Handicapping The Democrats in 2004

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-10-27 04:09pm

IMHO

Carol Moseley Brown.. (no money and women are not supporting her)

Al Sharpton..(Great speaker, too much old baggage)

Dennis Kucinich..(peace department..nough said)

.. These 3 need to drop out and unclutter the rest of the field.. They total 11 % between them

John Edwards..(not enough substance, went from cover of Newsweek to 3% polling)

Joe Lieberman..(fading, looked bad at the debate)

Dick Gepardt.. (needs big win in Iowa or is done)

Wesley Clark..(not a good debate, still can't reconcile his war position)

John Kerry..(Won the debate last night, nation wide better numbers than Dean)

Howard Dean..(Running strong.. but others are taking lots of shots at him)

It will be a Dean/Clark ticket is my prediction...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 04:14pm

I think it'll come down to Clark and Kerry myself. Dean isn't the best candidate and is likely to loose support later on since his primary position is "Bush is bad" and not much else.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-27 04:31pm

Clark has more substance to his platform than Dean? WTF?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 04:34pm

Kerry and Clark have both done this chickenshit dance in order to try and look like they didn't support the Congressional resolution allowing a war against Iraq from the beginning, while both of them did. I don't agree with him, but at least Dean was openly against it from the beginning.

Fixed

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 04:38pm

Howedar wrote:Clark has more substance to his platform than Dean? WTF?

No, not really. But then again Dean hasn't done that spectacular of a job of getting his platform out and the one he does have isn't likely to have the same kind of broad appeal as Kerry or Clark.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 04:38pm

And theski, while I do find your avatar amusing it may border on being flamebait a bit too much.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-27 05:15pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Howedar wrote:Clark has more substance to his platform than Dean? WTF?
No, not really. But then again Dean hasn't done that spectacular of a job of getting his platform out and the one he does have isn't likely to have the same kind of broad appeal as Kerry or Clark.

What broad appeal? Last I checked, they were both behind Dean in the polls.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-10-27 05:27pm

Howedar wrote:What broad appeal? Last I checked, they were both behind Dean in the polls.

He's the front runner for the Democratic nomination. But when it comes down to the general election he's either going to have to do a lot to moderate himself (if he will) or he isn't likely to pick up much more than the party faithful.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-10-27 05:48pm

Durran Korr wrote:And theski, while I do find your avatar amusing it may border on being flamebait a bit too much.

It'd would probably work better in a larger size as his sig.

For legibility reasons of course

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-10-27 06:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:Dean isn't the best candidate and is likely to loose support later on since his primary position is "Bush is bad" and not much else.

WTF? It's Dean who's the man with a plan. I assume that you think of him as "Mr. Bush is Bad" because he was the first Democrat to have the guts to say it. WHich if you ask me is major points for him.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-27 06:49pm

Durran Korr wrote:And theski, while I do find your avatar amusing it may border on being flamebait a bit too much.

I don't think anyone will care, he's just wanting attention.

WTF? It's Dean who's the man with a plan. I assume that you think of him as "Mr. Bush is Bad" because he was the first Democrat to have the guts to say it. WHich if you ask me is major points for him.

Ever since Bush became president, a favorite tactic (if you can call it that) of the right is to label those on the left as Bush Haters, and tell them that they have no platform or position other than bashing Bush, despite whatever the lefty or moderate has to say. I'm not talking about using it on people who have nothing more to say than "busch sux lol", I mean using it on EVERYONE who opposes Bush on an issue. Dean could recite every position he has down to minute details and they would be saying the same thing.

The tactic is so pervasive, you'll encounter it everywhere. If libertarians or moderate republicans on Freerepublic have an issue with Bush, then according to modern conservative wisdom they're nothing more than Bush Haters with no ideas or platforms. Spacebattles, Megatokyo, Gamingforce, CapitolGrilling, Lucianne, Libertypost/forum... Every single fucking forum where there is political debate has people who employ this tactic and think it's the hot shit.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-27 06:50pm

[/rant]

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-10-27 06:56pm

Hamel wrote

don't think anyone will care, he's just wanting attention.

Fuck off it was a joke....

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-27 06:59pm

In all fairness Hamel, both sides have done that when they were in power. It is not exclusive to the GOP.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-27 07:01pm

Howedar wrote:Clark has more substance to his platform than Dean? WTF?

That's especially amusing because Clark's campaign website has his nice fuzzy soft-focus "100 year plan" but lacks any kind of planning or platform for the next FOUR years.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-10-27 07:04pm

Howedar wrote:In all fairness Hamel, both sides have done that when they were in power. It is not exclusive to the GOP.

