A slight hijack that I hope doesn’t send this to Great Debates…I am tired of people saying Dean is too liberal. Just because you have Idi Amin on one side of the spectrum, doesn’t mean you have to meet the fascists half way.
I think it is time Democrats got back to their original roots.
I would rather go down in a huge defeat trying to steer America back on course, than to “settle” for half-ass victory.
Besides, I think there is a lot more support for some good-ol’-fashion liberal backbone than people give credit for.
The over 65 crowd will like Dean’s plans for Medicare.
The under 35 crowd will appreciate his environmental, foreign policy and moral stands.
The middle age group, if they can get their heads out of Bush’s butt long enough, will appreciate the fact that taxes can be used to better the economy and not just finance a foray into Iran.
I believe it was Martin Sheen who said he liked Howard Dean because “he is not afraid to lose”. It takes guts to go against the mindless flag waving bigots running the country right now, and I would rather see someone totally jump off that right wing bandwagon and go for democratic idealism. I personally think Howard Dean is the man to do it, and I seriously think he stands a fighting chance of winning it!
Dean will be unlikely, especially considering the disagreements in philosophy between Governor Dean (a DLCer) and Candidate Dean.
Kerry’s a good choice, but he’s hurt by the fact that he’s pledged not to spend any of his wife’s money on this campaign.
Kucinich has a reputation as a flake, and Mosely-Braun has (literally) no money.
While he’s not as conservative as some of the previous posters have suggested, Lieberman is still probably not going to get the nomination. He doesn’t have the base that the past moderates that got the nomination (Clinton and Carter) had.
Graham’s a good candidate, but he’s a little sick and a little old.
Edwards? You can’t be serious. Arguing that Bush (who I don’t care for, so don’t get me wrong) lacks stature could work, but it won’t if you nominate a one-term Senator.
Sharpton has two problems: He’s universally disliked outside the balck community, and a substantial number of those inside the black community won’t vote for him.
Gephardt has labor backing, but that doesn’t amount to as much as it used to.
The Governor’s final prediction: Kerry or Gephardt, with Edwards as the VP nominee. No clue about who wins the general election.
Dmark, I believe you are thinking with your heart instead of your head. An obvious left-wing candidate has not succeeded in decades, if ever. Any historians are welcome to provide an example of a left-winger who won the Presidency besides Jimmy Carter. McGovern was killed at the polls, as were Mondale and Dukakis. Anti-Republican bitterness over Watergate propelled Carter into the White House and then only by a very narrow margin. Johnson had Kennedy sympathy going for him. Clinton talked like a moderate, or even a Republican depending on his audience. If Dean lasts until the first Super Tuesday, he’ll fade at that point. As far as the presidential election itself goes, if Ralph Nadar wins again, GWB will owe him a stay in the Lincoln Bedroom during the second term. Nobody else in the country would have had more influence in getting him re-elected.
Sitting here in redneck Nevada, I probably should agree with you, but I don’t.
Even the right wing Republican Mormon lawyers I am currently working with are mumbling about George Bush in unflattering words. Iraq is not playing well.
Granted, Dean would be about the most opposite of candidates versus Bush. But Dean is a real-life, medical doctor. Say what you will, but if he is actually selected as the Democratic candidate, that will pull a lot of weight with a lot of people. Health care is a lot more important than the polls reflect. Even die-hard Republicans could rationalize voting for him to pay for their loved one’s cancer bills.
Not only that, but Dean is nobody’s fool…he can kick butt in a debate.
Plus, watch the money that goes to Dean if he wins even one state in the primary elections. In the last election, Democrat=wimp.
I believe I am the tip of the iceberg in telling you that this time, Democrat=Pissed Off American. And if the Republicans don’t like it, THEY can move to Iraq.
If I were a Democrat, I’d hate to be counting on those conditions remaining as they are until the election. If either Osama or Saddam are captured and the economy picks up, that will nullify any political hay to be made from these issues.
As to the “safer from terrorism”, I personally don’t feel I was ever in danger from it. 9/11 pissed me off, but as long as I don’t live in New York, Washington DC or a couple other cities I’ve got a lot more to worry about from lightning or a tornado, than terrorism.
Then add into the mix the fact that Hillary does not want the Dems to win this time, since that would mess up her run in 2008.
I think Kerry should be the candidate because the political cartoonists will have a ball with that hair and face.
The lastest poll I saw on Fox News (yes, I know) said that Bush had an approval rating of 65 percent and a disapproval rating of 25 percent. Therefore, I think the Democratic candidate will have to be strong enough to make people change thier minds rather than voting for the “anti-Bush”. That’s where leftist politics will hurt. The country is just not open to those kinds of ideas. If it were, we would have a ntional health care system, much higher taxes, legalized marijuana, stricter environmental laws, no death penalty…the list goes on. Here are a few “ifs” for Dean. IF he tones down the leftist stuff and goes for the center…and IF he attacks Kerry head on…and IF he gets a high enough profile to last into March of 2004…then he might have a chance. But if he stays to his message, he’ll be gone by the end of March.
Kerry as the nominee and either Edwards or Wesley Clark for VP.
