I'm analyzing 2004 Democratic Presidential candidates, come on in and join the party!

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’ve seen a lot of GD and GQ threads on this topic, but it’s about time somebody put it all into one thread so people can discuss this without another issue dominating the thread. So, without further ado, here’s my $.02 [sort of in order of likeliness to run]:

Gov. Howard Dean, Vermont: He’s first because he’s the only major announced candidate (exploratory committees count). I really like his views on the issues. I bet a lot of Dopers would too considering what I’ve seen in GQ (and sometimes participated in). He’s pro-gay marriage, pro-gun and a fiscal conservative. He’s going to try to make a nationwide healthcare plan (he’s a former MD) and has done well in Vermont electorally. Still, he’s from one of the smallest states in the nation and thus doesn’t have a big base of support. Also, the gay marriage proposal won’t win him votes nationwide, but his pro-gun stance could allay some fears of him being a Northern liberal. If Joe Lieberman is out of the race by the time of the Connecticut primary and Dean is looking strong I could vote for Mr. Dean. He could do well early, he’s spending a lot of time in Iowa, where his pro-gun stance will do him well with their conservative brand of Democrats, then he jets over to NH where he’s from a neighboring state (one closer in style to the state than MA or CT, where other candidates could come from). If he can win votes in SC, watch out.

Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts: Another Massachusetts liberal. You’d think we’d have learned by now. He has two things going for him, though. He’s a former vet, he won a Silver Star so he’s not an Al Gore type vet either, and he can bankroll his campaign (his wife is the heiress to the Heinz Ketchup fortune). This means Dems would be able to spend a lot more money elsewhere if he decides to self-finance. Still, he was Mike Dukakis’s Lt. Gov before he became Senator, and you know Republicans are salivating so much over that their polo shirts are saturated with drool. He’d have a strong liberal base, but the first few states aren’t to friendly to people on the far left and we might have wised up after the Dukakis debacle. No way I’d vote for him.

Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina: A rising star in the party, he’s charming, good-looking, moderate and can’t be labeled a career politician (he has run in a total of one race, the 1998 Senate contest in which he beat Lauch Faircloth, a poor man’s Jesse Helms, 55-44). Still, he’s green and doesn’t have a lot of gravitas. However, you have to give a guy who beat an incumbent Senator 55-44, 12 points better than Al Gore the following year. If he can gain traction in IA and not get rocked in NH, he should win the SC primary and gain access to a large donor base for the upcoming Super Tuesday primaries (that’s an approximate schedule, it’ll be known for sure by the end of the year). If he can get to that point he could have the nomination wrapped up.

Rep. Dick Gephardt, Missouri: Unions are really excited about his candidacy. I’m not. He’s duplicitous (he went from arch-conservative to neo-liberal to ultra-liberal during his career in the House), incompetent (where’s that House majority you promised, Dick?), and every single president has had eyebrows, whereas Dick doesn’t. Unfortunately, he’ll run strong in Iowa (he has a strong infrastructure there from his 1988 caucus win and it’s right next door) and has a good name recognition. I’m just hoping voters see that he’s an empty suit. Plus he doesn’t have much appeal to moderates and independents in a general. GOPers should be praying for him to win.

Former VP Al Gore, Tennessee: Nearly worthy of his own thread. He seems to be leaning toward a run, with his remarks on how he would do it if he did it all over again in the press a few weeks ago, and his local work in Tennessee (he might want to avoid that embarassment again) one could conclude he wants a rematch. Cmkeller said in another thread that, if Bush really screws up, he could run with the slogan “I told you so.” Pretty powerful. He’d have a lot of support from the minority and the “we wuz robbed” contingents of the party. He also has the name recognition. I don’t know what to think of him, he ran a crappy campaign but he was a good VP and he’s probably ideologically closer to me than Kerry or Gephardt. I bet he’ll get a few comments.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut: My junior senator (Chris Dodd likes to emphasize that). I’d stand a chance of getting a WH internship if he wins (I’ve got connections) and I’m probably ideologically aligned with him the most save Dean. He’s a moderate who can raise a shitload of money (he’s a Jew, he’s pro-business, he’s between Boston and NY and he’s run nationally before). He has the name recognition that would help him early on. He also has part of the “we wuz robbed” camp in his pocket. He probably has the most appeal to “cubicle dads,” which some Dems have said will be the key constituency in 2004. Still, his pro-business views could hurt him in the wake of these corporate scandals, and ostensibly he won’t run if Gore does. Still, I’m voting for him and rooting for him.

