Just as a reminder, the big nine are (in alphabetical order) Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton. 1. Dean. Economic moderate, social liberal, anti-war, strongest fundraiser, best organization top to bottom. Best campaign by far. 2. Edwards. I've just heard a lot of things from him that resonate. If he had Dean's grassroots support he'd win the nomination in a walk. 3. Clark. After a very bad start I have been pleasantly surprised by Clark's speeches and campaign in general. Fundraising went through the roof for him in 4th quarter. Would be a great VP or '08 candidate. 4. Kucinich. Why not? Compared to the others below him he's JFK. The vanity candidate that everyone thought Dean would be, but at least he's thinking for himself. Has the best sense of humor of the bunch. Has stuck with it because he passionately believes in what he says, not just because he wants to be President. Will likely have raised more money than Kerry in the 4th Q, which says more about Kerry than Kucinich. 5. Gephardt. BenReilly's slavish devotion to him notwithstanding, he's a middle-of-the-pack type of guy. Wouldn't be a terrible general election candidate but doesn't inspire people. 6. Sharpton. I put Sharpton ahead of Kerry because Sharpton hasn't been planning his run for President since birth. The best speaker of the bunch but far too much personal baggage. 7. Kerry. Frankly I'm surprised I have him this low, but after thinking about it for a while it feels right. The man has always struck me as just a bit too ambitious, a bit too pandering. 8. Lieberman. Pro-war and social conservative. Just don't like him. 9. Mosley-Braun. A shame, really, because when she was elected Senator for Illinois, it felt like she could be the start of a positive trend of getting more minority women in national politics. Boy was I wrong. Has a personal ethics meter that R. Kelly would reject.
1) Kucinich 2) Clark 3) Dean 4) Sharpton 5) Mosley-Braun 6) Kerry 7) Edwards 8) Gebhardt 9) Lieberman * Some of those in the middle are all lumped together for me. Basically, the only choice there who would make a "good" president is Kucinich. Instead we'll have to settle for a candidate who is "less crappy" than Bush.
Here's another view, with a concluding remark on chances to achieve the nomination, and chances to beat Bush. By the way, this is not a "ranking" -- I am simply following Obie's order. 1. Dean. A policy chameleon, who has quite effectively tapped into the loathing of George Bush on the part of party activists and the internet generation. Has created a crisis within the Democratic party. Rather than a challenger to George Bush, really a challenger to the Clinton/McAuliffe power structure. Chances of getting the nomination: 75%. Chances of beating Bush: 15%. 2. Edwards. Simply has not communicated his positions effectively. Bedside manner soothing, but in the end non-descript. Good idea, though, to try to stop Dean in the south; those confederate flag truck drivers may still vote for him. Chances of getting the nomination: 20%. Chances of Beating Bush: 35%. 3. Clark. Never underestimate the support of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. He's got it, and Dean doesn't. He will present a real alternative to Dean in New Hampshire and beyond. Chances of getting the nomination: 60%. Chances of beating Bush: 40% 4. Kucinich. Why? So left, so out of the mainstream, so marginal. But he's consistent, I'll say that. Chances of getting the nomination: 1%. Chances of beating Bush: 0%. 5. Gephardt. If Dean weren't in the race, he might be the front runner, since he would have all of labor behind him. Unlike others, I think he is the most electable of the candidates, but Obie's right, he isn't exciting. After Iowa, it's likely over. Chances of getting the nomination: 25%. Chances of beating Bush: 40% 6. Sharpton. The spoiler, the power broker, the fly in the ointment. Success at that? Close to 100%. Chances of getting the nomination? 1%. Chances of beating Bush: 5%. 7. Kerry. Inept campaigner, inept organizer, brings new meaning to the word "bland." Headed for quick flame out. Chances of getting nomination: 10%. Chances of beating Bush: 30%. 8. Lieberman. Perhaps the most "presidential" of the candidates -- manages to attack Dean effectively without seeming resentful and jealous. May still surprise in New Hampshire, though unlikely. Chances of getting nomination: 30%. Chances of beating Bush: 40%. 9. Mosley-Braun. What can you say? Not only is she ethically suspect, she has less intelligence than the vast majority of posters around here. Yikes!! Brings new meaning to the word "clutter." May she be gone soon. Chances of getting the nomination? 0%. Chances of beating Bush: 0%.
