Which Democrat should a Republican want to win?

[davefoc]

Which Democrat should I be rooting for?

This year, I have decided to vote for the Democratic nominee (assuming it's not Al Sharption). Partially because I haven't liked some of the Bush administrations domestic policies and partially because of the failure to justify the war by finding WMD.

In all of my 54 years I have only voted for one Democrat for president and damn few others for anything else. I have almost always voted for Republican candidate, although I have on rare occasions voted for the Libertarian candidate.

But which Democrat should I be rooting for? My political views are approximately moderate libertarian. I am looking for the Democrate which is most in sync with that kind of thinking. In particular I am hoping that the Democratic candidate will have a clue about the free market and why it works. My current thoughts:

1. Gephart - Labor union toady, going to be sad to vote for him
2. Dean - socialist, opportunist, this guy is going to really difficult to vote for.
3. Lieberman - leans too far towards Israel. Think if that wasn't an issue he might be my guy. Was disapointed he got involved in that whole "count every vote" BS in Florida while his party was working so hard to keep likely Republican voters from having their vote counted.
4. Clark - Seems to be willing to say just about anything even if it contradicts what he said yesterday. From what I've see, I just don't like him.
5. Kerry - fake Vietnam war hero, but maybe he's the guy. At least every time he show's up on TV he isn't in a labor union rally.

Are my characterizations wrong? This whole thing of thinking about a Democrat to vote for is very new for me. I need some guidance.

[clk]

I think that the Republicans want Dean to win, because he does not have much of a chance to beat Bush, or atleast that's what the media told me. I think Clark would be Bush's worst nightmare...here's a guy that is intelligent, courageous, and honest...the complete opposite of Bush. Obviously, I disagree with your assessment of Clark and Kerry. I think Clark has been fairly consistent with his policies. I don't know if Kerry is a false war hero, but atleast he had the balls to go to Vietnam, while Bush was either AWOL or smoking crack.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7736077.htm

[Otther]

If Kerry actually does what he is campaigning on, he could be a republicans's pick. It's remarkable how conservative his stances are on a bunch of issues of late... especially since he has such a strong liberal record. Deffinently interesting, but suspicious.

Was anyone else disapointed that Bush isn't going to be challenged for the republican nomination? Sure, there was no way he could lose, but I think for once the incumbant could loose a significant chunk of the vote. Just get the economic conservatives together along with the psuedo-Libretarians and you could issue a nice warning to bush that he better chill with the spending...

[espoirpaz]

I personally like Dennis Kucinich. He voted against the war resolution and supports a woman's right to choose. He would put an end to Bush's tax cuts and get environmental protection rights back on track.

brief descriptions of candidates:
http://www.care2.com/c2p/candidates/election2004.html

Kucinich website:
http://www.kucinich.us/

[Troll]

Originally posted by davefoc
Which Democrat should I be rooting for?

This year, I have decided to vote for the Democratic nominee (assuming it's not Al Sharption). Partially because I haven't liked some of the Bush administrations domestic policies and partially because of the failure to justify the war by finding WMD.

In all of my 54 years I have only voted for one Democrat for president and damn few others for anything else. I have almost always voted for Republican candidate, although I have on rare occasions voted for the Libertarian candidate.

But which Democrat should I be rooting for? My political views are approximately moderate libertarian. I am looking for the Democrate which is most in sync with that kind of thinking. In particular I am hoping that the Democratic candidate will have a clue about the free market and why it works. My current thoughts:

1. Gephart - Labor union toady, going to be sad to vote for him
2. Dean - socialist, opportunist, this guy is going to really difficult to vote for.
3. Lieberman - leans too far towards Israel. Think if that wasn't an issue he might be my guy. Was disapointed he got involved in that whole "count every vote" BS in Florida while his party was working so hard to keep likely Republican voters from having their vote counted.
4. Clark - Seems to be willing to say just about anything even if it contradicts what he said yesterday. From what I've see, I just don't like him.
5. Kerry - fake Vietnam war hero, but maybe he's the guy. At least every time he show's up on TV he isn't in a labor union rally.

Are my characterizations wrong? This whole thing of thinking about a Democrat to vote for is very new for me. I need some guidance.

