14 replies to this topic

[QuiGon John]

This is mostly a thread for those who, like me, are thinking about voting Democratic in the next election.  (I'll note that doing so goes against my conservative-raised grain, but I do it more and more lately, and so do the people who raised me... )

Anyway, who do you think will win the nomination?  Who do you want to win the nomination?  Do you foresee any of them having a real shot to beat Bush?

Personally, I see Liebermann as possibly the best of a mediocre lot.  I'm not so sure about Kerry-- although he's from my own state-- and the rest of the candidates seem pretty uninspired.  Take this for what you will, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of all of 'em if she were running.

Thoughts?

Edited by John Burke, 19 May 2003 - 03:04 AM.

[Rov Judicata]

I honestly don't know who could step to the plate.

The way things are going, the democratic candidate *has* to be a hawk. To my personal dismay, even if no WMD's are found, the average American on the street isn't going to be too put out.

That being said, I don't know that much about the democratic candidates. Why? There's, um, a bunch of them are none of them are remotely interesting enough to look into....

I also think Liebarman and Kerry are the leaders of the pack.

Quote

ake this for what you will, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of all of 'em if she were running.

I honestly think Hillary is too polarizing to have a shot. I do think she will try, and that it will be incredibly interesting. <Try in '08, that is>.

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Mr. Burke: This is mostly a thread for those who, like me, are thinking about voting Democratic in the next election. 

Not too likely of a chance of that happening but I do get a morbid sense of joy out of watching the Democrats in this one.  

Quote

Mr. Burke: Anyway, who do you think will win the nomination?

Lieberman is the guy who I think will take it.  

Quote

Mr. Burke: Who do you want to win the nomination?

Would saying the clumsiest, most inarticulate, and slowest candidate out of the bunch be a fair a honest response?  In all honesty I don’t see anyone this time around who stands out as a “meh I might buck trend and vote for him” candidate.  

Quote

Mr. Burke: Do you foresee any of them having a real shot to beat Bush?

They better start praying for some major kink in Bush’s style sometime soon or the economy going belly up.  If you look at the economic indicators the economy seems to be on the slow recovery.  Talking to people (liberals in fact) who understand the economy better than I their prediction is it will slowly grow and then pick up a lot of speed starting in the spring of ’04 and the summer.  Not exactly a good thing for the Democrats to have the economy coming charging back into the picture stronger just in time for election.  In addition a majority of the public is now in favor of the Bush tax cute according to recent Gallop polls.  So Bush’s economic plans seem to be gaining a slowly rising majority percentage of the population.

The last bit of information could prove vital.  It looks like the Iraqi interim government may tell OPEC where to shove it and start flooding the market with oil.  They are also considering voiding the contracts made by Saddam.  A sudden drop in oil prices will surely be a much needed boost for the economy as people start to travel and those extra dollars once spent on gas get fed into other sectors.  So yeah it is not a good day to be a Democrat because for all their hopes Bush doesn’t seem to be daddy but rather more of a Reagan Mk II.

Quote

Mr. Burke: not so sure about Kerry-- although he's from my own state-- and the rest of the candidates seem pretty uninspired.

I disagree with Kerry on many many things but I can admire his push for more protections and rights for Veterans.  The thing that I think will be unfortunate for him is this isn’t going to draw popular  

Quote

Mr. Burke: Take this for what you will, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of all of 'em if she were running.

My esteemed and much loved senator (not my favorite person) is at least wise enough to hide in New York sitting this one out while other lambs are the ones who are marched off to the slaughter.

[Rov Judicata]

CJ-- I think overconfidence is uncalled for.

Bush is vulnerable.

Al Qeada and the Taliban are still strong, and the security situation in Iraq-- if not improved-- will be a huge point.

More domestically, the economy (and unemployment in particular), education, health care, etc. will be relevant issues.

It's been noted that the democrats best chance is for everything to go to hell; terrorism, Iraq, economy.

It's also relevant to note that Bush's best hope is for things to go relatively well, but for the people to still be afraid... because your average American doesn't trust the democratic party to take care of threats. I think this is only reinforced by Clinton's abysmal military record.

Honestly? I think Bill Clinton could win this fight. The man had style, and political savvy. For the Democrat's sake, they should hope that somebody could channel him...

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 19 May 2003 - 03:42 AM.

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Rov: Bush is vulnerable.

Bush isn’t in an assured position but he’s got the better hand right now and just has to play it smart.  So far his presidency has pretty much consisted of him doing just that.  

Quote

Rov: More domestically, the economy (and unemployment in particular), education, health care, etc. will be relevant issues.

The economy is the big issue.  Though right now Bush is enjoying the oil situation with dropping prices, the potential gutting of OPEC as a cartel, an economy that is showing signs of making the recovery that is needed just in time, and a majority of the public that is in favor his economic plan.  All together it is a situation that is vastly different than the one that knocked off his father and that very different administration.