1. Gephardt 2. Edwards 3. Kerry 4. Dean 5. Clark 6. George Bush 7. Lieberman 8. Mosley-Braun 9. Mickey Mouse 10. Donald Duck 11. Mighty Mouse 12. Kucinich 13. Mohammad Said Sahhaf 14. Sharpton
Re: Re: Democrats: Rank the candidates "Crisis" and "Democratic Party" were synonymous long before Dean got hot. There is the outstanding question of whether or not Dean can reposition himself after the nomination battle, but given the unbelievable surge that he's gotten from his campaign strategists in twelve months, it's not nearly as impossible for him to succeed as Republicans like to say it is. Remember, this is a guy who was polling at 1-2% in Iowa and NH (and it's not like the competition was a bunch of wallflowers, either -- Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman are have massive name recognition and huge Presidential-style resumes) and had something like $100K in the campaign warchest at this time last year. The only problem with Clark is that he started too late to get the apparatus going full-steam. If he began his campaign in the spring he'd be the runaway #1 guy right now because he's proven that he has the smarts and policies to win (much to my pleasant surprise -- I thought he'd get eaten alive by the more experienced debaters and organizers). He just doesn't have the political experience. With all that said, he's the only person left with the ability to win over Dean. But he probably needs Bill's support, at least informally, to get over the hump. (By the way, your "chances of winning the nom" percentages sum to something like 300%.) Way too high. Just doesn't have the organization in place that could pull it off. (BenReilly disclaimer: I don't hate Gep; I'm just highly suspicious of his ability to run an effective and dynamic national election campaign against Rove Inc.) So you think Lieberman would have as much of a chance of winning over Bush as Clark does? I'd say that there is not a chance in hell of Lieberman winning the big race. The man excites moderates and bores / annoys core Democrats, which (much to the chagrin of the rest of the country) still makes up at least 30-35% of the electorate. Lieb would never win the voter turnout battle. And to core Dems, Lieb has come off over the last few months as a whiny loser. If he kept himself above the fray a bit he'd have a better shot but he has taken the entire campaign way too personally.
1. Clark. Very smart. Lots of common sense. Great leadership qualities. Great international presence. If elected, would be able to go straight to the electorate to push agenda. I used to think that a candidate needed party support to push a legislative agenda, but now I see that Congress is chock full of panderers and me-tooers, so a strong leader can take them where he wants to go. Case in point - blank check given Bush on Iraq. We're lucky that the electorate is so fed up with "Party" candidates that this guy might actually pull it off. International security policy is clear - appropriate use of force and respect for both US leading position and need for diplomacy. Only negative is unknown domestic policies when actually in office. 2. Dean. Fresh and invigorating. I think his domestic agenda would include national health or a reasonable imitation of it, which would be positive. Not beholden to corporate interests - BIG plus. I think the job of President would bring out his best, in the same way that it has brought out Bush's worst. 3. Gephardt. His energy and outspokeness have been a positive surprise. May shed Mr. Bland label yet. I like him a lot. Can't imagine him as President though. 4. Edwards. Telegenic, smooth and a southerner. Seems like he could beat Bush, but careful ... he's a former personal injury lawyer ... that could be his death knell. 5. The rest in no particular order because none of them have the right stuff to occupy highest office in the country.
