Why Kerry is winning NH

This is by Hugh Gregg from The NH Almanac

It shows why NH is so important...

and I have to agree. My main point in wanting someone that will appeal to all voters (including those that built Vegas) is that I'm unhappy with the fiscal policies of Bush.

That we are discerning in assessing their potential is indicated by our experience over the years in correctly identifying the next president, while eliminating the weaker candidates whose efforts are usually terminated here, or soon thereafter. Columnist David Broder said it well, "I am firmly of the belief that the term 'front ninner' should never be applied to anyone until the voters in New Hampshire have performed their God-given right to sort out and shrink the presidential nomination field."
Only once since the start of the primaries have we made a misjudgment. The winner in 1992 who didn't make it to the White House was favored solely because he was a well known U.S. Senator from a neighboring state. Brian Lamb, president of C-Span, said our primary is "always going to be important ... because you're smart enough to figure out for yourselves if a candidate is pulling your chain."
Up here the candidate also gets measured by the weather. We figure that any foreigner who can slosh around in our snowdrifts without catching pneumonia or distemper can withstand the rigors of the presidency. The only other small primary state which might match that challenge would be North Dakota, but they honor our tradition by scheduling their primary a week after ours and mail in their ballots.
Because the candidates have more campaign time here, they frequently visit our high schools and colleges. Teachers devote classroom hours to the primary process and mock elections are held, where the candidates appear. Questions asked by students differ markedly from those of the standard press conference. Such opportunities not only serve to excite fresh perspectives, but provide the candidate with support from first-time voters, many of whom would otherwise have no interest in the primary process.
Since the mid- I 800s when New Hampshire's Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, was President, the state has generally elected Republicans as its leaders at all levels of government. After the introduction of the presidential primary, voter registration has consistently held a rough average of 38% Republican, 32% Democrat, and 30% Independent. This has provided a sound sampling for either a Republican or Democratic primary.
 
Aoidoi,

Guess Americans and Europeans value their political system differently... :)

Re. Manson: No, of course I would not vote for someone who was nuts. Personality is important, inasmuch as I don't want a loonie on the job.

However, we are not talking about loonies (well....hmmm....no, let's not go there! :)), we are talking about "normal" people with different political agenda.
 
CFLarsen said:
Dear fellow non-Americans,

What you observe here is a typical American political "debate".

Not a single reference to actual political programs that the candidates intend to instigate. Not a word about what policies the candidates intend to work for.

Everything is decided from previous records, personal appearances and "who can do the best one-liners".

In other words, nobody gives a frick about what these guys will actually do, if they are elected. All that matters is how well they look on TV, during their 30-seconds commercials.

Amazing. And downright scary.

Isn't that the rub? I'm guilty of it, too. When the press does it, I call it "horserace" reporting. There's hardly any substance or issues reporting.

There is a bit of value in it, though. For a modern President to be effective, he has to have the skills to organize and run an effective campaign, since those are leadership skills required for the job. Lead the people, control the message.

...but, it's only half of the equation...

However, I find the only Democrat I have major disagreement with (from the little I've heard of their positions) is Leiberman. So, it's back to horserace discussions for me. :)
 
I actually agree w/ Claus on this one - no one comments on policies, just image. Consider Kerry's economic policy:
The first thing John Kerry will do is fight his heart out to bring back the three million jobs that have been lost under George W. Bush. He will fight to restore the jobs lost under Bush in the first 500 days of his administration. Kerry has proposed creating jobs through a new manufacturing jobs credit, by investing in new energy industries, restoring technology, and stopping layoffs in education.

John Kerry has a plan to secure America’s economic future and ensure that workers can achieve the American dream in our changing economy. John Kerry has the courage to roll back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education and healthcare. He isn’t afraid to crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions.
Kerry's going to bring back 3 million jobs by "investing in new energy industries" etc.? Sounds expensive.

How will he stop education layoffs? Force the states (who actually pay for education after all) to hire teachers? Also sounds expensive, or is an unfunded mandate on states.

