Why Kerry is winning NH

[kittynh]

No it wasn't the Iowa thing...

we in NH ignore that.

Before Iowa, Kerry started running some new ads. And I have to admit, they are great. Usually, we just tune the tv ads out, as they are running constantly at this time. But this ad was special.

It shows Kerry in Vietnam. He is obviously coming back from something rough, he's standing tall, but a little disheveled. He looks like a leader. He looks like he's been there, walked the walk...so when he talks about Iraq he's not going to screw over our troops. This image just so stands in contrast to Bush in the flight suit, that you get the feeling Kerry could win.

Some of his troops talk about how they trusted this man with their lives, that they would follow him anywhere because they knew he would take care of them. You could hear how these men still cared for him.

This one ad totally blew Dean away. I was almost crying over this ad. Every time it is on, I watch it. It may only be marketing, but it goes to show how one well thought out ad can change the course of history.

[davefoc]

41 people have viewed this and not one person has anything to say?

Jeez, I don't know why Kerry is coming back. I don't know why he was ever back in the first place. I was curious what people thought about it though.

OK, since no one else has taken a shot at this and to demonstrate once again my willingness to post with only an opinion and no particular knowledge on the subject I will put my two cents in.

Kerry is doing well because:
1. He's physically the best looking candidate (kind of in sync with what Kittynh said about how he looked in the commercial).
2. Edwards is too young looking if he isn't too young.
3. Dean was riding high but has fallen back for various reasons.
4. Lieberman is too conservative for some and too Jewish for others.
5. Clark's anti-war views seem a bit contrived, given earlier quotes apparently in support of the war.
6. They haven't hit the south yet and Kerry may not do well there because either they like their own boy, Edwards, or because they think Kerry is too liberal.

On the Lieberman Jewish comment: I think in general there is little antisemitism in the US and a lot of people maybe the vast majority would be willing to vote for a Jewish guy. I think though at this particular time there is a widely held view (although perhaps still a minority view) that the US has sided too much with Israel of late and that the election of a Jewish president at this point in history might be sending the wrong message to the rest of the world.

Personally, I'm a guy who generally votes Republican that has decided to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate this time around. I'm still a little undecided who I'd like to see win. But I'm kind of leaning to Lieberman with Kerry being my second choice. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich or Shaprton, but I don't think I have too much to worry about there.

My bet is that Edwards ends up being the candidate for vice president.

[kittynh]

Edwards is nice. I've been to two meeting he's had in Keene, NH. Very smart, very articulate. But comes across as young in person.

Lieberman is sad to say, just a little too much like the kindly college prof you would go to for help. Not quite presidential enough...I'm beginning to think in this age of media that while looks might not matter, if you're not good looking at least be able to look like Churchill and project strenght.

[ASRomatifoso]

I am a Dem and will vote for one of these guys eventually. I don't really get a good feeling from any of them, however.

I agree that anti-semitism is less prevalent that racism against other groups but it is still there, plus Lieberman is not only Jewish, he is big-city Jewish, which doesn't go over well in the heartland.

I am from North Carolina but would not vote for Edwards. Too young, too inexperienced.

Clark, to my opinion is not trustworthy. He seems to say whatever he or his advisors think is the best thing to say at the time he says it.

Kerry has that whole East Coast aristocracy look to me. Like he summers on Nantucket, his kids are J. Crew models, etc. I don't like that at all.

I wish Al Gore would come back. He is a geek, a policy wonk, and pretty out of touch with a lot of people but he is very, very smart, works hard, and has tons of experience.

One other thing that bothers me every election year. Candidates say that "I am not a Washington insider", etc. I hate that. I personally want a Washington insider. I want someone who knows what the hell they are doing and has the experience to back it up. Put it this way, I wouldn't hire a bicycle mechanic to fix my car.

Anyway, gotta vote my party but not particularly happy about it this year:|

[svero]

Honestly most of the dem candidates are really uninspiring. I'd love to see Bush go. He's a menace. But if someone like Kerry was the alternate choice, I'd say it doesn't matter much whether Bush is re-elected or not. Maybe Clark is alright... Hard to say.

- S

[Ion]

Originally posted by svero
Honestly most of the dem candidates are really uninspiring. I'd love to see Bush go.
...
- S
Dean is good.