I was very skeptical about my homeboy, but he's done some great things, things I wish Dean copied. First, he's been generally positive. Second, he's defined a very good perspective on both policy and politics: how the Bushies reward wealth and punish work. Third, he's been most willing to call Bush a bullsh** artist. The word he uses is "phony." The problems in Iraq over the last 3-4 months have made it superfluous, but he was the only candidate who really recognized that there was a huge gap between the popularity of Bush the man and Bush's policies. So he started pointing to the gap between them. Now, enough voters realize that that it's no longer an issue that Dems need to exploit, but Edwards was smart to pick it up early. The thing is, Edwards was for the war. Mainstream primary-voting Dems have recently come to realize just how radical the Rove/DeLay types are. They realize that all the old rules of politics have to be thrown out, lest the Dems be Hindenburg to the Reeps' Hitler. (Yes, I'm making that point. The Reeps have been taken over, and their center of gravity is a group that wants to rule, not govern. They seek every loophole they can, every tool of democracy, in order to overturn democracy.) Washington Dems were all Chamberlains and Hindenburgs. Dean is our Churchill. He brings a ton of baggage. Man, I wish it was somebody else. But he's the only guy who stood up when it counted. That's why he's so popular with the moveon.org types. We are, basically, left of center, but people who have a strong faith in the American system. And that's what disturbs us about a group of people that would call the Iraq war a product line, who would change the pork barrel rules, who would blacklist bipartisan lobbying firms, who would redistrict when power changed hands, who would distort intel, who would attack a triple amputee for being unpatriotic, who would move the date of their convention to coincide as closely as possible to the 9/11 anniversary (despite keeping Bush legally off the ballot in a couple of states) and on and on and on. I like Edwards alot because I think he, too, realizes what is going on. Kerry, Gephardt, they don't have clue one. They have no idea how high the stakes are if the Reeps win in 2004 and 2008. Honestly, Bush isn't all that bad. Bad, but not "that bad." But without a Democratic president, then the Hammer runs Congress, and that's catastrophic. Anyway, I'm badly rambling. For good or ill, Dean is the man for the moment because he was against the war, and he said the emperor had no clothes. So he got the support of the radical center-left, the people whose political involvement is driven more by fear of where movement conservatives are taking us than a belief in some kind of leftist agenda. We/they believe America is doing just fine, and just needs to have the rough edges smoothed. So they gave their $50 and $100 on the internet, and their time, and vaulted Dean to the front. We/they are really reactionaries, and it's a label I wear proudly. Dean is the flawed vessel. Edwards would have been better, for the reasons I mentioned. But he messed up in Munich. So, my ranking is, 1. Dean. 2. Everyone else. The only other possible ranking is 1. Everyone else. 2. Dean. You either grasp what the Texas Republicans who are running the country are all about, or you don't.
Re: Re: Democrats: Rank the candidates Comedy. Karl, which is the most presidential aspect of Lieberman, his height, his speaking voice, his baldness, or his Jewishness?
Re: Re: Democrats: Rank the candidates I can't stand self-righteous politicians. Dean is the worst one of them all. In the words of that famous politician Sonny Bono, "Don’t believe your own press releases." (He was talking about Newt at the time.) Even if he wins the nomination, he loses as the Reeps will gain stronger control of the House and Senate. He would have the effect of turning domestic policy to the right and foreign policy to the left. (Ouch) He's a man whose supporters want to gain France's favor and hope the South secedes again. I have a friend that served with Clark. He was deliberately willing to needlessly put men at risk in order to make himself look good. He was another Mogadishu waiting to happen. He is the kind of guy that could drive the Republicans nuts and win the middle. He has the best chance of all to beat Bush. A veggie as the nominee? That would be fun. A true sleeper candidate. His devout view of religion (this man knows the first half of the Bible) would win him support in the South. They care more about character than personal beliefs and Lieberman exudes character. Where Bush sometimes gives the impression of being a lucky drunk, Lieberman is the opposite, a personally serious guy with his head on straight. He is conservative personal views and personality and his strong support of social welfare make him a kind of Zell Miller Democrat. He would not be able to win the South but he would win the border states.
