'Tis true. I have become the Democratic Cassandra of the SDMB.
(But you know, Cassandra was right…)
Ok, I keep seeing on here that Kerry is ‘too liberal’ for this or that.
Can someone explain to me how he is ‘too liberal’?
Maybe its just the fact that I live in the bay area, Cal, but if you think Kerry is far to the left, you dont know what the left is. The man is a moderate, and looking at his voting record I dont really see all that many areas where he voted the most liberal way, or even the more liberal way.
So please, point out to me where this ‘too liberal’ thing comes from; not any speeches he’s given or words he’s said, but actual senate voting patterns.
He has consistantly voted for free trade - no longer a liberal thing by any standpoint. He’s the only dem candidate that I know of who doesnt want to get rid of or retool NAFTA.
He voted for and still supports Clintons welfare to work, which many on the left revile.
Sure, he is more liberal in some areas, namely farm subsidies, but on the whole the guy can be described only as a moderate.
Im just not sure what this too liberal thing is based on, if not words, which are of course meaningless; he’s a politician. Of course he’s gong to talk liberal; the dems are very close to fragmentation, as are the repubs. Bush is a stopgap for now; Clinton was a stopgap, now the dems need someone to pull it together and mollify their more immature members, so he’s going to spout more-liberal-than-his-voting-record-bears-out rhetoric. If he cant do it, the dems are going to continue on their road of fragmentation.
If anything, the man is very much like Clinton in his policies, and believe it or not Clinton wasnt all that liberal in a great many areas. Kerry is one of the New Democrats like Clinton was and is, which is basically a euphamism for left-leaning Libertarian.
I think we need to define what “non-moderate” is and if Kerry truly is one. To put his chances in perspective, you need to look at the dynamics of the Democratic disaters:
1972: McGovern vs. Nixon McGoven paid a price for being a 60s kind of guy just when the country was starting to put the 60s behind it. Nixon told us peace was at hand and other than the unpopular war, things really weren’t that bad in the US in 1972. Nixon was a safe bet, a known quantity. Kerry ain’t McGovern, he isn’t nearly as far to the left and does have military credentials. Bush ain’t Nixon, who unquestionably was in charge of his administration and was, at the very least, competent in foreign policy. There was not nearly the dissatisfaction with the direction of the country in 1972 as there is today.
1984: Mondale vs. Reagan Reagan was everybody’s favorite uncle- we all knew that the attic was a bit dusty but nobody seemed to mind much. Mondale made the mistake of saying he would raise taxes. Not that it wouldn’t have been appropriate as the national debt was beginning to spiral out of control, but one never runs for any office by promoting a general tax increase. Again in 1984, most people felt pretty good about the direction of the country. Kerry ain’t Mondale, he isn’t stupid enough to tip off intentions to raise taxes. And Bush ain’t Reagan- NOBODY is ever going to be as liked as Reagan was personally. Reagan’s Teflon is in contrast to Bush’s Velcro.
1988: Dukakis vs. Bush The worst nominee in Democratic history vs. just about the most polished resume for a presidential candidate. The silly tank photo op sealed his fate, plus Dukakis simply didn’t want the job badly enough to fight for it. That Kerry ain’t Dukakis goes without saying- Kerry can and will return fire when the Republicans start the attack. And Bush ain’t his father. Winning a justified war with Iraq did not help Bush I, starting Vietnam II is going to help Bush II even less.
Look at the southern primaries to date this year- Kerry has done much better against southerners Clark and Edwards than Kennedy did against Carter in 1980 and that Tsongas did against Clinton in 1992. While a northern Democrat may step up to the plate with two strikes, there is no reason that a Yankee can’t win. It just has to be the right Yankee. Kerry may be that Yankee.
BobLibDem, I’ve a small quibble. It’s minor and only tangentially consequential, but (as elucidator says) (often) that’s the trouble with quibbles.
You may be unaware that George McGovern flew 35 combat missions over Germany in WWII as a bomber pilot, and that he, like Kerry, cited his past service as a qualification in his campaign (and to add weight to his opposition to our presence in Vietnam). The combat veteran part of Kerry’s resume is no guarantee that he’ll be compared favorably to Bush, any more than it helped McGovern against Nixon.
I agree with your analysis otherwise, though.
Evil One’s statistical analysis needs a little work. The political makeup of the U.S. is hardly 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Pub, and 1/2 Ind, nor is it even 1/3 lib, 1/3 con, 1/3 mod. The “Great Uniter” GWB has done an excellent job of polarizing the nation, and as a result the “middle” has been a steadily and significantly decreasing constituency.
This election will hardly be about a candidate hooking “swing” voters, and more publications than I can number have said similar things. This election will be about who can most effectively get their core supporters off their asses and headed to the voting booth.