Those are the guys who’ve been making the rounds in the early primary states. There are others like Tom Daschle (enjoys being Majority Leader and doesn’t have the fire in his belly), Hillary Clinton (knows people hate her nationwide), Roy Barnes (would probably only do well if Edwards takes away his Southern base) and Gray Davis (only going to be reelected because people hate him less than the other guy). So what do y’all think?

I’m definitely going to paste this on Wordpad, those bastard hamsters aren’t going to destroy this.

2

I have a sneaking suspicion that George W. Bush might run on the Republican side. Anybody else who might run from that side?

3

If there are any smart republicans left, they ought to put up a challenger…

to Mr. B.K. Burger - Of your list, I don’t think Kerry, Gephardt or Leiberman have a chance in hell. Dean’s interesting, but I don’t know what kind of money he can pull together. I’d have to say 50-50 at this point between Gore and Edwards as the final candidate. But, as has been mentioned, I think Gore only works if Bush’s approval ratings slip a lot more than they already are.

It’d be interesting though - Gore vs Bush again. You’d have to think it would either be a landslide for one of them or another teeth puller - I don’t think it would be a “normal” election (whatever that is anymore)

4

Well considering the Gore’s just bought a house here in Belle Meade, Tennessee (the rich part of Nashville), and Gore headquarters are in Nashville, I’d say the odds he’s gearing up to run are very high. I honestly don’t know how a re-match would go. I think it is a disaster waiting to happen.

I don’t like guns, but I am not naive enough to believe a gun control candidate could win, so perhaps Governor Dean would be a good choice. I’m going to keep my eye on him.

5

John Edward has to be the most annoying ‘personality’ this side of Emeril Lagasse. I mean give me a 30 minute interview and a family album, and I could tell what you Aunt Pearl (1903-1989) is up to in…

oops (lame premise)

Actually I think, barring scandal, Edwards is probably the ‘One’ the Demo establishment really wants to run. Gore may have gotten a bum deal in 2000, but he’s still yesterday’s man.

6

Would the Democratic Party be stupid enough to give Gore a second chance?

Why would they put up millions again for a man who couldn’t win the first time around?

shrug No matter to me, I’m voting for Bush.

Again.

7

My prediction: Gore will be the nominee. It’s still early, of course.

The guy isn’t just thinking of running, he IS running. He’s showing up all over the place again, and wow, it’s a NEW Al Gore. Unscripted, unhandled, he’s going to stop worrying what his advisors think and just “let 'er rip”.

That’s exactly what his advisors told him to say, of course. (-:

8

While I think Big Al got a raw deal on a number of counts, I hope the Dems can find a way to gently step away from him. After all, the election was his to lose in 2000 and lose it he did. And no matter how much he try’s to wash it away or cover it up with cheap cologne, the stench of Clinton is going to be on him everywhere he goes.

As for Dean, another advantage he has is, as a Governor, he can run as an outsider “against Washington”, always a winning tactic.

9

The Washington Monthly thinks Gore blew it by abandoning his signature issue - the environment - in 2000. I think they have a point. But it isn’t like Gore’s come on all that strong on the environment in his speeches this year.

My take on Gephardt’s move to the left is that it has taken place over enough time to be regarded as a willingness to grow and change. When a guy sells out all his alleged ideals in the space of a few days, as George H.W. Bush (who coined the phrase “voodoo economics”) did in order to get on Reagan’s ticket, then you know he’s a ****ing hypocrite who will kiss any ass he needs to, to get where he’s trying to go.