Howard Dean Wesley Clark John Edwards John Kerry Al Sharpton Richard Gephardt Carol Moseley Braun Dennis Kucinich John McCain George W Bush Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan Joseph Stalin Joe McCarthy Saddam Hussein Anyone else on the planet, living or dead Joe Lieberman
Howard Dean John Edwards Richard Gephardt Wesley Clark John Kerry Al Sharpton Carol Moseley Braun Dennis Kucinich John McCain George W Bush Richard Nixon Ronald Reagan Joseph Stalin Joe McCarthy Saddam Hussein All Trolls Joe Lieberman
1. Edwards 2. Clark 3. Kerry 4. Dean 5. Gephardt 6. Lieberman 7. Kucinich 8. Mosley-Braun 9. Sharpton
Re: Re: Re: Democrats: Rank the candidates Interesting. Interesting, yet so wrong. I mean, you're against self-righteousness, and you like Lieberman?!?!?! Since you said "they" I'm gonna assume you're not from here. You just ordered up a wrongburger with wrong cheese and extra wrong sauce, with a side order of wrong fries. You're so wrong all I can do is laugh at you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats: Rank the candidates Where are you from Dave? Cary? That should be wrong chopped pork with wrong beans and wrong slaw.
I'm a born-again dead dog Democrat, and I admit I've not paid as much attention to this primary as I have to others in the past. Never have I felt so much like this is the race to see who the Galaxy's second starting forward is - I'm going to cheer my ass off for any of them, and the only thing I ask of them is to score goals against the other team. It's a stupid metaphor, Officer Dillard, but that's where I'm coming from. That said, here's how I grade the campaigns: 1. Dean. He's doing better against the primary field at this point than Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did in their initial runs. Just saying. 2. Clark, on the basis of him getting on the front page of the LA Times for his seemingly reasonable tax plan. If this guy gets some domestic policy going, that might be enough to make it a race, after his bad start. 3. Edwards. The only one of the rest of the pack who will deserve to survive Iowa and New Hampshire. If he gets by South Carolina, though, he'll need to go on an absolute tear. 4. Sharpton. Sheerly on the basis of how he's rehabilitated his awful reputation. The gap between 3 and 4 on this list can be measured in AU's. 5. Kucinich. Hasn't totally embarrassed himself, told Ted Koppel where to get off, and like Sharpton has nearly overcome his reputation as a Class One Flake. 6. Moseley-Braun. For surviving this long, based on absolutely nothing. Her candidacy isn't any more legitimate than mine, but she'll apparently make it to the Iowa caucus, bless her silly little heart. 7. Kerry. Should be ashamed and embarrassed at how he pissed away his name recognition and front-runner status. 8. Gephardt. Same as Kerry, but being a self-destructive prick about it as well. 9. Lieberman. Makes Gephardt look like Franklin Delano *#*#*#*#ing Roosevelt. Had a worse year than Michael Jackson.
1) Sharpton - Crazy hair and he can dance too! The only one that shows more than robot-level inteligence at debates. 2) Kucinich - He's Croatian. That means he is full of the Croatian personality traits I am familar with. I'll support him anyway. 3) Dean - My friend and former co-worker now works for him. That counts for something. 23) Gephardt - umm... 8,372) Clark - The army dude, right? 9,327) Edwards - Who? 19,045) Moseley-Braun - What? 57,345) Kerry - The common American is a simple beast, easily swayed by his primal brain to follow the biggest beast and go where he leads. Kerry is a head taller than anyone else, yet he is close to last in polls. There must be something deeply wrong with him for this to be the case. I don't know what it is, and it doesn't really matter. 6,414,202,336 as of Jan.6,2004 11:49AM pacific time) Lieberman - The reason he is alowed in the Democrat campaign is to allow the other guys a chance to practice against a Bush-the-Younger clone before tackling the real thing. If nominated, I would expect him to abandon the campaign and allow Bush to run uncontested in support of Bush's success in destroying Saddam's vast array of nuclear-dispersed chemical ICBMs.