Liebermann’s poll numbers are likely due to mostly name recognition, at least I hope so.
I would prefer Dean for the VP slot, but his state would be too close to Kerry’s. A southerner in one or both slots; otherwise little chance of a win, IMHO.
Kerry will have to choose a southerner or westerner as the VP candidate…although these days, I’m not sure how urgent “regional diversity” is for the ticket. Will Edwards accept the VP slot? People who run for the big job usually don’t.
If the economy picks up before next November, Bush will win no matter who he is up against.
No way Lieberman will be nominated. I agree that would be like the Dems conceding the election to Bush. I do not in any way mean for this statement to be taken as racist or derogatory towards Jews, but for the US to elect a Jewish president in the first election after 9/11 would be like an open invitation for the entire Muslim world to step up terrorist attacks against anything remotely American.
If you truly believe that you are safe from terrorist attacks because you don't live in a big city, I think you are a bit naive.
Probably Kerry or Edwards. And Hillary will run in 2008, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Dems would want her as a noiminee OTHER than the fact that her last name is Clinton. They're basically stooping to the level of the Republicans by doing this. In 2000, they didn't have anyone so they ran W because the last name was Bush. It would appear this same logic would apply to Senator Clinton in 2008 for the other party. Eight years in Congress = qualified to be president? I guess. I'd honestly prefer if they just ran Bill again rather than her. Its going to be much harder for her to win a national election that it was to win a handpicked state election against basically a no name, generic Republican candidate.
I predict the dems will offer Algore sufficient ‘incentives’ to entice him into another go as he will be their only chance in hell of ousting GWB. They’ll still lose but not as embarrassingly as they will with the other dorks.
I also think that GWB is going to be re-elected. The pull between the left and the center is going to tear the Democrats apart internally to some degree. The Republicans have sort of the same problem with people on the far right. I think both parties will end up taking their bases for granted and concentrating on moderates. An anti-war San Francisco lesbian is never going to vote Republican. An Assembly of God Pastor is never going to vote Democrat.
I think that Dean will win. Because the biggest problem he is facing is that he is an unknown. Once people realise that Dean and Kerry are very similar ideologically democrats will start going over to Dean. Because Dean is getting the independents currently and Kerry is getting the democrats and all the democrats are is against Bush while the independents need a bigger reason to vote.
Dean is going to win because he manages to appeal to both the left and the center and because the people who managed to lose the 2000 election and the 2002 election both of which should have been easy wins for Democrats are backing Kerry.
I am not a Democrat, so perhaps I can’t see Dean’s appeal. He has been anti-war from the beginning, which may help him among his core audience, but I’m not sure it will in the general election. Looking at the pack, it just seems like Kerry has the credibility to pull it off.
I don’t think so. I think the party on the whole isn’t too pleased with Gore or the way he ran his campaign in 2000. They know he came off as effete, snobby, and quite the wonk. A real candidate should have blown Bush out of the water, and Gore only came realreal close, winning the popular vote.
It’s true that at least he has some kind of real political pedigree, more than the actual candidates, but that wouldn’t be enough, IMO.
There’s a neat column by Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post that talks about how there are far too many candidates now, and how some Dems want to somehow trim the list a little (i.e., keep Kuchinich, Mosely-Braun, and Sharpton out of the debates). The reason for this is that there’s simply not enough press to go around, and the big names like Kerry et al. are reduced to the tiniest of sound bites when they need to share a stage with the lesser candidates.
People are realising now that being pro-war now is an incredibly bad idea. Wesley Clark recently just accused the Bush Administration of making the al Quaeda and Saddam connection without any evidence. Kerry recently adopted Dean’s position and is now starting to say that we were misled on the Iraqi war.
It’s a huge gamble to talk like this too soon. All it takes is for something to be found in a cave somewhere or for someone to talk and the folks like Dean and Clark will look like idiots. A certain percentage of people will believe anything negative about Bush, despite any evidence to the contrary. Those folks are going to vote Democratic anyway. Bold pronouncements now could come back to haunt later on.
If they find 500,000 tons of anthraxin a cave somewhere, then Dean and Clark will look like idiots.
If they find a microscope slide with a desscated anthrax bug on it, then Dean and Clark will look vindicated (“Our servicemen risked their lives for this?”).
Of course, if they find anything at all in the cave, the Bushistas will claim it as “proof” of Iraqi WMDs, regardless of what it actually is.
Exactly my point. There will never be enough evidence to satisfy some people. Saddam himself could show up on thier doorstep with a signed affidavit of his intent and it wouldn’t be enough. The key is going to be what people not blinded by ideology will believe. They are the ones who will decide the presidency in 2004. The 20 percent or so of voters who aren’t locked into either camp.
Gore tried to go after swing voters and I think that it showed what a losing strategy that was. Swing voters matter, but so does simply keeping your base interested enough to vote. Those democratic activists who hate Bush aren’t going to bother to vote for someone who seems to be just like Bush.
I mean when you look at the 2000 election you see people uninterested in politics and making fun of both candidates for trying to do that. When the candidates take positions on things they risk losing, but they also have the chance of winning.