Does it really matter who the Democrats nominate?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by superdave, Nov 8, 2003.

  1. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I am coming around to the belief that it is unlikely to matter. On the news they were talking about a poll in which people were asked if they would vote for Bush or the Democrat. It was 47-46 (forget which way, as if it matters.) That's an astonishingly high total. There aren't alot of people who have doubts at this point. So there aren't very many votes up for grabs anyway.

    But the more I thought about it, the less surprising it was. Bush dominates politics in a way that you'd have to go back to maybe FDR to replicate. He and Tom DeLay work in lockstep. In no way is the House an independent power. The Senate is slightly independent, but even there, everything is in reaction to Bush's agenda. There's nothing AT ALL on the national agenda that Bush didn't put there. And there's little if any opposition to his agenda.

    And he has a strong ideological agenda. I don't think there's any argument there. I can defend that if I have to, but I don't think it's necessary. Anyway, there's not alot of subtlety in his agenda. You either like it or you don't, and it's not complicated.

    And the War...this is Bush's baby, no matter what you think of the war. McCain wouldn't have fought this war. No prominent Democrat would have fought this war. It's the lead story on the news every night, and it's identified wholly with the President.

    When you add it up, this election is going to be a referendum on Bush alot more than is the case even for an incumbent. Again, discounting 1956 (which was a rematch anyway) you have to go back to 1936, IMO, to find another election that was so strictly a referendum on one candidate.

    If I'm right about that, what does it mean? The main thing it means is that Bush will win or lose and the Dem win or lose, almost certainly, on how things are going. If things get better, no matter how well the Dem. campaigns, he'll lose. If things stay the same or get worse, no matter how ineptly the Dem. campaigns, he'll win. But there's that window of things getting a lil' better but not much better, where the election will be close enough that the Dem. nominee will matter.

    That being the case, Clark, Gephardt, and Dean can help the Dems. I personally don't think Edwards can win North Carolina unless Bush is sunk anyway. If Edwards would win NC, then any of those 3 would win the election even if they lost in NC. I don't see Kerry pulling any voters those 3 don't already get. Lieberman is hopeless. Gephardt and Clark can get their home states for the Dems, and Clark might bring along a marginal southern state like Florida or Virginia. Dean clearly has tapped into a constituency that has not been interested in politics, and can bring an army of volunteers whose GOTV efforts will bring a couple of close states to the Democratic column, in the event of a close election.

    It also means you will NOT see a guy like Lieberman nominated for VP. I hope. The Dems will not nominate someone from a state the Dems are already gonna win, or lose. Which means that Gephardt and Graham are prime VP material. Also, the Dems need to consider someone like Evan Bayh, if he can swing Indiana. Is there an Ohio Democrat who can swing that state?

    Anyway, I think there's maybe a 10% chance that the election will hinge on what the Dems do, and a 90% chance that it will depend on whether or not people like what Bush has done. Maybe 95%. So for the Dems, the whole thing comes down to, who can get us two or three states we otherwise couldn't win, on the off chance it matters.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    mokum
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    i think we've learned that florida is more than a marginal state :D

    but you are correct sir - bush will be judged harshly on his considerable lack of merits
     
  3. Makno

    Makno New Member

    Jun 20, 2002
    Mie
    You think the out come of the election is more or less out of our hands? In other words, the war and the economy getting better or worse is going to decide the outcome of the election and the democrats can only affect by nominating either an extremely bad or extremely good candidate? And since Bush is the president, he has more influence over the economy and the war than the democrats, so he has the upper hand?

    I tend to agree with those ideas, but the important thing to remember is that it doesn't matter how well the economy and the war are going, what matters is how well they are percieved to be going. Ask Ann Richards...Bush (or one of his henchmen) is a master of manipulating these perceptions. One of the sad failures of democracy is that no one ever guessed just how proficient pros would get at manipulating peoples opinions.

    Your analysis of which candidate would win which state is premature and (I think) based mostly on assertion. But maybe you know more about it than I do.

    But of interest...you ask if there is an Ohio Democrat who can swing that state...no need to worry there. When Kucinich wins the candidacy, he'll swing Ohio with no problem :D

    Anyway, I think your basic premise is pretty pesimistic. The election can be about more than a Bush referendum if the Democrats choose to make it so. Probably, we'll be lucky in that the situation in Iraq and the US economy will improve over the next year. If the democrats want to win, they should select a candidate who can do more that point out President Bush's failures. The ideal democratic candidate would do two things...expose Bush's lies (no matter how sucessful he is, I'm sure he'll lie to make it sound better...it's in his nature) and provide a better vision than so called "compassionate conservatism."