The GOP's been doing it a LOT more blatantly since Bush got elected, though - witness that in the last two years, GOP-affiliated pundits have written books about liberals with titles like "slander," "treason" and other bullshit intended to make liberals look like scum. The only response they truly deserve is found on the cover of Al Franken's new book:

"LIES And the Lying Liars who Tell Them."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-27 07:05pm

Dean happened to be the first Democrat to grow a pair of balls and criticize Bush loudly and openly. That's why some think he has no platform other than "Bush sucks," because that's what got him his initial jump start.

I think that Dean appeals to the common person very well similar to how Clinton did, but without the excess scandal baggage. Personally, I think he'll end up giving Bush a run for his money.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 07:09pm

Right now I would give Bush a 60% chance of winning the election. I would have put it at 80% a few months ago.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-10-27 07:11pm

Durran Korr wrote:Right now I would give Bush a 60% chance of winning the election. I would have put it at 80% a few months ago.

The attack on Occupation HQ probably dropped it a few more points.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-27 07:12pm

Durran Korr wrote:Right now I would give Bush a 60% chance of winning the election. I would have put it at 80% a few months ago.

It will be close. There's enough drones who buy Bush's talk.. Even the really silly stuff.. to make it a rough ride for any challenger.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 07:19pm

I also can't help but wonder how significantly disaffected conservatives will affect the election. If the Bush administration thinks conservatives are going to forget about Bush's spending, writing education bills with TED KENNEDY, the assault weapons ban, the prescription drug benefit, and Rove's disgusting attitude ("where else are you going to go?"), they're sadly mistaken. The only way I'd vote for him at this point is if he passed a national retail sales tax tomorrow.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-27 07:21pm

Durran Korr wrote:I also can't help but wonder how significantly disaffected conservatives will affect the election. If the Bush administration thinks conservatives are going to forget about Bush's spending, writing education bills with TED KENNEDY, the assault weapons ban, the prescription drug benefit, and Rove's disgusting attitude ("where else are you going to go?"), they're sadly mistaken. The only way I'd vote for him at this point is if he passed a national retail sales tax tomorrow.

It's very much up in the air. Dean has a small upside to his stated policies when dealing with Republicans: He isn't proposing any increases in national gun laws, only making it a state matter. That will definately get some on his side, but the others.. Hard to call. Depends how much slander is churned out.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-27 09:27pm

Durran Korr wrote:I also can't help but wonder how significantly disaffected conservatives will affect the election. If the Bush administration thinks conservatives are going to forget about Bush's spending, writing education bills with TED KENNEDY, the assault weapons ban, the prescription drug benefit, and Rove's disgusting attitude ("where else are you going to go?"), they're sadly mistaken. The only way I'd vote for him at this point is if he passed a national retail sales tax tomorrow.

Are you kidding? 30% to 35% of the vote will go to Bush automatically, even if between now and election day Bush ate a baby on national television, simply because they hate democrats more than baby-eaters. The question is whether that moderate Republicans and other right-of-center folks will vote for Bush or vote elsewhere. What the democrats need to do it find a way to appeal to those people. While the far left may not like the moderate swing, but they will vote Democrat for the same reason that most conservatives will vote regardless regardless of what the candidate does.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-27 09:29pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:I also can't help but wonder how significantly disaffected conservatives will affect the election. If the Bush administration thinks conservatives are going to forget about Bush's spending, writing education bills with TED KENNEDY, the assault weapons ban, the prescription drug benefit, and Rove's disgusting attitude ("where else are you going to go?"), they're sadly mistaken. The only way I'd vote for him at this point is if he passed a national retail sales tax tomorrow.
Are you kidding? 30% to 35% of the vote will go to Bush automatically, even if between now and election day Bush ate a baby on national television, simply because they hate democrats more than baby-eaters. The question is whether that moderate Republicans and other right-of-center folks will vote for Bush or vote elsewhere. What the democrats need to do it find a way to appeal to those people. While the far left may not like the moderate swing, but they will vote Democrat for the same reason that most conservatives will vote regardless regardless of what the candidate does.

You're right, about 30 will go for Bush automatically; however, that number would be more like 35 if there wasn't such disaffection among many conservatives.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-10-27 09:43pm

Here is the 2000 County by county (Red and Blue ) election map..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

If Dean gets the nod.... Then you can right off most of the blue in the south,,,. Clark and Kerry might hold them