To that end, I think the advantage clearly goes to the Democratic candidate. It will likely be Kerry, but to be honest, it could be Joe Schmoe and he’d still beat Dubya.
The reason’s are many:
-
Democratic anger has festered for four solid years without letup. Nothing motivates voter turnout like anger. In contrast, solid majorities in Congress, which is the real reason rich white fat cat Republicans are rolling in it these days, will reduce the Republican electorate’s impetus to drive their $70,000 cars to the polling places. They are fat and sassy, not angry. Luxury = complacency.
-
The highest percentage of unemployed persons in the U.S. are from demographic sectors far more likely to vote Democratic - blacks, Hispanics, the urban poor. Guess what - nothing motivates voter turnout like not having a job.
-
The spirited Democratic primary process. Due to the large number of candidates, press coverage has far more widespread and lasted longer than previous elections. Imagine it - NINE PEOPLE pounding on Dubya, day in, day out, for months on end. When was the last time an incumbent’s State of the Union coverage got second-paged by a stump speech by Al Sharpton? (hyperbole, I know, but you get my point)
-
The spirited Democratic primary process. Besides press coverage, the other benefit of the primary has been an unprecedented level of organization literally on the ground on a national scale. More volunteers, more coordination, more visibility, and also more available technologies. Can’t see Karl Rove running a MeetUp, can you? The Bushies are already 8-10 months behind on technology and infrastructure.
-
Non-party-related organizations. Campaign finance reform will not stop Soros and similarly motivated individuals from taking their whacks at the incumbent. And they won’t even care if they’re not ideologically motivated. Nor will they care who the Dem candidate is. All that matters to them is the Dubya be shown the door. Kerry’s war chest may not equal GWB’s, but I’d wager the anti-Bush establishment in general will be competitive in overall spending.
-
Conservative angst. Highly motivated Republicans, meaning those with deep resentment against liberal values or deep fear of losing a corporate-ass-kissing administration, will surely make it to the polls. But the ideological faithful are more likely to sit this one out and wait for the next train. The Bush record on “conservatism” is miserable - entitlements, deficits, free trade, etc. The only thing he’s really done is cut taxes, and with a Republican Congress, the beneficiaries of those cuts are safe. They just won’t give enough of a damn to go vote. And the Christian right, hell, they might even vote third party just for spite. Kind of a reverse-Nader effect. I see David Duke is back in the news…
-
The facts. Like any job interview, there are simply not enough positive accomplishments on the Bush resume to warrant being hired over the other applicants for the job. Not to mention that the references from this particular applicant’s previous employer (i.e. the American people) will hardly be glowing.
All that said, I will make one prediction (since this is a prediction thread):
Dubya will try to pull a rabbit out of his ass by dropping Dick Cheney and picking up a new Veep candidate. It will be publicized as a “renewal” of the administration through some young blood, but it will be interpreted as an admission that a) George doesn’t tie his own shoelaces; and b) corporate interests are grossly overrepresented in policy decisions. The surprise tactic will ultimately backfire, mostly because the most logical choice for the job is Colin Powell, but the neoconservative elements in the halls of power will not allow it. Instead they will push for someone more ideologically reliable, and hence less acceptable to the electorate (a Zell Miller/Katherine Harris type, willing to toe the Party line).
Thank you very much, xenophon41. I feel like such a dolt. Damn, should have researced McGovern’s military background first. Damn. I apologize profusely to Mr. McGovern.
[tangent]
BobLibDem, as a long-suffering Red Sox backer, I am pained by your reference to “Yankee” in a baseball analogy. I implore you to desist forthwith.
[/tangent]
FWIW, I’m also a Yankee fan. And “long-suffering” and “Red Sox backer” seems redundant. But OK, let’s substitute “Northerner” for “Yankee”. End of tangent.
Always good to see a man make an unambiguous prediction. Two quibbles:
-
You’re not ‘first’. It’s been some months since Bricker and Jonathan Chance bet a bottle of good Scotch on the outcome of the election. (Bricker was kind enough to make a similar bet with me (Scotch v. champagne, in our bet) after I recently expressed my readiness to do so in this thread.)
-
“Over 300 electoral votes” for the winning candidate isn’t as impressive as it sounds. When Truman beat Dewey, despite headlines to the contrary, he won 303 electoral votes, as did JFK in his 111,000-vote win over Nixon. When Nixon beat Humphrey by about 1% of the vote, he got 301 electoral votes. Carter with 297 electoral votes in 1976 (another squeaker) and Bush in 2000 were the only winners since WWI to get fewer than 300.
Yeah, have some cojones and predict 400+.
I go offline for a few days and things fall apart here!
So here I am…now voting in a swing state. Fear me.