[svero]

Well... Dean seems ok on the surface, but he's uninspiring in a different way. Can he beat Bush? Not only does he have to be good he also has to be electable and especially so in the so-called swing states where the election will mainly be fought. From that perspective is Dean a guy that can win this election? Personally I have serious doubts. If Dean won the primaries it would be a close election but mostly on party/partisan lines. I doubt Dean would be a guy to pull in and convince traditional Rep conservative voters. Clark seems more like a wildcard in that respect. Someone that migth do well with conservative southern voters etc...

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

He's physically the best looking candidate (kind of in sync with what Kittynh said about how he looked in the commercial).
Kerry's getting more personable on tv of late, but from what I've read, many of the women covering the Clark campaign agree with my feeling that Clark is by fair the most attractive.

That said, I'm one of many reconsidering Kerry over Clark...just what the polls show (how unoriginal!)...for the reasons of a record of public service combined with his "electability".

Kerry has experience with domestic and foreign policy, good environmental record, has "paid his dues" in government service (I didn't like Clark's whole "he left the military, but I stayed in" thing). And he's a war hero with lots of veterans (and in Iowa, the firefighters) actively supporting him.

I think it's true that Clark was getting momentum as an alternative to Dean (and as a Southerner). Now Dean's imploding...and Kerry has become a less wooden and boring communicator...the contrasting experience of Kerry and Clark have become more telling.

Plus, the excitement of Kerry being someone who (unlike Dean)--maybe--can beat Bush after all.

That sounds like a great commercial, Kittynh, and I haven't heard any other comments pointing it out. I hope we get to see it here in California in March.

[Ion]

Kerry supported Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich.

Dean didn't.

Kerry = bad.

Dean = better.

[Ion]

From:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=792

Dean is closing in on Kerry in New Hampshire polls:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollster John Zogby: "Dean had another good polling day, actually bouncing back to 25 points on Saturday, compared to Kerry's 28. Undecideds climbed slightly on Saturday, indicating a shift may be taking place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This indicates that the CNN's effect was short-lived.

Dean pissed them off by proposing regulation of the telecommunications industry and CNN is bent on beating him down.

As I see it, Kerry is for wannabe appearance and goofy substance like Bush, and Dean is for solid substance.

[Clancie]

Posted by Ion

As I see it, Kerry is for wannabe appearance and goofy substance like Bush, and Dean is for solid substance.
Hi Ion,

Let's say that you're right, and Dean's the best candidate.

How/where do you see him winning against Bush in November? Can you really add up him carrying enough states to become President?

[shuize]

Originally posted by Ion
Kerry supported Bush's war and tax cuts for the rich.

Dean didn't.

Kerry = bad.

Dean = better.

Yes. Dean's perfect. Please nominate him.

[Ion]

This:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/elec04.prez.dean.tran/index.html

is Dean's speech in Iowa, rallying his supporters after the firefighters in Iowa gave only a local victory to Kerry.

It's a pretty good speech.

Dean says where he will win in U.S. the Democrat nomination.

I believe him.

CNN is goofying about Dean, only because Dean wants to regulate them, and before that because Dean was confusing the Old and the New Testaments, and before that because Dean was reaching out to Southern rednecks, and so on...

Nevermind Bush spending $100 billion of taxpayer money to war in Iraq for nonexistent WMDs, neglecting the economy, giving contracts to Halliburton.

And Kerry supporting these like a slave.

[Ion]

Originally posted by shuize

Yes. Dean's perfect. Please nominate him.
Nah.

shuize is perfect:

perfect to vote for Dean as the U.S. President.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Clancie

...
Let's say that you're right, and Dean's the best candidate.

How/where do you see him winning against Bush in November? Can you really add up him carrying enough states to become President?
In the general election in November, I saw this graph of Dean and Bush one-on-one in U.S.:

http://www.pollingreport.com/images/CBS-BvsD.GIF
(SOURCE (http://www.pollingreport.com))

Dean only gets 70% of Democratic voters (with 20% going to Bush), and Bush wins nearly 2-to-1 over Dean with Independant voters.

I think that this should change though, once Clinton will support the Democrat nominee Dean, and once Dean gains momentum with his race for the Democrat nomination.

