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]

Originally posted by 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..:()

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. *****.

Think about Hadassah lighting the White House Christmas Tree:D

[gnome]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by gnome


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. *****.
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]

Originally posted by Clancie

:)

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]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by 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".

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]

Originally posted by Cleon


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]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


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.:p

[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]

Originally posted by Ed


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.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ed


Re. Sharpton.

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

I once believed the height of conceit was calling out your own name during sex. But now I think it may be in quoting yourself.:p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ed
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.

The Tawana thing is a touchy subject to my Wappingers self, but I'm willing to let it pass for now though I'll never vote for him. As for his finances, how is this much different from the rest?

This is how I see it now:

Lieberman == Different enough (just barely) from W according to himself.

Braun == Running for re-election as ambassador to New Zealand. She was my senator and stank to high heaven with her connections to African dictators. But the folks from the land of new zeal liked her just fine, and why shouldn't they? If a Democrat takes the White House, Braun for ambassador to New Zealand for sure. Why not? Any New Zealanders out there with an opinion?

Sharpton == Telling his fellow Dems how they are taking the African-Americans for granted. Which is correct.

Kucinich == Cloud cuckoo land.

All the rest == Not Bush. That's almost enough, but not quite.

[The idea]

What if George W. Bush converts to Islam?

(1) He might lose some Christian support.

However, if he is nevertheless re-elected after converting to Islam, then

(2) Democrats will have a hard time attacking Bush without being perceived to be demonizing Muslims.

The assumption throughout this thread is that Democrats can only change themselves. However, missionaries converted pagans, so why can't Muslim Democrats convert Bush?

[Supercharts]

I think you would need a legitimate scandal - like Cheney really broke the law.
Or the economy goes into the cheeseburger - then Gephardt could have a shot. He'll get Labor support if the economy actually tanks again.
Kerry peaked way too early and is now fighting for the #3 slot after Iowa & N.H.
Braun & Sharpton are vanity candidates - they're in it for the matching federal funds. When they bow out they'll make a bundle on what they don't spend.

Even then Bush could pick up Sen. Frist as V.P. and can Cheney and still have an excellent chance of winning. [Gore couldn't even win his own state of Tennesse - if he did he'd be President today. Sen. Frist is from Tenn.]

What would be great is to have Sharpton & Al Franken address the Dem convention in Boston this summer. They'd outsell the Red Sox.

Edited to add:
Hillary? That would add some excitement. But who would be her V.P. - Pat Ireland? She's supporting Braun after being kicked out of the YWCA. Maybe a Clinton-Braun ticket? A Clinton-Clinton ticket? Great to speculate for the humor value.

[Nasarius]

I'm curious, Ed, what do you like about Lieberman? He is rather conservative, such as on censorship issues, and he can be a bit of a religious extremist.

For example,
"the Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are after all not just another nation, but 'one nation under God.' "
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec21.htm

Ouch. Yet another reason that Gore was such a terrible candidate.

But personally, I'm voting "Not Bush" in 2004, which means Democrat, even though I'm registered Green.

[rdaneel]

Maybe the Democrats should just get Martin Sheen to run. :D

After California, could you really be sure it wouldn't work

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by The idea
What if George W. Bush converts to Islam?

(1) He might lose some Christian support.

However, if he is nevertheless re-elected after converting to Islam, then

(2) Democrats will have a hard time attacking Bush without being perceived to be demonizing Muslims.

The assumption throughout this thread is that Democrats can only change themselves. However, missionaries converted pagans, so why can't Muslim Democrats convert Bush?

Demonizing Islam? After his "religion of peace" speech and three annual Ramadan dinners at the White House?

Who's demonizing who? He could convert to Islam and some would say that's not enough.

I've been a Democrat all my life and never voted for a Republican for president * , but I have to admit that my party of a lifetime is acting like a suicide cult.

Where are the likes of Adlai Stevenson?