If I was going to vote democrat (which I don't see happening anytime soon) I'd go with Lieberman. If Lieberman gets the nomination, I may vote democrat if some things aren't done or changed by Bush. But if doesn't get it, I'd like to see Dean or Gephart get it and lose to Bush big time.

[Nova Land]

Oh.

I misinterpreted what the thread title meant, and thought you were going to be asking for opinions on which Democratic candidate Republicans should be rooting for Democrats to win the nomination so that the Democrats would be most likely to lose the election. Of the serious candidates I was going to pick Lieberman.

But you're asking a more interesting question -- who should a Republican who actually wants the Democrat to win in November be rooting for to get the Democratic nomination.

I think there are several things such a person should think over before making a choice One key question is: would you rather have a Democrat who does a reasonably good job (and thus may be re-elected in 2008) or a Democrat who does a poor job (increasing the chances of a Republican return to power in 2008)?

I don't know which issues you care most strongly about, but I'm assuming you would prefer a Democrat who won't be too effective in enacting policies you don't like on these matters. There are several ways to try to achieve this.

(a) You could support someone who comes close to your own views on these matters, and therefore is likely to propose policies you sort-of like.

(b) You could support someone who appears competent enough to get legislation passed and is only moderately wrong (in your opinion) as to the direction the country should go on the issues important to you (so the country is likely to move in what you think is the wrong direction over the next 4 to 8 years, but not so far you can't stand it).

Or (c) You could support someone who is extremely far from your own views and who would like to move the country a long way in directions you don't like, but who appears to be incompetent about actually getting things done and thus would not be likely to succeed in moving the country in those directions.

You might well be better off supporting a Democrat whose views are repugnant to you, but who you feel will alienate Congress and the public during the term of office and thus do less harm (in your eyes) to the nation than a candidate whose views were closer to your own.

The other question that comes to mind is: which candidate do you think would have the best chance of winning with your support? If you actually want the Democrat to win, then you need to support one whose normally-Democratic-voting support plus Republican-defector-for-this-election support will produce more electoral votes than George Bush gets. This could be either a candidate whom a lot of Democrat-leaning folks like a lot and whom a moderate number of normally-Republicans are willing to vote for, or a candidate who doesn't excite the Democratic-leaning folks much but whom a lot of Republicans feel willing to vote for.

The most recent polls I heard sounded like most normally-Republican folks are content with Bush and plan to vote for him. Unless that's wrong, or unless something happens to change that between now and the election (such as efforts by you and people feeling as you do to sway other normally-Republicans), then you're probably better going with the former: figuring out which candidate excites a large number of normally-Democratic voters the most, and giving your support to that candidate.

[davefoc]

Ah, my goals were so much simpler than you suspect.

Although I normally vote Republican I don't seem this group as all that much better than the Democrats. Right now Bush's economic policies don't seem that much different than a moderate democrats and my thought is I'd rather have a Democrat that I might be inclined to side with more on social issues than a socially conservative Republican like Bush. Plus I'm ready for a fresh face on the Iraq situation and the middle east situation in general.

I would be very suspicious of a Democrat if the house and senate were Democratic. We just lived through that here in California and there will be years getting over the excesses of the Davis administration unconstrained by a wacky (and corrupt in my view) Democratic legislature.

You are right about few Republicans changing sides in the upcoming election. Bush wins the same rural states that he did before easily. His combination of agricultural subsidies, reduced environmental restrictions and bible thumping style look to be an unbeatable combination and the Iraq war won't have any effect one way or the other unless it turns into a glorious success or a massive disaster.

It also looks like Bush will do better in the swing states than he did last time. The prescription drug bill, in net, probably bought him some votes and that combined with the bully pulpit is probably enough to given him just the edge he needs to carry those states. My sense of it though is that he will lose the urban states he lost last time by even higher margins .

[Schizobunny]

I am not old enough to vote, but I personally like Dean the best, but at this point I'll take anyone except Leiberman or Sharpton. Bush is an asinine president without an intelligent thought in his obviously brainless head. We have to get him out of office.

