What would it take for the Dems to win?

[Ed]

Personal feelings aside, it seems to me that even without the possibility of a Dean candidatecy the Dems are in big trouble. They don't seem to have real issues, or at least are not articulating them very well. Sharpton being part of it just adds to the sideshow nature, it seems like they are saying "well, we lost we might as well have fun".

Dean seems like a scarey guy to me, a bit of a blowhard and barely in control of his temper. That is NOT going to play very well. Yeah, I know, "Bush is the biggest threat to the US since the last biggest threat" but he comes accross as a personable guy.

I know a lot can happen in 10 months, but it is only 10 months and the Dems seem to be acting as if it is 10 years, well, maybe for them it will be.

Any thoughts?

 

[aerocontrols]

My primary thought is that at this point in 1992 the big-name Democrats were desparately fighting to not be the guy who loses to Bush. Does anyone remember Mario Cuomo's "I'll run/I won't run" nonsense?

Do the Democrats picked a relatively uknown youngster to 'lose' to Bush, since none of them wanted to do so.

I don't think that Dean is the next Clinton, but in '92 I was fairly sure (just like everyone else) that Clinton was only running to try to establish himself as a top Dem.




upon reflection...

The obvious response to my entire post is that it would take a loss of 19% of the vote to a Perot-like figure to get a win for the Democrats, I suppose.

MattJ

 

[Clancie]

They can win with the aame issues they could have won on in 2000...

"Peace and Prosperity. We had them with Dems, don't have them now with Bush...." Like that.

(btw, Iowa debate today at 3 EST on CNN....)

And I agree Dean will lose (and lose big, like Mondale or Dukakis..)

 

[CapelDodger]

A financial crisis in September/October might do it if the Dem candidate isn't dead in the water by then. That's the traditional time for a stock-market crash, and there's also the possibility of an exhange-rate plunge for the dollar. The state of the Iraqi resistance will have an effect, especially if it has a unified command and political strategy. A natural disaster that isn't handled well by the White House could bring up the "We're sorting out Iraq and we can't look after people back home" kind of argument. Another major terrorist strike. A plague of rats. Signs and portents. Michael Jackson endorsing Bush. There must besomething.

 

[Ed]

They can win with the aame issues they could have won on in 2000...

"Peace and Prosperity. We had them with Dems, don't have them now with Bush...." Like that.

(btw, Iowa debate today at 3 EST on CNN....)

And I agree Dean will lose (and lose big, like Mondale or Dukakis..)

Dunno.....

Market up to +/- 10.5k? Those with investments might look at the annualized returns for the last 6 months or so.

I really like Lieberman. I had doubts regarding his presidency a while back seeing that he is a Jew and the Arabs might say that that is just another example of the WWJC. But at this moment, he is looking really good to me. Call me a mope but I believe that he is honest.

Oh, woe. I hate to say it but if it is, in fact Dean, then I am going Bush. Sh!t.

Think about Hadassah lighting the White House Christmas Tree

 

[gnome]

A financial crisis in September/October might do it if the Dem candidate isn't dead in the water by then. That's the traditional time for a stock-market crash, and there's also the possibility of an exhange-rate plunge for the dollar. The state of the Iraqi resistance will have an effect, especially if it has a unified command and political strategy. A natural disaster that isn't handled well by the White House could bring up the "We're sorting out Iraq and we can't look after people back home" kind of argument. Another major terrorist strike. A plague of rats. Signs and portents. Michael Jackson endorsing Bush. There must besomething.

This touches on one of my pet peeves... I listen all over the radio dial even to hosts that strongly disagree with my views. But I find myself changing the channel in disgust every time someone speculates about how the democrats/left/anti-war types are gleeful about the latest incident in Iraq because it helps them politically.

Does anyone really believe this is true about a large portion of the opposition? How hard is it to believe that we're as horrified as any decent human being would be?

