Do the democrats have a chance in 2004?

[Gil Hamilton]

What's your point, other than to be a smartass?

That it's hardly much of an improvement compared to what we used to have.

[Joe]

What's your point, other than to be a smartass?

That it's hardly much of an improvement compared to what we used to have.

Well, no fucking shit. But it's an improvement over the economy a year ago.

[Alex Moon]

So THATS why the economy is in the toilet! Because its been "stimulated!"

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Durran Korr.

Actually, most indicators are signalling an economic recovery.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Sep3.html. So far though, it hasn't effected unemployment.

[Iceberg]

A jobless recovery is no recovery at all.

[Drooling Iguana]

So do the Democrats have a chance?

It's not a sure thing for either side yet. I would say that the election is Bush's to win or lose. All the Democratic candiate can do is be there to, ready to take over if Bush messes up. If Bush doesn't mess up, there is nothing that the Dems can do to win.

I don't think that Dean's message will play well outside of the moderate to far left. He only has a chance if Bush really, really mess up in the next year, and people become very alienated from neocon forign policies and conservative economics. Liebermann is more dangerous. He will get a lot of liberals by default, and could easily take moderates and non-neocon conseratives if Bush messes up the War on Terror. I don't really know much about the rest, but they will all have to expouse overly liberal policies to beat Dean.... policies that won't play well with moderates.

Of course, this is only my impression, not facts.

How do you define "messing up"? From where I'm sitting, bush has done nothing but mess up since day one, and the idea that there might be even bigger screwups in store simply boggles my mind.

~42 million / ~280 million does not equal one third.

It still equals way too much.

[Joe]

It still equals way too much.

It's not a permanent condition.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I say it depends on what happens in the next year. Some economic indicators have gone up, but unless it's a full-blown recovery, confidence won't be restored. Perhaps capturing Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and/or creating a stable situation in Iraq would guarantee Bush re-election.

Some things that could get a Democrat into office could be the economy getting worse, or the situaltion in Iraq getting worse.

[Stormbringer]

A jobless recovery is no recovery at all.

Recovery takes time. Especially given that the Clinton economy was revealed for the smoke and mirrors that it was, September 11th, the Black out and the prolonged uncertainty with Iraq all have combined to repeatedly set the economy back. It's going to take time and peace for the economy to bounce back fully. This is, hopefully, just the beginning.

[CelesKnight]

So do the Democrats have a chance?

It's not a sure thing for either side yet. I would say that the election is Bush's to win or lose. All the Democratic candiate can do is be there to, ready to take over if Bush messes up. If Bush doesn't mess up, there is nothing that the Dems can do to win.

I don't think that Dean's message will play well outside of the moderate to far left. He only has a chance if Bush really, really mess up in the next year, and people become very alienated from neocon forign policies and conservative economics. Liebermann is more dangerous. He will get a lot of liberals by default, and could easily take moderates and non-neocon conseratives if Bush messes up the War on Terror. I don't really know much about the rest, but they will all have to expouse overly liberal policies to beat Dean.... policies that won't play well with moderates.

Of course, this is only my impression, not facts.

How do you define "messing up"? From where I'm sitting, bush has done nothing but mess up since day one, and the idea that there might be even bigger screwups in store simply boggles my mind.

If you think that he's done nothing but mess up, then you're way, way out of touch with the American electorate--the people who matter in this context.

[CelesKnight]

I say it depends on what happens in the next year. Some economic indicators have gone up, but unless it's a full-blown recovery, confidence won't be restored. Perhaps capturing Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and/or creating a stable situation in Iraq would guarantee Bush re-election.

Some things that could get a Democrat into office could be the economy getting worse, or the situaltion in Iraq getting worse.