Sorry Clancie, this input is not state by state like you wanted, I am still learning about U.S., while the U.S. trends are in evolution in this campaign.
However, from an absolute point of view I think that Dean is the best U.S. brain, better than Kerry, because of his successful record when governing Vermont -including balanced budgets for 11 years and universal healthcare for the under 21- and because of his steadfast (not flip-flop) anti-war and anti-tax-cuts campaign.

[kevinsbikes]

The way I see it in a "nut" shell:

Dean: An angry s.o.b. that hates how Bush has allowed the good old boys network to line their pockets at the expense of joe and joanne average. He is my choice.
Braun: I know she is out, but don't you just love her! She seemed so to the point and gave me the impression that she really cares.
Kerry: My "winnable" choice... but is he dishing out unobtainable lip service?
Edwards: To inexperienced and he smiles too much... I don't know why this bothers me, it just does.
Leiberman: Coming from a "Jewthiest", it aint gunna happen. He should save his/the raised monies and drop out.
Clark: A Republican in Democrats clothing.
Sharpton and Cucinich (sp): ?!?!?!
Bush: Please slit my wrist! Penn and Teller, please use me in your bullet catching trick if this idiot gets reelected!

[kittynh]

The Dean troops really are rallying. They are out in force and have a strong base of volunteers to call on (they are bringing in people from Vermont). In fact over night Dan signs have popped up everywhere, including a big one on the border between Vermont and NH....

so we'll see.

But, if Dean can't win in NH then it's going to be very hard for him elsewhere.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by kittynh

This one ad totally blew Dean away. I was almost crying over this ad. Every time it is on, I watch it. It may only be marketing, but it goes to show how one well thought out ad can change the course of history.

One thing Democrats seem to have trouble with is control of the message. Up until this point, Dean was the only candidate who was taking people's and the media's interest.

Kerry has shown lackluster leadership of his own campaign by not controlling his message like this. If an ad like this indicates he's starting to do so, then I'll feel a little better about voting for him.

[Landis]

I started with Kerry and switched to Clark. I like both candidates and respect their military backgrounds. I think Clark will do better in the Southern States but that remains to be seen. I like Edwards also and despite his youthful appearance (he's 50), I think he is running a great campaign. Dean has put together a great grass roots organization which has mobilized many new youthful converts to the political arena. Unfortunately, I don't think many of his followers have analyzed the Electorate map or they would reallize he doesn't have a chance in "Hades" of beating Bush in the South.

The main theme I see arising out of the Iowa and NH primaries is "Beat Bush". Perhaps there is some hope.

[SRW]

The one good thing about this race is that none of these guys really stands out. Which means that buy the time the voting comes here to Cal. there still might be a horse race. Whom ever the nominee turns out to be, he will not be electable if Cal. rejects him.

[CFLarsen]

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.

[Ion]

Not me:
Originally posted by Ion

...
However, from an absolute point of view I think that Dean is the best U.S. brain, better than Kerry, because of his successful record when governing Vermont -including balanced budgets for 11 years and universal healthcare for the under 21- and because of his steadfast (not flip-flop) anti-war and anti-tax-cuts campaign.
I am not into how "...standing tall, but a little disheveled..." Kerry looked in a war commercial so that his "...wannabe appearance and goofy substance..." can work on Americans -like I put it earlier in this thread-.

That got firefighters voting for him in Iowa.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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 it? Not only that but I got actually "yelled" at on this forum when I wanted the debate to be on policies and not on personalities. As it stands I -- one of those swing voters -- have no idea what the policies of the Democrats are. Sure they all oppose the war, yes they all want to do something with healthcare for everyone. I hope that it's not it. It's easy to promise something they can't deliver -- universal healthcare -- and to show they dislike something everyone hates -- war.

[Luke T.]

The Dean supporters in this topic seem to be rather laconic. :D

Let's have some depth, people! "Dean is good."

Good for what? Why?

Clark struck me as a looney with his statements about abortion. And he particularly struck me as a dishonorable man when he didn't slap Michael Moore for calling the Commander in Chief a deserter. I can't believe a man who prides himself, and constantly reminds people, on being a General that he let that slide. He should be ashamed. Even when pressed by Peter Jennings during the recent debate, he said it didn't matter to him that Moore called Bush a deserter.