Gephardt was never an arch-conservative, though he certainly started off conservative by Democratic standards. (He used to be on the pro-life side of the abortion issue, but that was long ago now.)

IF Gore can take some strong stands, and exude some fire this time around, I’d be all for letting him take a second shot. I’ve been pretty disturbed by the Democrats’ tendency to disown their losing candidates simply for committing the sin of losing.

It’s obvious that Gore accurately represents his party on the issues, and would be a knowledgeable President if he got there. That’s a lot to toss overboard in advance until we’re sure he can’t do a better job of selling himself and the party’s positions in 2004.

I’d hate for one of the relative unknowns (Dean, Edwards, etc.) to pull a Carter and win the nomination on their first run. I prefer a President with enough of a track record at the national level to not be able to fool people into believing he’s something different than what he is (regardless of party affiliation), and enough experience in national politics so he doesn’t need extensive on-the-job training.

FWIW, I think Dubya would have been the Republicans’ Jimmy Carter if it hadn’t been for 9/11.

One hopes Gray Davis has the sense not to run for President. Even after what we’ve learned about how Enron and other companies scammed California’s energy crisis into existence, he’s still unquestionably not the man.

Hillary’s not going to run in 2004. She is that smart. She’s going to work hard for the people of New York, build up a track record of her own to run on, and see where that puts her as 2008 approaches.

Who’s Roy Barnes?

10

A couple of observations:

The reasoning behind Gore running again is that he’s already won once, and he could do it again. The problem with this logic is that he probably wouldn’t win again this time.

Part of the problem with Kerry’s candidacy has been displayed on this board. In spite of the fact that he is actually a moderate, centrist Democrat (part of the New Democrat Coalition), he is perceived to be a liberal based on geography. The poor guy could paint a Hitler mustache on his face and marry Nancy Reagan, but he’ll never escape the comparisons to Dukakis, Tsongus and other Massachusetts liberals. He’d like to be compared to the War Hero Senator John F. Kennedy, but he’s more likely to be compared to his colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy.

I do like Dean because he could run from the “outsider” perspective, is a solid conservative Democrat that would appeal to swing voters across the country. He’s also got a strong record on health care, which will be a big issue in 2004. His solution is far from the jumbo-national health care plan of Hillary and could be embraced by a far larger portion of the electorate. However, he lacks a lot of name recognition and will probably not gain a lot of traction out of New England.

I think that Lieberman and Gephart would just be wasting our time.

Edwards, on the other hand, is the best hope. To win the election, you’ve got to win some southern states. Kerry, Dean and the like are not going to do that. His down-to-earth style is engaging and articulate and the perfect antidote to Bush’s mumblings. You put orators and debaters like Gore or Kerry up against Bush and they look like snobs. Edwards would be a real shot to Bush’s gut, since he too is a newcomer. He made his fortune by suing big evil corporations. The best scenario is an Edwards-Dean ticket to run from the outside - put health care at the center and highlight the fact that Bush hasn’t accomplished much during his 4 years in office.

11

I missread. You don’t mean that he can raise a shitload of money because he’s Jewish, right? You mean other Jews will be inclined to vote for him, right?
-CP
Paranoid?!?!
WHO SAID THAT?

12

CP: Maybe you should unwrap those cigars before you smoke them. Bottom line is Jews form a massive donor base in the DP, and Lieberman (for obvious reasons) is a big hit among them, even though he’s to the right of many of them.

Broodha: The Senate New Democratic Coalition (and the House one to a lesser degree) doesn’t require people to be moderates to join, they can just say they are. That’s what Kerry is doing. Believe me, I worked for the DLC, Kerry’s not seen as a moderate there.

RTFirefly: Yes, Gephardt was THAT conservative. He actually spoke to the Conservative Citizen’s Council, which, if you didn’t already know, is sort of like the KKK sans white hoods. His abrupt policy changes are mostly due to what’s best for him. He became a social liberal so he could run in 1988. He abandoned free trade when he needed AFL-CIO help. I don’t have much respect for him. Oh, and Roy Barnes is the moderate governor of Georgia. He’s actually got the second-biggest state of any Democratic governor (Davis being first–but Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania are looking good in '02). But right now he doesn’t really have a base, unless Dean or Edwards drops out. It should be noted that he has raised 11 million dollars so far this year for his gubenatorial race, party insiders like those numbers.