[Silicon]

On "Libertarian" issues, Dean is the democrat least in favor of gun control, and the most in favor of getting the government out of Gays' bedrooms.


I applaud your decision. I am often perplexed as to republicans support of President Bush. At least the non "God and Country(music)" republicans. What I would call intellectual "less government is better" republicans.

[hammegk]

Is someone predicting that any of these wanna-bees/has-beens will carry more than a handful of states (Yeah including Califunia & Neeew Yawwk -- idiots all)?

That is, who would care????

[Troll]

Originally posted by Silicon
On "Libertarian" issues, Dean is the democrat least in favor of gun control, and the most in favor of getting the government out of Gays' bedrooms.


I applaud your decision. I am often perplexed as to republicans support of President Bush. At least the non "God and Country(music)" republicans. What I would call intellectual "less government is better" republicans.

well nobody should be in gays or anyone else's bedrooms unless invited or an agreement has been signed for the film rights. That's not really a presidential issue.

Btw, why did you capitalize "Gays"?

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by davefoc
Ah, my goals were so much simpler than you suspect.

Although I normally vote Republican I don't seem this group as all that much better than the Democrats. Right now Bush's economic policies don't seem that much different than a moderate democrats and my thought is I'd rather have a Democrat that I might be inclined to side with more on social issues than a socially conservative Republican like Bush. Plus I'm ready for a fresh face on the Iraq situation and the middle east situation in general.

I would be very suspicious of a Democrat if the house and senate were Democratic. We just lived through that here in California and there will be years getting over the excesses of the Davis administration unconstrained by a wacky (and corrupt in my view) Democratic legislature.

You are right about few Republicans changing sides in the upcoming election. Bush wins the same rural states that he did before easily. His combination of agricultural subsidies, reduced environmental restrictions and bible thumping style look to be an unbeatable combination and the Iraq war won't have any effect one way or the other unless it turns into a glorious success or a massive disaster.

It also looks like Bush will do better in the swing states than he did last time. The prescription drug bill, in net, probably bought him some votes and that combined with the bully pulpit is probably enough to given him just the edge he needs to carry those states. My sense of it though is that he will lose the urban states he lost last time by even higher margins .


I think Bush will actually lose in plenty of the Swing States for one reason.


Most of the 2 Million Jobs Lost were manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, where most of the Swing States are!

There are going to be a bunch of angry labor unions that are going to vote in droves for a Democrat.

[davefoc]

There were 14 states where the margin between Gore and Bush was less than 5%.

Without Nader Gore would have probably won 3 more of them than he did. Maybe Kurita will be right.

The 14 states where the margin of difference between Gore and Bush was less than 5%:

ME
MI
PA
MN
OR
WI
NM
FL

IA
NH
MO
NV
TN
OH

Bush won the top eight.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Schizobunny

Bush is an asinine president without an intelligent thought in his obviously brainless head. We have to get him out of office. I am not a Bush fan, and am with you in wanting him out of office, but I think some of what you say is an exaggeration.

I agree Bush is not exceptionally bright, but I don't think he is exceptionally stupid either. He seems to be of fairly average intelligence. Many of the verbal misstatements he makes, while sounding foolish and funny when transcribed, actually do not seem that hard for his audiences to follow. He misspeaks often, but his intended meaning is usually clear, and the intended meaning of his words (as opposed to the literal one) is generally not that foolish. (I usually disagree with his intended meaning, but there is a difference between him holding a stupid belief and his holding a belief that is different from mine.)

While exaggerated rhetoric is quite common in the world at large, I think skeptics are better served by trying to speak simply and clearly, without exaggeration or unnecessary insults. If his policies are bad, as I think they are, then that is what he should be criticized for.

If we focus on personal insults, it sounds as if we don't have substantive points to make -- and some of those on-the-line voters may decide to vote for Bush after all.

Well, no, not really. In the world as it is, exaggerated insults may be an extremely effective way of beating the other guys and winning elections. More than one race has been won by the candidate most willing to fight dirty. But in the world as we might like it to be, where people reject misleading or dishonest rhetoric and respond well to simple straightforward statements, this wouuld be true. And if we want to create that kind of world, we need to start somewhere. I think the logical place to start is with ourselves.