Wes Clark has endorsed John Kerry. And quickly.
Poll for the day…
Does this mean Wes Clark will be SecDef? SecState?
Does this mean he’ll run for Governor of Arkansas with support from Kerry?
Is there some sort of payoff and we just don’t know what it is yet?
Let’s hear from you!
??? What’s new with David Duke? I checked out his personal website – http://www.duke.org/ – and there’s nothing in it about his running for president this year. Anyway, while Duke would identify himself as a Christian I don’t think he really represents, or appeals to, the “Christian right.” He represents the white-supremacist right, which is distinct from the Christian social-conservative right although there is sure to be some overlap between the two groups. (In political terms, the white-supremacist right would be best represented by the American Nazi Party (http://www.americannaziparty.com/), with which Duke has a long history although I’m not sure whether he’s still a member; and the Knights’ Party, which is a Ku Klux Klan vehicle. Politics1.com gives the Knights’ Party’s url as http://www.kkk.com/ but at the moment the link is dead, which might be a good sign.)
But there is a possibility that Judge “Ten Commandments” Roy Moore, who does represent the Christian social-conservative right, will run on the Constitution Party ticket – in fact, we’ve got another GD thread going on that – see http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=239812.
Then there’s Pat Buchanan, who represents the nativist-isolationist right – again, distinct from both the white supremacists and the Christian conservatives although there is, again, some overlap. Buchanan’s party is the America First Party, http://www.americafirstparty.org/. Now there’s a third-party challenge I’d really like to see happen! If I were GWB, I would quake in my loafers at the prospect of a Buchanan candidacy! Buchanan represents practically everything about old-school American conservatism that Bush has turned his back on: anti-war isolationism, anti-immigration nativism, small government, decentralized government, and fiscal conservatism. If he ran for president, American paleoconservatives would finally have a reason to go to the polls, and it would not be to vote for Bush!
But even without any third-party challenge from the right – and even if Nader does go ahead and mount an independent challenge from the left – I still think the Democrat can take GWB this year, for the reasons enumerated by BobLibDem.
Two more predictions I will confidently make: This will be the bitterest, most divisive, highly charged, hotly contested election than 1972; and it will be almost as close as it was in 2000.
Not to Godwinize, but people should be aware that the name of the America First Party has strong… historical connections to a specific isolationist movement, and Buchanan is, if I recall correctly, the son of a prominent member of the WWII organization. The recent version was founded in 2002, but the original dates to 1940.
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/America-First-Party-(1940).htm
http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/history/abouttheparty.shtml
I can’t find a cite on William Baldwin Buchanan, but I seem to recall it.
I’ve got a prediction that I’m willing to put some money behind, if anyone on the other side is interested:
If the 2004 election turns out to be a landslide, it will be a Democratic landslide, not a GOP landslide.
I don’t know what your definition of a ‘landslide’ is: a win with at least 55% of the popular vote? 60%? Somewhere in between? So here’s what I propose:
You pick a number X between 55 and 60, inclusive. If the Republican Presidential candidate (almost certainly Bush, of course) wins with at least X% of the vote, you win the bet; if the Democratic Presidential candidate wins with at least X% of the vote, then I win the bet. If neither candidate gets X% of the vote, it’s a wash.
Anyone want a piece of this?
Is it too early to predict Brittney Spears 2008?
Not I, RT. You know which side of the coin I’m backing.
Smart money’s with me, folks. Get your tickets early!
Indeed I do! And you were the first here to “put your money where your mouth is,” as the elementary school phrase goes, on the Dem side. Compared to you, I’m a Johnny-come-lately.
Considering she won’t be 35 in 2008 (I think, and there is no way I’m going to go look it up), then yes.
Right, then!
Poll question:
Will Edwards carry a state on Super Tuesday? If so which one?
If he DOESN’T carry any (or even if he does) will he do well enough to stay in the race or will he drop out…effectively leaving the field to Kerry and leaving our next big stop in the predictions department who he chooses for veep?
Let’s hear you, kids!
Zogby has Kerry ahead in Georgia at the moment, but notes fast movement toward Edwards and predicts Georgia will break for Edwards. I’m inclined to agree, based on conversations with friends here of all political stripes.
So Edwards will win Georgia, and, as in Wisconsin, will get a late surge in some of the other states. Not enough to win any of the others, I fear, but he may get a stronger-than-expected second-place showing.
Edwards will stay in the race at least through the following Tuesday, when Texas, Mississippi, Florida and (I think) Louisiana (?) vote.
The question of the moment is, though, will Kerry consider Edwards for VP? 2008-2012, Edwards is Your Democrat To Run. No question about it. Not this year. But is Kerry too against Edwards to take him as VP?