 

[Ed]

This touches on one of my pet peeves... I listen all over the radio dial even to hosts that strongly disagree with my views. But I find myself changing the channel in disgust every time someone speculates about how the democrats/left/anti-war types are gleeful about the latest incident in Iraq because it helps them politically.

Does anyone really believe this is true about a large portion of the opposition? How hard is it to believe that we're as horrified as any decent human being would be?

Unfortunately disaster helps them. Considering Job #1 with any of these lowlifes is election, yeah, I believe that they would be gleeful.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

Think about Hadassah lighting the White House Christmas Tree

Oh, woe. I hate to say it but if it is, in fact Dean, then I am going Bush. Sh!t.

That's a huge problem with primaries. The guy who galvanizes the Democratic base probably won't have a chance in the general election.

Just curious....Any chance you would vote Dem if the ticket was Gephardt-Clark?

That's about the only combination I think has a chance (though personally I'd prefer Clark in the #1 spot).

 

[Ed]

That's a huge problem with primaries. The guy who galvanizes the Democratic base probably won't have a chance in the general election.

Just curious....Any chance you would vote Dem if the ticket was Gephardt-Clark?

That's about the only combination I think has a chance (though personally I'd prefer Clark in the #1 spot).

Not Leiberman in any capacity? Interesting.

Dunno. G's waffeling on the Iraq thing showed a certain sliminess. Again, we are never going to get the best people until there are term limits and we do away with professional polititions.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

Not Leiberman in any capacity? Interesting.

Well, Ed, he's frankly just too conservative for me, (and too pro-Sharon).

But if it was Bush vs. the (highly unlikely) Lieberman-Dean combo (both not my choices)...yes, I'd vote for them over Bush--but that really just shows how depressing I find the thought of "four more years" of Bush's policies....

Inflation/unemployment...the war....terrorism...government mismanagement...some revealed scandal (i.e. Cheney's energy commission/corporate ties, Bush admin blatant war profiteering ties, etc)....those kinds of things could lose it for Bush, I think.

Without such dramatic developments, however, I think he'll be reelected.

 

[Mel]

I'd prefer Lieberman also... I think he's the only democrat that understands the seriousness of the "War on Terror."

The world already perceives the USA as being TOO pro-Israel, I don't think it would make much difference if we had a Jew in the White House.

These dems are so wishy-washy.... almost as bad as most of Bush's policies. UGH.

I'd feel comfortable with Bush ONLY without the rest of his administration... I don't trust any of them as far I can throw them.

 

[davefoc]

I'm a guy who with only a few exceptions has always voted for the Repbulican candidate.

I had pretty much made up my mind to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this year. There were two reasons for this:

1. Current Republican leadership especially exemplified by Bush have supported numerous anti-free market policies (nationalize airport security, steel tariffs, out of control agricultural subsidies, drug company designed prescription medicine program, etc.). So from my point of view we might as well have a Democrat in office if this is the way a Republican president is going to act.

2. Most of the reasons that I thought the war was justified were based on a trust of the administration. Most of the administrations stated justifications for the war were based on WMD. It now seems likely that there weren't any. I think it's reasonable to vote Bush out just for this.

Having said the above, it still seems unlikely that there will be many traditional Repbulicans who share enough of my view to vote against Bush. The giant agricultural subsidies that I think are such a bad idea serve to buy up a lot of votes in the rural states, the social conservative tone of the administration gets some more votes in the rural states so Bush doesn't look likely to lose any ground there.

The California debacle with wacko out of control Democrats leading the charge won't do Bush any harm either in some borderline states even if California, as it almost surely will, votes Democrat.

So I guess the bottom line of the above rambling is that I don't know what might happen that would give a Democrat a chance in the upcoming election, but I agree that there's an outside chance he might win. I also agree that Howard Dean looks like a candidate even more unlikely than the other major Democratic hopefuls to defeat Bush.

 

[Cleon]

Having said the above, it still seems unlikely that there will be many traditional Repbulicans who share enough of my view to vote against Bush.