Sam Stone: While I agree he’s leaning toward a run, I just don’t think the current conditions play into his hands to become nominee. If the economy’s really in the toilet in early 2004, watch for him to break out the “I told you so” catch line, which would gain him votes. But look at the support he has on these boards from rank and file Dems. All the big special-interest groups will be looking elsewhere too. It’s too early to tell if he’ll win, but he’ll probably run.

TVGuy: Gephardt has union support. Kerry has his own money and liberal activists on his side. Lieberman could get the party infrastructure and business interests on his side too. All would be powerful candidates. Right now they’re all more formidable than Dean.

13

Cigars?

14

I’m afraid that Gore has too much history behind him to win (failed attempt when he pinned everything on Super Tuesday, then being tarred with the brush of Clinton’s indescretions, then the failed run in 2000). Of course, Nixon came back in '68 after he said “Gentlemen, you won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” and swearing off public office, so who can say what’ll will happen between now and then.

I like Kerry, but agree that he’s a liberal in centrist clothing (and I say more power to him if it works - I’m just afraid that it won’t). His war experience, Senate experience, and…gravitas (ugh! sorry, but the man looks and carrys himself like a President)…all work in his favor. His geography and left-of-center beliefs won’t hold up under the weight of middle-America (and I include the conservative South in that camp).

Surely we can do better than Gephardt. To me he smacks of political opportunist who changes according to the prevailing wind. Like Gertrude Stein’s description of Oakland, California, “there is no ‘there’ there.”

Lieberman. Perhaps as the VP candidate again (if he’d take it). I just don’t see the Dems running a Jewish candidate from Connecticutt for President of the United States. I don’t believe Lieberman can carry the ticket to a win, and I don’t believe the rank and file (at least not the rank and file where I’m from (Virginia)) are willing to take that chance.

I think Edwards is going to make a strong showing. You’ve got to carry some of the South and Edwards is in the position to do so (with the help of Barnes withdrawing - too many Americans are going to say "Didn’t we elect a Georgia governor President of the US once before?).

15

As a right-winger and (generally) Republican loyalist, I’m sort of inclined to let the Dems debate the favorite candidates here. But I thought I’d toss in a wild card here. This may sound a bit outlandish, but the personality in question is just the type to do a thing like this.

I’d say there’s a 50% chance that John McCain will switch over to the Democrats and seek the Presidential nomination.

Why do I say this? Because the man is an egomaniac, who thinks he should be President. And he KNOWS there’s no chance of his getting the Republican nomination in 2004. So, if he wants to run for President as a Republican, he’ll have to wait until 2008, when he’ll be viewed as too old for the job. So, logic dictates that if he wants to be President, he has to run as a Democrat.

And besides, he LOATHES George W. Bush, and would love the idea of sticking it to him.

Will he run? I don’t know… but he’s already proven to most Republicans that he has no conservative principles that he isn’t willing to jettison to curry favor with the press. And every TV appearance he makes convinces me all the more that he’s planning to run for President again. And I don’t see him waiting til 2008.

Now (humor me), if he ran, could he win? I say no. In fact, if McCain is arrogant and foolish enough to do it, he’ll quickly learn that his well-wishers in the media and in the Democratic Party aren’t really his friends. His formerly conservative record in the Senate will come back to haunt him, and he’ll be bludgeoned by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, AND by many of the fawning reporters he thinks actually like him.

16

Well, I’ve got to admit that I’m pretty excited about Howard Dean’s run for the nomination. Having lived in his state, I’ve got a lot of respect for the man, and feel that he has all the things going for him that Big Kahuna Burger mentioned.

