Democrat Presidential nomination

[obviousman]

Who do you think will win the Presidential nomination for the Democrats? Would you consider Howard Dean and John Edwards the front runners? Please say why too.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by obviousman
Who do you think will win the Presidential nomination for the Democrats? Would you consider Howard Dean and John Edwards the front runners? Please say why too.

I kinda' hope Dean gets the nod. Not for any policy position he takes but for the way he's been able to raise money through the internet from individual small donors. This should give you some inkling that he's going to try to frame the larger debate as the little man against the special interests. He also has the advantage of having never spoken out in favor of the war. Some interesting numbers from here.
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Nov. 6-7, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
Approve 42%
Disapprove 51%
Don't Know 7%

This metric is also distrubing for the GWB camp. At 38 percent it doesn't constitute a plurality but it does appear to be steadily gaining ground over the duration of the polling numbers.

"From what you know now, do think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq last March, or not?"
11/6-7/03
Right Thing 55%
Not Right Thing 38%
Don't Know 7%

7/24-25/03
Right Thing 68%
Not Right Thing 28%
Don't Know 4%

10% in 4 months is significant. If you extrapolate that over the coming election year that puts the number at 78% of the country thinking the Iraqi war was the wrong thing to do come election 2004.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by dijetlo
I kinda' hope Dean gets the nod. Not for any policy position he takes but for the way he's been able to raise money through the internet from individual small donors. This should give you some inkling that he's going to try to frame the larger debate as the little man against the special interests. He also has the advantage of having never spoken out in favor of the war.

First, Dean came out and flip-flopped his position on federal funding, because he has so much cash that he realizes that he would be held back by the federal funding limits.
Second, Dean has taken the liberal high road, which is fine for the nomination, but the majority of voters are not going to vote for McGovern/Mondale Lite. Take Wes "I'm-for-the-War-no-I'm-against-the-War-no-I-don't-know-where-I-stand-on=the-War" Clark as the VP, great, it's not going to make a lick of difference.

Still, all things considered, Dean, Clark, Gephardt, and Lieberman seem to be the top four. Edwards is a no-name nationally, Braun and Sharpton have a snowball's chance in hell, Kerry is trying to out-left Dean, but it won't work, and Kucinich is being openly supported by Green Party grassroots.

My guess is Dean gets the nomination, and either Lieberman or Clark gets the VP nod.

 

[AmericanLiberal]

dijetlo, do you really think Dean can win the general election? It may be cliche but the fact is that no northern liberal has won the presidency since JFK. Also, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning at least five or six southern states. If Dean wins the nomination it is hard to see him winning ANY southern states. He has strong support among Northeast liberals but I have a hard time imagining him winning in a head-to-head with Bush especially with Karl Rove managing the Bush campaign.

Gephardt or Edwards have a better chance at winning. Edwards has a well-spelled out plan for medicare and Gephardt has strong standing in the Midwest states that will be important battlegrounds. Clark is very moderate but he hasn't proven himself as a speaker.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
First, Dean came out and flip-flopped his position on federal funding, because he has so much cash that he realizes that he would be held back by the federal funding limits.

Yea, but he can honestly point to his donors and make a strong case that the source of his money is so much "cleaner" than the Bush dollars that it could actually turn out to be a bonus for him.

Second, Dean has taken the liberal high road,

You should come up some time, the view is fantastic...

...the majority of voters are not going to vote for McGovern/Mondale Lite.

I've never researched it but I don't think his record in Vermont was especially liberal. You allready see him moving towards the center, his policies are not going to be crafted to be unpopular, he'll need the independants to make a run at the Whitehouse, look for DemCon to produce a centrist platform and Dean to adopt it (if he gets that far.)

Posted by American Liberal
dijetlo, do you really think Dean can win the general election?

.
Dunno, you make a convincing argument that it's impossible. Your points about Gephardt and Edwards are also well taken. If Dean keeps funding himself with small donations, I'm going to have to back him. One of my primary bitches about politics is the influence of big money. Here's a chance to make my displeasure felt, I'd rather have a politician I disagree with but feel confident his primary allegiance is to me (the average voter). If Kacinich tanks, I think Ralph might run, he's allways worth a listen...

 

[obviousman]

Personally I don't think any democrat can win the next election. IF we're still dealing with Iraq, which right now is the most important part of the whole ordeal, I will have to vote Bush because I wouldn't want to have to switch leaders and policies during the middle of a crisis.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Well, I really think it'll be Hillary. Until recently, I didn't think she'd
run this time, but the media keeps dropping "hints." I'm reading
them as build up.

