DNPT: Democrats Nominations for President Thread.

I like Dean, Gephart, and Kerry, in that order. Edwards is O.K.

If he can get past the controversy over some of his anti-war statements, Howard Dean looks like a winner. He's less geeky than the others. He has charisma.

Kerry's military record and his positions on the war will make it easier for him to gain support from independents than those who took strong anti-war positions.

Dean. Kerry.

Well Sharpton is obviously not a viable candidate. But if you've watched any of the events on C-Span, he adds a lot to the discussion. His rhetoric about Bush is very funny.

I really dislike Bob Graham a lot. This guy is so luke-warm about everything its ridiculous. He doesn't appear to stand for anything, except for watered down Republican ideas.

Kucinich is in this race just to get his name in the papers so he can build up a war chest to take on Ohio's governor Taft or Senator Dewine in a few years.

For the Democrat to win, they have to keep California and New York, which is very feasable.

They also have to take a state or two in the south. That will be tough for easterners like Dean and Kerry. If one of these guys is elected, the running-mate will be crucial in giving them a chance to win.

 

Re: Re: DNPT: Democrats Nominations for President Thread.

Was that a pig that just flew by my window?

 

Re: Re: DNPT: Democrats Nominations for President Thread.

The Republicans don't have a chance in holy hell of winning NY, convention or no convention.

And FWIW, it may look like a savvy political move right now to have the convention in the city. But it is going to be a grade-A, level one disaster for Bush and Co.

 

Democrats who could beat Bush: Lieberman, Gephardt
Democrats who could win the primary: Kerry, Edwards

And therein lies their problem.

 

Re: Re: Re: DNPT: Democrats Nominations for President Thread.

You don't think they can win Florida?

 

I'm going with Gephardt, but I don't think he can beat Bush. Edwards is just enough of a phony to get the job done.

 

If you want to follow the release of policy statements, attacks on other candidates and general campaign stuff (including the wild and wacky of the world of politics, such as Bob Graham's singing career) The New Republic is running a daily update. They're also grading what they consider to be the six major candidates.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/

 

No offense Alex, but Lieberman and Gephardt as the one's who could beat Bush? Are ya smoking something?

Lieberman may be the most conservative of the bunch but he has a serious charisma and base problem. Even the jewish community is begining to re-think their support for him if recent reports are to be believed. Gephardt will just not set anyone's heart a-fire. He would be a re-tread Gore-lite.

The two guys who would have a chance of beating Bush are Dean and Kerry. Dean because he presents a strong contrast to Bush on about every issue and is not afraid to come out and say so. He is also an engaging character and public speaker.

Kerry, while less of a personality, would be able to question Bush on the war, terrorism etc with a credible voice. I doubt even Rove and Co. would try to question Kerry's patriotism (although they did do that to McCain and Cleland so who knows!)

Dean gets the youth vote.

Carol Mosely Braun should be nowhere near this race. I hope that Wesley Clark does not run because I think he would make a great VP candidate and I would not want him to get "tainted" in some way in a primary he cannot win.

 

Really, I think Kerry has the best chance of winning (not that I'm rooting for a democrat to win by any means.) He's got former military service and the bucks as well. You know the media would adore him publicly.

Dean is too liberal to win. Clinton showed us the only way a democrat can take the White House: While campaigning, pretend to be a republican. Dean could never do that.

 

Clinton vs Bush Jr in 2000...no contest Clinton would have handed Bush his balls by the second debate.

Clinton vs Bush jr in 2004...different story. I think Clinton still wins but it is a lot closer race. In the end Clinton wins on the economy AND on proving that Bush Jr is losing the war on terrorism (which he is). But it would not be a walkover by any means.

 

So when he centered his whole campaign on health-care reform he was pretending to be Republican?

 

I don't have time to give much on this.

Dean's my man for the moment. If he stays the course and campaigns fangs out and hair on fire, he has shot at the nomination. I'll take 5-1 on him right now.

Edwards is a complete blow-dried fake. No one is going to seriously buy this guy. But he's raising a lot of dough. 4-1.

Kerry is my second choice. Just enough liberal and just enough conservative so that I won't have to hold my nose TOO hard. Has money. Initials are JFK and he's from Mass. 3-1.

Lieberman. The ideological heir to Bill Clinton. Unfortunately does not have two-tenths of the personality of the Man from Hope. But is the darling of the DLC. 3-1.

Gephardt. Zzzzz! We had a saying back in '88. "Dick Gephardt... Before he dicks you." 4-1

Biden. The guy I cut my campaign teeth with. I still have a great deal of respect for him although these days he seems to be in the pocket of some interest groups I would never have thought him to. The best foreing policy mind in the Senate. Probably running for Secretary of State in a Kerry or Clinton White House. If he runs, 6-1 the day he declares.

Everyone else? Fuggedaboudit.

Kerry or Dean could beat Bush. But only if they stick to their guns. If they try to get all wishy-washy and psuedo-conservative, its a walk in the park for GWB. Which is why Lieberman is a no-hoper. They day he gets the nomination he becomes Clinton without the personality -- read Al Gore -- and get's beat like a gong in November.

Youth vote? F*** that. Wake me when the youth vote matters. The only thing college kids are good for is campaign volunteers and winning the precincts in which their colleges are situated.

 

I think Wesley Clark should get the nomination and has the best chance of winning.

If he won't run, I'm not sure, no one has singled themselves out yet (among big four--Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry).

Dean won't win.
Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton shouldn't be in the race.

The youth don't vote, so who cares who wins it?

I obviously think Clark should run and given his Meet the Press interview on Sunday believe he will.

www.draftwesleyclark.com

 

I don't believe "Universal Health Care" was ever mentioned in the campaign. Health Care Reform is an awfully broad umbrella, perfect to be tossed out there as a campaign issue.