However, I also think it’s going to take a hell of a lot of work for him to actually get on the ticket, as VT is pretty small and relatively unknown. Perhaps, though, recent civil-union legislation (gay marriage) and Jim Jefford’s leaving the Republican party giving control of the Judiciary to Pat Leahy “put us on the political map” so to speak, giving Dean more recognition.

17

plnnr: I like the quote pertaining to Gephardt. However, it should be noted that nobody said “Didn’t we elect a Bush as President of the US once before?” At least, not enough people. And your own Mark Warner is from Vernon, Connecticut, so don’t underestimate us Nutmeggers.

astorian: McCain is also very dynamic in his views on the issues (he went to the left on gun control and health care too, who says abortion, the environment or labor isn’t next?) and we Dems know how good a candidate he’d be in a general, so if he promises to uphold Roe v. Wade and give token concessions to other special interest groups he could gather support. However, I’d take you on a bet at those odds for him switching. He’s still well to the right of the party, and he might want to go out gracefully in 2004 rather than have a last, possibly futile, grasp at the presidency.

18

Good point, Big Kahuna Burger, on the New Dems. I still think Kerry is less liberal than people give him credit for, but agree that he’s really a liberal in centrist clothing.

Did anyone see Howard Dean on Meet the Press on Sunday? I thought Russert put him through the ringer, but he stood up pretty well. He’s not a major leaguer yet, and I think Russert held off a bit. He’ll definitely get better with practice.

I’m afraid that all people will talk about with him are:

  • “universal health care”
  • “gay marriage”
  • “pro-NRA”

Without looking at the details of his position, I think these catch phrases could be distracting.

I’m still betting on Edwards, but looking for Dean to be on the ticket…

19

Interesting idea, astorian.

I’ll say this for McCain: He’s the only potential Democratic candidate other than perhaps Edwards and Barnes who’d be a threat to take away Southern states from Bush. And taking Southern states out of the Republican column is the name of the game in presidential politics.

20

As a Libertarian, I don’t really get to discuss my party’s candidates since there never really is much interesting to discuss. So I’ll toss a couple idea in here…

Gephardt…as a resident of Missouri, let me say this…I don’t even think he’d win his home state. There is alot of anti-St.Louis sentiment throughout the rural portions of the state, the perception being that St. Louis sucks up alot of the state’s funding and squanders it. Latest example is the proposed new stadium for the Cardinals, which depending on the particular funding plan is opposed by 60-85% of people outside St. Louis. About 100 counties in this state go conservative, and KC, St. Louis, and Columbia (roughly 10 counties) go hardline Democrat. It works out that this gives about a 50-50 split in popular vote within the state.

Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman…I’ll have to agree with Broodha, the Presidency will not come from New England in 2004, perhaps not in the next couple decades. There is a perception outside New England that New Englanders see themselves as the intellectual center of the nation, and alot of midwesterners don’t like the conceit. Alot of these easterners do tend to radiate a sense of “I’m above all this, I’m smart!” Combine that with a general anti-intellectualism throughout the country, and that’s more or less a death knell for those three potential candidates.

For those of you that think the country is ready to vote for a Jewish candidate for President, let me disavow you of the notion. Anti-semitism is still alive and kicking in every community I’ve lived, from conservative Springfield MO to internationally-flavored Detroit MI. Additionally, the growing Arabic population would be driven forever into the GOP if the Dems nominated Lieberman. It might be racist, but unfortunately it’s probably the reality. Of course, with a Lieberman nomination would come the same discomfort as in 2000, tenfold more considering current circumstances, about a Jewish President hurting our “impartiality” in the Isreal/Palestine conflict. It may or may not be the truth, but it will be thought of in the minds of alot of moderate voters with an eye towards the Middle-East.

Of the guys on that list I think Edwards has the best chance. BKB’s analysis of his strategic possibilities during the primary season is dead-on IMO. He’s charasmatic, could never be accused of being an ivory-tower intellectual, he’ll win Southern states. But you Dems have to ask yourself a question about what matters more to you: winning the office, or achieving your policy goals. It might be enough for some Dems just to have a man of their party in the White House…but if that man is a moderate who will do nothing to advance the policy goals you desire, what have you really won?