[Kosh]

Quote

I think Bill Clinton could win this fight. The man had style, and political savvy.

That's part of the problem. They don't have anyone else who can match him for Style and savvy together. Even Hillary doesn't have his style.

As much as I would like to have someone else to vote for, as long as the Patriot Act is in place, I don't want to vote for conservitives, but I don't see anyone in the race right now that could take Bush in an election. As Rush Limbaugh, and at least one democrat have put it, the Clintons are "sucking up all the air around the democrats," so no one else has gotten the big publicity that could make them a viable candidate.

Unless something big happenes with the economy, something that would hurt, or some other major event, like Al-Qada hitting us again in a big way so that it looks as if the war didn't make enought difference, then I see four more years of Bush coming up. Sadly, for those of us who value our personal freedoms.

[GiGi]

I don't like Lieberman at all. We may as well just have a Republican in office if he is going to run.  Didn't like Kerry either.

I watched a debate with them all, my favorites were Howard Dean, John Edwards and Carol Moseley Braun.  Gephardt and Graham were also ones I liked.

[Delvo]

It might look like Bush's election to lose, but he still could. For those of you who believe polls, his approval number is going down even as the economic situation improves. I'll bet it's because of the lack of post-war progress toward stabilization in Iraq and, to some extent, Afghanistan, and the lack of any statements since the Iraqi Baathists were beaten on what form the war on terrorism is going to take next. We've gone weeks without a status report or updated mission statement on the war on terrorism, and that makes people antsy, especially as more time passes without a solid government of any kind established in Iraq. The North Korean situation is likely to reach a crucial turning point within his administration, which could make him look bad depending on how it goes, especially if a case could be made that it was because he didn't act sooner while he was dealing with Iraq. Plus, he could also loose without making any NEW blunders, based on OLD ones. For example, an unconstitutional element of the Patriot Act could spark a highly visible court case, maybe even a Supreme Court case. Or some of his decisions from before September Eleventh (which I thought at the time were going to come back and bite him) could be brought up, which would undermine his conservative voter base without winning him any new moderate or liberal voters.

However, I predict that something like the above could go wrong for him and he'd STILL win, because I don't see any Democrat candidates who could capitalize on it. They're just stuck in a certain mode right now, a certain way of making their political moves, which makes them look bad to swing voters and even many former Democrat "base" voters. Winning the next election would require BOTH a big probelm happening to Bush AND a Democrat who can break the current pattern in their party's attitude and behavior. The former might happen, but the latter won't, at least not with any of the current crop of big Democrat names.

[ph3n1ks]

Vote Democrat and you will get what you pay for.

Vote Republican and you will get what you pay for.

In the end, it really doesn't matter. Partisan politics is killing this country and has been since the inception of the idea. It is sad that we cannot vote for people who run for office based on a platform of their own ideas. In the Internet connected, media savvy society that we live in, we are still fighting the basic argument of the founding of this constitutional government under which we live. Whether the central US gov has power or it doesn't. Where should the line be?

To add to the confusion, the parties switched names around the time of Lincoln.  If you were to approach a founding father talking of a Democrat they would think of persons who were roughly lined up in thought with Thomas Jefferson, who was incidentally more Republican by today's standards. But in reality, Jefferson was more like a Libertarian.

This is the basic point in the whole post. Gone seems the day when we could actually bote for someone that believed in something. We vote now for fools who tow the party line and carry out the agendas of the party and the special interest groups who court the various parties. We may pay their salaries, but we are no longer a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. This thing that Lincoln, then a Republican (Democrat today), supposedly fought to protect, to keep it from perishing, is perishing.

To heck with parties, what we really need is a sergeant major or master-chief to run for president. Then we would get something done.

[AnneZo]

John Burke, on May 18 2003, 04:09 PM, said:

Anyway, who do you think will win the nomination?  Who do you want to win the nomination?  Do you foresee any of them having a real shot to beat Bush?

Personally, I see Liebermann as possibly the best of a mediocre lot.  I'm not so sure about Kerry-- although he's from my own state-- and the rest of the candidates seem pretty uninspired.  Take this for what you will, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of all of 'em if she were running.

Lieberman is the most centrist of the lot. In short, he's the least like an actual Democrat.

I'd rather vote for Nader (and I'd never throw my vote away on a third party under any other circumstances).

Kerry or Dean, for my money. I haven't made up my mind yet, although I'm leaning toward Dean at the moment.

(Bush is highly vulnerable.  In spite of repeated and usually unsubstantiated media stories about Bush's amazing popularity, I don't think his own party thinks he can stand against a serious challenge.)

(As witnessed by the fact that the Republicans are already using Hillary's possible run in '08 as a fundraiser, instead of any action of the current Administration's.)