---
* I did vote for a Republican judge once, but it was personal. :p

[NullPointerException]

The rapture, than 30% of Bush boosters would disappear... supposedly.

[Theodore Kurita]

Hey!

Did everyone forget about the CIA Agent leak that had been traced back to the whitehouse.

That alone would be enough of a scandal to lose some Bush supporters.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I think you would need a legitimate scandal - like Cheney really broke the law.
Or the economy goes into the cheeseburger - then Gephardt could have a shot. He'll get Labor support if the economy actually tanks again.

Gephardt comes closest to being what I like about being a Democrat. But unfortunately not very close.

Who I really would like to vote for is Hubert Horatio Humpfrey.

Am I that old? 'fraid so. :D

[corplinx]

I think all it will take for the Dems to win is for Pat Robertson to keep saying God wants Bush to win.

[peptoabysmal]

For the Democrats to win, Bush would have to actually become evil. That is their whole platform message, isn't it? "Bush is evil, Bush is evil..." The Dems haven't been able to form any other intelligible party message.

[Ed]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
For the Democrats to win, Bush would have to actually become evil. That is their whole platform message, isn't it? "Bush is evil, Bush is evil..." The Dems haven't been able to form any other intelligible party message.

I tend to agree. An awful lot of people voted for bush, almost 50%;) , an awful lot support him now. To say that such support is for "evil" ain't going down too well. The other thing that is irretating and silly is the whispering campaign regarding his presumed intellegence. It is petty and ill informed and comes across that way, to the detriment of the Democrats.

I don't think that shrillness really works.

[Tmy]

The Dems are stronger than people think. The right controled talk radio and Fox media types are trying to slander them as a bunch of losers because they want to cover for Bush. If you keep up with the "loser" manta enuff times then people start to buy it. Just like Saddam and terror. Like 60% of americans think Saddam had somthing to do with 911, even though there is no proof of any connection.


Why cant Dean win? Is he not qualified? Any less qualified than Clinton or GW?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by 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?

I agree, the Democrats are involved in the circular firing squad routine.

In the weeks before Saddam's capture, the pro-war Democratic candidates were trying very hard to point out that while they may supported the war, they sure didn't support the way Bush has been handling it.
That they were under the impression that some vast coalition would be formed to fight Saddam,
and how we need a good exit strategy,
and it is such a shame about our fighting men and women getting hurt and killed over there since the war has ended,
and blah, blah, blah!
And of course the anti-war Democrats were saying things like, "See? I told you so!".

The day after Saddam's capture, the pro-War Democrats started pouncing of Dean, and by extension the anti-war Democrats, by saying that if they had their way Saddam would still be in power.
And that Saddam was so brutal and nasty,
and that America is much safer since he has been captured,
and that the war was needed to get rid of terrorism against the America,
and that we should not forget 9/11,
and that blah, blah, blah!
Sounds like the pro-war Democrats were using the usual Bush rhetoric minus the Bushisms against the anti-war Democrats!

Anyway, unless something radically changes within the next couple of months, I expect that Bush will win both the popular vote and the electoral vote this time!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by gnome


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?

It isn't a reflection on the Democrats. It is just the way things work.

It was summed up nicely by Reagan in the 1980 race. "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" They weren't. And Reagan won.

Or as Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid."

If the economy tanks, or if people feel things are worse off, then the party in power is going to pay the price. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican.

For the Democrats to win, the economy is going to have to be in bad shape. And not just an October fluctuation. It will have to be long term.

It is way too early to say Dean is going to be the Democratic candidate. It amazes me people still make those kinds of predictions before even the first primary.

If Gephardt pulls ahead, we will see lots of airplay of his "dismal failure" speech about Bush. That will really hurt him right now, considering recent events.

[Tmy]

The Saddam capture had little effect on the Iraq problem. I think peopel assumed tha once we got him, the insurgents would quit. This hasnt happend. We still get the daily death count, thats really bugging americans.