PS. Despite how my post sounds, I am not totally devoid of humor. I have no problems with a satiric sketch that depicts Bush as brainless, Clinton as a sex-crazed drug fiend, Gore as a wooden puppet and chronic liar, etc. I just think it's a mistake to confuse these exaggerated images with reality.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by hammegk

... these wanna-bees/has-beens ... I find it amusing that, in every election I can recall where there have been several candidates competing in a primary, the field is almost always dismissed as a bunch of light-weight losers.

"The Seven Dwarfs" was a clever insult used to dismiss the Democratic field one time. Similar comments have been made about Republican candidates when they've been the ones with a large field.

And then, a decade or two later, the same candidates who were dismissed derisively when they were running are held up as examples of how much better the quality of candidates used to be compared to the modern-day unknowns.

For all the routine insults hurled at the current crop of Democrats, I think it's actually a fairly respectable lot of candidates. I predict that a decade or two from now it will not be uncommon to hear the names of some of these folks held up as sterling examples of the high-quality candidates that used to run -- in contrast, of course, to the then-current crop of wanna-bes and has-beens.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Nova Land

For all the routine insults hurled at the current crop of Democrats, I think it's actually a fairly respectable lot of candidates. I predict that a decade or two from now it will not be uncommon to hear the names of some of these folks held up as sterling examples of the high-quality candidates that used to run -- in contrast, of course, to the then-current crop of wanna-bes and has-beens.

I couldn't agree more, except the "qualified" candidates with long records one can examine (Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards) are all playing second fiddle to Dean, aided in large part by endorsements from high-profile Dems.

If anyone has marginalized the "real" candidates - and there are several - it's the Deomcrats themselves by lining up behind Dean, who's a sure loser in the general election.

Myself, I think Lieberman is a moderate with a strong moral foundation who wouldn't stoop to Clintonesque pandering, but that's what will doom him, unfortunately, along with his former running mate endorsing a rival. I mean, if Gore likes Dean so damned much, why didn't he share the ticket with him in 2000?

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

. Clark - Seems to be willing to say just about anything even if it contradicts what he said yesterday
Well, imo, the press and Dem opponents have made much ado about nothing regarding his comments about Bush and the Iraq War. I think there's nothing wrong with positions evolving over time as people are (finally) given more accurate information from the White House.

Personally, I think you might like Clark more as time goes on.

Yes, maybe Kerry, too.

(re: Dean. Robert Novak today said he's been told by "administration officials" what everyone already knows--that the White House is -hoping- their opposition will be Dean. Frankly, Dean's okay with me ideologically--so's Kucinich--but I agree that both are totally unelectable....).

[davefoc]

Well, I was just over having a few beers with my lefty buddy and he says the democrat that most fits my views is Edwards,

I. of course being a skeptic. told him that I didn't go for all that talking to the dead stuff, but without that maybe he's my guy.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by davefoc
Well, I was just over having a few beers with my lefty buddy and he says the democrat that most fits my views is Edwards,

I. of course being a skeptic. told him that I didn't go for all that talking to the dead stuff, but without that maybe he's my guy.

Edwards maybe the best candidate for you.

If you look at his Social and Economic Policy, it is almost exactly like Bill Clinton's.


As for me, I find myself more and more in support of Wesley Clark.

He just seems to be the kind of guy that could beat Bush at his own game.

[Silicon]

Well,

The "liberal" media is now telling me that Dean is unelectable, so they recommend I vote for someone more centrist than Dean. Ah what a crazy process.

Of course I'm looking at Kerry and Edwards more closely since Iowa.

Maybe being a libertarian, you should see who the "Tax us and Die" (Isn't that the motto?) New Hampshire folks vote for.

I saw some clips of Edwards speaking. He looks bright and articulate. Might be a good guy there.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Silicon


I applaud your decision. I am often perplexed as to republicans support of President Bush. At least the non "God and Country(music)" republicans. What I would call intellectual "less government is better" republicans. [/B]


Or, what I would call 'Libertarians'.

[hgc]

Originally posted by davefoc
There were 14 states where the margin between Gore and Bush was less than 5%.