(Republicans have to be aware that, time and again over the last six months, voters polled have cited the economy and not terrorism or a war on Iraq, as their #1 concern. The longer we go with no improvement in the economy, the more like a one-term president Bush looks.)

[QuiGon John]

AnneZo, on May 21 2003, 08:40 PM, said:

Lieberman is the most centrist of the lot. In short, he's the least like an actual Democrat.

Ahh, but you see, I'm in favor of centrists.  The fundemental tenet of my political philosophy is that everybody is way too sure about everything.

I always try to vote for the candidate who is least likely to take any sort of, you know, action.

[MuseZack]

AnneZo, on May 21 2003, 08:40 PM, said:

John Burke, on May 18 2003, 04:09 PM, said:

Anyway, who do you think will win the nomination?  Who do you want to win the nomination?  Do you foresee any of them having a real shot to beat Bush?

Personally, I see Liebermann as possibly the best of a mediocre lot.  I'm not so sure about Kerry-- although he's from my own state-- and the rest of the candidates seem pretty uninspired.  Take this for what you will, but I'd vote for Hillary Clinton ahead of all of 'em if she were running.

Lieberman is the most centrist of the lot. In short, he's the least like an actual Democrat.

Centrist?!  Remember, Lieberman beat liberal Republican senator Lowell Weicker by running to the right of him.  Hell, I'd rather vote for a liberal Republican (if I could ever find one-- there seem to be about five left) than a whiny, self-righteous, scolding, DLC hack like Lieberman.

Other than than he's great, though.

Zack

[Bad Wolf]

Zack you can't mean that.

Vote republican and you vote their platform too.  

Lil (not at all happy with the prospects for the next election)

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

ph3n1ks: This thing that Lincoln, then a Republican (Democrat today), supposedly fought to protect, to keep it from perishing, is perishing.

Someone get me some cables because I think Abe might be spinning fast enough in his grave to generate electricity.  Lincoln for all his flaws wouldn’t be a democrat in today’s world.  Rather he’d fall in with the Republicans probably the Northeast moderate segment of the Republican party.
  

Quote

AnneZo: (Bush is highly vulnerable. In spite of repeated and usually unsubstantiated media stories about Bush's amazing popularity, I don't think his own party thinks he can stand against a serious challenge.)

The most recent Gallop poll shows Bush with a 69% approval rating with 28% disapproving so that isn’t exactly a low approval rating.  So all things considered about current economic conditions and all Bush is doing as well as the Democrats fair-haired boy Clinton on average did for approval.  Looking back over historical trends the around 70% number is a pretty fair indication of support.

[Uncle Sid]

There have been many a time that I wished I had a real choice where I could vote for a Democrat nationally, but impossible for me to do in good conscience due to two or three crucial platfrom points where I think the Democrats are seriously dead wrong.  Unfortunately, the Republicans are often dorks too, just in less damaging ways.  Lesser of two evils, sadly.  

I usually don't torture myself into dreaming about what the Dems would be like if they didn't support those planks, but what the heck...

Liberman is a hawk, which is good in general as compared to many in the Dems, but I think perhaps he might be a little *too* hawkish for my tastes.  Sometimes I think he wanted to bomb Iraq more than President Bush did.  Heck, I think him and Ariel Sharon see pretty much eye-to-eye.  

Hillary Clinton?  I want to have a female president at one point soon, I really do, but not at the price of having her be the one.  I don't like her and I don't like her policies, and frankly, I just can't trust her.  It's just too picture-perfect, plastic, and slick.  I really don't like that she's the First Female President Presumptive.  There are female politicians out there with more experience and better backgrounds in both parties and it galls me that she just slid right in there.  Triumph of style over substance.  I'd reconsider her after two terms as senator and/or maybe a cabinet position.  

Yes, yes, I know.  "Sid's let the slander of the right wing get to him."  Trust me when I say, though, I've bourne in mind that she's taken a lot of partisan flack, but some of it does ring true.  I think the Lazio campaign in NY made a cringeworthy mistake in pushing her inexperience and obvious opportunism as the main reason that a no-name like him should be elected over her, but the points were valid, if rabidly overused.  

Who then?  Kerry or Edwards probably.  Mostly because I think they are decent in most respects, although a tad dull.  Dull is okay with me, however.  I'm half convinced we had good times in the 90's because neither the Dems nor the Republicans could push too far in either direction.  It was checks and balances accidentially re-created by the two party system.  Let them fight in the mudpit while Prosperity tiptoes around them and makes it to us before it can be killed, maimed, or co-opted by one of the two of them.  

Needless to say, though, I won't be worrying too much about that, because I already know who I'm voting for.  Bush/Cheney, or Bush/Rice (if Dick's old ticker doesn't want to play ball).  Hmmm....Condi Rice for VP, now there would be a kick in the butts for the Dems.  Educated, hawkish, and just happens to also be black and female.  I'd pay to see that.  After that, there'd be a new First Female President Presumptive, I think.