Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-07 10:40pm

I'm wondering whether the Democrats really do have a chance in 2004?

So far Dean is the front runner and so much of his time is just spent bashing Bush's decisions. And whether those were good or bad elections aren't won on just critisism. So far his appeal to the left is working but I doubt he'll be able to drum up the popular support. And his Vermont record is going to scare off a fuck load of people.

From what I've seen Kerry has the potential for a much broader appeal and a record that'll do far more to encourage voters. But it doesn't look good for him securing the nomination.

So do the Democrats have a chance?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-07 10:44pm

The democrats do have a chance, but things still favor Bush by a wide margin. 70% of the nation doesnt even know who Dean is, he is going to need a massive campaign effort just to create awareness that he exists.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-09-07 10:46pm

I'd say that the Democrats have a chance, but it's up to Bush what happens.

Bush is holding all the cards right now. If he plays them well, he could beat any democrat even if it was FDR AND Harry Truman reincarnated.

If he plays them poorly, next year is going to feel a lot like 1992.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-07 10:48pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The democrats do have a chance, but things still favor Bush by a wide margin. 70% of the nation doesnt even know who Dean is, he is going to need a massive campaign effort just to create awareness that he exists.

Part of that's the fact that the elections still a year away. Part of it the fact that he's campaigning to the party faithful who will give him the reception he wants. Really, I don't think he'll do so well outside that circle.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-07 10:52pm

If the economy continues improving, no, not a chance. Most Americans are satisfied with the Iraq War (as much as 71 percent, according to the most recent Gallup poll), and unless the situation is Iraq just gets infinitely, infinitely worse than it is now (not to say it's that horrible now, because it isn't), that shouldn't a problem for Bush.

And of the two leading Democratic candidates, quite frankly I think Howard Dean has a stronger chance of winning. Dean seems to be able offer voters a campaign platform consisting of more than simply "I hate Bush! I hate him, I hate him, I hate him!", unlike John Kerry, plus I think Dean speaks to voters in a way that few Democrats (Bill Clinton was one of them) can.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-09-07 10:55pm

Stormbringer wrote: he's campaigning to the party faithful who will give him the reception he wants. Really, I don't think he'll do so well outside that circle.

That's quite unclear at this point. He's doing a decent job of billing himself as quite centrist, but then a left-wing view of the center is probably, well, left of a centrist view of the center.

And his fiscal responsibility history is, ahhh, not everything he's claiming it is.

I'd say that Dean is as electable as the next Democrat, but that may not be saying much.

As I said, I really think that it's up to Bush. If he fucks up badly enough almost ANY Democrat could beat him, if not, then none could.

The only question in my mind is how wide the margin in the center where the Democrat matters in their own right. Obviously it does exist, and obviously a REAL whacko couldn't win, but I suspect the election will polarize into Bush and not Bush. Bush's record is sufficiently controversial at this point for the election to be about him.

Fixed your quote~ Stormbringer

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-09-07 11:06pm

I personally am expecting a repeat of the Dukakis or even the Mondale campaigns, regardless of which one of them takes the nomination.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2003-09-07 11:06pm

Worlds Spanner wrote: If he plays them poorly, next year is going to feel a lot like 1992.

Reminds me of when I was 10 years old. One day no teachers were in class, and someone stood up and conducted an informal survey about the upcoming American presidential election (god knows why). The very first option was "Show of hands, who thinks Bush will win?!", and every hand but mine went up. This is typical, because dynastic Singaporean politics typically lead them to favour incumbents.

I put my hand up in response to "......Clinton?", and dumbfounded the room. However, Yiwei (the pollster) quickly regained his composure and said "H. ROSS PEROT?" (yes he said it in caps), there was deafening silence, and we all had a hearty laugh. (They all thought I was weird, but were happy to see I wasn't THAT weird).

In defense of my 10 year old self I ought to point out that I'd given Clinton the mandate solely because he was the Democratic candidate. At the time I thought that the Democratic Party was the party that supported democracy and personal freedoms, based wholly upon the party name. I had no concept at all of what "Republican" meant, and Bush Sr made no impression on me whatsoever, favourable or otherwise. I was fully aware of Kuwait and Iraq, but the American actions there seemed meaningless, neither positive nor negative. Choosing between Clinton and Bush was then choosing between a cypher and freedom. And having had to endure Singapore since birth, freedom seemed more appealing.

Were I to be in that classroom again with what I know now, I probably would have abstained.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-07 11:09pm

You can expect another Dukakis or another Mondale as much as you like. In fact, I encourage you to.

The more time you spend trying to fight a fiction of the past, the less time you have to actually address the reality of the present.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-07 11:14pm

Iceberg wrote:You can expect another Dukakis or another Mondale as much as you like. In fact, I encourage you to.

The more time you spend trying to fight a fiction of the past, the less time you have to actually address the reality of the present.

And that's supposed to mean what?

And if anything, it seems to me that Dean's the one fighting the past. His attacks on Bush's actions seem to constitute the bulk of his message. Not exactly a foward looking platform.

Post by **Steve** » 2003-09-07 11:17pm

I think the election is Bush's to lose. If he fucks up, he may very well fail to get re-elected. But if he keeps things steady or things improve, then he will win.