    One more thing....I shouldn't say this in a serious thread, but I'll make my paranoid-conspiratorial-xfile prediction again because as much as I try to disbelieve it I can't help thinking that Rove and Bush have some kind of October surprise planned. October, 2004 2-3 weeks before the election...Soddamn Innane or Osama bin Forgoten will be captured and paraded in the streets. I can't imagine how Bush would lose after that....

    unless of course the democrats choose Kucinich as their candidate...he's unstoppable:)
     
  4. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There is no doubt, 'dave, that Presidential re-elections are almost always about the incumbent. And there's also little doubt that Bush's incumbency has so polarized certain parts of the country that it will be more about the incumbent than usual.

    But the Democratic Party's future is at stake here. The DLC dominated the '90s but couldn't deliver on Gore / Lieberman, and the Nader candidacy proved that there is a substantial enough minority of voters who are disillusioned with "Republican Lite," who don't see any original thought coming out of the party leadership. It's the Dems' Goldwater Moment here -- in 1964, Goldwater's candidacy energized a new base of young Republicans who ultimately delivered the Reagan Revolution, and deposed the Rockefeller Republicans of the Northeast from the power structure. It didn't matter that Goldwater got clobbered; without that push toward conservatism, we would not have had a Reagan governorship, let alone a Presidency.

    That's what the Democrats are facing this year. Will they allow Dean to move the party in a new, bolder, angrier direction even if it means that they lose in '04?
     
  5. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Dave's analysis looks pretty solid to me. Dubya holds most of the cards, and if he misplays them badly he'll lose.

    The Dukakis experience is pertinent, though, too: GHW Bush wasn't a great candidate, and people were weary of Reagan, Iran-Contra, etc. But Dukakis proved to be a clunker.

    I'd make the odds a little better for dubya, for him to lose things will have to be clearly bad and the Demos will have to nominate a pretty solid alternative. Maybe Dean is that guy, I wouldn't put Gephart in that category. Gephart is like recycled oatmeal by now.
     
  6. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    bluedaddy, by marginal, I meant the state could go either way. It's not Utah or New York.
    Close, but not quite. I'm saying that there's a 90% or 95% chance that the election is decided based solely on what people think of Bush. There's only a slight chance that the small percentage of people who aren't voting based on what they think of Bush will decide the election. And I'm saying the 3 guys I named give the Dems the best chance of winning if it comes down to that.
     
  7. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    No, it's becoming evident that it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. Bush will win.

    The economy, which is the only issue that could defeat Bush, has turned the corner as all the statistics are indicating. Even this business of a "jobless" recovery which the Democrats have been harping about has been blown out of the water.

    As far as the war is concerned, Americans by-and-large will appreciate the "stay-the-course" message which will be Bush's mantra all through next year. The country simply is not ready to turn over the White House to the Democrats in this time of war and national security concerns.

    Bush can also campaign on how Washington will be able to work again thanks to what seems may very well be a solid working majority in the Senate for the Republicans, as 4 Southern Democrats (Hollings, Edwards, Graham, Miller, and perhaps even Breaux in Louisiana) are going to be retiring and the GOP is positioned to up their membership to 54 or 55 seats.

    Why will America put someone like Dean in the White House but keep the Democrats out of the Congress. They don't want certain gridlock. It wouldn't make sense and I don't think most of us are in the mood for that.

    2008 is going to be the bloodbath campaign. Bush can go to bed early next election night. He's got nothing to worry about.
     
  8. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    mokum
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    aha! a swing state, i thought you meant inconsequential
     
  9. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    mokum
    Club:
    AFC Ajax

    so... how is the weather is fantasyland?
     
  10. Nogra Rover

    Nogra Rover New Member

    Mar 30, 2000
    Bethesda, MD
    Of course, one month of job gains is not the same has creating the 3 million plus lost since Bush came into office. Jobs, particulalry in manufacturing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, among others, will remain a problem for Bush. New low-paid jobs with Wal-Mart cleaning contractors is not a job record Bush should be proud of.

    The deficit and poverty numbers will also haunt him.

    The Democrats will keep Florida. The black turnout will be immense for the presidential election, and whichever right-wing lunatic the GOP nominates - Johnnie Byrd or Bill McCollum -
    will lose.

    Plus, the Dems will at least pick up Illinois and Alaska, where Governor Frank "what the hell do you mean I can't appoint my daughter to replace me in the world's greatest deliberative body" Murkowski is going to have help daughter Lisa find work. Again.

    They also have an outside shot in Oklahoma.
     