 

It was the absolute center piece of his campaign. It's what he became known for. He's the man who put it front and center on the national agenda.

 

Right, because there've been all those major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11? Hell, there's only been 1 major terrorist attack at all since 9/11 and it was in Bali, Clinton presided over 3 (altho he didn't really have time to prevent the first WTC attack just like Bush didn't have time to prevent the second one).

Like it or not, Bush's foreign policy is a winner. The campaign in Iraq is very popular among hte American public and the war on terror is going well. The reason that Lieberman and Gephardt are the only ones capable of beating Bush is that their foreign policy would be similar to Bush's (Lieberman's would be virtually identical) but they could hit Bush on domestic policy. Edwards also fits this bill but he would have to rely too much on the southern vote to win in the general election, and Bush has this locked up (unless you count Florida, and even there's he's a heavy favorite)--Edwards wouldn't even beat Bush in North Carolina. Kerry is a possibility but I think he's too liberal to win a mainstream election, and so of course is Dean.

I hear people bringing up personality time and time again and while this is obviously a very important factor (Bush Jr and Clinton were both off the charts personality-wise and thus both beat politically extremely popular but robotic opponents), I don't see the Democrats even bothering with it this time around. They simply don't have anybody who is anywhere near Bush in terms of personality aside from Sharpton, who is a joke. If the Democrats want to beat Bush they're going to have to do it on the issues, which aside from being extremely difficult in and of itself (Bush's foreign policy is overwhelmingly popular and his domestic policy is fairly popular), often takes the backseat to personality in Presidential races. If they had a chance to challenge Bush on personality they'd be stupid not to, but they don't, so their only hope is to go with someone who can challenge him on the issues.

 

Like it or not, you'd be a simpleton to make this statement this short time into the administration.

(One factor of foreign policy being our relationship with other countries, I'd say this administration has some work to do.)

This is like saying that a couple of years into strengthening the Shah of Iran, our Iranian policy was a winner.

 

I think you are overestimating Bush's current personal popularity. I do not deny that he is popular, anyone who has gotten away with the crap he has must be. But I think it is not as deep as you may think (wish) it is.

If a D is going to be successful in this election they HAVE to take on Bush in the foreign policy arena, especially in regards to terrorism and the War in Iraq. Once you have sucessfully weakened Bush in that arena (or at least sowed the seeds of doubt) you go to the economy.

If I were running the campaign I would center it around two very simple themes:

In regards to foreign policy/terrorism/wars:

Do you feel any safer today than you did 3 years ago?

In regards to the economy/domestic issues:

Are you better off today than you were three years ago?

I haven't seen any polling on these but my gut tells me that the vast majority of Americans would not answer yes to either question.

As for Lieberman and Edwards...they are Bush-Lite and that is exactly their problem. They Independent voter is going to swing this election, especially if Nader stays the hell out of it. If the Independent sees no real difference between challenger and Incumbent they are going to vote for the status quo everytime along with about 20% of the Democrats.

In order to beat Bush you have to make a strong case of why you are significantly different and better. Dean and Kerry do this.

Dean is not nearly as liberal as you may think he is.

Do you know he has been endorsed in every election by the NRA and has a nearly 100% voting record with them? He is far more of a fiscal conservative than Bush is as he actually balances budgets.

The Reep machine is in early and often spinning right now though when it comes to Dean and Kerry. Their strategy is simple:

Dean = too liberal

Kerry = Gore Clone

Neither are true but that is politics for ya.

 

Fixed your post

 

Why do people constantly say that Dean is too liberal?

The guy is pro-gun to the point of being supported by the NRA.

He never raised taxes while he was governor. When VT had a surplus, he chose to not expand programs. He put the surplus in a rainy day fund which is why VT is not in the budget crisis that other states are in. He is clearly fiscally conservative.

Regarding the civil unions legislation, it wasn't something that he campaigned or lobbied for. A gay couple sued the state of VT because they believed that under the VT constitution, they were entitled to the same state benefits that a married couple received. The VT Supreme Court agreed with them and ordered the VT legislators to develop a law allowing for state benefits to gay couples. The legislators then made the law and Dean signed it. Regardless of his feelings about it, he had to sign it. His policy is that he doesn't support full gay marriages and believes each state should decide whether to allow civil unions (aka not a federal issue). Plus, Lieberman, the man everyone feels is very conservative, recently introduced legislation that would extend employee benefits of federal employees to their domestic partners.

Regarding healthcare coverage, Dean is promoting coverage for kids and young adults. These are very inexpensive people to provide coverage for. A few vaccinations, a few Rxs of antibiotics and some routine check-ups will cover most kids. Dean implemented this program in VT and never had to raise taxes to pay for it.

Dean supports the death penalty for cop and kid killers.

So, are people saying he is too liberal because he was against the war in Iraq? Well, then I guess Pat Buchanan is too liberal too.

Murf

 

I think the "too liberal" tag gets put on Dean for a few reasons:

1. His opposition to the war and his attacks on the administration (and the Dems) when the other candidates were prevaricating on Iraq or were vigorously supporting invasion.

2. His adoption of Wellstone's "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" line.

3. Efforts by the campaigns of other Dems (esp. Kerry and Graham) to portray him as marginal, excessively liberal, and unelectable.

4. A general sense about Vermont as a liberal haven thus he must be liberal (Ben and Jerry's, the civil union law, Bernie Sanders, etc)

This is not to say that the tag is accurate, but it does put Dean into a difficult place. The majority of his supporters right now are more liberal than Dean is. He has to figure out how to moderate his liberal image to appeal to Dems when the primary season passes NH and Iowa, where liberals have more strength, without seeming to run away from the banner of liberalism, which most of his supporters embrace.