Perhaps, but there is a major split underway in the Libertarian Party. Many who'd otherwise vote Republican for a Presidential candidate are reconsidering based on the WMD lies and the Patriot Act (to say nothing of Patriot Act II). I even think there are a number who just might vote Democrat as a protest vote against the Bush administration.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Personal feelings aside, it seems to me that even without the possibility of a Dean candidatecy the Dems are in big trouble. They don't seem to have real issues, or at least are not articulating them very well. Sharpton being part of it just adds to the sideshow nature, it seems like they are saying "well, we lost we might as well have fun".

Much as I dislike him, what with me being a former resident of Wappingers Falls, I must respectfully disagree with you about the "sideshow nature" of Sharpton's candidacy.

Certainly such is his history, but these days he is the only Democrat who is saying anything of substance. You might dislike the substance, but he's not being a fool this time.

What do the other Democrat candidates offer these days? They are all trying to be the most unlike Bush. Sorry, that's not enough. Bush may be no prize, but you can't beat somebody with nobody.

I am a life-long Democrat and I never voted for a Republican for president, though I did hold my nose for some of the folks I did vote for.

Please oh please, Democratic Party! Don't make me hold my nose and vote for W.

 

[Ed]

Perhaps, but there is a major split underway in the Libertarian Party. Many who'd otherwise vote Republican for a Presidential candidate are reconsidering based on the WMD lies and the Patriot Act (to say nothing of Patriot Act II). I even think there are a number who just might vote Democrat as a protest vote against the Bush administration.

Boy, I think that Nader has cured anyone of the protest vote urge.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: What would it take for the Dems to win?

Much as I dislike him, what with me being a former resident of Wappingers Falls, I must respectfully disagree with you about the "sideshow nature" of Sharpton's candidacy.

Certainly such is his history, but these days he is the only Democrat who is saying anything of substance. You might dislike the substance, but he's not being a fool this time.

What do the other Democrat candidates offer these days? They are all trying to be the most unlike Bush. Sorry, that's not enough. Bush may be no prize, but you can't beat somebody with nobody.

I am a life-long Democrat and I never voted for a Republican for president, though I did hold my nose for some of the folks I did vote for.

Please oh please, Democratic Party! Don't make me hold my nose and vote for W.

Yes, he makes some good points but he is doomed from the git-go. No one, yet, has brought up Twana Brawley and his (ahem) financial affairs. No need.

 

[CapelDodger]

from gnome:

I find myself changing the channel in disgust every time someone speculates about how the democrats/left/anti-war types are gleeful about the latest incident in Iraq because it helps them politically.

Does anyone really believe this is true about a large portion of the opposition? How hard is it to believe that we're as horrified as any decent human being would be?

I'm certainly not gleeful about these incidents, and it would be crassly suicidal for any Dem to capitalise on them, but events in Iraq are surely going to have an influence on the election. If an Iraqi opposition group has a policy of embarrassing Bush at crucial moments - in the hope, perhaps, that an incoming administration might do a deal with them - it could change the atmosphere even if the Dems don't overtly exploit it. It could favour Bush or undermine him.

 

[Troll]

Jesus, don't yopu people read other threads? Pat Robertson would have to say god told him a democrat, a specific democrat would win to make it happen.

 

[CapelDodger]

from davefoc:

Having said the above, it still seems unlikely that there will be many traditional Repbulicans who share enough of my view to vote against Bush. The giant agricultural subsidies that I think are such a bad idea serve to buy up a lot of votes in the rural states, the social conservative tone of the administration gets some more votes in the rural states so Bush doesn't look likely to lose any ground there.

This is one of the strange things about electorates. Since they "know" Bush is pro-market they can ignore him being anti-market. Everybody's against subsidy and protectionism except in their own case, which is always special.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: What would it take for the Dems to win?

Yes, he makes some good points but he is doomed from the git-go. No one, yet, has brought up Twana Brawley and his (ahem) financial affairs. No need.

Re. Sharpton.

Also, he has the honesty of a person who hasn't a prayer.