Without Nader Gore would have probably won 3 more of them than he did. Maybe Kurita will be right.

The 14 states where the margin of difference between Gore and Bush was less than 5%:

ME
MI
PA
MN
OR
WI
NM
FL

IA
NH
MO
NV
TN
OH

Bush won the top eight. Bush won the bottom 7, not the top 8.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Is someone predicting that any of these wanna-bees/has-beens will carry more than a handful of states (Yeah including Califunia & Neeew Yawwk -- idiots all)?

That is, who would care???? This precisely reflects the quality of the poster's intellect.

ex. of political discussion: Califunia & Neeew Yawwk -- idiots all

[hammegk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hammegk
Is someone predicting that any of these wanna-bees/has-beens will carry more than a handful of states (Yeah including Califunia & Neeew Yawwk -- idiots all)?

That is, who would care????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hgc
This precisely reflects the quality of the poster's intellect.

ex. of political discussion: Califunia & Neeew Yawwk -- idiots all

Struck a nerve, huh? Waaah. And what did you say you added here? Your usual; absolutely nothing.

Sorry that will have to wait 'til 08 to vote on your 2fer Hil/Bil -- another wannabe/hasbeen set. For 04 are you predicting a win for any of the real 3 stooges: Kerry-Edwards-Clark ?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Struck a nerve, huh?Yes. But not the one that you think.Waaah. And what did you say you added here? Your usual; absolutely nothing. I let my contribution speak for itself. If it were nothing more than taking jabs at the likes of you, that'd be quite satisfactory.Sorry that will have to wait 'til 08 to vote on your 2fer Hil/Bil -- another wannabe/hasbeen set. For 04 are you predicting a win for any of the real 3 stooges: Kerry-Edwards-Clark ? I'd bet you said the same sort of thing in '92.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
I'd bet you said the same sort of thing in '92.
Nope. Bush 1, including the wimpout on finishing the job in Iraq, never impressed me (Read my lips...!) . Bush 2? Keep pretending he's a dummy; I think he'll continue to do the right thing as best he can.

Would Bil/Hil have been successful if FauxNews/Drudge had been around in 91-2 to keep pounding 'em with Jennifer, etc? Thinking about that crap, & the in-office bs that continued, may even keep Hil from winning in 08.

[Schizobunny]

Originally posted by Nova Land
I am not a Bush fan, and am with you in wanting him out of office, but I think some of what you say is an exaggeration.

I agree Bush is not exceptionally bright, but I don't think he is exceptionally stupid either. He seems to be of fairly average intelligence. Many of the verbal misstatements he makes, while sounding foolish and funny when transcribed, actually do not seem that hard for his audiences to follow. He misspeaks often, but his intended meaning is usually clear, and the intended meaning of his words (as opposed to the literal one) is generally not that foolish. (I usually disagree with his intended meaning, but there is a difference between him holding a stupid belief and his holding a belief that is different from mine.)

While exaggerated rhetoric is quite common in the world at large, I think skeptics are better served by trying to speak simply and clearly, without exaggeration or unnecessary insults. If his policies are bad, as I think they are, then that is what he should be criticized for.

If we focus on personal insults, it sounds as if we don't have substantive points to make -- and some of those on-the-line voters may decide to vote for Bush after all.

Well, no, not really. In the world as it is, exaggerated insults may be an extremely effective way of beating the other guys and winning elections. More than one race has been won by the candidate most willing to fight dirty. But in the world as we might like it to be, where people reject misleading or dishonest rhetoric and respond well to simple straightforward statements, this wouuld be true. And if we want to create that kind of world, we need to start somewhere. I think the logical place to start is with ourselves.

PS. Despite how my post sounds, I am not totally devoid of humor. I have no problems with a satiric sketch that depicts Bush as brainless, Clinton as a sex-crazed drug fiend, Gore as a wooden puppet and chronic liar, etc. I just think it's a mistake to confuse these exaggerated images with reality.


Well what I said was meant to be an embellishment of reality.
I don't like Bush and I do think he is asinine and an incompetent president, but I didn't mean anyone to actually take my comment as the complete truth.

[davefoc]

hgc said:Bush won the bottom 7, not the top 8.

whoops