Which democrats honestly have the best shot at winning?

Oprah would win hands down. No doubt about it.
What the Dems need is someone new and exciting, like a Warren Beatty. He abandoned his "looksee" four years ago, is there any talk of rejuvenating it?

0 Replies

You bring up a good point, why do you think there are so many liberals on here. Is it that the types of people who post here actually know what's going on behind the curtains, and that's why so many of them are liberals?

0 Replies

The general public is pretty fickle. They see a guy that looks strong, is good with speeches, seems presidential, and has some clue what they're talking about and they think, hey I think I might vote for that guy.

That's what made Clinton so popular, and that's why I think that while Clark will lose in the primary, he probably has the best shot at winning the election.

The fact that he's a general is HUGE. Many many conservatives out there are conservatives just because they want a strong military.

0 Replies

gravy wrote:

Scrat,

I am not certain what the threshold is (was), though my uncertainty does not disprove my point.

It seems that you and Enron are different beasts (figuratively, I respectfully disclaim) with respect to free political speech, as is your $5-100 donation vs. a 6-figure one with respect to who will later come calling for due representation .

The system I was referring to as being eroded was a representative democracy (meaning representing the people), not a representative plutocracy (meaning representing the wealthy elite).

Ah, but what if I want to donate 6-figures to your cause? And do we tell Emily's List that they can't give MILLIONS to political campaigns, or is it only some deep pockets that shouldn't be allowed to be active in politics?

My point is that there aren't any easy answers to this question, and I prefer to come down on the side of free political speech until we can come up with a better way of doing things.

0 Replies

I agree with your sentiment, scrat, that there are no easy answers to the question.

I am not so keen however on status quo where under the, however honorable, guise of freedom of political speech, our political system is being subverted with undue influence in all aspects of governance to serve the wills and whims of the überclass.

Left alone, with this disparity in influence in the political arena, "the current way of doing things" will decay this democratic looking system from the inside. A massive MISenfranchisement of a misinformed society is hardly a democracy, though looks can be deceiving.

It's refreshing nevertheless, to hear about your openness despite your reluctance, and I look forward to your hypothetical 6-figure contribution to my cause...(I'll let you know when I come upon it).

0 Replies

personally (being a liberal-or as some say an anarchist) I see the three most dangerous threats to democracy in the US are:
1. Corporatism
2. Militarism
3. Evangelicalism
but then I could be wrong.

0 Replies

gravy wrote:

I agree with your sentiment, scrat, that there are no easy answers to the question.

I am not so keen however on status quo where under the, however honorable, guise of freedom of political speech, our political system is being subverted with undue influence in all aspects of governance to serve the wills and whims of the überclass.

Ah, but again, what makes them the überclass, and not just another group of people with shared interests who have a legitimate right to speak in the political arena and try to influence the outcome as they see fit? Are the stockholders of a major corporation less deserving of the right to have their collective voice heard than are those who donate to Greenpeace or the members of AARP? At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the competing interests of differing groups of PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE of this country are guaranteed free speech.

Again, I'm not offering any answers here, but just trying to show why I am fairly certain that attempts to deny this or that group a political voice--even if it means their voice drowns mine out--is not in keeping with either the spirit or the Constitutional guarantees of our nation.

0 Replies

A Political Voice
Corporations give millions to politicians. Both Repubs and Dems.
Both groups are special interest driven. The camapign finance laws have not worked because they are not structured properly.

People generaly vote for a candidate that they feel will serve their interests. Seems that most politicians tell the people what they think the people want to hear then they do what benefits themselves and the special interests that funds their campaigns.

What are the real differences between the parties?

btw I am not a liberal.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

personally (being a liberal-or as some say an anarchist) I see the three most dangerous threats to democracy in the US are:
1. Corporatism
2. Militarism
3. Evangelicalism
but then I could be wrong.

I agree, the question then become what's the solution, besides the revolution that may follow eventually from our current course:(

I believe it is still:

1. Some sort of National [Progressive] "Alternative" media outlet

2. A "united Progressive" front (http://www.moveon.org may be a start down this pass)

3. Electing PROGRESSIVE Democrats into office (Less Daschels, more Wellstones, Kuciniches, etc).

0 Replies

Kucinich.
He is closest to my views but not far enough to the left. I started as a liberal 20 or so years ago then joined the Green Party. Now I am thinking of joining the Peace and Freedom Party.I believe that the entire Capitalist System should be scraped. A Democratic Socialist model is what I prefer.

I feel that the Repubs will win the next natl. election. After 4 more years of their brand of Plutocracy and Police State actions, maybe enough Americans will get sick of being screwed over to do something about it. Doubtful but hope springs eternal.

0 Replies

Good Advice
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1202-01.htm

Will the Dem. nominated candidate use it?

0 Replies

Re: A Political Voice

pistoff wrote:

Corporations give millions to politicians. Both Repubs and Dems.

So do ideological groups and PACs. Hell, 9 individual donors from Microsoft combined gave over a million, and those are just individual contributors.