  11. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    I think it matters only in the sense that whoever is nominated should at least try to develop a vision for the party that may be used over the next four years in preparation for the next election.

    Probably no president more than Clinton squandered his prosperity and good fortune. Instead of trying to establish a vision for the coming century, we got squat from Clinton and his folks, and his party should deservedly suffer from its malaise. It does not appear that anyone is willing to take charge, although I am one of the few people that tried to read Dean's "confederate" comment as at least an attempt to say that he the party can't win with the same stale messages.

    If these parties are going to mean anything, then they are going to have to be parties of ideas. I would love to see a Democrat verbalize a solid environmental policy and a solid national security policy. (Neither will help them win, but they need to set the stage for the next election.)

    As much as I thouroughly despise this administration, if the Democrats are able to seriously challenge the Republicans, that will mean two things -- that Iraq has gone to *#*#*#*# and that the economy remains in the doldrums.

    And I want neither to happen.
     
  12. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess I need to point out that the Dems have won 3 straight presidential elections.
     
  13. oman

    oman Member

    Jan 7, 2000
    South of Frisconsin
    So why can't I call Henry Cisneros for favors, superdave?
     
  14. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I have not studied in details all the democratic candidates, but I have seen enough to get some feeling about it. My impresion is that if the election is close, like the last one, and it comes down to a couple of states, then perhaps having a guy like Edwards instead of a guy like Dean might make a difference in favor of the Democrats.

    I am not saying this because Edwards is a southerner. I think the issue of taxes will be big, and a candidate who promised not to raise taxes on the working and middle class and small business might be more atractive to swing voters than one who already said he will raise taxes for everybody.

    Having said that, I think that unless there is a turn for the worse, either in the economy or in some foreign policy matter, it won't be quite as close as last time and Bush will win.
     
  15. NGV

    NGV Member+

    Sep 14, 1999
    It proved no such thing. Nader got a tiny percentage of the vote, and much of that vote apparently consisted of people who don't fit the profile of the "discontented liberals" that Nader intended to represent. I already posted this exit poll in another thread, but here it is again:

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html

    Only 9% of the public thought Gore was too conservative, and of those, only one in ten voted for Nader - less than one percent of the total vote. Only 10% wanted to see the next administration move toward more liberal policies, and of those, only 7% voted for Nader - again, less than one percent of the total. These are not "substantial" numbers by any reasonable standard.

    And, in an electoral system like our own, any party that significantly changes its messsage to appeal to an ideological fringe consisting of 1-2% of the electorate is pretty much ensuring defeat. Can you imagine what the Republicans' campaign would look like if they decided to base it on strongly appealing to the most right wing 1% of the country?

    It's also worth noting that the absurd idea that Democrats are very similar to Republicans was probably at its apex of popularity in 2000, and that several years of Bush have been sufficient to change a lot of minds on that account. So, it's hard to imagine that a hypothetical Nader campaign in 2004 could approach even the miniscule levels of support that he got in 2000.

    Like Zell Miller, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the main reason that the Republicans started taking over the white southern vote following the mid-60s. Maybe you're right, but I'm curious - What exactly is your evidence that Republican gains post 1964 and the southward shift of the party's base were primarily the result of young Republicans who were supposedly "energized" by Goldwater?

    I think this question is completely off-base, for a couple reasons. First, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. If Dean wins the nomination, runs as Mr. Angry Liberal and does significantly worse, it's very unlikely that the Democrats will decide to go for the losing strategy in the future.

    But, it's a moot point anyway, because I seriously doubt that Dean's primary campaign will bear that much resemblance to his hypothetical eventual general election campaign. As far as I can tell, so far Dean's campaign has centered around attracting potential Democratic primary campaign donors who follow politics via the internet - and Dean has constructed his profile accordingly. These, of course, are a small and unrepresentative subgroup among general election voters. As soon as Dean sews up the nomination, the group that he's focused most of his attention on so far becomes largely inconsequential, and I expect his campaign will change as a result. This type of disjunction between primary campaigns and general election campaigns is a basic fact of American presidential politics.

    Dean's advisors, unless they're idiots, know that being Mr. Angry Liberal probably won't play well in the general election, so they'll try to back off from that image as soon as they can. In fact, to compensate for his perceived weakness on foreign policy issues, my guess is that Dean will probably have to move further to the center in order to be viable than, say, Clark would.

    Which is fine as far as it goes. But, unfortunately, I think that some the baggage that Dean has taken on won't be so easily dispensed with - most signficantly, his stupid promise to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the middle class.
     