Restoring technology? What does that mean, I wonder? Did we lose technology? I have no idea what he's talking about here.

Roll back tax cuts to to invest in education and health care - in other words keep running a huge deficit by increasing spending. Does anyone (Dems and Repubs) care about the deficit? All the Dems who want to raise taxes raise spending by much more.

Oh yes, crack down on those corps. that "hide their $$ in Bermuda". I'm sure that'll learn 'em. :confused: Or cause them to move out of the country entirely... I've said before that companies don't really pay taxes, they just pass them on to you and me or go out of business. Taxing companies is just the way gov't hides the taxes on us by building them into the prices of goods and services. Pretty sneaky huh?

The economic ignorance of all the candidates (Bush included for the steel tariff fiasco) is frightening. But hey, if they look good in a military uniform or kissing babies or flipping pancakes who cares about anything else. :rolleyes:

Just keep demanding these huge spending programs, then elect your local congressmen who can bring home more pork and make some other state's taxpayers pay for it, that seems to be the mindset of the American voter. But in the end we all pay for it. :(

Yes, I think it's the economy, stupid. More so than the war, which Kerry (w/ access to the same intelligence Bush had) voted for and which Dean and Clark never were on the hot seat over.
 
Re: Re: Re: Why Kerry is winning NH

CFLarsen said:
Are you out of your mind??
Do you really decide on who should lead your
country based on something else than their policies??
I feel slightly sad right now.

About 95% of voters in the Democratic Party and about
95% of the voters in the Republican Party vote solely for
their party’s candidates – the remaining 5% are what we
call ‘swing’ voters who may if an election gets polarized
decide to vote for the other party. They face a tough choice
between throwing away their vote on one party that looses
rather than wasting their vote on the other party that looses.
That’s why there is so much poll watching here. You don’t see
much of any third party activity here because of that desire to
be on the winning team.

I know of totally upset environmental activists who went
around trying to get people to vote against Bush and they
encountered people who vote Republican because their daddy
and grand daddy voted Republican. It’s fun when you encounter
someone who votes Republican because they think it is the party
of small government, but if you point out the record they get sort
of mad and hang up the phone, but at the end of the day they
will still vote Republican. It’s doubtful that you find a voter who
actually knows the policies or even current activities of their
candidates.

I remember the election of 2000. I dropped by the Democratic
Party headquarters here and she was livid that the party was
not spending any money to get the vote out. Early polls had
determined that Tennessee would go to the Republican Party.
Sure enough it did. Gore lost by 80,000 votes. Curiously, if they
had spent the money on say 2000 people to just drive by and
bring in Democratic Party voters here to the voting booths, they
would’ve won Tennessee and the White House. A shame
since the home state of the winning candidate often gets
access to increased federal spending.
 
Kerry can stand in ads "...tall and a little disheveled..." all he and his gullible supporters want to.

The fact remains that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act that infringes on U.S. liberties.

The fact remains that Kerry voted for giving unlimited power to Bush for the war, and Bush killed and maimed thousands with this power -left and right, including five hundred U.S. soldiers-.

Dean stood from the beginning and stands steadfast against these atrocities.

Myself I stand against these atrocities since Powell lied in U.N. about Iraq, February 5, 2003.
 
Howard Dean appears to be the perfect Democratic candidate.

After all, as Governor of Vermont he balanced the budget. He enacted health care for children. He showed his contempt for evil, big companies. He hates, really hates the the thought of a "tax cut" and shows contempt for the "benifitting from Bush policy rich folk". Oh, and don't forget, since day one he has been outspoken against the war, thinking it unnecessary.

Negatives? Nothing real noticeable.

More positives for the anti tax cut and spend crowd?

As governor of Vermont, he raised the state sales tax by 1%. He raised the gasoline tax $.08/gallon. He raised the cigarette tax by $.99 per pack. He raised the state corporate tax rate by 1.5%. He left the state of Vermont with a combined 19.2% state corporate/personal income tax rate. He supports government funded child care for all, including upper-income families. In his 11 years, the state was one of the highest taxing/spending states in the union. He supports a tax on Internet commerce. He raised property taxes. What sane American needs any more evidence to cast their vote for Dean!