No honor. None. Zip. I could never trust a man like that.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The Dean supporters in this topic seem to be rather laconic. :D

Let's have some depth, people! "Dean is good."

Good for what? Why?
...

I post this for the third time:
Originally posted by Ion

...
However, from an absolute point of view I think that Dean is the best U.S. brain, better than Kerry, because of his successful record when governing Vermont -including balanced budgets for 11 years and universal healthcare for the under 21- and because of his steadfast (not flip-flop) anti-war and anti-tax-cuts campaign.
It was not addressed once, but my introductory "Dean is good." came up instead in order to diagnose 'laconic' for everything I posted.

That's selective reading.

How many posts does it take before seeing the follow up on "Dean id good.", i.e.: the "...However, from an absolute point of view,..."?

[Luke T.]

It took you a while to get around to some substance, Ion. That's laconic.

So "Dean is good" for taxes. And he is hell-bent on them. Who'd have guessed? :rolleyes:

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by kittynh
This image just so stands in contrast to Bush in the
flight suit, that you get the feeling Kerry could win.

Oh, I definitely think he could win the nomination.
Last night on CBS he was really good and personable.
He said he was against everything Bush did, passionately.
I didn’t catch a single thing he was for, but it doesn’t matter.
Candidates practically never do in office what they promise.
I picked him and Dean as being the winners of the nomination
largely based upon how much money the economic elites pumped in.
The good news is for them that Kerry like Bush is a Skull & Crossbones man.
I have a feeling that Clark will be his running mate more than Edwards.

He can’t win the election becuase the Republicans remain solidly
behind their candidate. They’ve added a quite a few more voters
and disqualifications for minorities. I wish I could bet on the election.
It’s easy money. ;)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It took you a while to get around to some substance, Ion. That's laconic.

So "Dean is good" for taxes. And he is hell-bent on them. Who'd have guessed? :rolleyes:
But it was there before you posted wasn't it?

And you posted 'laconic' nonetheless, even though it was there.

Dean is good for balanced budgets.

11 years in Vermont.

In another thread I linked the IMF concern about Bush's debts.

[Landis]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The Dean supporters in this topic seem to be rather laconic. :D

And he particularly struck me as a dishonorable man when he didn't slap Michael Moore for calling the Commander in Chief a deserter.

So you think a citizen has no right to speak the truth? Why is it whenever anyone ask the question "why was Bush AWOL during his National Guard service" the Bushies start jumping up and down and screaming treason. After all, Bush, himself brought the subject up by donning a military flight uniform and parading around before the cameras.

I just don't get why people think Bush was a military hero when he can't even seem to remember what he was doing for a whole year of his life during the Viet Nam war.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Oh, I definitely think he could win the nomination.
Last night on CBS he was really good and personable.
He said he was against everything Bush did, passionately.
I didn’t catch a single thing he was for, but it doesn’t matter.
Candidates practically never do in office what they promise.
I picked him and Dean as being the winners of the nomination
largely based upon how much money the economic elites pumped in.
The good news is for them that Kerry like Bush is a Skull & Crossbones man.
I have a feeling that Clark will be his running mate more than Edwards.

He can’t win thou, the Republicans remain solidly behind their candidate.
They’ve added a quite a few more voters and disqualifications for minorities.
I wish I could bet on the election. It’s easy money. ;)


Are you out of your mind?? Do you really decide on who should lead your country based on something else than their policies??

[Athena]

Originally posted by kittynh
But, if Dean can't win in NH then it's going to be very hard for him elsewhere.

I am a Republican living in VT, have lived here 12 years. In fact I live about 40 minutes from the Dixville Notch where the first results will come in from. I'll be voting for Bush when election time roles around.

However, let me tell you about Dr. Dean. He ruined this state for business, we all shop in NH where they are business friendly and don't tax them to death. In my mind he's a "slick willy" clone just about, changes his stance on the issues. What's in those boxes locked up in MontPeculiar that he doesn't want you all to see? Only his "records" for his term of service. I've seen him LIE to the press before about his knowledge of events that were about to occur regarding businesses laying off workers (IBM), I could tell by his body language he was not being truthful and sure enough, I was right.