  16. obie

    obie New Member

    Nov 18, 1998
    NY, NY
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    2.5% nationally is not small from an electoral perspective, and if you view Nader's campaign through the lens of just general voter discontentment, those 2.5% represent a larger percentage of people who just didn't bother to vote.

    I was a Nader voter in '96 and '00, and I wouldn't have said that Gore was too conservative. It was that Gore didn't give me any real reason to vote for him. He didn't energize me, and I'm an easy Democrat to invigorate. That's what the Nader vote represents: people who want to feel good about the votes they cast and connect to the candidate. Democrats generally wanted to vote for Clinton in '92; they held their noses when re-electing him in '96. They need the '92 Clinton back, and if they deliver him (regardless of whether he is more or less liberal than others) most of those Nader voters will flock back. But if it's Lieberman or Gephardt or someone who is basically milquetoast, they'll stay home.

    I'd agree with that, but disillusioned voters will just stay home. Nader voters were predominately young, and predominately left-leaning. At least 40% of registered voters stay home every Presidential cycle -- the goal for the Dems should be to turn out that vote, not convert MOR Republicans.
    There are lots of books about this, like here, or other stories like here. The point is that the Rockefeller Republicans were turned out in '64 and replaced with a tougher, more hard-line view of what the party stood for that manifested itself most completely in 1980 when Reagan (who first got involved in GOP politics campaigning for Goldwater) won on the most right-wing platform in US history. Because of his support for Goldwater Reagan was asked by California GOP leaders to run for governor in '66.

    But it's a re-election that is, as always, going to be about the incumbent. So in many ways it doesn't matter if the nominee is Dean or Kerry or whoever -- if the people want Dubya back in, he's in; if they want him out, he's out. You cannot read too much into long-term voter trends or attitudes in a re-election campaign. You can, however, develop new voter rolls and grassroots strategies and volunteer bases that will help you in the future. That's what Dean can offer right now that his opponents cannot -- an invigorated base that, if cultivated correctly, will serve as a springboard for '06 midterm elections and the '08 Pres campaign.

    This is partly why I'm surprised that so many Washington insiders hate Dean, since he's a no-lose candidate. If he wins, great -- Dems recapture the White House, even if it's not a golden boy. If he loses, they sacrificed someone who doesn't really matter nationally, anyway.
    Keep in mind that in policy he's not liberal. His opponents have latched on to the gay civil unions issue as proof that he's a socialist, but all he's done is the same thing that more than half of the Fortune 500 have done -- extend health benefits to domestic partners. He's not anti-trade, anti-gun, pro-single payer healthcare, or even significantly pro-union. Yes he's angry, and he's tapped into a significant part of the Dem electorate when expressing that anger, but anger isn't a bad thing for Democrats to have. Republicans are still angry at everything and they run the country.

    Dean is telling his supporters that they can and should be proud for sticking up for themselves and their beliefs in spite of the trend toward Republicanism in the country. No major candidate has ever said that to Democrats, though Republicans have used morality to express themselves as the "right" party for decades. Dems might not want Dean, but they need someone with his attitude who is going to make them feel good about themselves and their candidate.
     
  17. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Really? My wife still can't find anything better than a minimum wage job at a grocery store. Hardly a good application of a business administration degree, and certainly not as good a job as she had when she went back to school in 2000 (office manager).
     
  18. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    I am sorry to hear of your plight, but any journalist worth his salt can go out and find a person that has fallen on hard times even when the economy is booming. I don't believe one story such as this is necessarily a microcosm for the nation.

    Also, I don't believe President Bush is responsible for the life choices which people make that may have precious few rewards in the short term.

    :)
     
  19. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Right. A real journo would cite the job loss in the Bush presidency, and point out the number of net jobs added per month we'd need between now and next year to keep Bush from being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over negative job growth. And then the journo would write, man, that Bush, what a failed president.
     
  20. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    If democrats nominate a monkey, i'll still vote for that.
     
  21. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not my point. It's not like she's unemployable - she's got tons of experience as an office manager (at several insurance firms), and finished out her schooling with about a year of either Dean's List or President's List type grades. There just aren't jobs out there. I think we've come across one "real" job, and that was with the Air Force. She's applied, but we won't hear anything for at least another month (gov't hiring is sloooooow). The nice thing - if she gets hired, she'll be making more than me within about 3 years, and she'll have better benefits.

    All the other jobs are like she's got now - crappy minimum wage jobs with no benefits. And those jobs don't like hiring college grads because they know that employee will bolt as soon as something reasonable comes up. I'll believe there is a job upturn when we see something other than the pathetic gov't numbers in the local classifieds.
     

Share This Page