Arent we supposedto turn over Iraq to a newly installed govt come July? I think that could play a big role in the election. Things change so quickly that its remature to guessthe public pulse in the fall.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
The Saddam capture had little effect on the Iraq problem. I think peopel assumed tha once we got him, the insurgents would quit. This hasnt happend. We still get the daily death count, thats really bugging americans.

Arent we supposedto turn over Iraq to a newly installed govt come July? I think that could play a big role in the election. Things change so quickly that its remature to guessthe public pulse in the fall.

There are supposed to be elections in Iraq next summer, yes. I am sure the timing of it isn't a coincidence.

I think most Americans believe we did the right thing in Iraq, even if the rationality/reasons given were suspect. The daily death count only sounds high to younger Americans with no historical perspective.

The most important thing in Iraq is that we don't fiddle with the elective process and allow the Iraqis to install whomever they want, even if it means a theocratic democracy. Our own beginnings were quite theocratic, after all.

[Tmy]

I dont think its just the younger crowd thats affected by the death count. When the local guy comes home dead, the whole town is aware. Big military funeral and all. People start to worry about anthor Nam. We were suppsoed to be welcomed as heros, intsead the troops are being killed on a daily basis. The Iraq war was alot messier than advertised.

You know what issue the Dems shoudl bring up. The possibilty of a draft. Thatd really freak out alot of on the fense Bush supporters.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think its just the younger crowd thats affected by the death count. When the local guy comes home dead, the whole town is aware. Big military funeral and all. People start to worry about anthor Nam. We were suppsoed to be welcomed as heros, intsead the troops are being killed on a daily basis. The Iraq war was alot messier than advertised.

You know what issue the Dems shoudl bring up. The possibilty of a draft. Thatd really freak out alot of on the fense Bush supporters.

So the only way to attract support to the Democratic part is to practically lie about the possibility of something that is highly unlikely to happen and if it does would be enough to take all support away from a party that enacts it?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So the only way to attract support to the Democratic part is to practically lie about the possibility of something that is highly unlikely to happen

"Practically lie". "Unlikey to happen" Hey thats all politics. Just like the whole WMD and Iraqi terror thing.

I keep hearing stories about our military being spread to thin. Is it so out of the question to think a draft isnt a possibilty.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think its just the younger crowd thats affected by the death count. When the local guy comes home dead, the whole town is aware. Big military funeral and all. People start to worry about anthor Nam. We were suppsoed to be welcomed as heros, intsead the troops are being killed on a daily basis. The Iraq war was alot messier than advertised.

Yeah, did you see the thread about the Texas town with the flag-draped parade route for the war dead? Yeah, they look like a bunch of people who have lost faith in their country all right.

You're grasping at straws, Timmy. You ought to consider running for the nomination so you can share the stage with all the other straw-graspers. It may sound callous, but a death per day is not even CLOSE to an unacceptable casualty rate in an operation of this size, no matter how much demagogues like to talk it up.

What were the comparable casualty rates in Vietnam? Korea? WW II? Take a look and you'll be shocked.

You know what issue the Dems shoudl bring up. The possibilty of a draft. Thatd really freak out alot of on the fense Bush supporters.

Well, fear-mongering Dems are having a big problem raising bogeymen this year, what with Bush enacting more healthcare benefits, the economy stabilizing and accomplishing stated goals overseas. Sure, why not pretend a draft is on the horizon?

Dean is going to get wiped out, get used to the idea. He's a psycho. It's only a matter of time before he explodes, and explode he will once the GOP starts airing out his record as governor. He's got a 10-year history of willfully deficient security measures at Vermont's only nuke plant that makes Dukakis's furlough program look like a church picnic, and he doesn't react well to solid criticism.

To put it in terms you'll understand, do you remember that episode of Star Trek when the alien took on Kirk's form, and when confronted howled "I'M Captain Kiiiiiirk!" over and over? Remember that expression, because Dean's going to be wearing it soon.