I could be wrong, but the other dems are looking rather weak
right now, with the exception of Dean, who doesn't really
seem to be a favorite with party leaders. She'd be a more
viable candidate.

 

[AmericanLiberal]

XP, you are right the centrist Democrats have desperately been scrambling for an "anyone but Dean" candidate. Here are their options:

Lieberman - pretender
Kerry - contender, quickly becoming a pretender
Edwards - long race, no traction, polls have him losing to Bush in his home state
Gephardt - almost nobody takes him seriously; the fact that SEIU refused to endorse him is a huge embarassment
Clarck - pretender. he made a big splash then sunk like a rock. he's running for Secretary of Defense, not president.

So Hillary could get drawn (maybe dragged) in by the centrists. However I have not heard anything about her throwing her hat in the ring and every day that passes puts her at a bigger fundraising and organizing disadvantage.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Good point. I hadn't thought about fundraising.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe
Dean will pull this thing off.

 

[MtnBiker]

I don't believe Hillary will run in 04', just my gut feeling, she will only run if she believes she can win. However the Clintons are huge fund raisers that would not be a problem, oranization this late in the game would cause a challange.

 

[eric]

I agree it would be unwise for her to run in '04. She would serve herself well to wait for '08. Which is good because I am starting to save and raise all the money I can, for should she win, I am buying myself an island in the Pacific as my new home.

Any care to join me ????????????

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

*Grin* That's more than a little tempting today.
And escape from Hillary AND this cold weather!

 

[Bry]

Once Bush gets kicked out, I can move back home. Which means i have an apartment in Madrid I could sell you!

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Bry
Once Bush gets kicked out, I can move back home. Which means i have an apartment in Madrid I could sell you!

Whassup Bry? You on the run from the RNC?
Karl Rove looking for you?

 

[acludem]

Howard Dean is not the typical northeastern liberal candidate in the Michael Dukakis mold - that is John Kerry. Gephardt is not electable nationally, and I'm from his home state. Lieberman is too conservative for me, I want a democrat, not a republicrat. Edwards doesn't stand a chance, neither does anyone else except Clark. Dean and Clark are the leading candidates, and the two best for a national campaign. Hillary...that's just a pipe dream of Republicans who love attacking the Clintons because they don't have anything else to complain about.

I haven't officially decided who to support, but I'm leaning Dean or Clark. They are both able, intelligent people, who are electable on a national level. Bush is very beatable in 2004.

 

[Bry]

oh oh, me me! Let me be the first to welcome you to the board, acludem.

For my part, Dean is the only dem I would vote for. If he doesn't get the nod, I'd have to look elsewhere (read Ralph Nader.) Barring new information, of course.

Dijet, it was a joke obviously. I came to Madrid for my Spanish wife, it's just luck that my leaving coincided with Bush's presidency. I won't be moving home any time soon regardless of who wins the next election. As for Mr. Rove, who knows? Maybe my name is on someone's shit list... makes me giggle just thinking about it.

 

[acludem]

Thank you for the welcome Bry I could never vote for Ralph Nader after he did so much to help elect Bush in 2000 ( mind you I'm not blaming him for Gore's defeat, I just think he should have been a bit more intelligent about how his campaign could help Bush win).

 

[Bry]

And that is where we part ways.

It's possible that if Nader hadn't run that Bush might not have won. Hell, Bush didn't win! But blaming Bush's "victory" on a third party candidate is ludicrous. And saying " mind you I'm not blaming him for Gore's defeat, I just think he should have been a bit more intelligent about how his campaign could help Bush win" is a game of symantics, and you know it. Nader was a thoroughly distinct candidate from Gore, and to my mind better merrited my vote than Gore. He represented me better. End of story.

And frankly, I think the fact that a third party is capable of attracting percentages is a positive thing; I think the two party system has a lot to blame for the country¡s political woes.

But that's just me.

 

[5stringJeff]

I still don't see any Dems who can beat Bush, even Dean or Clark.

BTW, welcome acludem... I wonder where you stand on the issues? j/k

 

[obviousman]

I'm glad some people brought up third parties. I'll try to start up a discussion about them. If no one chimes in oh well, if so great. The two party system has just recently involved. There were presidents back before media was such a big issue. Why because newspapers, TV, and Radio could care less about the third-parties. People nowadays would rather go to a ballot and vote for everyone with an r or d beside their name then actually do some investigating on where each candidate stands on each issue. Just because a person is a member of a party doesn't mean that they neccesarily have the same ideals and views of that party. Feel free to add, reject whatever you want.