Kerry is winning because people think he can beat Bush and he does have that slick ad of him in his uniform touting his role as leader of men. He also has run a fairly positive campaign compared to Dean, and Dean did lose ground after Iowa speech, he scared some people away. Our local news is full of Dean stories every night. Maybe someday he'll have the experience and the timing will be right for him to move up the political food chain, but I don't think that time is now. No matter what Senator Leahy says.

Now having said all that, here's a pic of myself and then Gov. Dean taken in 1998 at a promotional ceremony for my spouse. Just thought I'd share :p

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Landis


So you think a citizen has no right to speak the truth? Why is it whenever anyone ask the question "why was Bush AWOL during his National Guard service" the Bushies start jumping up and down and screaming treason. After all, Bush, himself brought the subject up by donning a military flight uniform and parading around before the cameras.

I just don't get why people think Bush was a military hero when he can't even seem to remember what he was doing for a whole year of his life during the Viet Nam war.

Did Michael Moore ever call Clinton a deserter? I doubt it.

I don't know who thinks Bush was a military hero. Never heard anyone say that.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ion
Dean is good for balanced budgets.
11 years in Vermont.


Do you mean this sarcastically or do you have proof of this claim?

Yes, tax tax tax and you have all the money you need. Maybe a balanced budget, but at what expense? Our current Governor is the financial whiz and he's straightening up all that Dean made a mess of. Balanced budget and businesses leaving the state en masse. It happens every day here.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Landis


So you think a citizen has no right to speak the truth? Why is it whenever anyone ask the question "why was Bush AWOL during his National Guard service" the Bushies start jumping up and down and screaming treason. After all, Bush, himself brought the subject up by donning a military flight uniform and parading around before the cameras.

I just don't get why people think Bush was a military hero when he can't even seem to remember what he was doing for a whole year of his life during the Viet Nam war.

As far as I know Bush was honorably discharged from the National Guard which would imply that he was probably never AWOL. Also, there's no real AWOL charge on Bush's record, of course when this is brought up the anti-Bushies always scream "He bought his way out!" or "His father pulled strings!" Which I guess is a more reasonable, mature response, despite the absence of evidence.

[Clancie]

CFLarsen reposted by Grammatron

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.
Talk about making a silly over-generalization and trying to state it as a fact! ("Evidence", anyone? :p ) Do you actually agree with this, Grammatron? Personally, I think Claus is just trolling again--maybe not having learned the lesson of his earlier "If I see someone with a gun on a plane I'm going to kill him, no questions asked" thread. :rolleyes:

Surprise! People can both know and care about policies and discuss "image" and presentation issues that -do- affect a candidate's electability. It's not an "either/or" situation. :)

Posted by Grammatron

As it stands I -- one of those swing voters -- have no idea what the policies of the Democrats are.
Well, its probably too hard to get enough comparative details across through short posts on a message board anyway. But maybe you'll find this site of interest (also has links to candidates' bios and positions, websites and quotes)

issues and candidates (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm)

There's also a quiz where you can get a little idea of how some of your views correspond with theirs.

short quiz (http://www.ontheissues.org/Quiz.htm)

And, re: AWOL. Bush technically wasn't a deserter, that's true. But he's never accounted for the documented year that he did not show up for his duties in the Guard when he was required to.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Are you out of your mind?? Do you really decide on who should lead your country based on something else than their policies??
It comes down to the old problem of voting for the candidate you prefer or the platform you prefer. It's up to the individual voter, but in American politics you aren't voting for a platform, you're voting for individuals. They are free to deviate from their election promises as much as they want to. It's not a parliamentary system, the two major parties each contain people who disagree with significant parts of their platform. You're not voting for the policies, you're voting for the person.

My father has mentioned to me on several occassions that it's difficult when the choice comes down to an impressive candidate who you may disagree with or a stuffed shirt who will follow a party line that you agree with. Personally, I tend to vote for individuals because my view on policy is rather fluid, but your mileage may vary :)

It is noticeably different from most European models, as is rather strongly implied by the responses of the Europeans on the board. Whether it's better or worse is certainly debateable. :)


(I wrote this but liked the non DA part better, but I figured I'd leave it in cause I kind of liked it :))

[Devil's Advocate]

You would chose based solely on campaign promises? You would select the person who has policies that agree with you regardless of any other factors?? So if Charlie Manson ran on a platform you agreed with you'd vote for him over someone who disagrees with you on a single issue? What about the policies he doesn't elaborate on? What about his ability to handle crises? What about his ability as a diplomat, his ability to establish relationships with foreign leaders? You don't care about the candidates ability to react to unexpected situations, or deal with what is out of the ordinary? That strikes me as terrribly short-sighted.