IMO, as long as the economy doesn't get any worse, I don't think that a full blown recovery is needed for Bush to win by a safe margin. As an example, I think that Bush Sr. lost because of a combination of 3 things: he lied about raising taxes, the economy wasn't looking good, and his own base saw him as weak for not completing the war with Iraq. (Ross P. might have had an effect too, but let's ignore that for now as there isn't likely to be anything similar in 2004.) Without the combination of those, Bush Sr. would have been far more likly to win in '92.

Bush isn't perceived as being dishonest (before I get a lot of responses about WMD or whatever, remember that the important thing here is perception.) And he isn't perceived as being weak. With these two things in his favor, a mediocre economy becomes less of an issue.

IMO, nation defense will be the important issue for Bush. If that goes well, the American people aren't likly to trust anyone else with it. If it goes poorly, the main focus of Bush's presidency will be perceived as a failure.

[phongn]

It still equals way too much.

It's not a permanent condition.

IIRC, all but about 10-12 million of those without insurance lack it due to transitions between jobs or whatnot. It's unfortunate for those who are uninsured temporarily, but not a huge disaster.

[Peregrin Toker]

While Dean may in fact be a real left winger, could someone here give me some examples or an actual analysis of his policies that supports that?

It seems to me that EVERYONE, from people here to the DLC to Republicans at my school are saying Dean is too liberal but I've never heard any of them say why.

National health care, gay marriage, opposition to the Iraq war, liberal foreign policy (i.e. humanitarian missions), pro-UN, wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, etc...

Is that enough to make your "far left" in the USA???

[Iceberg]

While Dean may in fact be a real left winger, could someone here give me some examples or an actual analysis of his policies that supports that?

It seems to me that EVERYONE, from people here to the DLC to Republicans at my school are saying Dean is too liberal but I've never heard any of them say why.

National health care, gay marriage, opposition to the Iraq war, liberal foreign policy (i.e. humanitarian missions), pro-UN, wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, etc...

Is that enough to make your "far left" in the USA???

Not really, but the Republican faithful who like to post on web boards want you to think it is.

[Joe]

While Dean may in fact be a real left winger, could someone here give me some examples or an actual analysis of his policies that supports that?

It seems to me that EVERYONE, from people here to the DLC to Republicans at my school are saying Dean is too liberal but I've never heard any of them say why.

National health care, gay marriage, opposition to the Iraq war, liberal foreign policy (i.e. humanitarian missions), pro-UN, wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, etc...

Is that enough to make your "far left" in the USA???

By American standards, certainly. I'm sure it sounds rather middle-of-the-road for a European, but that's how it is. He does have centrist positions on a number of issues, however, including gun control (the NRA loves this guy).

[SirNitram]

Let's not forget his proposed gun policy(Turning over most control over gun laws to the states), and his proposed laws on jobs leaving the country(Companies would not be allowed to export jobs to countries where they don't pay a living wage and offer equal benefits. In short, demanding the companies not just turn a 40k a year job into a 50 cents an hour one).

[theski]

Nitram wrote:

and his proposed laws on jobs leaving the country(Companies would not be allowed to export jobs to countries where they don't pay a living wage and offer equal benefits. In short, demanding the companies not just turn a 40k a year job into a 50 cents an hour one).

Which if enacted will drive up the cost of all the products involved..

[SirNitram]

Nitram wrote:

and his proposed laws on jobs leaving the country(Companies would not be allowed to export jobs to countries where they don't pay a living wage and offer equal benefits. In short, demanding the companies not just turn a 40k a year job into a 50 cents an hour one).

Which if enacted will drive up the cost of all the products involved..

True. However, it will also get jobs back here, which will allow more people to pay for them. It's a stopgap measure against the winds of change, but it's something for all those who lost their jobs overseas.

[Iceberg]

Nitram wrote:

and his proposed laws on jobs leaving the country(Companies would not be allowed to export jobs to countries where they don't pay a living wage and offer equal benefits. In short, demanding the companies not just turn a 40k a year job into a 50 cents an hour one).

Which if enacted will drive up the cost of all the products involved..

