victory will have faded while there will probably still be a messy and expensive occupation along with questions about intelligence failures. A skillful candidate will be able to argue that the war on Iraq was a unnecessary distraction from the war on terror. Once again I think it’s important that the Dems offer a coherent alternative on foreign policy instead of just giving this issue up to Bush and hoping that the economy remains sluggish.

What Dean has going for him is that he is the most forceful and articulate of the candidates from what I have seen. I tend to think that many swing voters aren’t commited centrists per se but people who aren’t sure of their positions and look at fuzzier factors like personality when making their decisions.

37

As far as I can tell, all of them. Only a loser runs on a platform of partial birth abortion; a winner runs on a pro-choice platform. A loser runs on universal health care; a winner runs on HMO reform and expanding access to health care. Etc.

38

Well. Howard dean is running on a healthcare plan that costs $88 billion. Kerry is running on one that costs $72 billion. As far as partial birth abortion goes
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/030318PW.asp

He also voted against bans on it repeatedly.

39

Whoever the nominee is, he needs to make a clear difference between himself and Bush on an issue, an issue which the public will agree with HIM on.
My guess would be the environment.

40

minty, a candidate doesn’t have to be objectively moderate, he just has to look moderate by comparison to the alternatives. Bush did in the 2000 primaries, and Dean will in 2004. A touch of reasonable progressiveness with a spine is also attractive - hell, the spine itself is attractive. Perhaps he has no chance of winning in Texas (screw it, no perhaps about it), but don’t let your local atmosphere color your judgment of national attitudes, of which Texans’ are not representative.

You might also notice that he’s already polling about even with Kerry for the lead in NH and, I believe, Iowa, even without much of a campaign operation yet.

Want a hit off that crack pipe?