Re: Re: Democrats: Rank the candidates You called it. Seriously, I figure whoever the canidate is will have about a 1 in 3 chance of defeating Bush. Historically elections with incumbants are more of a referremdum on the sitting president then on the campaign of his challenger. It most likely depends more on how the economy goes and somewhat the war effort then anything else. That being said, I think Clark would have the best chance to beat Bush, followed closely by Edwards and Lieberman. I´m not that convinced on Dean. But then again, I didn´t think much of Clinton´s chances either.
1) Dean: He's made himself into the frontrunner by inspiring a huge grassroots movement despite being discounted every step of the way. But will he be like the 1927 Yankees or the 2001 Mariners? We'll find out. 2) Clark: He's built himself an impressive organization in a short amount of time -- but will it translate into votes? His decision to take matching funds will leave the General woefully short of ammo if he is the nominee. 3) Edwards: Good guy, genuinely likable, and has put together some extremely knowdegable position papers. In NASCAR terms, he's in a position where he has to wait for the other drivers ahead of him to get into a wreck, but that's not the worst strategy. 4. Sharpton: He knows how to talk, and he has great stage presence. 5. Mosely-Braun: Her and Sharpton haven't even qualified for matching funds yet, but they're still doing the best with their shoestrings. 6. Kucinich: Not sure why he's still in, but he also knows how to orate. 7. Gephardt: At least he's second in Iowa. As for everywhere else, is he even above the Sharpton line? He's great in debates ... you wish he was the same way in the House. 8. Kerry: Used to be the favorite, with Lieberman maybe the only one challenging that status. Now, in his next-door state, he's sliding behind Clark. An absolutely awful campaign dragged down by his constant flip-flopping on Iraq. 9. Lieberman: From the bottom half of the ticket in 2000 to getting booed at his own party's debates. This guy actually thought a pity bounce from the Gore endorsement would be his ticket to the White House, and his campaign web site actually runs an editorial touting him that predicts Bush will win anyway by 15 points. His campaign has been dead for four months now, but he hasn't known enough to lie down.
Ah, a different question. If I was grading the campaigns instead of the candidates, and I was forced to use a curve (or else six people would get "F"), here's how they stack up: 1. Dean -- A+ with some extra credit thrown in. What Joe Trippi has done here is nothing short of miraculous even if Dean gets whipped in November because this guy was roadkill in Jan '03. Dean's internet people have probably reshaped general election strategy more than anyone since Kennedy. 2. Kucinich -- B. Had no chance, still has no chance, but he's raising good money for a fringe candidate and getting not just good press, but substantial good press (NYT, WaPo, etc.). He is getting out of this exactly what he wanted. 3. Edwards -- B-. Great message, OK messenger, but still hunting for #3 or #4 in the race. Back in '08 if Dean gets crushed. 4. Clark -- B- so far, but climbing. First few weeks after announcing, he was sick and didn't hit the road. But have you seen his Q4 money numbers? Just announced too damn late. 5. Sharpton -- C+. He's still there, on a shoestring but getting the best soundbites. I'd love to see a Sharpton rally in Iowa just to know who shows up. 6. Mosley-Braun -- D. I dunno, but the fact that she is not broke yet means she has not failed completely. 7. Lieberman -- D-. I didn't expect Joe to make an impact this year and he hasn't, but demerits for misbehavior. 8. Gephardt -- D-. He has a message but has failed miserably in delivering it. Should have dropped out when AFSCME went to Dean because Gep's entire strategy was to win over unions and let them drive him home. They haven't. 9. Kerry -- F. The man should by all accounts be the nominee. He has mountains of personal cash, a veteran's record, a distinguished Senate career, and what everyone thought was an insurmountable lead in NH. The Bush camp was already putting together all sorts of Kerry-related ammo to use in the general election, and then *BLAMMO!* little man Dean comes along just beats the crap out of him. You'd think that Bob Stoops is his campaign manager. He should be ashamed of himself.