What's more important - buying cheap shit, or keeping jobs from leaking away overseas to places with terrible labor standards and no incentive for improving them?

[Iceberg]

Let's not forget his proposed gun policy(Turning over most control over gun laws to the states), and his proposed laws on jobs leaving the country(Companies would not be allowed to export jobs to countries where they don't pay a living wage and offer equal benefits. In short, demanding the companies not just turn a 40k a year job into a 50 cents an hour one).

50 cents an hour? You drastically overestimate the labor standards of some countries.

More like two bucks a day.

[Col. Crackpot]

Nitram wrote:

and his proposed laws on jobs leaving the country(Companies would not be allowed to export jobs to countries where they don't pay a living wage and offer equal benefits. In short, demanding the companies not just turn a 40k a year job into a 50 cents an hour one).

Which if enacted will drive up the cost of all the products involved..

What's more important - buying cheap shit, or keeping jobs from leaking away overseas to places with terrible labor standards and no incentive for improving them?

Jeebus Crizznist! And how do you propose eliminating competion for companies based outside the US? Ban them? Because thats who people will start buying from! No one is going to start buying $20 pairs of underpants simply because they are union made in the USA! Wake up and smell the stupidity of what you just said!

[Iceberg]

Jeebus Crizznist! And how do you propose eliminating competion for companies based outside the US? Ban them? Because thats who people will start buying from! No one is going to start buying $20 pairs of underpants simply because they are union made in the USA! Wake up and smell the stupidity of what you just said!

Underpants are at a buck a pair, which is already a profound overcharge if you ask me. And it has been proven that people do and will pay a little more (additionally, you drastically overestimate the cost of labor as affects the cost of a good) to buy domestic goods instead of comparable imported goods.

[theski]

Iceburg Wrote:

Underpants are at a buck a pair, which is already a profound overcharge if you ask me. And it has been proven that people do and will pay a little more (additionally, you drastically overestimate the cost of labor as affects the cost of a good) to buy domestic goods instead of comparable imported goods.

That is bullshit.. just look at the Electroincs or Auto industry People will not pay more just because its built here...

[Iceberg]

Iceburg Wrote:

Underpants are at a buck a pair, which is already a profound overcharge if you ask me. And it has been proven that people do and will pay a little more (additionally, you drastically overestimate the cost of labor as affects the cost of a good) to buy domestic goods instead of comparable imported goods.

That is bullshit.. just look at the Electroincs or Auto industry People will not pay more just because its built here...

Electronics and cars are very large purchases, where the difference is huge (hundreds or thousands of dollars). We're talking about purchases on the low end of the spectrum, where the difference is a few pennies to a buck or two.

[Stormbringer]

Iceburg Wrote:

Underpants are at a buck a pair, which is already a profound overcharge if you ask me. And it has been proven that people do and will pay a little more (additionally, you drastically overestimate the cost of labor as affects the cost of a good) to buy domestic goods instead of comparable imported goods.

That is bullshit.. just look at the Electroincs or Auto industry People will not pay more just because its built here...

Electronics and cars are very large purchases, where the difference is huge (hundreds or thousands of dollars). We're talking about purchases on the low end of the spectrum, where the difference is a few pennies to a buck or two.

But damn few people are going to buy stuff that's more expensive simply for a made in the US tag. Economic proctectionism isn't going to do the US consumer any good nor is it going to do US business any good. Competing directly with third world industry is a bad idea, we'll never be able to do it and we'll ruin our economy in the process.

[SirNitram]

But damn few people are going to buy stuff that's more expensive simply for a made in the US tag. Economic proctectionism isn't going to do the US consumer any good nor is it going to do US business any good. Competing directly with third world industry is a bad idea, we'll never be able to do it and we'll ruin our economy in the process.

Which is why the phrase is 'stopgap measure', not cure. Protectivism will give the economy a few more years, which, given the economy I'm looking at, is needed.