You want more? On the personal side of Dean:

Dean and his wife own stock in:

IBM, Merck, Burlington Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Singapore Ltd., Trigon, Allstate, AIG, General Electric, Cisco, Intel and Honeywell.

He also has international and growth stock funds with T Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley, Solomon, Fidelity and Vaneck Global.

He also has large investments in US Gov't bonds, multiple IRA's, money market funds, retirement funds, and has large cash reserves. And don't forget his state retirement fund from Vermont.

He also has large holdings in Kimco Realty, and also owns property- a vast timberland property at that.

So while his stated policies may seem to lean against big business and the privileged rich, I can see now that must not be so, unless Dean is a hypocrite. Naw. The net worth of the listed assets above is only between $2,229,000-$5,100,000, with most of the investments in evil, big corporations.

Like I said, the perfect Democratic candidate.
 
specious_reasons said:
However, I find the only Democrat I have major disagreement with (from the little I've heard of their positions) is Leiberman. So, it's back to horserace discussions for me. :)

Ultimately, the election is going to be Bush versus (Not Bush). This is a primary. Voters should be mostly concerned with two things: 1) which candidate has the best chance of winning over Bush, and 2) (related) which candidate has the best chance of resulting in a good turnout for the Democrats for the final election.
 
epepke said:


Ultimately, the election is going to be Bush versus (Not Bush). This is a primary. Voters should be mostly concerned with two things: 1) which candidate has the best chance of winning over Bush, and 2) (related) which candidate has the best chance of resulting in a good turnout for the Democrats for the final election.
So policy doesn't matter?

This is why we end up w/ such low-grade politicians.

It's all about sound bites and photo-ops.

But, hey, it's tough to actually educate yourself on the issues and where each candidate stands on them.
 
Remember Dan Quayle? IIRC, the main reason he was picked as VP was that he was good looking and would appeal to women voters. If that doesn't qualify you to be a heartbeat from POTUS, I don't know what does.
 
michaellee said:
Howard Dean appears to be the perfect Democratic candidate.

Negatives? Nothing real noticeable.

More positives for the anti tax cut and spend crowd?

As governor of Vermont, he raised the state sales tax by 1%. He raised the gasoline tax $.08/gallon. He raised the cigarette tax by $.99 per pack. He raised the state corporate tax rate by 1.5%. He left the state of Vermont with a combined 19.2% state corporate/personal income tax rate. He supports government funded child care for all, including upper-income families. In his 11 years, the state was one of the highest taxing/spending states in the union. He supports a tax on Internet commerce. He raised property taxes. What sane American needs any more evidence to cast their vote for Dean!

You want more? On the personal side of Dean:

Dean and his wife own stock in:

IBM, Merck, Burlington Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Singapore Ltd., Trigon, Allstate, AIG, General Electric, Cisco, Intel and Honeywell.

He also has international and growth stock funds with T Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley, Solomon, Fidelity and Vaneck Global.

He also has large investments in US Gov't bonds, multiple IRA's, money market funds, retirement funds, and has large cash reserves. And don't forget his state retirement fund from Vermont.

He also has large holdings in Kimco Realty, and also owns property- a vast timberland property at that.

So while his stated policies may seem to lean against big business and the privileged rich, I can see now that must not be so, unless Dean is a hypocrite. Naw. The net worth of the listed assets above is only between $2,229,000-$5,100,000, with most of the investments in evil, big corporations.

Like I said, the perfect Democratic candidate.

It isn't possible to have "social services (especially for all)" if taxes don't cover the bill. We as a nation have to decide to either pay the bill for all to have things like health care OR only have it for those that are rich.

Yes, Dean does invest his money. Once you have it, you have to protect it. Anyone with a head on their shoulders would utilize the tax shelters that are in place to hang onto their own money. I don't fault him for owning stock or real estate. He didn't invest in a baby mauling plant... or did he?
:crazy:

Kevin
 

Back
Top Bottom