It could also depend on who the Democrats put up. If it's someone who can't convince the middle class he's friendly to them, he can carry all of the low class people he wants, he'll still lose the crucial middle vote and the election, because everyone will default on Bush.

Bush is no FDR nor Eisenhower, but neither is he a Hoover.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-09-07 11:42pm

The mere fact that Bush has a chance of being re-elected makes me lose all faith in humanity.

Well, the portion of humanity that lives in the United States, anyway.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-07 11:45pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:The mere fact that Bush has a chance of being re-elected makes me lose all faith in humanity.

Well, the portion of humanity that lives in the United States, anyway.

Blow me.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-07 11:53pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:The mere fact that Bush has a chance of being re-elected makes me lose all faith in humanity.

Well, the portion of humanity that lives in the United States, anyway.
Blow me.

Would you find it unacceptable to make the same comment about France if they embraced and elected Chirac over and over again?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-08 12:00am

I'm sure I would be insulted if I was French.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-09-08 12:01am

Drooling Iguana wrote:The mere fact that Bush has a chance of being re-elected makes me lose all faith in humanity.

Well, the portion of humanity that lives in the United States, anyway.

Blame Dean: he's the one who hasn't come up with a reason other than "I'm not Bush" for why people should vote for him.

Iceberg: Bush Sr. was considered an easy target when he ran in '88. Remember "the Wimp factor" and the Dems getting all excited about what an easy target he was? Remember Teddy Kennedy asking "where was George?" (I remember, because someone came up with the reply "dry, sober, and home with his wife.") Bush Jr. is in office after people were cracking jokes about him being an "idiot" and predicting that Al Gore would trample him in debates. I expect the same intellectual arrogance to prevail in 2004, which is why I expect Bush to win again.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-08 12:04am

Bush did well enough in the debates. He performed decently in the first one, absolutely dominated the second one, and performed decently again in the third one.

As for Cheney, he completely wiped the floor with Lieberman.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-09-08 12:14am

Durran Korr wrote:Bush did well enough in the debates. He performed decently in the first one, absolutely dominated the second one, and performed decently again in the third one.

As for Cheney, he completely wiped the floor with Lieberman.

You should have heard the cackling in the politics chat I frequent while the debates were going on. People were sneering because he was taking notes during the debate. Imagine that: a man who has to take notes!

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-09-08 12:59am

I think that Bush will probably win if the job market (not the amusing enigmatic beast everyone calls the "economy") improves, but will lose if it does not.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-08 02:52am

The Democrats smell blood and seem to be pounding the economy/Iraq drum hard. Bush's approval ratings are incredibly low- 12 points lower than his father when he lost the election in the aftermath of Desert Storm. He's in serious danger, and if Iraq continues like this, I don't think he'll get re-elected.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-08 08:25am

I think it's too early to necessarily tell which way the wind is blowing yet, though Bush has the edge as an incumbant. Then again, how many people new anything about Bill Clinton this far into the race? I remember watching Bill Clinton in the news as the fifth candidate from the top of the democrat heap in 1992 at one point, at which he was playing his sax to raise awareness for himself.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-09-08 10:18am

Gil Hamilton wrote:I think it's too early to necessarily tell which way the wind is blowing yet, though Bush has the edge as an incumbant. Then again, how many people new anything about Bill Clinton this far into the race? I remember watching Bill Clinton in the news as the fifth candidate from the top of the democrat heap in 1992 at one point, at which he was playing his sax to raise awareness for himself.

The incumbent "advantage" is actually a disadvantage if your unfavorable rating is higher than your favorable rating...

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-08 10:21am

Steve wrote: Bush is no FDR nor Eisenhower, but neither is he a Hoover.

let me tell you something about Bush, i thought i voted for a fiscal conservative, but what i got was LBJ with twice the Jesus. If Kerry wins the Democratic nomination, Bush is done. He will run in the general election as a moderate and war hero (three purple hearts, a sliver star and a bronze star with a V) Kerry has far more appeal to moderates and disgruntled Republicans. If Dean wins, Bush pulls out a relatively comfortable win. Dean is just too far left to the left to win a national election.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-08 10:28am

Here we go again, Dean is 'unelectable' and 'too far left', and with the exception of the fact he mentioned the assault weapons ban, no one can actually back that up.. But whatever, the same yelling will only occour again.

In a normal election, I think, it'd be too early to tell. The Dems have a habit of picking someone out of hte nation eye, from my looks into history, and that makes any predictions hard. In essense, this thread is basically 'Will Bush suck so much it doesn't matter who runs?'. What's scary is, he might..

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-08 10:43am

SirNitram wrote:Here we go again, Dean is 'unelectable' and 'too far left', and with the exception of the fact he mentioned the assault weapons ban, no one can actually back that up.. But whatever, the same yelling will only occour again.

In a normal election, I think, it'd be too early to tell. The Dems have a habit of picking someone out of hte nation eye, from my looks into history, and that makes any predictions hard. In essense, this thread is basically 'Will Bush suck so much it doesn't matter who runs?'. What's scary is, he might..

what i'm saying is that the Dems have a far better candidate in Kerry. He has much broader appeal. He is someone who disgruntled conservatives (do i have to spell it out for you?) and moderate independants would be more likely to vote for.