I still have a lot to learn about the democratic candidates, but assuming Bush does not get reelected (which I think is very unlikely to happen), here are my choices to lead the country: 1) Lieberman: He understands our foreign policy challenges better than the others, and is a moderate in domestic issues. 2) Edwards: I will excuse his populist BS as a necesity to get attention during the primaries. He is a moderate and pragmatist. I see him as very similar to Clinton but without the baggage, which for a democrat is not a bad thing. 3) Kerry: He appears tired and uninspired, but he is a patriot who loves the country and has a lot of experience. 4) Dean: Other than questions about his experience, he would be a decent president if he reverted back to the person he was as governor, before he began pandering to the Bush haters. 5) Clark: He has a great resume but has failed to impress me in any way since he began his campaign. 6) Gephard: He should be ranked higher based on his experience. But he is a protectionist and champion of big labor. As a small businessman who trades international, I think he would be the candidate who would affect me personally the most. So, I rank him last. I leave out the other three with my sincerest apologies. They cannot win.
I'm quite taken aback from the overall lack of respect for Carol Moseley-Braun. Her candidacy from the beginning was to put women's issues on the platform, and regardless she should have support of her fellow democrats. I'm disappointed to be honest. If this is a good barometer (which I hope it's not) then it will be a long time before we see a woman in the White House... Sad, really... I realize there are questionable events in her past, as there are in almost every political leader, but her accomplishments far outstrip any of those events... My rankings as follows... 1) Dean: No need for the base to pander to swing-voters, but he'll do it anyway. He'll still pound Bush, he is their worst nigthmare. A man vs. A puppet come November. 2) Clark: Automatic standing among some for his military background, which totally disqualified him for me. However, for a greenie, he's done particularly well, and he has influential backing. 3) Gephardt: One of the only non-millionaires. Unfortunately, Gephardt hasn't exactly proven himself a stong enough congressional leader. 4) Lieberman: I'm still looking for this man's spine. His only saving grace is that he happens to fall on the right side of policy opinion 70% of the time. 5) Edwards: Should have stayed out of this one. We could quench the entire world's thirst with all the wet behind his ears. 6) Moseley-Braun: Lots of nights she ends up outshining the pack in the debates. Unfortunately she is held up by being a woman, even more so than being a minority. However, she's stuck around long enough to make noise, and will continue to do so, which is what political activism is all about, she'll get something out of this, and hopefully the neglected 50% can take advantage of that... I really should put her above Lieberman, but this is more of a power ranking I guess... 7) Kerry: This is a shame. If he could deliver the message his campaign would steamroll, unfortunately too much time in the Senate... 8)tie Sharpton: Mr. Soundbyte, in a time where that means so much, I actually wish Sharpton would spend more time talking policy, it would make him more viable. 8)tie Kucinich: He is the crusader, and it's not that the ideas are bad, wrong, but sometimes so pie-in-the-sky that he loses you when your pragmatism meter bottoms out. I also think its shocking that people hold the fact that he's single against him. PS. Karl Keller is a Republican PPS. Attacking Minded, if you can remember, it was the South that left the union, if anyone wants them to leave, it's themselves. It is the only region of the country that considers itself a block so removed from the rest of the Union, that it tops New England's pretention in a heartbeat. We should want everyone's favor, not alienate ourselves.
Nope...no party registration. Independent in Illinois. Voted AGAINST Mosely-Braun. Voted FOR Rod Blagojevich. It wasn't until I posted that I saw that the intent was to have just Democrats rank, so in that sense I intruded. But I take Obies thread here seriously; it's a good one.