What if I had 500,000 friends who all wanted the government to ban monkeyfishing, and we decided to each give $10, pool our resources and contribute to a candidate who opposed monkeyfishing? Would the fact that our combined donation was $5,000,000 mean there was something wrong with the system? Would having our political voice heard be a threat to "erode" the system? What if we didn't know each other, but still each gave the $10 to the candidate?

This is not simple stuff, certainly far more complex than the usual "business = bad" nonsense put forth in discussions about political campaigns.

Consider this: In the 2000 election cycle, US Tobacco (a tobacco company) gave $1,621,652. Emily's List (a pro-choice group) gave $2,336,568. Now, either both of these constitute a problem with our system, or both are simply examples of the normal exercise of political speech in our system. You can't have it both ways and say the tobacco money is bad but the pro-choice money is good, because ultimately in both cases the contributions each represent an attempt to ensure that the interests of certain groups of people are served in the electoral process, and I'm quite sure our Constitution doesn't allow us to cherry pick which groups should have a voice and which groups should not.

0 Replies

I follow the wonderful soap opera called 'The Great Democrat Scramble' (aka 'Search for Substance') and am baffled that more of the current set of candidates haven't stepped back and thrown their support to SOMEONE!
At this rate, they won't know for sure what Democrat name to put on the Presidential ballot until the day before the election Very Happy

If you Dems have ANY chance of challenging GWB for the White House, y'all are going to have to get down to supporting someone soon.

Remember as the old 'Chicago Machine' used to say:

Vote early! Vote often!

George Bush in '04
Jeb Bush in '08
Jeb Bush in '12
Jenna Bush in '16
Very Happy

0 Replies

Erosion of the system is happening because there is a disparity between the constituent-size of interest groups and the level of their influence. This criticism is regardless of political leanings of any given group.

If 500,000 anti-monkeyfishing peoples' interest gets drowned out by 3 monkeyfishers' (having each paid 1 million to help launch a media blitz of misinformation to win votes), there IS a problem which is symptomatic of a dilution of democracy that I am equally certain the constitution is NOT there to promote.

The "bi"-party system in the US is becoming more and more beholdent to the will of fewer and fewer of its constituents, which is evident by the dismal statistics of health, poverty, and waste in this country relative to its wealth and potential.

equality of voices yes, green light to snuff out other voices by any mean necessary, no.

p.s. I edited for grammatical reasons

0 Replies

^ i don't see how it is becoming increasing so considering the mccain-feingold campaign finance reform.

Fedral wrote:

George Bush in '04
Jeb Bush in '08
Jeb Bush in '12
Jenna Bush in '16

Repeal of the Bill of Rights '05
$1 quadrillion decifit '09
Ratification of the new constitution of the Holy American Empire '13
Federal mandate to replace tap water with beer '17

0 Replies

gravy wrote:

Erosion of the system is happening because there is a disparity between the constituent-size of interest groups and the level of their influence. This criticism is regardless of political leanings of any given group.

If 500,000 anti-monkeyfishing peoples' interest gets drowned out by 3 monkeyfishers' (having each paid 1 million to help launch a media blitz of misinformation to win votes), there IS a problem which is symptomatic of a dilution of democracy that I am equally certain the constitution is NOT there to promote.

The "bi"-party system in the US is becoming more and more beholdent to the will of fewer and fewer of its constituents, which is evident by the dismal statistics of health, poverty, and waste in this country relative to its wealth and potential.

equality of voices yes, green light to snuff out other voices by any mean necessary, no.

p.s. I edited for grammatical reasons

Gravy - Good comments regarding whether it is acceptable within our system for one person to effectively have a greater voice than any one other person by virtue of his or her personal bankroll. I will puzzle over this and get back to you about what I think, though my initial instinct is to suggest that the government should never be telling me how much or how little I may speak in the political arena.

We might consider an analogy where you and I are both barkers at a political gathering, each trying to be heard over the other; and consider whether it is unfair and injurious to our electoral system if your natural voice is twice as loud as mine. You would have the ability to drown out my opinion, but does that hurt the process and is it something we should work to correct?

Still, I am mulling this over, as your comments are certainly not without merit. You've got me thinking... (Thanks for that!) Very Happy

0 Replies

Scrat,

I like your analogy; it is causing me to ponder where that line is because my tendency is to push for content triumphing over loudness.

0 Replies

gravy wrote:

I like your analogy; it is causing me to ponder where that line is because my tendency is to push for content triumphing over loudness.

I've genuinely enjoyed this exchange, and think it proves that two people can not only discuss an issue from differing points of view with civility and courtesy (not always the norm around here... heck, not always the norm for me!) but can even each have their opinion challenged and come away rethinking the whole issue as a result of the exchange. Very Happy

Here's the more of the same!

0 Replies

Ditto.

Till next time.

0 Replies

An old slogan.
"Money talks. Bullshit walks."

It isn't about voices. It's about money and power.

Too bad we can't hear those convos between Bush and God, eh?

0 Replies

Which democrats honestly have the best shot at winning?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know