[/Devil's Advocate]

[Ion]

Originally posted by Athena

Do you mean this sarcastically or do you have proof of this claim?
...

I mean that you should search before speaking.

After you search, you have the proof.

The proof is in the public domain since Dean appeared nationally in the spring of 2003.
Originally posted by Athena

...
Yes, tax tax tax and you have all the money you need. Maybe a balanced budget, but at what expense?
...

Who do you think is going to pay for Bush's 'fun and games' adventures?

Halliburton?

Halliburton when under CEO Cheney who is vice-President now, has fifty something subsidiaries in a tax heaven.

So no, is people like me who pay for Bush lunacies that kill.

[Landis]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Did Michael Moore ever call Clinton a deserter? I doubt it.



That's because he was not a deserter. To be a deserter you have to be in the military (or at least called up through the draft).
Bush failed to report for active duty. This is a military offense punishable by court martial and possible time in the brink. He started his military service but somewhere along the line he decided he wasn't obligated to fulfill his duties.

Clinton and most of our current governing officials (Cheney et al) did what they could to stay out of the military. They did it within the law so they were not deserters. If Bush did not have an important daddy, the military might have been more interested in his where abouts.

Clark and Kerry both have experienced War first hand. They both won the Silver Star in Viet Nam.

[Athena]

Oh cool, on our local news we saw actor Martin Sheen - the President - introducing Dr(s). Dean in NH. Then we see Lyndon Larouche (sp?) supporters physically getting thrown out of Deans speach because they were so unruly. Very neat. And Judy is there too!

Yes Howard Dean, we know all about your record here. I'm living it thank you very much. Lots of stuff in the public domain for sure, but what about the 1000 boxes of stuff locked up that isn't? And again I ask, why doesn't he just say - here you go folks, I've got nothing to hide? The answer is because he has a lot to hide - much of it from when the civil unions debate was hot and heavy.

200 voters in Dixville notch, no registered Democrats, they'll probably vote for Clark. It will be interesting for sure.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
CFLarsen reposted by Grammatron

You just had to make sure that you were addressing Grammatron and not me, eh?

Originally posted by Clancie
Talk about making a silly over-generalization and trying to state it as a fact! ("Evidence", anyone? :p )

No, you dimwit. I clearly stated it as an opinion. Where did I state it as a fact??

Originally posted by Clancie
Do you actually agree with this, Grammatron?

I'm right here, Clancie. Talk to me, don't just talk about me. It would be the honest thing to do, but then, we have learned that honesty and Clancie do not go well together...

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I think Claus is just trolling again--maybe not having learned the lesson of his earlier "If I see someone with a gun on a plane I'm going to kill him, no questions asked" thread. :rolleyes:

I am not "trolling", Clancie. I wasn't either then. Please stop telling other people what they do, and stop forcing motives on people they do not have.

Originally posted by Clancie
Surprise! People can both know and care about policies and discuss "image" and presentation issues that -do- affect a candidate's electability. It's not an "either/or" situation. :)

Not according to this thread, which I made perfectly clear. In case you hadn't noticed....(which we all know that you had)

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, its probably too hard to get enough comparative details across through short posts on a message board anyway. But maybe you'll find this site of interest (also has links to candidates' bios and positions, websites and quotes)

Why should it be "too hard"? Nobody is limiting the length of people's posts here. What's so "hard" about it?

Originally posted by Clancie
issues and candidates (http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm)

There's also a quiz where you can get a little idea of how some of your views correspond with theirs.

short quiz (http://www.ontheissues.org/Quiz.htm)

Outside this thread, yes. Therefore, you are building a strawman.

You are simply incapable of arguing in an honest manner.

[kittynh]

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.

[CFLarsen]

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.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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. :)

[WildCat]

I actually agree w/ Claus on this one - no one comments on policies, just image. Consider Kerry's economic policy: (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/index.html)
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.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
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.

[Ion]

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.

[michaellee]

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.

[epepke]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
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.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by epepke


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.

[WildCat]

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.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by michaellee
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